Sitting of 4 March 1992

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

  LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL
  Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Soviet Union
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the programme of aid and assistance for the former Soviet Union.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Britain has pledged more than £80 million in bilateral aid to the former Soviet Union and is contributing through the EC budget about 18 per cent. of Community technical assistance and food aid, which totals £595 million. The Community has also agreed a programme of food credits worth £1·225 billion.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that full reply. Clearly, the United Kingdom and the Community are doing a great deal to assist the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe generally. However, what additional measures will be taken, particularly to assist with the distribution of foodstuffs once they reach eastern Europe? My right hon. Friend will agree that empty bellies make poor counsellors. What positive action will be taken to assist people in eastern Europe and in the former states of the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Hurd: It is important that food should be not only dispatched but distributed to those who need it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has ensured that the Crown Agents, for example, are working with the authorities in St. Petersburg so that our feed aid for animals around St. Petersburg—£20 million worth—reaches its destination. We are ensuring that the beef that we sent to St. Petersburg and Murmansk has got through, and we are tackling the remaining problems of distribution in Moscow.
    Mr. Flannery: Is there not a grave danger of the former Soviet Union lapsing into anarchy? Did we not recently see riots on the streets of Moscow, with two factions fighting it out? Therefore, should we not use our strength and influence to try to organise throughout the west a Marshall
    296
    plan, similar to the one after the second world war, to strengthen the hands of those who are doing their utmost to stave off anything approximating to anarchy?
    Mr. Hurd: It is certainly in our interest that the republics of the former Soviet Union should not disintegrate into anarchy and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, starvation. We believe that the next step, in considering large-scale help for the former republics, should be taken through the International Monetary Fund. That is the orderly and sensible way to proceed, which is why we are pressing and encouraging others to press for the earliest possible membership of the former Soviet republics in the IMF. Meanwhile, we are pressing for IMF teams already in Moscow and elsewhere to start preparing the ground.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a delegation from the Inter-Parliamentary Union has just returned from Russia and the Ukraine? Does he agree that western aid should be given to and deployed in the former Soviet Union with care and tact so that those proud people are not humiliated or offended? Is he also aware that there is apprehension about the possibility of strings being attached to western aid? Under what conditions is western aid being given to the former Soviet Union?
    Mr. Hurd: I know of the visit and am grateful to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for undertaking it. There is no doubt that such contact now is particularly useful. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the pride of the Russian people, which must be respected as we seek to help them.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, when people are starving, one does not impose conditions. But the republics know that the help that is increasingly coming in technical assistance and the possible eventual macroeconomic help is tied to the prospect of reform and is dependent on the continued impetus of both political and economic reform.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary awarere is a case for feeding people who are starving in Russia, as there is for those who are starving in Africa and Latin America countries? There is also a case to be made for the Government to spend more money on overseas aid. There is a case to be made for those starving and living in cardboard boxes just around the corner—
    Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no case to be made for taxpayers' money being used to prop up Boris Yeltsin, who will turn out to be the David Owen of Russia?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has got around to reading his Financial Times this morning. If he has, he will have seen the eloquent article by the Russian Finance Minister. The case that he makes, which we must listen to, is for help from this country in privatisation, and the creation and stimulation of the free market and the other basics of prosperity.

    Africa
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for increased democracy in Africa.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The prospects for democracy in Africa are probably better now than at any time in the post-colonial era. Although there are some countries where little progress has been made, most African nations now have, or are moving towards, multi-party political systems.
    Mr. Dickens: Bearing in mind that encouraging answer, may I ask whether the Minister considers that the worsening drought in southern Africa may have implications for the process of democracy in Africa?
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes, indeed I do. We are deeply concerned about the dreadful effects of the drought in southern Africa. That is why, as a first step today, I have approved £2·5 million each to Zambia and Zimbabwe in balance of payments aid to ease the difficulties that will be caused by the need to import food. We have also agreed on a further £3·9 million worth of food aid to Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique and Mozambiquan refugees in Malawi.
    Sir David Steel: Following the welcome change in Kenya's constitution towards a multi-party democracy, and in view of the unhappy news from Kenya yesterday of the repression of demonstrations in Nairobi, will the Minister not only advise that country on the international standards of multi-party democracy, which she has ennunciated from the Dispatch Box before, but suggest that, in order to disarm such demonstrations, it is time that the Government start a dialogue with the Opposition on both the timing and ground rules for an election?
    Mrs. Chalker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we shall encourage dialogue wherever it is needed to promote a democratic system. The incidents in Nairobi are regrettable, but we deplore all use of violence and provocation, whether from protesters, the Opposition or Government forces. The way to resolve political differences is through debate, dialogue and the ballot box, not on the streets. That is why we urge all Kenyan political leaders to open up a constructive dialogue on free and fair elections.
    Mr. Lord: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best method for underpinning democracy is through economic stability? Has she seen the great efforts being made this year to obtain private inward investment into southern Africa in the form of conferences and other initiatives? Will she give all such initiatives her fullest support?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right: economic stability is the only foundation for the sound development of democracy. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that open market systems are developed, subsidy is abolished and there is a proper market economy in all parts of southern Africa. That is one reason why we are putting so much effort as a nation into helping countries in southern Africa to achieve just that.
    Mr. Kaufman: On the question of democracy in the republic of South Africa, does the right hon. Lady agree that our objective should be to ensure that the white electorate fully appreciates that South Africa will face unprecedented international isolation should there be a "No" vote in this month's referendum? Should not we support the negotiating process now under way through the Conference for a Democratic South Africa, and so
    298
    secure the maintenance of international pressure for rapid progress towards a new, genuinely democratic constitutional order? Will those be the objectives of this Government this month, as they will he the objectives of the Labour Government next month?
    Mrs. Chalker: Through the whole of their period in office, the Government have supported efforts to do away with apartheid and to ensure that when change came with President de Klerk, there would be a start towards a new constitution and the transitional arrangements that are now being discussed within the Conference for a Democratic South Africa.
    We have always sought to maintain contact with all the parties and we have urged them to build on the fundamental principles already agreed. Through our influence, we shall do all that we can to ensure that there is a "Yes" vote in the referendum, because that is the only way to achieve a peaceful, prosperous, successful and democratic South Africa.

    United Nations
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government have proposed for reform of the United Nations.
    Mr. Hurd: In January, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convened a meeting of the Security Council at Heads of Government level, which called on the Secretary-General to report on how the peacekeeping role of the United Nations could be strengthened.
    We proposed the appointment of a United Nations disaster relief co-ordinator and the introduction of a United Nations arms register, and both proposals have been accepted. We have also encouraged the new secretary-general to reform the secretariat and we applaud his first achievements in that area.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the global position in which the United Nations was established has little relevance to today's world? Is it not true that, because of the break-up of the Soviet Union, the balance of power has shifted towards the United States? Does not that make it difficult for the United Nations to carry out a peacekeeping role? Do not the problems of the third world, which is still suffering economic deprivation, need to be addressed? Therefore, will not there be a need for radical changes in the United Nations if it is to maintain any confidence and respect throughout the world?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The United Nations has found it much easier to undertake a peacekeeping role since the end of the cold war because its efforts are no longer frustrated by the clash between the super-powers. We are fortunate that the super-power that remains has no instinct or appetite for dominating the world by oppression and force.
    Sir Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend referred to the summit. Will he take this opportunity to say what progress is being made on the question of preventive diplomacy, for which the secretary-general has set a deadline of 1 July? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take fully into account the role of parliamentary diplomacy through the conference on

    299
    security and co-operation in Europe, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the North Atlantic Assembly and other relevant organisations?
    Mr. Hurd: The secretary-general has been asked to produce his report on a range of subjects by 1 July. I am sure that he will not neglect the parliamentary context—which my hon. Friend leads in the IPU. It is an important element in preventing conflicts reaching the stage of war.

    International Meetings
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the most important international non-EC meetings which he expects to attend this year.
    Mr. Hurd: There is the North Atlantic Council consultative meeting and the conference on security and co-operation in Europe ministerial meeting this month; the North Atlantic Council meeting in Oslo in June; the economic summit of the Group of Seven in Munich in July and the CSCE summit in Helsinki in July, both of which I shall attend with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September; the CSCE council of ministers in Stockholm in early December, and Western European Union ministerial meetings in June and November.
    Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that when he attends those international meetings and many others in the EC he will discover that Britain's standing, authority and reputation are vastly higher than they were a few years ago? Is not that a tribute to the work done not only by him but by his recent predecessors? Would it not be a national tragedy if that were all to be thrown away by any alternative team of Ministers, who were wrong about every international defence issue in the 1980s and who carry no conviction in the 1990s?
    Mr. Hurd: That is rather a difficult question to answer. I hope that we have a reasonable record on piloting Britain's foreign affairs through troubled times. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his team are always ingenious in defending whatever the policy of the moment is; it is just that that policy is changed so often that it leaves a little bit of a question mark over whether they have any plan or direction at all.
    Mr. Galloway: When the Foreign Secretary visits the Group of Seven summit in the summer, will he bang some heads together to try to bring forward a new deal for the third world? The announcements made by the Minister for Overseas Development a few minutes ago about the food situation were welcome, but people in Africa are starving and the terms of trade that they receive in their dealings with the developed countries, the problem of their huge indebtedness to the developed countries and the world order over which we now preside are such that hundreds of millions of people live on the edge of catastrophe. The Group of Seven has a responsibility to the human race to deal with that this summer.
    Mr. Hurd: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is looking forward to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself going to the G7 summit in mid-July. He was specific on that point; rather markedly so I thought. We shall be delighted to seek out his advice just
    300
    before we go if he is still a Member of the House at the time. Of course he is right on his serious point about debt and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been so energetic in pressing what are called the Trinidad terms to enable the poorest countries of the world to benefit from those terms. We shall do our best within reason and common sense to ease those burdens as best we can.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: In the wake of the impressive list of meetings that the Secretary of State will be attending for the remainder of this year, will he encourage the Security Council to have a special meeting, after Britain's anticipated endorsement of the Van den Stoel resolution on the destruction of human rights within Iraq at least to ensure that human rights monitors are in south Iraq to protect the unfortunate Shias?
    Mr. Hurd: We are worried about the extent to which Saddam Hussein is still able to inflict hardship and persecution on the peoples of Iraq, both the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is trying to arrange a donors conference to bring further help, but, as my hon. Friend would agree, the best relief of human rights would be if the Iraqis accepted resolutions 706 and 712 and began to sell oil, the proceeds of which could go to the relief of poverty as well as the compensation of those whom they have victimised.
    Mr. Foulkes: I advise the Secretary of State to ensure that all his flight bookings are transferable. However, in the few weeks remaining to him, will he pursue at all relevant meetings the question of the massacre at Santa Cruz in East Timor. In particular, will he urge that the Indonesians should immediately abandon the trial of the two East Timorese survivors and press for a full United Nations investigation? Finally, will he make it clear, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has done, that British aid and trade depend on Indonesia seeking an agreed solution and ending its illegal occupation of East Timor.
    Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that our trade with Indonesia depends on a resolution to that question, that is a new and rather remarkable policy statement. The hon. Gentleman must not beg policy in that way. If he does, his place on even the Opposition Front Bench will be at stake. He is, however, right about the basic seriousness of the problem, which I discussed with the Indonesian Foreign Minister—as, perhaps, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has done. The report published by the Indonesian Government and the action that they subsequently took—for example, against certain military commanders involved in the incident—show that they are not concerned simply with a cover-up. I agree that further action needs to be taken. We are in close touch with the Community and the United Nations about how the issue should be progressed.

    Vietnam
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States Government

    301
    regarding that country's aid and trade embargo against Vietnam and its veto against Vietnam's membership of the IMF and the World bank.
    Mrs. Chalker: We regularly discuss those issues in the relevant forums.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Secretary of State aware that the United States still appears to be at war with Vietnam and that it is blocking all aid and trade in the International Monetary Fund and World bank and through misuse of the COCOM regulations? Only recently vice-president Quayle remarked that most of the refugees in Hong Kong are political—which, as the Secretary of State will be aware, led to a halving of applications for voluntary repatriation. No quantity of private representations in the relevant forums will make any difference. It is about time that the Government said something publicly to the psychopaths who run American foreign policy, with a view to achieving change.
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that United States Government policy is a matter for the United States. Now that change is coming, we are trying to ensure that Vietnam will have access to international financial institutions. We already keep under review financial contributions to the support group, because clearing the arrears to the IFIs is absolutely critical. Those to the IMF already amount to £108 million, and to the Asian Development bank, $6 million. There is no United Kingdom trade embargo. This country is Vietnam's fifth largest investor, at some $143—6 million. British industry is taking a clear interest in the opportunities that exist in Vietnam, and I hope that others will follow our example.
    Sir Peter Blaker: While I cannot associate myself with some of the language used by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), many people feel that it is high time that the United States modernised its economic relations with Vietnam and started to observe the common action programme agreed between 24 countries in respect of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. In view of the events surrounding the Haitian boat people who attempted to enter the United States, does it make any sense for that country to continue opposing the implementation of the common action programme?
    Mrs. Chalker: We consistently encourage observance of the common action programme in respect of Vietnamese boat people and in the light of events in other parts of the world, such as that to which my right hon. Friend referred. We have done well in trying to ensure that we could help Vietnamese migrants—more than 20,000 of whom have returned from all over the region. The success of our work, with the full support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, leads us to believe that the American Government would do better to adopt a plan similar to our own.

    Middle East
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current middle east peace talks.
    Mr. Hurd: The peace process continued in a fourth round of bilateral negotiations in Washington last week. A regional settlement remains an important and realistic
    302
    aim. It is encouraging that all parties remain determined to continue the process. I strongly applaud Mr. Baker's continued commitment to pushing for a settlement and we will maintain our full support of that effort.
    Mr. Janner: I am sure that the Secretary of State recognises the sensitivities of the middle east peace process. As he knows that the Syrians spent the money that they received for their support during the Gulf war on sophisticated missiles from North Korea—all of which are pointing towards Israel—can he reassure the House that Britain is not getting involved in that arms process? Will he confirm the inaccuracy of reports stating that British Aerospace is involved with Egyptian scientists in uprating scud B missiles for use by the Egyptian army? Surely we must keep out of that arms process, if we are to maintain our nation's influence in the peace process that we all hope will succeed.
    Mr. Hurd: The position regarding the supply of arms to Syria remains as it was when Ministers were last questioned about it in the House. As for Egypt, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is seriously suggesting that it is about to launch an attack on Israel, or is to be feared in that connection. Egypt's pioneering efforts in regard to peacemaking are well established and respected, and I do not consider such a line of questioning helpful.
    Sir Dennis Walters: Now that the Palestinians have presented serious proposals on autonomy, does my right hon. Friend agree that no progress can be made unless Israel responds by agreeing to freeze the illegal settlements, and by abiding by the Geneva convention? In that context, is not the continued closure of Bir Zeit university, which was announced the other day, an intolerable provocation, and should not it be condemned?
    Mr. Hurd: Clearly, it is good that the Israelis and the Palestinians are sitting around a table in Washington, and that each side is advancing ideas for the future of the occupied territories. That is a considerable plus. I have not yet studied the Palestinian proposals, which, I believe, were tabled only yesterday, but I hope that there will now be proper discussion of the proposals that are on the table.
    Given that background, my hon. Friend is right in saying that—as we have often commented—the Israelis ought to halt the policy of establishing settlements in the occupied terrorities which is provocative and, in our view, illegal. I equally deplore the continued closure of Bir Zeit.
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Israeli ambassador to discuss the Government's policy on the occupied territories.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no specific plans to meet the ambassador, but both he and I have met him recently. We are in regular contact with the Israeli Government at the highest level on this issue.
    Ms. Hoey: Will the Minister take time in the next week, as a matter of urgency, to meet the Israeli ambassador and tell him about the feeling in the country generally that the Israeli Government are literally getting away with murder? I refer to the case of Mustapha Akkawi, who was killed after being tortured in prison just over a week ago.

    303
    Just what does Israel have to do—what can it get away with—before the Government are prepared to do something internationally about sanctions and to treat Israel as we treat other countries that break the Geneva convention?
    Mr. Hogg: Like the hon. Lady, we believe that the fourth Geneva convention—the protocol—applies to the occupied territories. When grave breaches of the convention occur, we raise them frequently, and directly, with the Israelis. The incident mentioned by the hon. Lady is clearly deplorable, as are the deportations that occur from time to time and the closures of universities, about which we have also protested.
    The hon. Lady can be sure of this: we do protest to the Israeli Government when there are clear, serious and obvious breaches of international law.
    Sir Philip Goodhart: Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that, in recent years, several hundred Arabs have been murdered by terrorists for co-operating with the Israelis? Does he accept that those brutal killings, which are still taking place, do not help the peace process?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the pattern of killing involving those who are described as collaborators. That is dreadful and we deplore it, as we deplore all violence. It emphasises the importance of trying to push ahead with the peace process that is now under way.

    Horn of Africa
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest view of the prospects for long-term peace (a) in Mogadishu and southern Somalia and (b) in northern Somalia.
    Mrs. Chalker: The situation is very grim for the innocent people of Somalia. We welcome the United Nations initiative on Somalia. We hope that the factions will honour their commitment to a ceasefire in Mogadishu. This must be the first step towards national reconciliation.
    Reports from northern Somalia suggest that instability is, once again, growing and clan divisions widening.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the Minister's reply and I know that she will have been as horrified as the rest of us by the images and the conflict that was reported from Somalia last weekend. Does she agree that one unfortunate thing about the United Nations effort to seek peace between the factions in the south is the implication that those factions, together, represent a Government? Does she agree that the factions that are fighting in the south have no claim to represent the north, which has the main link with the Somali community in this country, and that all factions in the regions of Somalia must be involved in reaching a settlement that can be expected to last?
    Mrs. Chalker: It is extremely important that all the factions—not just the clans but the sub-clans—in northern, southern and central Somalia come together under the United Nations plan for the ceasefire. I sent one of our officials to Mogadishu and northern Somalia just over a week ago. He reports that stores and vehicles belonging to the Save the Children Fund and Médecins sans Frontieres—MSF—have been looted and that individuals have been abused. If that is starting again, it is
    304
    as bad as what is going on in Mogadishu. It requires all people to be involved in a ceasefire and a total cessation of hostilities if the aid that we are willing to send—we have sent£8 million to Somalia since early last year—is to get to the people who desperately need it.
    Mrs. Currie: Given that the appalling tragedy in the Horn of Africa will not end until there is peace, and given the changes in the pattern of the United Nations' work in recent years, which our Government have so actively supported, does the Minister think that we are now reaching a stage where British troops could be deployed under a United Nations banner in humanitarian action as a precursor to effective aid?
    Mrs. Chalker: In northern Iraq, we have used British troops to help in that situation. We need a UN relief plan for Somalia as soon as possible. I cannot foretell what proposals it will contain, but without an effective ceasefire no one can be deployed. Having talked to James Jonah following his visit and having seen the national reconciliation plan, I am prepared to consider what is necessary. But we should be very careful not to expect to send troops all over the world. I believe that there are ways of getting local people to participate in their own ceasefire with some help from outside, but it should not need mass troop movements to do it.
    Mr. Anderson: The Minister will he aware of the valuable contribution that is made by members of the Somali community in this country and of the tremendous work that is done on their behalf by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Since only the United Nations can do the job of peacemaking, is the Minister concerned that just over half the value of the assessments on individual countries for last year has been paid, and will she therefore press other members of the international community to ensure that they give the United Nations the resources to do that necessary peacemaking and peacekeeping job?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman may already have guessed that we have been pressing others to play their part in the important work in which the United Nations is engaged. I shall add that to the list of discussions that I shall be having shortly with other assisting countries who are aiming to relieve the awful effects of the wars, wherever they may be occurring.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a tragedy if law and order is beginning to break down in the north of Somalia, in what is, after all, the old British Somaliland and is now known to local people as Somaliland? If it is breaking down, it is to some extent because the international community has not recognised the separate nature, if not the independence, of that part of Somalia. Will she do everything within her power, with our European Community partners, to ensure that all the people of Somaliland are listened to, not just the factions in the south who, after all, have an Italian connection rather than a British one?
    Mrs. Chalker: I cannot speak too highly of all the British people who have been in the northern part of Somalia seeking to give help and to assist. They will go on doing so, but they can be effective only if the fighting which seems to have broken out and the looting that I described cease. It is not a question whether it is a separate country

    305
    —it obviously is not. The relative stability in the months following the purported declaration of independence back in May last year was very welcome and we must do all that we can to re-establish it, but sheer names on pieces of paper will not do so. We must have a relief plan that the United Nations can implement throughout Somalia if there is to be peace and if the people are to be relieved.

    EC Presidency
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Her Majesty's Government's principal goals during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC.
    Mr. Hurd: Our first job will be to run an efficient presidency. We aim to complete the single market, prepare for enlargement of the Community, support democracy and reform in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe, and prepare the ground for carrying out the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Stevens: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will remain firm against raising the present European Community budget ceiling and that they will continue to encourage EC financing arrangements based on supply-side economics, not on the massive transfers of money between one country and another through the Commission?
    Mr. Hurd: We had a first skirmish on that at the Council on Monday. I do not believe that the Commissioners justified their proposal to raise the ceiling. There is headroom within the existing ceiling—for example, we are not in favour of financing an interventionist industrial policy or increased spending on the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: If the Foreign Secretary is still here—which I doubt—when Britain takes over the presidency of the European Community, will he insist that some race legislation is passed in the European Community to protect black and minority ethnic citizens when they move around Europe?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that that is a matter within the competence of the Community.
    Mr. Onslow: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our European partners are not losing sight of the need to make the European Commission democratically accountable, any more than they are losing sight of the need to conform to the European Commission directives that we scrupulously honour?
    Mr. Hurd: When I talk about implementation of the Maastricht treaty I mean that one of the things that must be done is to set up the arrangements agreed at Maastricht by which member states can be taken to the European Court and punished if they do not carry out obligations that they have assumed.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the Government's principal goals during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community should be to secure recognition and acceptance of national boundaries by all member states?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that there is any question in the Community of the boundaries between the member states.
    Mr. Soames: Has my right hon. Friend seen the excellent proposals tabled by Sir David Williamson for the reform of the bureaucracy running the European Community? Does he agree that if—in his admirable phrase—we are to prevent the Commission interfering in the nooks and crannies of everyday life, it would be greatly to the advantage of all European countries if there were a thorough overhaul of the mechanics for the administration of the Commission?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. What the Commission has to do now there is a new article in the Maastricht treaty is to ensure that its practice complies with it and that it does not encourage the drafting of legislation or the working out of projects on matters that can perfectly well be dealt with by member states, or even closer to the citizen, and that applies to English and French cheeses.
    Mr. Robertson: Of course, this Government will not be responsible for Britain during the presidency—they will be watching from the Opposition Front Bench. That is fortunate for Britain. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Government's attitude in Maastricht has left a crippling legacy of anger and resentment among our Community partners about the double opt-out, and that it has even led to a denunciation of the Prime Minister and the Government by their own right-wing allies in the European Community? The new Labour Government who will be elected five weeks tomorrow will immediately sign the social charter and set about getting the social chapter firmly into the treaty itself. By doing so, and by being at the heart of Europe, that Government will be able to represent Britain properly during the presidency.
    Mr. Hurd: There seems, not for the first time, to be a division between the Opposition Front Bench and Back Benches. Opposition Back-Bench Members have been questioning my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself on the basis that we shall be here for a long time, whereas Front-Bench spokesmen still nurse the occasional illusion. Let us not shatter that illusion for a week or so. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is not usually given to fanciful rhetoric, and if he studies the movement of opinion in Europe he must know that since Maastricht more and more people have begun to comment on the future of Europe in the same sort of way as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I did before. There is no doubt about the direction in which the intellectual tide is flowing. On the whole, that is a good thing. Another reason that we should be against the Labour party is that we should not put them in a position to buck the trend.

    Russia
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assistance he is providing to help political and economic reform in Russia.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with the Russian Federation.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom is assisting the process of political and economic reform in Russia.
    Mr. Hurd: Our relations with the Russian Federation are excellent. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will visit Russia on 9 March. We have strongly supported Russia's application to join the IMF. We have pledged more than £80 million in bilateral aid to Russia and other republics of the former Soviet Union. I have already given the House the details about Community aid in which we participate.
    Mr. Macdonald: Will the Foreign Secretary also help to provide a breathing space for the Russian Government, by supporting their call for a suspension of interest payments on the debt? Would not it be a disaster if Russia ended up having to pay as much in interest rates as it received in aid? Would not that fatally undermine the radical, bold and much-needed programme that President Yeltsin is now trying to push through?
    Mr. Hurd: The crucial factor is that Russia and the other republics should be eligible for macroeconomic aid on an IMF basis. For that to happen there has to be an arrangement about the former Soviet Union's debts. An agreement has been reached. It is important that it should be honoured and that republics such as the Ukraine, which have not yet found a way of doing so, should join in the process. That is a necessary part of providing the kind of aid for which there is an increasingly strong case.
    Mr. Arnold: Is not one of the problems of Russia in its current economic difficulties that the country might turn in on itself and revert to its usual historic xenophobic tendencies? Is not it our job to keep open the window on the west? What are we doing in terms of establishing contacts right across the range with Russia, to keep it closely tied in with western Europe?
    Mr. Hurd: We are doing more and more, with all kinds of projects. I shall name just the latest, launched yesterday evening—the British Emergency Action for Russia and the Republics Trust, founded by Lady Braithwaite, the wife of the ambassador--which is trying to bring together in an imaginative way charities and non-governmental organisations in this country to make contacts and help to build up that kind of self-help in Russia. That kind of spontaneous effort, by all kinds of people in this country, will he just as important in the long run as what Governments do.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree that until now, there has been little to encourage the new democracies of central and eastern Europe to change their minds about the EC being a rich man's club? Will he do all that he can to ensure that within the EC, there is some agreement about how we shall tackle the enormous problems, which will not be tackled by charity, however welcome that is? If we do not do that, shall not we see hordes of people sweeping from eastern Europe into western Europe simply looking for jobs?
    Mr. Hurd: That is right and that is why we have pressed energetically for almost two years for the association agreements, which include trade and political discussions, with Poland, with Hungary and with Czechoslovakia. That is why we are now pressing for trade and
    308
    co-operation agreements with the republics further to the east. Effort on all those fronts, including trade and being willing to open our markets to goods from those republics, is necessary. We shall continue to press for that and, as I have said, it is one of the priorities of our presidency.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to persuade Russia that its political stability depends on the stability of the region as a whole, especially its neighbours? To that end, will he encourage Russia to use its good offices to intervene in the appalling situation in Nagorny Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan, if Russia is to win its spurs as a member of the Security Council and ultimately as a member of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe?
    Mr. Hurd: I urged especially Mr. Kozyrev, the Russian Foreign Minister, to persevere with his efforts. Realistically speaking, it will be a little time before there is an answer to the terrifying question between Armenia and Azerbaijan. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will go to that part of the former Soviet Union next week and I look forward to hearing what he recommends.

    Lockerbie Bombing
    Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what developments there have been in relation to the attempts by Her Majesty's Government to secure the extradition of the two Libyan nationals accused of bombing flight PA 103 in 1988; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 731 on 21 January endorsing certain requests put to Libya on 27 November by the United Kingdom, the United States and France in connection with the bombings of flights Pan Am 103 and UTA 772. Those included the request that Libya surrender those accused of the bombing of flight Pan Am 103 for trial in Scotland or the United States. The secretary-general will report formally on the Libyan response to the Security Council later today. I have, however, seen an advance copy of the report, which makes it clear that Libya has still failed to comply with resolution 731.
    Mr. Grant: Will the Minister confirm that under the terms of the 1971 Montreal convention, which was signed both by Libya and by Britain, any dispute can be referred for arbitration to the International Court of Justice? Now that Libya has referred the matter to the International Court of Justice, will Britain desist from trying to get the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions or take military action against Libya until the International Court of Justice has ruled on the matter?
    Mr. Hogg: Her Majesty's Government have the greatest respect for the International Court of Justice and we look to co-operating with it. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Libyan Government have been taking steps in parallel—that is, they have made an application to the ICJ and, at the same time, they are making a response to the UN Security Council. They are working in parallel. That being so, it is appropriate for us to act in a similar way.
    Mr. Allason: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that, apart from the political complexities, the matter is

    309
    straightforward? Two suspected murderers have had international arrest warrants issued against them and the Government's intention is to pursue those arrest warrants. Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that there will be no secret deal and no secret negotiations, but that the international arrest warrants will be executed as soon as the opportunity arises?
    Mr. Hogg: Her Majesty's Government have put the position plainly and it has been endorsed by the Security Council. There is a prima facie case against two named individuals which is sufficiently strong to justify the issue of warrants. We are anxious—indeed, we are determined—to ensure that those individuals appear before a competent court as speedily as possible. We think that the courts of Scotland are well placed to judge them.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to have discussions about the Cyprus problem with his European Community colleagues.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): No. The EC has made clear its continuing full support for the United Nations Secretary-General's mission of good offices, which offers the best hope of progress towards a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the intercommunal dispute. We shall continue to give full and active support to the United Nations.
    Mr. Dunnachie: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is it not time that the Government stood up and were counted by telling the Turkish Government to remove their troops from occupied Cyprus and saying that if they do not do so the British Government will veto any attempt by Turkey to join the EC?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I share, and I believe that the whole House shares, the hon. Gentleman's frustration at the tragic situation in Cyprus. But I am sure that, as a reasonable man, he will agree on reflection that the wisest course of action for the Government is to continue to support the secretary-general's efforts. That is what we shall do. Of course, we shall also continue to encourage the other guarantor powers,—Greece and Turkey—to play an equally constructive role. I am sure that that is the way forward.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his clear statement of the Government's policy on Cyprus. Does he agree that Cyprus's application to join the EC provides a positive opportunity for other EC states, including Britain, to take a positive attitude to finding a solution to Cyprus? I hope that our Government will encourage other EC states within the United Nations fully to back up the United Nations and put pressure on Turkey to find an early solution.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and, indeed, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and all Members of Parliament for their continued interest in the matter. The EC application was referred on 30 September 1990 to the Commission for an opinion, in accordance with the treaty. When that opinion emerges,
    310
    we shall, of course, examine it with our partners. But we remain keen, as many partners do, to strengthen relations between the Community and Cyprus.
    Mr. Kaufman: Surely the Minister ought to be a great deal more forthright and clear on the subject than that. Will the United Kingdom advocate the early admission of Cyprus to the European Community? Will he say that the United Kingdom will not agree to Turkish membership of the EC so long as any Turkish troops are present in Cyprus against the wishes of the present sovereign Government of Cyprus? Does he agree that Turkey should not be admitted to the European Community until its human rights record is rectified? Will he give active support to a federal solution for Cyprus which does justice to both communities within the integrity of the sovereignty of the republic of Cyprus?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has been rushing up and down the country making what I take it he regards as encouraging noises to Cypriots, Kashmiris and others. British Cypriots are well able to judge what weight to place on his remarks. The policy of Her Majesty's Government, which is to support the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations is the wisest policy for both the British Government and other Governments in the Community. No amount of faffing around by the right hon. Gentleman will convince either our allies or Cypriots.
    Mr. Alexander: The presence of Turkish troops is clearly a hazard which makes life difficult in seeking a compromise agreement. Is it not clear that the northern Cypriots are afraid that if the troops go they will simply be overrun? Is there not a case for the EC to reassure both sides that they can live in peace if the troops go? I underline that the presence of the troops is causing the problem at present.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that a significant reduction in Turkish troops in northern Cyprus would improve the climate for a negotiated settlement. However, we also have to recognise that the Turks are unlikely to agree to that in advance of a settlement. My hon. Friend and the House will be aware that our contribution and support for the secretary-general is not merely a matter of words. We make a substantial troop contribution to the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus, UNFICYP, which we think is a tangible measure of the efforts that we are giving to peace there.

    Soviet Union
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit the former Soviet Union to discuss matters relating to technology transfer and aid for the republics.
    Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in January and discussed such question then. I visited St. Petersburg also in January.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister believe that a vitally important stabilisation fund for Russia can be made

    311
    to work successfully without tackling the problems of food supply in Russian markets, especially when we consider the consequences for money supply and wage inflation?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman will know from our debate this morning that the United Kingdom is fully ready to play its part in providing the financial assistance, on a multilateral basis, which is likely to be necessary to support an IMF programme—such as the stabilisation fund or some other suitable instrument—for the former
    312
    Soviet Union, and especially for Russia. I sought to explain to him then and before that we not only need to sort out finance but to get on with distributing the food that they can grow, with the production of the food that they do not grow, and sort out their system of feeding the people. That is why, through the know-how fund, endless new ideas and help available, which are being paid for by this country to assist with the production and distribution of food. That work will continue, but so will work on economic reconstruction.

Northern Ireland (Prison Management)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): With permission, I should like to make a statement on Lord Colville's report on the management of paramilitary prisoners in Belfast prison. Before dealing with the substance of his report, which is published today, I should like to express my thanks to my noble Friend Lord Colville for the thoroughness and speed with which he carried out a very difficult task.
The House will recall the tragic events which gave rise to his review. On 24 November last a device exploded in the dining hall in C wing in Belfast prison. One prisoner was killed outright, another mortally wounded, and several others less seriously injured. The efforts of staff in rendering first aid immediately after the explosion were in the highest traditions of the Northern Ireland prison service and earned the thanks of the relatives of the prisoners who died. On 26 November the Provisional IRA admitted responsibility for the outrage.
Three inquiries were established: a murder investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which continues; and an internal and necessarily confidential review of security procedures in the prison by a senior official of the prison service. Most of its recommendations have been implemented and decisions on the others will be made shortly. The third strand was Lord Colville's inquiry into the operational policy for the management of prisoners of opposing factions in Belfast prison.
The central conclusion of his report is strongly against further segregation within the prison system. It also recommends: that, in Belfast prison, numbers in A wing, the only wing at present housing exclusively paramilitary prisoners, should be reduced; that, out of concern for visitors' safety, those prisoners should have separate visiting arrangements; and that time on remand in custody awaiting trial should be reduced, his preferred method being that the powers in section 8 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 should be used.
I accept the report. I shall comment on each of the recommendations in turn. First, the question of segregation. Lord Colville brings out very clearly the increased risks posed to security by segregation. He says:
"All the lessons from history suggest that segregation facilitates escapes, and escapes will give freedom to paramilitary fanatics, of both factions, who will kill and maim outside prison."
On security grounds 1 am satisfied that Lord Colville's recommendation is right.
Moreover, I am also satisfied that segregation would make it more difficult to offer constructive regimes for inmates, as it already has at the Maze. It would constrain the flexible and effective use of the available accommodation. The opportunity which segregation would provide the paramilitaries to reinforce their cohesiveness within the prison would have an adverse effect on the morale and self-esteem of staff.
I turn now to the reduction of numbers in A wing. There are obvious advantages in keeping untried prisoners together in a more central location. I am pleased to tell the House that the governor can implement this recommendation within the next few weeks, when the necessary construction work will have been completed, without the need to move those prisoners out of Belfast prison.
314
The recommendation on separate visits is not free from difficulty, but Lord Colville believes that the change is justified in the interests of the safety of visitors, and I have concluded that it should for that reason be accepted.
The case for cutting down remand times has always been strong. Lord Colville concludes that it is now unanswerable and I accept that conclusion. Delays in these cases are, of course, inextricably linked to the terrorist situation, which gravely complicates the investigation of crime and the criminal process as a whole. But it is not acceptable that people should remain for long periods without a trial. Together with my ministerial colleagues, I am urgently considering how the very real problems which exist might best be resolved so that those unacceptable delays can be overcome.
Segregation remains a key objective of the paramilitaries. In resisting campaigns by both factions, prison governors and their staff have implemented the policy of successive Administrations. There now have been three major reports by respected and independent figures which say that segregation is wrong. Lord Gardiner, in his report published in January 1975 on measures to deal with terrorism, recommended that special category status—segregation writ large—should be ended and that the influence of the terrorist leaders must be reduced. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir James Hennessy, in his 1984 report into the Maze escape of the previous year was in no doubt about the increased threat to security posed by segregation. Lord Colville, having taken evidence from a wide range of people, has come to the same conclusion.
My predecessors accepted the recommendations of Gardiner and Hennessy and I, in turn, have concluded that I should accept the recommendations of Lord Colville. I do not believe that it would be acceptable to this House for the clear stand which has been taken over the years against segregation to be set aside as a result of paramilitary violence and in the face of unequivocal advice from three such distinguished sources and the powerful arguments that they have deployed.
The bomb explosion in C wing in Belfast was an act of terrorism no different from the murder of workmen at Teebane or the killing of people who happened to be in a betting shop at the wrong time. None of those events will deflect the Government from what they believe to be in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Secretary of State for coming quickly to the House to make this statement.
Before I deal with the content of the statement, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has asked me to convey his apologies for his absence this afternoon. He was on his way to the airport this morning when he came upon ,the scene of the foul murder of one of his constituents, who was known to him. He has asked me to express his horror at such a vicious killing—a horror tht I know the House shares. My hon. Friend was looking forward particularly to making his observations on Lord Colville's important report.
Lord Colville was asked to produce his report in the aftermath of another vile act of savagery within Belfast prison. We owe him our thanks for the thoroughness and rigour of his report—qualities which we have come to expect from him. We welcome the fact that the

315
Government have been prepared to accept his recommendations so quickly and largely in full. Our only regret is that the Government have been unable to follow a similar course with many other recommendations that Lord Colville has made about other issues associated with prisons in Northern Ireland.
It is also proper on such an occasion that we should pay tribute to the staff of Belfast prison. They have to work in very primitive conditions, in a highly charged and emotional atmosphere. The staff, at all levels, conduct their difficult task with bravery and dedication. We should pay them proper respect for doing a job that many in the House and within the country would not be happy to carry out.
A number of questions arise from the report and the incident that gave rise to it. The Opposition are glad that the Secretary of State has decided to accept the recommendations. In particular, we are pleased that he will use his powers to reduce remand periods, a course of action that we have urged on him and his predecessors for quite some time. What time limits is he considering? Will he flesh out what he said about the discussions that he will be having with his ministerial colleagues? The House and the country would like further information on this because the reasons for these long periods of remand in Northern Ireland give rise to many accusations.
Will the Secretary of State accept that the physical state of Her Majesty's prison in Belfast, despite recent improvements, is still very much a blot on the face of the Northern Ireland prison service? We know that much money is being spent and many improvements are to be made, but it is still an old, expensive, badly designed prison, which will always cause problems not only for the prisoners but for the staff.
Can the Secretary of State assure the House that prisoners will be kept in humane, secure, sanitary and safe conditions? Will he assure the House that he will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that this is the case? Lord Colville spoke about the best of private practice in Humberside. Will the Secretary of State be able to establish the same sort of regime in Belfast prison, as we shall ensure that it is maintained in the Humberside prison once it is brought back into public control?
Mr. Brooke: I know that the House would want to respond to the apology that the hon. Gentleman made on behalf of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I am sure that the House will join the hon. Gentleman in his condemnation of the murder of Mr. Gray in County Armagh this morning.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman thanked my noble Friend Lord Colville, as I did. I am particularly grateful for his tribute to the prison staff in Belfast prison and throughout the prison service in Northern Ireland. It was my privilege to meet a number of the staff who were directly involved in the incident after it occurred, and I join the hon. Gentleman in his admiration for the work that they do.
It will take a little time to conclude our examination of the various steps that we can take to improve the remand period. Some steps have been taken and we can take further steps, but I would not want to be drawn today on how we can determine the target times. I have accepted the spirit of Lord Colville's recommendation.
As to the improvements to Belfast prison, it is known that a rehabilitation of it is envisaged, but that is
316
necessarily somewhat more for the longer term. As to Lord Colville's recommendation to which the governor has reacted, the consideration that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will have been taken into account in the rearrangements made.
Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State will know that we wish to be associated with his tributes to the prison staff and to Lord Colville.
On the basic principle of segregation, the Secretary of State will know that we agree with Lord Colville. Nevertheless, as the Secretary of State will also know, there is a de facto separation in A wing. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that prisoners there will not be compelled to mix?
As to the general position of the prisoners, the right hon. Gentleman will know of the general condition in the prison, and that the length of time that people spend on remand is crucial. I have seen plans for the refurbishment that the prison governor wishes to take place and for the restructuring of the cells, and I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the prison governor's ideas and implement them as soon as possible. When will refurbishment take place?
We accept Lord Colville's views on time limits for remand, and his view that the Scottish model is the best one to follow is right. What is the problem with regard to the length of time on remand? Lord Colville says that delays are not caused by lack of prosecuting counsel, that there is no shortage of court accommodation, and that delays are not caused by requests for a particular defence counsel. What, then, is the problem?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's tribute to Lord Colville and the prison staff. His first question related to the de facto arrangements within Belfast prison. Following representations in 1990 by certain public representatives, the Government introduced new unlock arrangements to reduce the possibility of confrontation between the factions. Those involve staff making an assumption about which faction will accept the offer of exercise or evening association. Those sensible and pragmatic arrangements fall far short of segregation, and I confirm that the position will remain as the hon. Gentleman asked.
The hon. Gentleman asked about remand times. When the enabling powers on the application of statutory time limits to which I referred in my statement were taken in 1987—they were renewed in 1991—the then Minister of State said that the Government would have to be confident that any scheme was unlikely to have the effect of procuring the release on bail, or even the discharge, of a person indicted for serious terrorist crime. That prospect was still a possibility when the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 was debated, and it remains so today. Therefore, that consideration will weigh with us in examining the issue.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the difficulty of raising the time limit. Several conditions will apply. He will know from his research that the number of weeks on remand had been falling and that the trend then reversed. One of the questions that we have been asking ourselves is why that change occurred. The upsurge in terrorist violence since 1989 greatly complicated investigations by

317
the RUC and has resulted in a number of complex, multi-defendant trials, which largely negated the effectiveness of our initiatives.
There is no value judgment in what I am saying—I am simply being descriptive. Additional factors have been the increasing tendency of the defence to challenge police notes, and to request ESDA—electrostatic data analysis —tests and the problems experienced by the RUC in interviewing witnesses in certain areas.
I reiterate that the issues responsible for the delay in remand times are being considered urgently in the light of the reversal of the trend.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I join in the expressions of thanks to Lord Colville for his report and to the prison staff for their excellent work in difficult circumstances.
There is a real problem with lengthy remands in custody. Has the Secretary of State noticed that, when a case comes to trial, the defendant or defendants sometimes plead guilty at that late stage? Can discussions take place to ensure that, if a defendant is to plead guilty, his case is brought before the court as quickly as possible?
Mr. Brooke: I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's question. It may be helpful to the House if I list the administrative measures that have been introduced in the past few years to help reduce waiting times. They include: a review of the organisation and staffing levels in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, relevant sections of the RUC and the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory; the establishment of a fast stream to identify and take forward cases that can be brought to trial relatively quickly; the appointment of a presiding judge at Belfast Crown court to oversee the listing of cases, and two additional High Court judges, one additional county court judge and 12 additional Queen's counsel, significantly increasing the number of senior counsel available for criminal cases.
In answer to the question by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I should have said that the major building work at Belfast prison is in preparation. The Government are taking it seriously, but I do not wish to commit myself to the precise moment at which it will be done.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I also wish to express my appreciation of the work of Lord Colville and my satisfaction at the fact that the Secretary of State has been able to accept Lord Colville's recommendations. I am glad that the Secretary of State is working towards implementing the remand recommendations, while understanding the difficulties. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to report progress to the House as soon as he can?
The Secretary of State referred to the internal and necessarily confidential inquiry into security procedures, and said that decisions were expected shortly. Naturally, I do not ask him to reveal the nature of those recommendations, but can he say whether there has been full consultation with the prison staff, both about matters that may have been thrown up by the security inquiry and about the implications of the intentions regarding the numbers in A wing? Have they met with the understanding and backing of the staff?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about Lord Colville. I shall as soon as possible vouchsafe further information on the recommendations on remand times that we are considering. Most of the recommendations of the internal security review at the prison have been implemented. Unless we are prepared to countenance draconian measures that would seriously and adversely affect the quality of life for all prisoners and their visitors, absolute security cannot be guaranteed.
The prison service has rightly earned praise, both in the Province and elsewhere, for the overall quality of the regime that it provides. Neither it nor I wish to make life less tolerable for the many because of the actions of the few. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the prison service has always made it clear that it will seek properly to carry out the Government's decisions about the prison regime.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I am all for integration, as distinct from segregation, in Northern Ireland, but is not relative integration among paramilitary prisons presenting many problems? The significant point in Lord Colville's reports seems to be that, if groups are segregated, it leads to cohesion within them, which means that escapes and other activities are more likely. Relative integration begins to break that down. Are there not other methods, apart from relative integration, to break down that cohesion?
Mr. Brooke: I think that the central point of Lord Colville's report is that segregation makes the planning of escapes easier. The fact that those held on remand in Belfast prison are prisoners who have recently been arrested and whom the paramilitaries would particularly like to have outside prison reinforces Lord Colville's recommendation, to which I think the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) gave support.
Separation is a word that has been quoted as the antithesis to segregation, perhaps along the lines mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The governor has already introduced sensible arrangements to reduce the chances of confrontation. It is significant that the prisoners to whom Lord Colville spoke drew no distinction between separation and segregation.
Mr. Roy Beggs: My colleagues and I should like to express our sympathy to the relatives of the person most recently murdered in Northern Ireland. We have repeatedly condemned violence, terrorism and murder. The report came about partly as a result of the murder of one of my constituents in Belfast prison, which naturally heightened concern among prisoners and their relatives outside prison for the safety of prisoners.
What progress has been made to date in tracking down those responsible for the bomb and the murder? Does the Secretary of State agree that the safety of prisoners and prison staff remains paramount? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that every effort is made as quickly as possible to improve the conditions under which prisoners have to remain in Belfast prison?
Mr. Brooke: I know that the whole House will wish to join me in agreeing with the sympathy expressed by the hon. Gentleman for the family of his constituent who was killed in the incident concerned.
On the question both of the security of prisoners and of the safety of prison staff, to which the hon. Gentleman

319
referred, there can be no guarantee of absolute security —as I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
All prison governors take practical and reasonable steps to discharge their duty of care. However, segregation does not guarantee safety; the two prisoners murdered in prison were segregated. Most of the recommendations of the internal security review of Belfast prison have been implemented. I recognise that that mainly concerns prisoners, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it also concerns prison officers.
I referred in my statement to the Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation into the murder of the hon. Gentleman's constituent. That investigation is continuing, and the RUC hopes to bring it to a conclusion.
Mr. Ron Brown: As I understand it, republican terrorist groups get their arms and explosives from the middle east and America. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a quiet word with the Governments concerned, and especially with George Bush, about that matter? Where do the loyalist terrorists get their arms—and, more importantly, what are the Government doing about it?
Mr. Brooke: I would not want to be confrontational towards the hon. Gentleman, but if he wants to make charges about the American Government providing military assistance to anybody within the island of Ireland, it would be better if he presented his evidence privately to me before making such accusations in the House.
The Semtex involved in the episode on which I made my statement today is widely thought to have come in the pre-Eksund consignment from the Libyan Government to the IRA. We should look in that direction for the source of the offence in this instance.
Mr. James Molyneaux: During the urgent considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, would he be prepared to accept any useful suggestion from those of us who come across fairly regular information in the course of our constituency duties?
Mr. Brooke: If any right hon. or hon. Gentleman wishes to be of assistance privately in that way, the Government would be happy to receive such help and advice.

Points of Order
3.58 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you and the House for being late for Foreign Office questions. I assume that it was my lateness that caused you not to see me, rather than the sobriety of my dress this afternoon. The reason for my being late is that the 1.52 pm train from Forest gate to Liverpool street was rather peremptorily cancelled. By way of consolation, a rather satirical member of British Rail's staff gave me a copy of British Rail's passengers charter to read while I was waiting for the next train. I was able to read it in full and there are many questions that I wish to ask—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be a point for me, I hope.
Mr. Banks: When I arrived at Liverpool street and made my complaint, I was told that if I looked very carefully I would see that the passengers charter is in fact entitled "Passenger's Charter", and that therefore it did not apply to me because I was not the passenger for which it was actually devised.
I want to know whether you, Mr. Speaker, have received any application from the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House to give us more details about the passengers charter so that we can know whether it applies to all of us or whether it is just a way for the Tory Government to save money.
Mr. Speaker: I have not had such a request.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr.Speaker: In fairness, I shall call the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) first.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a personal point of order. It has been brought to my attention by a journalist who hopes to be covering a general election in the near future that, the last time the House debated capital punishment, I was shown as having voted on both sides of the issue. That appears in the guide for journalists covering the election. I do not suppose that there is much that you, Mr. Speaker, can do about that, but if there is one subject on which it is improbable, to say the least, that I would vote on both sides it is on capital punishment. Ever since I entered the House, I have voted against it. I would not have made such a mistake, and if the record could be corrected, I should be grateful.
Mr. Speaker: That is a proper way in which to deal with such a matter. I hope that we shall have other legitimate points of order.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry requested your permission to make a statement on an important matter? It has come to light that stolen money has been given to an organisation— £400,000 to the Conservative party—from the chairman of Polly Peck. Could it be returned?
Mr. Speaker: There is an early-day motion on the Order Paper about that. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to early-day motion 793. Has the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster requested your permission to make a statement to the House about the donation by Mr. Asil Nadir of £440,000 to Conservative party funds?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has tabled an early-day motion on that very subject. It is not a matter for me. He can ask about it tomorrow at business questions.
Mr. Hain: With respect, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman has tabled an early-day motion. He asks for the matter to be debated. I cannot do anything about it now.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had a request from the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), the deputy treasurer of the Conservative party, to allow him to clear his name of the charges that he solicited and received illegal funds from a company based in Cyprus?
Mr. Speaker: That is a similar matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman gave the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) notice that he intended to mention him. That would be in the proper traditions of the House.

Interest on Business Debts
4.2 pm
Mr. Richard Alexander: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that business debts should carry interest after a period of 28 days.
The Bill is an attempt to crack down on businesses—usually, but not exclusively, large businesses—which drive thousands of other businesses, usually much smaller businesses, into bankruptcy by failing to pay their debts on time.
If passed, the Bill would allow a much freer flow of money for jobs completed and goods supplied. Without it, many firms will continue to crash. Not because of Government policies, not because of high interest rates, not because of difficulties with the banks, but because they cannot get in the money to which they are justly entitled and without which they cannot pay their way and continue in business.
The actual rate of interest and the actual number of days after which interest is to be paid, whether it be 28 or 30, can be decided in Committee. At this stage I simply seek justice and fairness on business debts which underlie the need for the Bill.
The chairman of the National Westminster bank, Lord Alexander—no relation I am afraid—has warned that the unfair practice of paying debts late is hampering Britain's economic recovery. That bank has surveyed business problems and second on the list is late payment of debt. The Bill will give the opportunity to redress that problem.
My Bill is designed not to give easier recourse to the law or to the courts but to achieve a change in business climate. Of course, businesses and their customers can agree between them at the time of contract that interest will be payable if the debt is not settled by a certain time. However, that is easier said than put into practice. Most suppliers are not strong enough to insist on such a condition. They have neither the muscle nor the bargaining power. The Bill will redress that.
Most of us have a Barclaycard, and many have American Express cards. We know that if we do not settle our statements by the end of a stipulated period, interest will be charged in the next statement. That concentrates the mind and brings out the cheque book. In the same way, if a debtor business wanted to take another month or so to settle its debts, it could pay to do so. It is an added cost on that business, not to the innocent supplier.
It is not only Barclaycard and American Express that charge interest on late payments—the Inland Revenue does so as well. The business man, however, has no recourse to interest in respect of his late payers—and they are often the people who cause him to delay his tax payments. The problem is one which mainly affects small businesses, but they are not the only ones to suffer.
Businesses with the largest muscle and biggest bargaining power are usually the culprits, and they can be large or small firms. The dominant customer can choose from a dozen or more suppliers and do exactly as he likes in respect of late payment. The less dominant supplier is in no position to insist on interest at the time of contract. If he does, the business may be placed elsewhere. My Bill addresses the problem created by dominant customers in an economic climate in which business is hard to win in the first place.

323
Mine is not a new idea. Several attempts have been made in the House to change the law. The Government have hitherto believed that a voluntary code accepted by all would achieve the desired effect without legislation, in the belief that any company that embraced a voluntary code would abide by it. Anyone does not and will not, and no amount of codes will deal with him.
There have been several codes since 1986, but over that period the problem of late payment has demonstrably grown worse. In 1986, a survey by the Forum of Private Business found that all businesses, excluding the very largest, were owed £57,000 million, and they themselves owed £47,000 million. When that exercise was repeated in 1990, companies were owed the horrendous sum of £145,000 million, and themselves owed £75,000 million. Those immense figures account for a huge proportion of this country's gross domestic product.
Last year, there were 47,777 recorded business closures. Dun and Bradstreet say that one of the main causes was slow payment. The whole business structure has a domino effect, so that if one business goes bankrupt, two or three others to which it owes money usually fail in its wake.
Businesses in England and Wales have the worst record in Europe for paying their bills on time. In 1986, the average bill settlement period after an initial 30 days was another 44 days—a total of 74 days before a supplier received payment. The average is now 51 days on top of those 30 days, making a total of 81 days before a supplier is paid, and this is the average.
Surely that position cannot continue. There is a statutory right to interest in all the other EC countries except Greece, Portugal and the Republic of Ireland. It can be no coincidence that, in countries where such a right exists, the average number of days that elapse after the 30-day payment period is as low as 22 in Denmark, and 18 in Germany.
It is probably the kiss of death for any hon. Member to say, "If the Bill is passed, it will bring this country into line with the majority of other EC countries." Nevertheless, I believe that reform will come about—and, for many small companies in particular, but for some quite large ones too, it cannot come soon enough.
I urge my party to include a commitment to such reform in its manifesto for the next election. In the meantime, I commend my Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Alexander, Mr. Derek Conway, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Sir David Mitchell.

Interest on Business Debts
  INTEREST ON BUSINESS DEBTS
  Mr. Richard Alexander accordingly presented a Bill to provide that business debts should carry interest after a period of 28 days: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 March and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)
4.11 pm
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That the Order of the House [12th November] be supplemented as follows:—

Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Lords Amendments
  1. The proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
  2. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

  (a) Mr Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) Mr Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

  stages subsequent to first consideration of Lords Amendments
  3. Mr Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
  4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on

  325
  any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) Mr Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Supplemental
  6.—
  (1) Mr Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
  (2) Such a Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
  7.—

  (1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

  (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

  The Bill carries through the Government's decision to abolish the community charge, and to replace it with a new council tax. Once we had made that decision, as part of the review of local government, we were determined to carry it through as quickly as we could. I am sure that everyone in the House and outside will agree with that intention.
  The timetable motion continues the momentum that we have established. We set ourselves the demanding but achieveable target of introducing the council tax on 1 April 1993. The Opposition said that that could not be done, and pressed us to return to a rating system based on the discredited 1973 rateable values; but the progress that has been made through this Bill and in other ways now demonstrated just how wrong the Opposition were.
  The first stage was to pass the Bill. We had it ready for introduction at the very start of the present session, and, once the House had accepted its principle on Second Reading, we sought approval for a timetable motion. The House's agreement to that motion ensured that the Bill could be enacted on the fastest possible timetable, which will give local authorities a firm basis on which to plan for the introduction of the council tax in April next year.
  Today's timetable motion is appropriate, not least because we have taken further action in parallel with the parliamentary debates in order to ensure that all the necessary parts of the jigsaw will be in place in time.
  Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East): My opposition to the guillotine motion is not based simply on the fact that it perpetuates the poll tax for a further year—it will not be abolished until 1993. My opposition is more specific. I think that we should devote far more time this afternoon to discussing Lords amendment No. 57, which relates to computer evidence.
  I am advised by those who helped my constituents David and Eleanor Bullard to take their case all the way to the High Court—it related to computer evidence, and lay behind the introduction of the amendment some days ago—that it is defectively drafted. It merely allows the Government to use computer evidence to prove payment of the poll tax; they cannot prove non-payment. For that to be possible, the amendment would have to use the precise words, relating to negative hearsay, that are contained in the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988. That is why two hours will not be enough. The Minister has not closed the loophole, and if he does not believe me, we will see him in the High Court.
  Mr. Portillo: The only way in which two hours may not be enough is if I am interrupted at length in the debate on the timetable motion, thereby preventing us from debating the amendments. I am keen to debate the amendments.
  We have drafted the key orders and regulations that local authorities will need to design their computer software and other systems for the new tax; drafts have been placed in the Library. We intend to make the necessary statutory instruments and lay them before Parliament as soon as possible after Royal Assent.
  We have taken further action to ensure that computer software will be up and running before April 1993. The Department has sponsored a specification for users for council tax computer systems, and a copy was sent to each billing authority in December.
  Preparations are well advanced on every front for the introduction of the council tax in April next year. No one, not even the Opposition, is saying that it cannot be done.
  I commend the motion knowing that Parliament has given the Bill full scrutiny. In Committee, it was subject to 88 hours of detailed examination, including lengthy debate of all its important aspects. It was debated for two days on Report. In another place, the Committee stage lasted six full days, followed by a further three days on Report.
  Throughout all its parliamentary proceedings, the details of the council tax have been subjected to rigorous examination. Alternatives have been proposed and discussed, but the council tax has stood the test. The principles have emerged with the endorsement of both Houses.
  Today's consideration of Lords amendments is not controversial. Where improvements have been suggested in either House, we have listened and, where appropriate, have amended the Bill, although it is worth noting that it has not needed much amendment.
  The House will recall that in Committee we introduced additional powers to allow a scheme of relief for disabled people. In the other place, we clarified the information powers of local authorities. Throughout proceedings on the Bill, we have responded positively to constructive suggestions. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will recall that I even added my name to one of his Committee amendments about certificates for students.
  That constructive approach continued in another place. The majority of the Lords amendments represent the

  327
  outcome of that approach. I am glad to be able to say that the Government will urge the House to accept all their Lordships' amendments.
  I hope that the Opposition will take a constructive approach today. I am heartened to see that no official Opposition amendments have been tabled seeking changes to the Lords amendments.
  The consideration that the Bill has received is a possible model for future parliamentary procedure. There can be no possible reason for suggesting that proceedings this evening should he delayed beyond the time allocated in the motion. The key is to get the Bill on to statute book and to give local authorities the firm base that they need to implement the tax at the earliest practical date—1 April 1993. We can now either debate the motion for an hour or the Bill for nearly two hours. I commend the motion to the House.
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Bryan Gould: It is now well known and established that the Government have had recourse to the guillotine on more occasions than any of their predecessors. It is perhaps worth establishing a further point: we are not talking about an agreed and planned timetable for legislation—an idea that has sometimes commended itself to some of our more responsible parliamentarians. Not a bit of it. There was a hint in the specious argument advanced by the Leader of the House that this procedure might be a model for other legislation, but that simply is not the case. This is not an agreed and planned procedure designed to produce good legislation. It is being unilaterally and irresponsibly imposed. It is the negation of good government and good legislation.
  We began with a bad Bill and, by virtue of successive guillotines, we have at the very least failed to make it better and, in some senses, it could be argued that it has been made worse.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: "They", not "we".
  Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend is right: the Government bear the responsibility for that sequence of events.
  We now have a two-hour debate in which to debate the very motion that limits debates to two hours and which then, in what is left of the two hours, allows us—magnanimously—to debate the implications of no fewer than 77 Lords amendments. To discuss a guillotine motion and 77 amendments in two hours is not serious government or serious debate. It is almost laughable that the Minister can with a straight face pretend to support the motion on the ground that it guarantees the merits of the legislation. Indeed, the reverse is true.
  The Minister argued that the amendments deal with issues that are not controversial. I beg to differ. The matters covered by some of the amendments are matters of the greatest controversy. They are the product of an attempt by the Government to resolve that controversy, but we should at least have the opportunity to debate properly the so-called solutions suggested by the Government.
  Let us consider some instances of matters of considerable consequences which are now enshrined in the amendments and which we shall have precious little time to debate in proper form. One such matter is the question of the joint and several liability of the unfortunate people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and who were rightly
  328
  singled out originally in schedule I for exemption from liability to pay their own poll tax. We pressed on the Government the illogicality—even in terms of the Bill's own perverted logic—of exempting such unfortunate people from liability for the personal element of their own council tax but then making them potentially jointly and severally liable for the personal element of someone else's tax.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been an important development relating to that point? There should be some provision in the Lords amendments for recovery from Alzheimer's disease because, as my hon. Friend will recall, Mr. Ernest Saunders was discharged because he developed Alzheimer's but made a remarkable recovery. That complicates matters because the legislation needs to be suitably amended.
  Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is barely relevant to the debate but it is certainly the case that, contrary to received medical opinion, great medical advances have been made. I heard that particular person arguing with great clarity and coherence not only that he had been dealt with unfairly and that the procedures were wrong but that he was innocent. He was compos mentis to that degree.
  The amendments are shot through with illogicality. The Government have dealt with a particular aspect of the problem, but the Minister has still not acknowledged the illogicality of the exemptions in schedule 1, combined with the joint and several liability provisions in the early clauses.
  Mr. Nellist: On the point made by my hon. Friend the. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), it is interesting that Mr. Ernest Saunders was let out early because of the circumstances described, having served one day in prison for every £30,000 that he was alleged to have defrauded and found guilty of having defrauded during the Guinness scandal. However, Mr. Cassidy, a pensioner from Northumberland, was sent to Durham maximum security prison—with no possibility of remission because non-payment of the poll tax is a civil offence—for one day for every 62p that he owes. That was not just a question of a good recovery being made from a tragic disease, but a classic illustration of the old story that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.
  Mr. Gould: That is a powerful point, but I do not propose to be diverted further by it, important though it may be.
  The second group of amendments provides examples of the important debates for which we ought to have time. Those amendments concern the obligations imposed on taxpayers to divulge information to the collecting authorities—the Minister of State referred to that matter—and the authorities' plea to be given in turn the statutory authority to maintain what they accurately describe as a council tax register.
  The amendments deal with that problem up to a point, but it may be useful for the Minister of State to hear, simply as an illustration of the anxiety that remains, a quotation from a letter written by the Birmingham city council treasurer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett):

  329
  "The Government is proposing that there will be a statutory obligation to answer questions on liability so that I can, in effect, maintain a 'Council Tax Register'".
  Incidentally, it is interesting that the city treasurer immediately sees through the pretence that no register is to be kept. He continues:
  "In my view, and this is shared by many colleagues throughout the country…this does not go far enough. I would wish to have a statutory right to require people to provide me with information on discount entitlement so that the Property Register contains all the information needed to calculate at the outset the proper Council Tax liability for a dwelling. It is of the utmost importance that local authorities are able to issue bills for Council Tax next year which are as accurate as possible. If we have to rely on people claiming discount status then I can see all sorts of administrative problems because people will think they will get discount automatically when in fact the Government's current proposals require them to claim it."
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when we debated the matter on Report, I said that I intended to discuss it with the local authority associations. I did so, and the associations, while calling for the power which is now included in the Bill, did not call for the power that the hon. Gentleman quotes the Birmingham city treasurer as requesting. If the hon. Gentleman found himself in government, would he respond to every individual request made by a city treasurer, or would he tend, as I have done, to base what he put into legislation on what local authority associations said to him formally?
  Mr. Gould: For the sake of brevity, I omitted a phrase from my reading of the letter. I shall now read the full sentence:
  "In my view, and this is shared by many colleagues throughout the country as well as the Local Authority Associations, this does not go far enough."
  The city treasurer then went on to make the fuller point. The Minister had better resolve with that gentleman which of them has the right interpretation of the views of the local authority associations. I would lay a small bet that the city treasurer is more in tune with those views than is the Minister of State.
  The group of amendments likely to be of greatest concern is that intended to plug the legal loophole concerning the use of computer records which has arisen over recent weeks and months. No one should doubt the enormous problems that that loophole has caused local authorities, and the Opposition believe that it should have been foreseen and acted upon much earlier. As soon as it became clear that magistrates courts, and then the High Court, had ruled to the effect that computer records could not be relied upon, the Government should have acted immediately.
  I have repeatedly offered our co-operation for a short Bill, which could have been completed in a single day, to ensure that local authorities collecting the poll tax were not frustrated in that way. Instead, we have the measure in the Lords amendment, which has been long delayed and simply does not deal with some of the legal problems, including problems of retrospection, that local authorities now have to face.
  The truth is that the Bill is complex. It began with 117 clauses and 14 schedules. It could hardly have addressed a more difficult and important problem than the replacement of what is probably the most important and most damning single policy mistake made by any Government
  330
  in modern times. Yet throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we have been forced by Government diktat to treat the legislation with a cavalier disregard for proper debate and proper principles.
  The Bill started as a hotch-potch and it ends up in no better condition. The council tax preserves all the worst features of the poll tax. It preserves the unfairness of the exemption for those at the top of the income scale from the liability to pay their fair share. It preserves the whole concept of the head count and, as we have heard from the city treasurer of Birmingham and many others, it preserves the requirement for a register. It also preserves the administrative complexity. It adds to those known problems all the difficulties of a wholly new and untried property tax proceeding on the basis of a Mickey Mouse valuation which is already throwing up huge problems because it has been carried out so unsatisfactorily.
  One of the most bizarre aspects of the proceedings on the Bill has been the transformation in the personality and style of the Minister of State who has piloted it through. When we began, we were confronted by a man who was perhaps slightly austere, certainly rather detached and even commendably academic in style. We should no doubt have been put on notice that things were about to change when he changed his hair style to a sort of Heseltinian haystack.
  We then found that, instead of the rather attractive, reserved and academic figure, someone came to the Dispatch Box—but for his perfunctory speech, we might have seen another illustration today—whose eyes flashed, whose lips curled, whose nostrils flared and whose voice vibrated with synthetic outrage. He gives all the appearance of having enrolled in a youth training scheme leading to a diploma in the "Michael Heseltine school of Labour bashing".
  Clearly the qualifying test is the ability to spout absolute nonsense with utter conviction. I have every confidence that the hon. Gentleman will shortly be awarded his diploma. The only point in which we can take comfort is that he shows no sign so far of reaching for the peroxide bottle.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is talking about the Heseltine factor. Has he considered the fact that 25 Victoria street, the well-known headquarters of the person who challenged the previous Prime Minister and who led the way to the change when she was kicked out like a dog in the night, was also the headquarters of that little coup? I passed it the other day. I do not know what will happen to the poll tax or the council tax on that property. It has turned into a slum and there is nobody there any more. It is almost as though it was bought and used for the purpose I have mentioned, which suggests that the Secretary of State for the Environment has a lot of money.
  Into what council tax bracket will the property fit? It is a slum-like building with barred gates and rubbish chucked inside. It is now not even fit for someone with a cardboard box. Will it be at the bottom of the range, at the top or somewhere else? One thing is certain. The Secretary of State paid a lot of money for a building to get to the top of the tree. The Minister of State was with him, although that has not served any useful purpose.
  Mr. Portillo: I was not.
  Mr. Skinner: Well, the Minister is now. They have finished up with the poll tax round their necks when they wanted the top job.
  Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend is understandably interested in 25 Victoria street. I do not know what council tax liability will be attracted by that property. What. I can tell my hon. Friend may be even more interesting. The millionaire house of the Secretary of State in Westminster will pay less than £200 in council tax, which will be lower than the council tax paid by the poorest people in virtually every other London borough. That alone tells us something about the fairness or lack of it of the Government's proposals.
  We are entitled to draw only one set of conclusions from the whole tawdry performance. The Government are acting so irresponsibly and piling up such obvious problems for themselves in the passage and then administration of the council tax that I and many others conclude that they have literally no intention of ever implementing such a hopelessly confused and ill-prepared measure. If by any chance they win the general election, it is clearly their intention that this ill-digested dog's breakfast will be immediately regurgitated. But that would mean—let us be clear—that, if the council tax or something rather like it was ever properly implemented, there would then have to be a further delay in getting rid of the poll tax. This measure replaces the poll tax, but a new measure would not be in a position to do so by 1 April 1993. The voters should be put on notice that a re-elected Tory Government would certainly give a further lease of life to the poll tax while they worked out a scheme to replace it that would work.
  There is only one other interpretation of the Government's irresponsibility: the Government, or at least that part of the Government represented by the Secretary of State for the Environment, realise that the game is up and the general election is lost. They know that there is no prospect of their ever having to implement this ill-prepared legislation. The Bill is their continued effort at a face-saving device, a last desperate throw at pretending that a Government who have wibbled and wobbled over the poll tax have something decisive to say or do about it. The truth is that the Government are still ducking and weaving over the poll tax. First, they tried to put the blame for the poll tax and for this year's high bills on local councils. But that simply has not worked—for a very good reason. The problems in collecting the poll tax are clearly intrinsic to the tax. It is not only the Labour party which says so: the Prime Minister described the poll tax as virtually uncollectable.
  Local government has been engulfed in the biggest debt collection exercise in the history of the world. Local authorities have had to issue 11·5 million summonses. Local councils are still chasing at least £1·5 billion-worth of poll tax arrears. The Government have not helped. They have made things worse. They have no one to blame but themselves for the current problems facing local government and, for that matter, poll tax payers.
  First, the Government have consistently turned down the urgings of the local authority associations that the Government should at the very least fund an advertising campaign to make it clear to people that they are still obliged to pay the poll tax and will be so obliged for at least another year. That campaign is necessary because of the Prime Minister's glib and unjustified assurance in
  332
  October last year that "We have abolished the poll tax." How can people be sure of their obligations when the Prime Minister tells them that the poll tax no longer exists?
  Secondly, the Government have kept the poll tax alive when they could have abolished it for the forthcoming financial year. If they had taken up our offer of support for a Bill to replace the poll tax with something along the lines of our fair rates proposals, we could indeed have seen the back of the poll tax by the end of this financial year.
  Then the Government refused to abolish the 20 per cent. minimum contribution rule. They have conceded the principle, but they persist in maintaining for the time being the practical problems which even the Audit Commission excoriated when it said that it cost £15 in administrative costs for every £6 net revenue raised. Lastly, the Government have demonstrated amazing complacency about plugging a legal loophole that most students of local government and certainly most local government practitioners saw coming months ago.
  We are entitled to conclude that, somehow or other, the Government misled themselves and believed for a time that they had some vested interest in stoking up the collection problems in the hope that they could be turned back on Labour authorities. It is a testimony to the good sense of of local government and of poll tax payers that the vast majority of the people of Britain rightly attribute responsibility for the difficulties to the Government who introduced the wretched tax in the first place.
  As we have long suspected, the latest twist is an attempt to delay poll tax bills. The back page of The Times today gives the game away. Despite ministerial denials, it is quite clear that a paper was prepared on the instructions of the Secretary of State to put forward various ways in which poll tax bills might be delayed until beyond a general election. The report in The Times sets out the options considered in the paper. Each has as its objective the delaying of poll tax bills at least until after 9 April.
  The Minister of State permits himself the faintest shake of the head. Since he appears—in that careful manner—to disagree with what I have said and with the report in The Times, I invite him to assure the House that those reports are wrong. Will he deny that the Government have considered any proposals which might lead to a delay in issuing poll tax bills? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on, get up."] I suspect that the House and the country will form their judgments as to what has happened.
  The truth is that the Tories are running scared. They know that poll tax bills will arrive during the week preceding 9 April and that there will be no more powerful invitation to vote Labour than their arrival. Thirty-eight million people will receive the reminder, in its most direct and potent form, that poll tax lives on and that it is rising, on average, three times faster than the rate of inflation.
  No wonder the Government are doing all that they can to divert attention from that certain time bomb, which will blow up their electoral prospects. It will be poetic justice that the arrogance which led them to introduce the poll tax, the incompetence with which they applied it and their dithering attempts to keep it alive will come to judgment on election day.
  Today's further disreputable episode will do nothing to avert that deserved judgment, when it is inevitable that the electorate will have its say on this vital and central mistake by a Government who have made so many.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. David Bellotti: The Minister began by saying that there had been a great deal of debate on the Bill. Yet if one asked most people outside the House what the council tax was, they would be unable to answer, because the Government have not explained what it will mean for them. They have not done so because the detail of the Bill will be further bad news for the people.
  The reason for the Bill in the first place was purely an attempt by the Government to bail themselves out of the poll tax fiasco in which they had become enmeshed. As a result, they cobbled together a mixture of measures—supposedly a tax on people and on property—which adds up to misery for millions of people.
  I suspect that less than 10 per cent. of the people have heard of the council tax. In those circumstances, it is important that, given it has the opportunity, the House should scrutinise every aspect of the Bill. Serious defects in the legislation are still emerging at this late stage.
  During 100 hours of discussion, the Bill has not been substantially improved. The only Government concession that I can trace is the decision to exempt people with a disability, by moving them one band lower. As the Minister will know, that change was prompted by me and my hon. Friends in an amendment. Apart from that, it is difficult to see that the original Bill has been much improved and it is still hugely defective.
  We need time during the legal process to continue to investigate the results of using computer evidence to establish whether someone has paid the tax. Eleven million people have been summonsed for non-payment and the poll tax legislation has caused a hiatus in our courts, so so it is essential that we tackle that key issue when changing the system of taxation.
  Mr. Nellist: I wish to correct something which is raised in these debates time after time. I am the one with all the information on that issue—statistics collated from Home Office computer information in the Library, on a quarterly basis.
  Mr. David Blunkett: Oh yes?
  Mr. Nellist: If my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) doubts that, we can check it later and go through all the parliamentary questions that I have asked in the past few years.
  For the record, there are 11,051,000 summonses in England and Wales, to which must be added 2·75 million sheriff's warrants in Scotland. So 14 million people are being dragged through legal proceedings, not 11 million.
  Mr. Bellotti: I am grateful for that correction, because it adds to my argument. I have no doubt that it is factually correct, because the hon. Member always checks such figures. If the Government sat back for a moment and thought about the number of people involved in that process, they would surely conclude that they had got something wrong. If they conclude, that they had got the poll tax legislation wrong they would realise that the council tax deserves closer scrutiny.
  As the Lords have tabled more than 70 amendments, we certainly ought to have more than a two-hour debate. It is clear from the Government's attitude and from the Minister's opening speech that all they want is a vote in the direction they seek. They could not care less whether the House considers the Bill sensibly.
  334
  In Committee, there was considerable debate over joint and several liability and yet the Minister and his hon. Friends did not take on board the arguments. The Lords have tabled an amendment concerning joint and several liability and I think that the Government have today accepted the principle that people with severe mental impairment should not be responsible for another person's council tax. If the Government accept that principle, surely we should now debate whether another range of people ought not to be responsible for someone else's taxes. The question is, should anyone be responsible for someone else's tax? Should we not ensure that that principle is enshrined in future legislation?
  There is a sense in which millions of people are responsible for other people's taxes. Millions of people are having to pay extra as a result of non-collection of the poll tax and because the Government introduced a tax which has been unworkable as well as unpopular. The Government did not care when they introduced the poll tax legislation and, in introducing this legislation, they do not care about inflicting the payment for some people's taxes on to other people.
  In a short time, the Minister will be disappointed. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) suggested that, within a week or two, the Minister might be looking for a youth training programme. Unfortunately he is not quite young enough to go on one. I am sure that he might find opportunities in employment training, which is for adults. He would need to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who in the last few months has substantially cut the amount of money available for people going on Government training programmes. Those opportunities are reducing fast.
  Rather than placing his hopes in an employment training programme after the Government fall, the Minister would do better to tackle the issues seriously, by continuing to debate the Bill and by giving more serious consideration to the alternatives. We shall be able to explain to the public that the Government have continued during this two-hour debate to treat the people in the same way as they have always treated them. They have not considered what people can afford to pay or their ability to pay. They have taken only one thing into account—their desire to pass whatever legislation they wish without any consideration for the people.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Today we have been given a very short time in which to deal with the most unpopular piece of legislation that has ever been brought before the people. That legislation is universally hated. There can be no doubt about that, given that 14 million people in England, Scotland and Wales are now subject to legal proceedings. The vast majority of them have never been dragged before a court before.
  In fact, 20 times more people have been brought before the courts because of the poll tax than under the old rates system. Under the old system, about 1·5 million people a year were brought before the courts, but that figure covered not just domestic rates but industrial and commercial ones. Up to 31 December 1991, 11,051,000 people in England and Wales had been brought before the courts and a further 2·75 million people had faced legal proceedings in Scotland. Those 14 million have been taken to court in relation to the domestic poll tax alone.

  335
  This week, the oldest person charged with non-payment was brought before the courts. Tudor Rhys Jones, who is 94, was brought before Kensington magistrates on behalf of Hammersmith and Fulham council. He has severe hearing and eyesight problems and he was on the point of being sent to prison, but his case has been adjourned until 7 May because the magistrates are waiting for the passage of the Bill.
  I have already asked the Secretary of State what powers are available to magistrates courts to adjourn cases in anticipation of a decision yet to be made by Parliament. Hon. Members are aware that I am neither a solicitor nor a lawyer; my knowledge of the law comes from the headline stuff that I have dealt with in my nine years in the House. I believe that it is strange that Parliament's role to set legislation can be usurped by a lower body, a magistrates court. However, a magistrates court has adjourned a case in anticipation of a decision that Parliament is about to make. Courts have been adjourning cases for some weeks—particularly since my constituents, David and Eleanor Bullard, appeared in the High Court some days ago—while they wait for the Government to make the amendments to the Bill that were accepted in another place.
  I believe that the sole role of the court is to apply the law as it now stands and not to wait to apply the law as it wishes it might become in some weeks' time. The case of Mr. Rhys Jones, the 94-year-old who is on the point of being sent to prison, should have been thrown out. The council should have been told to return to the courts afresh once the legislation had been cleared up. The court should not have held the proceedings in abeyance. When I asked how that could come about, I was told by the Home Office that the magistrates courts have general powers to adjourn a case.
  Since the particular case in the High Court in February to which I referred, what advice has been given to magistrates' and justices' clerks? I was told by the Home Office that, as a result of the decision on computer evidence on 20 February, it did not believe that there was any need for further guidance. That is not true. I have copies of guidance that has been issued—hardly anyone in the House is aware of it, including those on the Front Benches.
  Letters were issued by the Department of the Environment on 31 January and by the Home Office on 4 February. Those letters anticipated the High Court decision on computer evidence and gave advice to clerks, local authorities and magistrates in advance of what this debate might decide.
  The letter from the DOE contains misleading advice to councils. Notwithstanding decisions reached in the past 12 months in magistrates courts and by stipendiary magistrates not only in Clerkenwell but in the north, the DOE states that there is no obstacle to authorities proceeding with cases.
  The Home Office letter contains advice about what procedures should be followed, which has far more serious implications. Because of the time limit, I shall paraphrase that letter. It gives direct advice to councils and to magistrates clerks to get together to decide on how long to adjourn cases in advance of this debate. I do not know what you think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there must be a conflict of interest in magistrates clerks discussing with one party to an action, the local authority, tactics about the
  336
  best way in which to proceed in a case. That tactical discussion is obviously not open to the other party in the dispute, the defence.
  We should have far more time today to discuss the Lords amendments, especially No. 57, to which I have tabled a starred amendment. I know that that amendment will not be selected, but I tabled it because I believe that the Lords amendment, as drafted, is seriously defective. We should have more time to debate the technical nature of the amendments.
  While Parliament has awaited today's debate, the Home Office, the DOE and the magistrates have been colluding to undermine the authority of Parliament. They have taken decisions in advance of possible parliamentary decisions. Surely that must colour the nature of today's debate.
  If the Bill is passed in just over an hour's time, it will not get rid of the poll tax. It will perpetuate it for another 13 months, with all the injustices that flow from it. As I said, the cases of 11,051,000 people in England and Wales have already appeared before the courts and 250,000 of them have turned up in court to argue their case. It is because of their appearance that the problem of hearsay evidence came to light. Lords amendment No. 57 is supposed to address that problem, but it fails to do so.
  As of 31 December, 28,325 hours of court time have been taken up by the poll tax and, according to Ministers, that has cost £217 an hour, which is equivalent to £6 million in court time. The vast majority of people who have been dragged before the courts are unable to pay the poll tax. So far, 11,259 means inquiries have been conducted, but no instruction has been given to magistrates to remit, in part or in whole, an outstanding poll tax debt or, as a result of the new legislation, an outstanding council tax debt. I have asked Ministers to issue such an instruction, but the amendments tabled by the Government do not address that issue.
  Such an instruction should be given when it is apparent that a person cannot afford to pay his debt. I would prefer such powers of remit to be enacted at the liability order stage or, even better, that local authorities should have the power to write off that debt. Housing committees and housing chairmen have always had the power to write off rent arrears when someone is unable to pay and a similar power should be given to local authorities in respect of the poll tax. That has not happened and we have ended up with court cases by the tens of thousands in which there is no opportunity for a solid legal defence to be put.
  Imprisonment for the civil debt of the poll tax is about the only occasion when one can be sent to prison for a maximum of three months without enjoying the right to the presence of a solicitor to ensure that one is dealt with fairly. The duty solicitor scheme does not apply to the poll tax. In July, I met the Lord Chancellor and asked him to change the rules either to make the duty solicitor scheme applicable in such cases or to grant legal aid at least in those cases where people are about to be sent to prison.
  Earlier on, we talked about Ernest Saunders, but we could also cite the Maxwells and others who have no problem in getting hold of barristers who can charge £20,000 a day. The Minister will be aware of the solicitors who lobbied in Central hall a few weeks ago and of the strike that is taking place in the south of England because of concerns about legal aid. That strike is in protest against charges of £50 an hour for solicitors in criminal legal aid

  337
  work being insufficient. In these civil cases, charges are similar, and people who can afford £50 for a solicitor can afford to pay their poll tax in the first place.
  The amendments from the other place will not stop the injustice of people being sent to prison for inability to pay. That is clearly the reason for non-payment in the cases of the 180 people who have so far been sent to prison—I have dealt with the families of those involved in most of the cases. Of those 180, there have been at least 15 pensioners, four people whose only income is disability benefit and at least 35 people whose only income is income support. Had they had solicitors, it is probable that magistrates would have remitted, in part if not in whole, the debts for which they were being charged.
  Mr. SkinnerPerhaps my hon. Friend would like to comment on the fact that in the past few days, we have heard about writs being issued on behalf of these people with money at Lloyd's who were supposed to pay their debts but did not want to. They were gambling at this posh gambling den known as Lloyd's and when the money came in, they took it. When they had to pay out some money, they decided that they were not going to. I have not heard any talk from those on the Government Front Bench about these non-Lloyd's payers who are trying to get out of their responsibilities.
  Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps it would strain your patience too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to use the example of the Caribbeans who had their debts written off two or three weeks ago by the Minister for Overseas Development, or the £14·5 billion-worth of debt written off for privatised companies. However, I do not intend to stray any further down that road, as I do not wish to try your patience.
  The Government should give a pledge to bring Scottish and English law into harmony. This involves not only bailiffs and what can or cannot be taken in the form of distress and distraint—we shall debate that when we consider a Lords amendment to the Bill—but imprisonment. Five years ago, the Government, including all those who are at the moment sitting on the Treasury Bench, voted in favour of imprisonment for debt being abolished in Scotland when the House considered the Debtors (Scotland) Bill. Despite repeated demands from Labour Members, not least from me, the Government have never introduced legislation to allow the same to take place in England and Wales and to stop this mediaeval barbarity of using imprisonment for civil debt as a weapon of fear over the poorest sections of the community in England and Wales.
  Instead, the Government have introduced regulations to extend the powers that are set out in the Bill from two to six years. It is an admission of failure that the Government do not think that authorities will be able to collect debts within two years. Despite the Minister saying that it is all about the abolition of the poll tax, the Bill allows local authorities to use the barbaric methods of imprisonment, bailiffs, distress and distraint for a further four years on top of the original two years. That should have been amended, but it will not be.
  I have two more points to make, and these are on the detail of the amendments, which I feel should be debated at greater length than the guillotine will allow. Some of the
  338
  amendments will prescribe the individuals who can act as bailiffs in the collection of poll tax debt. At the moment, there is no restriction on who may act as a bailiff in a poll tax case. Local authorities are not required to employ only certificated bailiffs. Any private citizen can act as a bailiff and there are legions of stories from, among others, the National Consumer Council, about the way in which such bailiffs operate.
  For example, a woman's wedding ring valued at £147 was taken in pursuance of debt, and sold for £14 by the bailiffs, who then took their commission out of that money before putting it towards payment of the debt. In another example, a car worth £700 was sold for £70 and again bailiffs took out their commission. There can be no sensible recovery of debt from such methods. They are only a way to engender in the minds of other people the fear that they may be treated in the same way.
  The amendments will give the Government power, after the Lord Chancellor has had his review in three months' time, to bring in conditions as to who can and cannot be a bailiff and to prescribe what goods can be taken. On a matter as important as this, we should not be handing the Government a blank cheque. If they cannot bring before the House, at the same time as the Bill is supposed to complete its final changes, the detail of what they wish to implement, the House should not give them the authorisation to continue.
  I know that this is slightly outwith the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it will take two sentences to explain. If I brought before the House an Industry Bill that would give a Labour Secretary of State the power to nationalise any company at some point in the future and told Conservative Members that in three months' time I would produce a list of companies that we intended to nationalise, there would be mayhem. They would say, "You can't do that." But that is what they are doing with this Bill. It is enabling legislation that will hand to the Government a blank cheque, just a few days in advance of the calling of a general election.
  Computer evidence is dealt with in Lords amendment No. 57. I tabled an amendment on this, which I accept is starred and therefore not formally before the House so I cannot divide the House on it. However, perhaps I can use it to illustrate why I think that the drafting of the amendment is defective. The amendment on the use of computer evidence in courts allows, under the Civil Evidence Act 1968, something that should have been introduced years ago—the use of computer records in magistrates courts.
  However, what the amendment does not do but what everything else in that Act has done is give advance notice to the defendant of the document or record that has been brought as part of the case. That is defective, because it means that what can be presented on the day is a record that the defendant and, if he is lucky, his legal adviser cannot check as they could do in any other circumstance at any other court under the provisions of the 1968 Act. We should have more time to debate that, so that others of my hon. Friends can take it up.
  In Coventry, as in other places, two-year-olds have been dragged before the courts. We have seen distraught families whose deceased relatives have been summoned before the court because of computer—[Interruption.] It is not funny. I have dealt with those families and I know that it leads to great trauma. I will not mention his name because he is not present in the Chamber, but an hon.

  339
  Friend of mine, whose wife died five years ago, has repeatedly received notices, from the computer, asking for her poll tax payment. It is as distressing for him as it is for my constituents. If we had a minimum of seven' days notice before such records could be used in the courts, perhaps summonses would not be issued to two-year-olds and deceased people.
  I have a technical point that I wish to put on the record. I gave the Minister some advance notice of it, so perhaps when he is winding up he will have had some advice from his civil servants. I am advised by the barristers for my constituents whose case went to the High Court at the end of February to test the rules on computer evidence that, as drafted, Lords amendment No. 57 will enable local authorities to bring computer records before magistrates courts to prove payment. However, computer records cannot be used in magistrates courts to prove non-payment. To achieve that, the words of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 should have been used, because it raises the question of negative hearsay.
  As I have said on more than one occasion, I am not a legal expert. Like many other hon. Members, I take legal advice. However, there is a body of law, not least that concerned with the Walsall magistrates in the past year or so, in which the High Court has ruled that, when there is hearsay evidence, only Parliament is allowed to rule. Magistrates are not allowed to interpret.
  I hope that the Bill will fail, because it perpetuates the poll tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) rightly said, the council tax is a dog's dinner and is no better. It would perpetuate many of the injustices toward ordinary people.
  I warn the Minister, in what is probably the final debate on the Bill before an election is called next week, that if he thinks that his legal problems in courts throughout the country, including the High Court, are over because of the introduction of Lords amendment No. 57, we shall see him back in the High Court in weeks to come.
  Mr. Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We intend to vote against the timetable motion and it normally takes the House 14 or 15 minutes to divide. Can you advise us on whether that 14 or 15 minutes will be included in the two hours allocated for the debate? If that time will also be lost, does not that add insult to injury by denying us yet another period of time in addition to the two hours, which is already pathetically inadequate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): If the allocation of time motion is approved by the House, I shall be bound by it. It includes the following provisions:
  "the proceedings … shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order."
  That means that the 15 minutes or whatever time is taken by a Division will be included in the time allocated for debating the matter.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has made another forceful, forthright and immense contribution to the debate. I do not agree with him and seldom do. But the hon. Gentleman was awarded an accolade of Back Bencher of the Year for his activity, assiduity—
  It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 ( Allocation of time to Bills).
  The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 205.

  Division No. 107]

  [5.10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Farr, Sir John

  Alexander, Richard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Allason, Rupert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Amess, David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Amos, Alan

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forth, Eric

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ashby, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Atkins, Robert

  Franks, Cecil

  Atkinson, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  French, Douglas

  Baldry, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gill, Christopher

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Benyon, W.

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gorst, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

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

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowis, John

  Grist, Ian

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Ground, Patrick

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hague, William

  Bright, Graham

  Hanley, Jeremy

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

  Hannam, Sir John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

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

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harris, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Butler, Chris

  Hayward, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cash, William

  Hill, James

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jackson, Robert

  Curry, David

  Janman, Tim

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

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Roger (B'ham Nthfield)

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knox, David

  Evennett, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fallon, Michael

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  341

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rost, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lightbown, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shelton, Sir William

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shersby, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Squire, Robin

  Mans, Keith

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mills, Iain

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thorne, Neil

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trippier, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steve

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waller, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Paice, James

  Ward, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Watts, John

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wilkinson, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Price, Sir David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Raffan, Keith

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Rathbone, Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Mr. Neil Hamilton.

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Beith, A. J.

  Anderson, Donald

  Bell, Stuart

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bellotti, David

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Benton, Joseph

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Blair, Tony

  Barron, Kevin

  Blunkett, David

  Battle, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Beckett, Margaret

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Beggs, Roy

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  342

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Ingram, Adam

  Caborn, Richard

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Kennedy, Charles

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Carr, Michael

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Cartwright, John

  Lambie, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lamond, James

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Leighton, Ron

  Clelland, David

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lewis, Terry

  Cohen, Harry

  Litherland, Robert

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Corbett, Robin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cousins, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Crowther, Stan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cryer, Bob

  McCartney, Ian

  Cummings, John

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McFall, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Darling, Alistair

  McKelvey. William

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McLeish, Henry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dobson, Frank

  Madden, Max

  Doran, Frank

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Marek, Dr John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Martlew, Eric

  Enright, Derek

  Maxton, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meale, Alan

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Michael, Alun

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fisher, Mark

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flannery, Martin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flynn, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foster, Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Foulkes, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Nellist, Dave

  Galbraith, Sam

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  O'Brien, William

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  O'Hara, Edward

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gordon, Mildred

  Parry, Robert

  Gould, Bryan

  Patchett, Terry

  Graham, Thomas

  Pendry, Tom

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Prescott, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hain, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Hardy, Peter

  Randall, Stuart

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Redmond, Martin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Haynes, Frank

  Reid, Dr John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Richardson, Jo

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Robertson, George

  Henderson, Doug

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rooney, Terence

  Home Robertson, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hood, Jimmy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Short, Clare

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

  Illsley, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  343

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Snape, Peter

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Soley, Clive

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Stephen, Nicol

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Stott, Roger

  Worthington, Tony

  Strang, Gavin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Trimble, David

  Turner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Walley, Joan

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Order of the House [12th November] be supplemented as follows:—

  Lords Amendments
  1. The proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

  2. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph I above—

  (a) Mr Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) Mr Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr Speaker shall
  344
  put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

  Stages subsequent to first consideration of Lords Amendments
  3. Mr Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

  4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

  5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Supplemental
  6.—

  (1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

  (2) Such a Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

  7.—
  (1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Orders of the Day
  Local Government Finance Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Local Government Finance Bill
    Clause 3

      MEANING OF "DWELLING"
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 22, leave out from ("which") to line 23 and insert—

      ("(a) is a composite hereditament for the purposes of Part III of the 1988 Act; and

      (b) would still be such a hereditament if paragraphs (b) to (d) of section 66(1) of that Act (domestic property) were omitted,")

      5.23 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 12 to 14 and 16. Lords amendment No. 1 involves privilege.
      Mr. Key: In Committee we debated the purpose of clause 3 and the difference between clause 3 of this Bill and the schedule to the Local Government Finance and Valuation Act 1991. The matter was similarly debated very fully in Committee in another place. In the course of those debates, the Government made it clear that the intention is to ensure that only properties that include living accommodation should be subject to the council tax. Garages, storage premises, yards, gardens and such like, which under rating were hereditaments in their own right, should not be chargeable dwellings.
      Amendment No. 1 puts it beyond doubt that the same should apply to any composite hereditament that does not include living accommodation. The amendments specifically exclude from the definition of a dwelling any composite hereditament which is only a composite by virtue of the fact that it includes a domestic garage, storage premises, yard, garden or other domestic property that is not living accommodation. Amendment No. 2 is consequential.
      Composite properties will quite properly be subject to both non-domestic rates and the council tax. Valuation for each will take account only of non-domestic and domestic uses as appropriate and will achieve a fair balance between the two taxes. If the balance of use of a composite changes or, more significantly, it becomes or ceases to be a composite hereditament, its valuation for non-domestic rating may change. The amendments give the potential for a corresponding change in valuation for the council tax. I commend them to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 43, leave out ("or substitute another definition for")
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment limits the Secretary of State's power to change the definition of a dwelling on the face of the Bill by order. The Bill originally permitted the Secretary of
      346
      State to substitute or amend the definition. The amendment takes away the power to substitute the definition of dwelling by order.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 6

      PERSONS LIABLE TO PAY COUNCIL TAX
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 10, at end insert—
      ("(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply as respects any day on which one or more of the persons there mentioned fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act (the severely mentally impaired) and one or more of them do not; and liability to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day shall be determined as follows—

      (a) if only one of those persons does not fall to be so disregarded, he shall be solely liable

      (b) if two or more of those persons do not fall to be so disregarded, they shall each be jointly and severally liable.")

      The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10, 21, 22 and 24. All the amendments in this group involve privilege.
      Mr. Portillo: Lords amendment No. 4, and the amendments grouped with it, are about joint and several liability where one of the liable persons is severely mentally impaired.
      This was a matter which we discussed at length in Committee in the House. The Government were extremely concerned that the system should not be unfair. I explained that there were difficulties in trying to legislate for the private financial affairs of households.
      I can well understand concern about a severely mentally impaired person being jointly liable for a council tax bill, but, as I explained in Committee, there will be cases where the interest in the property and all the resources will be in the name of the person who is impaired. There are obvious difficulties in providing that the sole liability should fall on the partner with no resources. In practice, it is clear that there would be no question of pursuing a person who was severely mentally impaired, and that in circumstances such as I have described, arrangements would be made for the bill to be paid.
      Nonetheless, there continued to be concern. Opposition amendments were moved in another place, and carried. Those amendments were intended to prevent joint and several liability for the council tax from applying to people who are severely mentally impaired. But the effects of the amendments were unclear. Although they removed joint and several liability from the person with the impairment, it was unclear where the liability would fall. Indeed, the Opposition seemed not really to have thought through the way liability should work in these circumstances. However, following very helpful discussions, in which it was recognised that the situation was not straightforward, the Government were able to bring forward the amendments on Third Reading in the House of Lords, where they were accepted by the Opposition.
      A particular problem arises in the case of a couple where the partner with the impairment has the sole interest in the property. He or she will continue to be liable, jointly

      347
      and severally, with the other spouse or partner, but it would be wrong to provide that a partner who has no interest in the property should nonetheless be solely liable for the council tax on it. We have ensured that no person who is severely mentally impaired can be made liable when there are other liable people in the property, but we do not believe that it is right to impose sole liability where it would not otherwise exist.
      I was a little puzzled by what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said when he spoke on the timetable motion. He implied that there remained disagreement between the Government and the Opposition over the issue. First, the Opposition have not tabled an amendment to the Lords amendment. In another place, Baroness Hollis said on behalf of the Opposition:
      "My Lords, I shall be very brief. I should like to express our thanks to the noble Lord for coming back with amendments which will adequately reflect in drafting terms the intentions of your Lordships' House. We are delighted to support them."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 February 1992; Vol. 536, c. 399.]
      I hope that the Opposition in this House will take the same attitude today.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. David Blunkett: I shall be as brief as is necessary for the guillotine resolution to be effective. There is no fundamental disagreement between the Government and the Opposition about the amendment. However, we regret that it was due only to the diligence of Members in another place and their willingness to challenge the Government that the amendment has been introduced to resolve the outstanding problems.
      We are aware that there are still outstanding questions that concern housing associations about those who will become liable for bills where there is multiple occupation—for example, those people who are not suffering from Alzheimer's disease but who share a dwelling with a sufferer. There is also the question of the liability of the owner of the property.
      We understand the technical difficulties. It will not be long, I hope, before we are in a position to draw on the vast expertise currently available to the Government.
      Mr. Bellotti: There have been many discussions about joint and several liability and, at last, the Government have conceded that principle in one minor area. It is a great shame that we cannot persuade them, even at this late stage, to consider the principle even further. With any property-based tax, there is the problem of who is responsible for paying it. The Lords amendment, which the Government are prepared to accept, will at least bring some small comfort to a small number of people. However, I suspect that there will be many disagreements about whether a person will qualify under the amendment.
      The last thing that we would want to do with a person who suffers from a mental handicap of any sort would be to subject him and his family to the sort of inquiries that would be necessary to establish whether, under the amendment, that person would qualify not to be jointly and severally liable.
      At least the Government have had something of a shock. It is a shame that they did not feel able to consider the rest of the principle. We will not reject the few small crumbs of comfort available, but we remind the Government that property taxes are unfair because they
      348
      do not relate either to the ability to pay or to the ability to take the decision to pay. In that regard, the ability to know that a tax is necessary and that it must be paid is perhaps more important that the ability to pay.
      We warmly welcome the amendment, although the Minister went far too far when he suggested that the Government were concerned about unfairness. If they had any such concern, the council tax Bill would not be before us and the poll tax legislation would have been repealed a long time ago.
      Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 5, line 12, leave out from ("person") to end of line 13 and insert
      ("as regards whom the following conditions are fulfilled—

      (a) he has a material interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling; and

      (b) at least part of the dwelling or, as the case may be, of the part concerned is not subject to a material interest inferior to his interest;")

      Mr. Key: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that the amendment involves privilege. With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 6, 9, 20 and 23.
      Mr. Key: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 redefine "owner" for the purposes of the council tax.
      Clause 6 provides for the owner of a dwelling to be liable to pay the council tax where there are no residents. The amendments made in the other place revise the definition of "owner". The new definition is based on a person's interest in the dwelling and covers both freeholders and long leaseholders. It is similar to the definition currently used for the standard community charge, under which the owners of unoccupied property are liable.
      Clause 8 contains a power to place liability on the owner of prescribed dwellings instead of the residents. There is also a power to prescribe who should be regarded as the owner in certain cases. The new definition of "owner" may not, however, cover the person on whom it would be appropriate to place liability in all situations. Amendment No. 9 clarifies the position with regard to the definition of "owner". It extends the order-making power to provide for liability to be placed on a prescribed person in particular cases.
      Dwellings occupied by Church of England ministers are one such example. We do not believe that those ministers should be liable to pay council tax on dwellings which they occupy in order to perform their duties. We discussed that matter in some detail with the Church authorities and agreed that the Church should be liable. However, the definition of "owner" introduced by amendments Nos. 5 and 6 would not, in all cases, cover the appropriate Church body. Amendment No. 9 allows us, through regulations, to place liability on the Church in the form of the Diocesan Board of Finance. The provision also allows for flexibility should difficult cases arise in the future.
      The amendments are necessary to ensure fairness and they will assist in the administration of the council tax. I commend them to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with special entry.

    Clause 24

      ALTERATION OF LISTS
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 15, line 8, after ("to") insert
      ("the whole or any part or').
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 15, 17, 25, 26 and 28.
      Mr. Bennett: Amendments Nos. 11 and 25 clarify the position in relation to a relevant transaction in the rare circumstances that there is more than one freehold interest in a dwelling.
      Amendments Nos. 17 and 28 also relate to the revaluation of dwellings following a sale, making it clear that the building, engineering and other operations referred to in the definition of "material increase" relate only to the dwelling concerned.
      Amendments Nos. 15 and 26 make it clear that a listing officer or assessor may alter the initial valuation band shown on the valuation list if he agrees that it is wrong.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 65

      DUTY TO CONSULT RATEPAYERS
      Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 43, line 34, leave out from ("prescribed") to ("and") in line 35.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 19.
      Mr. Bennett: These are technical amendments to improve the drafting of the Bill. Clause 115 provides that prescription under the Bill will be by regulations made by the Secretary of State. That renders unnecessary two references in clause 65(6) to prescription by regulation. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 therefore remove the superfluous words.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with Special entry.

    Clause 87

      ALTERATION OF LISTS
      Lords amendment: No. 27. in page 59, line 10, after ("payments") insert ("or repayments").
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Clause 87(8)(a) provides for regulations to be made requiring a person to make adjustments to his council tax payments to reflect an alteration to the banding of his dwelling. It is thought that the clause would allow regulations to require payment to be made or to provide for repayment of overpaid amounts. However, the absence of the word "repayments", which appears in the equivalent
      350
      English clause—clause 24—may cast doubt on that. The amendment, which is purely technical, would remove any such doubt.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 94

      SUBSTITUTED AND REDUCED SETTINGS
      Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 64, line 20, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert
      ("Schedule 7 to this Act")
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. The amendment corrects a minor drafting error.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 30, after clause 101, to insert the following new clause

      SUBSTITUTED AND REDUCED SETTINGS

        Transitory enforcement provisions for England and Wales
        (".—(l) Schedule 4 to the 1988 Act (community charges: enforcement) shall he amended as follows.

        (2) In paragraph 7 (distress), after sub-paragraph (3) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

        "(3A) The regulations may include provision that—

        (a) no person shall make a distress unless he is an officer of the authority concerned, or he is a person of a prescribed description and any prescribed conditions are fulfilled;

        (b) no person making a distress shall seize goods of a prescribed description."

        (3) In paragraph 8 (commitment to prison), in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for the words "it appears to the authority that no (or insufficient) goods of the debtor can be found" there shall be substituted the words "the person making the distress reports to the authority that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the debtor".

        (4) After paragraph 13 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

        Admissibility of evidence
        13A.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may include provision that, in any proceedings before a magistrates' court under any provision included by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule—

        (a) a statement contained in a document of record shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible; and

        (b) a certificate which is made with respect to a document of record produced by a computer and purports to be signed by a responsible person shall he admissible as evidence of anything which is stated in it to the best of his information and belief.

        (2) In this paragraph—

        'document of record' means a document constituting or forming part of a record compiled by the authority concerned;

        'responsible person' means a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer;

        'statement' includes any representation of fact, whether made in words or otherwise."

        (5) In paragraph 15 (joint and several liability), in sub-paragraph (3), for the words "it appears to the authority concerned that no (or insufficient) goods of that person can be found" there shall be substituted the words "the person making the distress reports to the authority that he was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods of the chargeable person".")
        Read a Second time.
        Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a) in line 38, at end insert
        'who can be made available to the court to testify to the proper and secure operation of the computer, and the accuracy of the record'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 31, 37 and 55 to 57.
        Mr. Cohen: The amendment concerns personal privacy, which the Government are guilty of invading. My amendment would ensure that a responsible person would have to be made available to the court to testify to the proper and secure operation of the computer and the accuracy of the record before computer evidence for the council tax could be used in court. That would ensure that evidence from council tax computers was admissible in court only if rules similar to those adopted under sections 68 and 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 also applied.
        If, at the end of the legal process, the Government intend to imprison poll tax or council tax payers who cannot pay their debts, the evidence that sends them to prison must stand up to cross-examination in court. As a prison sentence might be involved, one would expect the rules of evidence to be analogous to those used by the police when they present evidence that ultimately sends a criminal to prison. That particularly applies to a number of those poll tax payers caught by the 20 per cent. rule who have been sent to prison.
        Section 68 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act states that any documentary evidence must be presented in court, supported wherever possible first-hand by a witness. The same should apply here. Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act states:
        "a statement in a document produced by a computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein unless it is shown—

        (a) that there arc no reasonable grounds for believing that the statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer;

        (b) that at all material times the computer was operating properly, or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents."

        Various sections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act require a witness to be a responsible person who can be cross-examined and sign a certificate that states that in his knowledge the operating conditions of the computer were those outlined in section 69 during the production of the documentary evidence.
        If that is appropriate for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which sets out the process used to send other people to prison, it should be appropriate in relation to the council tax and that is the fundamental point of my amendment which should be addressed by the Government.
        Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41 also refers to the need to safeguard privacy which is even more relevant under the council tax than the poll tax.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will realise that, first, it has not been selected and, secondly, it is out of their Lordships' hands.
        Mr. Cohen: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am slightly confused because I have an amendment (a) to both Lords amendment No. 30 and Lords amendment No. 41 and I was not sure which had been selected.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are dealing with Lords amendment No. 30.
        Mr. Cohen: I hope that the Minister will respond to the point I made. The rules under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act should also apply here if, at the end of the day, people are to be sent to prison for civil debt, which is something that I oppose.
        5.45 pm
        Mr. Dave Nellist: I shall be brief, because I have made my points earlier. We are debating the transitional enforcement provisions and the admissibility of evidence. I ask the Minister to reply to the following three points. First, may we have a clear statement on the question of retrospection? According to the letters that I quoted earlier from the Department of the Environment and the Home Office, the taking of cases for judicial review has been almost couched in terms of advice to courts that there would be no problem in proceeding and that judicial reviews could not take place more than three months—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I make it clear that we are dealing with amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 30. Perhaps when we have disposed of that we can ask the Minister to move Lords amendment No. 30. I am advised that it will be in order for us to discuss them together.
        Mr. Nellist: My understanding is that, while the judicial review usually takes place within three months of the question in the lower courts that needs to be examined occurring, it is at the discretion of the higher court. What is the Government's position on that?
        Secondly, this group of amendments, particularly No. 30, speaks of regulations being brought in. I understand that, once the Act receives Royal Assent, which I understand is scheduled for tomorrow, the regulations regarding evidence will be tabled and those regarding bailiffs will follow the Lord Chancellor's review. Some time ago I asked whether those regulations had been drafted, and I was told that they had not. Are they ready now, and will they be tabled tomorrow? The Minister should answer that.
        Finally, admissibility of evidence in the cases with which I have been involved with the Coventry magistrates, the city council and the hearing in February at the High Court, revolved around the use of computer evidence and the liability order stage. What about the burden of proof and the use of computers for the posting of demands and notices? That is also hearsay evidence as far as the Civil Evidence Act of 1968 is concerned. Is that contained within the amendments and the regulations to be published or is it, as I understand local authority associations have said, a further area which is not covered by the regulations? If so, as I said earlier, we should have had more time to discuss this, because the amendments are defective.
        Mr. Blunkett: I sincerely hope that this will be the last formal speech that I make from the Opposition Front

        353
        Bench for the foreseeable future. It is a great shame that it has to be on the mess that we face at the moment in terms of non-collection.
        I well understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) in moving his amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 30. All of us will be mindful of the need to avoid mistakes, as has been referred to this evening, which would cause distress to families where payment had been made or liability did not exist.
        However, what we face is the result of what amounts to four years of absolute fiasco. From the passing of the poll tax legislation for England and Wales and some time earlier for Scotland, we have faced one administrative and political nightmare after another, a degree of incompetence never previously foreseen or experienced in Britain.
        The position that we face on the inadmissibility of computer records and the correcting of the position is another illustration of that. It would never have occurred and this matter would not be before us if it were not for the implementation of the poll tax with the misery and political and administrative difficulties that that has caused and the considerable legal problems, which have resulted in the discrediting of our legal system to which the poll tax has contributed.
        I do not dispute the number of summonses; I do not need to double-count. If they total more than 11 million, it is a fiasco in any terms, and creates a syndrome whereby non-payment or resistance to payment will be with us for some time. Every effort must be made to avoid that happening. I do not suggest that the poll tax is something which the public should have readily warmed to or accepted, but the problem of raising money to spend on essential services is something of which everyone should have cognisance.
        Disastrous difficulties have confronted local authorities in terms of local government credibility and the proper delivery of services. The sum outstanding of £1·5 billion has implications for the country's wider economy, the national debt, inflation—in terms of the impact on borrowing—increased future local authority expenditure because of that borrowing, and the regrettable imposition of additional charges to cover the expenditure necessary to maintain local authority services while the poll tax is collected. Those are the crucial issues that we must consider tonight.
        Also at issue is the Government's culpability in failing to heed early enough the warnings that they were given and to take action—not against those people who had paid their poll tax and were pursued, or who were not in any way liable but were requested to pay, but those who were genuinely liable. Many of them could afford to meet that liability but chose not to do so, and passed on their bills to someone else.
        Last July, Camden council quite properly brought to the attention of the Department of the Environment the inadmissibility of computer records and the dangers that created for the cases that it was pursuing. The Government refused to heed that council's warning, and to take notice of the Rating and Valuation Association conference debate last October. The Government refused to heed also the warnings given last November and December by local authority association technical working groups on the
        354
        proposed so-called council tax. The Government refused even to heed the warnings sounded by the court cases that were heard in the new year.
        Local authority officers raised the issue again in January, but it was not until 23 January that the Prime Minister's office made it known that action would be taken "shortly". A quarter of an hour of debate remains to consider the Bill, so more than six weeks seems a little longer than "shortly". The Government must unravel the mess that confronts local authorities, which they failed to assist in their efforts to collect the tax and to avoid the imposition of additional charges as a consequence of non-collection.
        We can only presume that the Government deliberately took six weeks to introduce this measure—never mind the previous six months. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said earlier, one can only conclude that they believed that there was more political mileage in the accumulation of outstanding poll tax and failure to collect than in taking immediate action—hence the response by the Secretary of State for the Environment to my hon. Friend's proposal more than five weeks ago that both sides of the House should co-operate in passing a one-day Bill to enact the necessary amendments.
        Instead, on 30 January, the Secretary of State suggested that the "antics" of the Labour party in delaying the final stages of the Education (Schools) Bill were responsible for the Government's failure to act at that time. Goodness knows what the Secretary of State thinks of the "antics" in another place earlier this week in respect of that deeply flawed and unacceptable legislation. His pronouncement was nonsense and a deplorable excuse.
        Consequently, the public will receive higher poll tax bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) pointed out that councils will incur enormous legal costs in addition to those that they have already suffered. Local authorities of every political persuasion will be confronted with the difficulty of picking up the pieces.
        The latest statistics show that Labour authorities have brought court actions against 29·47 per cent. of those liable for poll tax, whereas the figure for Conservative authorities is 22·76 per cent. No one wants to see that happen again, and I give those statistics only to show the enormous lengths to which local authorities have gone to collect poll tax.
        Haringey, which is reducing its poll tax, issued 149,000 liability orders. The figure for Camden is 110,000. An equally desperate situation exists in Kensington and Chelsea and in Barnet. The Conservative-controlled council in Barnet hoped to pursue 20,000 liability orders in the current calendar year, but has not managed to take action on even one, because of the computer records disaster.
        Who is liable for that situation? Who devised the poll tax? Who spent £14 billion introducing it—including the 2·5 per cent. increase in value added tax? Who would not listen to the Opposition's warnings of what would happen, and of the cries that would come from those who could not pay the tax? Who would not heed the warnings given about its uncollectability? My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham reminded the House of the Prime Minister's words about the "virtual uncollectability" of the poll tax. Who warned the Government that if they continued to impose the poll tax for another year, collection problems would grow much worse? It was Opposition Members.

        355
        We gave the Government warning after warning. We made request after request for the Government to take action. We pointed out that non-collection would arise and that those who could not afford to pay would experience pain and be the victims of the poll tax.
        We are in the last throes of a Session of which the Conservative party should be deeply ashamed. The Government ought to apologise tonight to all those who paid their poll tax but had unwarranted claims made against them, and to those who, through no fault of their own, have had to pick up the bill for non-collection. We deplore that situation. Those responsible for it are the Conservative Members seated opposite, and those who are not present in the Chamber but who are prepared to go through the Lobby with Ministers on the nod.
        The way in which the computer records issue has been handled may be just another example of the Government's complete indifference to the way in which the poll tax has impinged on the lives of ordinary men and women throughout the country. Alternatively, it may represent a deliberate decision to use the last dying cough of the poll tax—before we take office and act, first, to ameliorate the present position and then to abolish it—to gain what it is possible to gain: to acquire a kind of twisted political kudos by trying to blame local authorities for a problem that is of the Government's own making. Local authorities should not be expected to carry records for which they did not ask; the Government have brought about a fiasco.
        6 pm
        We have requested that the 20 per cent. contribution be abolished to help the process of collection and that immediate action be taken on computer records. We have supported the desire of local authorities for an advertising campaign to ensure that the maximum amount can be collected, in order to minimise borrowing and the misery that it has inflicted. None of our requests has been heeded. It has taken weeks for an amendment to be tabled in the House of Lords—and, because of the delay, court action cannot be organised for many more weeks: the current backlog means that it will be held up until April, May or even later.
        The Government should he ashamed of themselves; and the British public will know where to put the blame on 9 April.
        Mr. Portillo: As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) mentioned, we have served together for some time; even so, the sheer humbug of the Labour party still takes my breath away.
        The problem of computer evidence existed in the same form under the rates, but we did not know about it in those days. The problem has now come to the fore because non-payers—people who are determined to bust the laws of our country—have tried every ploy in the courts in an attempt to break the community charge law, and to defy legislation passed by Parliament. Labour Members of Parliament and Labour councillors who refused to pay ihe community charge, and urged their constituents not to pay it, played an important part in the attempt to create a culture of non-payment. That was a disgraceful campaign by legislators who asked others not to obey laws passed by the House of Commons.
        The hon. Member for Brightside, deeply embarrassed —rightly—by his party's dreadful record of complicity in the attempt to undermine Acts passed by Parliament, now
        356
        hopes somehow to claim some virtue on the ground of being an advocate of payment. He can claim no such virtue. His party is deeply stained by its efforts to undermine the works of the House, and deeply stained with the sin of non-payment. Indeed, it is worse than that: Labour has led people up and down the country to follow the example that it set, and to build up massive debts. Those people must redeem their debts, for there will be no amnesty; they will be pursued for a maximum of six years.
        Meanwhile, Labour Members have quit the scene. They have paid their community charge out of the fat salaries they receive, and they have dumped their constituents: they have left them in the lurch. Theirs is a disgraceful record, and nothing said by the hon. Member for Brightside can begin to mask what has occurred. The Labour party is deeply implicated in the creation of a culture of non-payment.
        The hon. Gentleman said that he had been prepared to offer the Government an opportunity to present a "quic:k Bill". Not only did Labour's record lead us to doubt its sincerity; that very evening, Labour Members were involved in disrupting Government business. That was a bogus offer, which could not be taken seriously.
        The amendments—apart from Lords amendment No. 57—relate to the process of enforcing the community charge, the non-domestic rate and in future the council tax, and in particular to enforcement by distress and committal. During the passage of the Bill in another place, a number of concerns were expressed about the activities of bailiffs and the amendments were brought forward in response to those concerns. Before describing the amendments, I should draw attention to the recent announcement by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that he is conducting a review of civil enforcement agents, including bailiffs. I am sure that the House will welcome that decision.
        In addition to the review, the Government felt that they should take two further steps on the community charge, non-domestic rate and council tax. The amendments propose two regulation-making powers. First, the Secretary of State would be able to prescribe the goods that a bailiff should not be able to distrain. The provision is intended to bring greater clarity to the work of bailiffs, and to ensure that items essential to the charge payer for his domestic and work use are protected from distraint. We propose to consult on the items that should be included in the list, and we are therefore not ready to make the regulations.
        Secondly, we propose a regulation-making power that will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe by description the persons whom local authorities may employ in community charge, non-domestic rate and council tax enforcement work, in addition to their own staff. We do not intend to use that power until the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's review is known—and only then, if we think it appropriate, in the light of full consultation. Again, the regulations are not imminent.
        The second part of Lords amendments No. 30, and Lords amendment No. 56, also relate to the activities of bailiffs. It has been argued that there is some ambiguity in the present law as it relates to the position where a bailiff seeking to levy distress fails to gain access to a property and the local authority wishes to institute committal proceedings. The amendment makes it clear that where a bailiff—for whatever reason, including failure to gain access—finds no or insufficient goods on which to levy

        357
        distress, the authority may institute committal proceedings. Lords amendments Nos. 31 and 37 ensure that Lords amendments Nos. 55 and 56 will take effect immediately on Royal Assent.
        Mr. Nellist: Surely the Minister realises that the committal procedure was originally intended not as a punishment, but to force people to pay up. How can he say that, if the bailiffs have not found sufficient goods for a debt to be met, an authority should proceed immediately to committal?
        Mr. Portillo: I did not say that that should take place immediately. It is not for me to say. What I do say is that the fact that a bailiff has been denied entry to a property should not then be used as a block to the next stage—if appropriate—of proceedings to committal. I can make no decision about how those proceedings should be conducted; that is for local authorities and courts to decide.
        The third part of Lords amendment No. 30, and Lords amendment No. 57, deal with the admissibility of computer evidence in community charge, non-domestic rates and council tax cases. As the House will be aware, some recent court decisions have thrown doubt on the ability of local authorities to present computer evidence of accounts in applying for liability orders against community charge defaulters. That uncertainty could not be allowed to continue, and, it is essential that local authorities should be able to present evidence of this type if the process of obtaining liability orders is to be manageable both for authorities and for the courts. The purpose of the amendments is to put the position beyond doubt as regards the community charge, the non-domestic rate and, in future, the council tax.
        The amendments provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations to do, in essence, two things. First, the regulations will make computer evidence admissible in relevant community charge, non-domestic rate and council tax hearings in the magistrates courts. The regulations that we propose to make as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent will cover hearings on the issue of liability orders, complaints about the levying of distress and committal to prison. Secondly, in presenting computer evidence, the local authority will be required to provide a certificate signed by a person responsible—for instance, the computer manager—stating that the computer that produced the documents in question was in proper working order to carry out the required task.
        358
        The computer evidence provisions are designed to make computer-generated documents admissible as evidence. With the documents, before it, it is for the court to weigh the evidence against any provided by the charge payer, and to decide whether it is satisfied that a charge has become payable and has not been paid.
        I emphasise to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that it is still for the court to decide on the issue before it. It is still for the court to weigh the computer and other evidence against evidence that may be presented by a defendant and to decide whether the community charge is payable or whether it has been paid.
        Amendment (a) would make that provision unworkable. It would require the officer who had signed a certificate to appear in court that on every occasion. I do not believe that that is necessary, but I stress that it is for the court to weigh the evidence.
        The hon. Member for Leyton will recognise that, generally, authorities will wish to be represented in court, albeit not necessarily by the officer who signed the certificate.
        Mr. Cohen: The essential point that I made in my brief speech was that the rules of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should apply to the collection of debt. Why is the Minister saying that that basic standard should not apply? Why should the rules be more lax for the poll tax and the future council tax than for other criminal cases?
        Mr. Portillo: I have been at pains to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the certificate says that the computer was in good working order and therefore attaches to computer-generated evidence. It is still for the court to weigh whether that evidence is sufficient compared with evidence that may be advanced by a defendant to prove that the community charge was payable but has not been paid. In considering which evidence outweighs the other, the court may wish to question a representative from the authority, but I believe that it should not necessarily be the officer who signs the certificate.
        It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of time), MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order this day.
        Question, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made, put and negatived.
        Lords amendment agreed to.
        Lords amendments Nos. 68, 73 and 77 agreed to.— [Special Entry.]
        Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Transport and Works Bill
As amended, (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
Transport and Works Bill
  Schedule 3

    AMENDMENT OF HARBOURS ACT 1964
    6.15 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 39, line 3, at end insert—
    '(6) In subsection (5), for the words "large-scale map" there shall be substituted the words "map of a scale not less than 1:2500".
    (7) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
    "(5A) Where a harbour revision order includes provision for extinguishing or diverting a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway, there must be annexed to the order a map of a scale not less than 1:2500 on which the path or way concerned, and in the case of a diversion the new path or way, are plainly delineated.".'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 82 and Nos. 76 to 80.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The amendments result from our debates in Committee on footpaths and bridleways in harbour areas and from representations made by organisations on behalf of footpath users, especially by the Ramblers Association.
    The affect of the amendments is to enable a harbour authority to use orders under the Harbours Act 1964 to stop up and divert a footpath subject to the constraints that normally apply to developers in the Highways Act 1980 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The one thing that we have not provided for in the Bill is consultation with bodies representing the interests of footpath users. We have agreed with the Ramblers Association that, on the comparatively rare occasions when footpaths are affected, we should ensure that it is consulted by administrative means. That assurance will be generally welcomed by all Members of the House and by the Ramblers Association.
    The specific issues that the amendments address are, first, the circumstances under which a harbour authority can use the powers under the Harbours Act for stopping up or diverting a public path; secondly, the criteria to be used by the Minister making such an order; and, thirdly, the procedural requirements for the notification and advertisement of any such proposal.
    Ms. Joan Walley: The amendments are welcome. I understand that there has been much consultation between the Department and the Ramblers Association. I should like to record our appreciation of the changes that have been made.
    Will the Minister be prepared to use his administrative powers to ensure that anybody likely to use paths around harbours and the areas covered is notified directly by an applicant for an order? We have made much progress and a notice will now make it clear which footpaths will be changed, but it would be helpful if the Minister would
    360
    assure us that, under amendment No. 78, he will ensure that an applicant directly notifies user groups of changes to footpaths.
    Mr. McLoughlin: With the leave of the House, may I say that that is certainly our intention, and we hope to abide by that spirit.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 82, in page 39, line 10, at end insert—
    '(4) In subsection (7), for the words "large-scale map" there shall be substituted the words "map of a scale not less than 1:2500".
    (5) After subsection (7) there shall be inserted—
    "(7A) Where a harbour empowerment order includes provision for extinguishing or diverting a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway, there must be annexed to the order a map of a scale not less than 1:2500 on which the path or way concerned, and in the case of a diversion the new path or way, are plainly delineated."
    2A. In section 17 (procedure for making harbour revision and empowerment orders) after subsection (2) there shall he inserted—
    "(2A) Neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall make a harbour revision or empowerment order which provides for extinguishing a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway unless he is satisfied—

    (a) that an alternative right of way has been or will be provided, or

    (b) that the provision of an alternative right of way is not required.

    (2B) Neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall make a harbour revision or empowerment order which provides for diverting a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway unless he is satisfied that the path or way will not be substantially less convenient to the public in consequence of the diversion."
    2B. In section 18 (harbour reorganisation schemes) in subsection (3), for the words "large-scale map" there shall he substituted the words "map of a scale not less than 1:2500".'.
    No. 76, in page 39, line 25, at end insert—
    '3A.—(1) Section 57 (interpretation) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) After the definition of "the Boards" there shall be inserted—
    " "bridleway", in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 and, in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in Part III of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967;".
    (3) After the definition of "fishery harbour" there shall be inserted—
    " "footpath", in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 and, in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".'.
    No. 77, in page 39, line 33, leave out from 'bridleways' to the end of line 41 and insert
    'for the purposes of works described in the order or works ancillary to such works'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 40, line 18, at end insert—
    '(6) After paragraph 16 there shall be inserted—
    "16A. Imposing or conferring on the authority duties or powers (including powers to make byelaws) for the conservation of the natural beauty of all or any part of the harbour or of any of the fauna, flora or geological or physiographical features in the harbour and all other natural features.".'.
    The amendment adds to the objects for whose achievement harbour revision orders may be made under schedule 2 of the Harbours Act 1964.
    It is ultra vires for a Minister to insert, for environmental reasons alone, a direction in a harbour order. In other words, the Minister cannot insert any form of protection for environmental features in a harbour because the reasons for which harbours orders can be made do not include such matters.
    The amendment attempts to insert such provisions, not least for harbour revision orders. It attempts to amend schedule 2 of the Harbours Order 1964. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds does not believe that the Minister currently has the power of consideration of the environmental assessment to amend the draft order. The Minister should have that power, especially as the term "harbours" will encompass areas of outstanding natural beauty and great diversity of animal and plant life. I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept the amendment—I think that he might.
    Ms. Walley: We have pursued the issue of conservation duties and have expressed our concern about wildlife and fauna all along. We certainly hope that the amendment will be accepted.
    I have here copies of correspondence between me and the Minister and I shall read out a paragraph from one of his letters to me, because it might be helpful:
    "You also asked for an assurance that the Secretary of State would be able to refuse a harbour revision order on nature conservation grounds. I am happy to give that assurance. It would be perfectly proper for the Secretary of State to decide that the adverse environmental effects of a harbour works were such that the order should not be approved."
    Although that reply goes some way towards dealing with issues covered in the amendment, assurances from Secretaries of State and Ministers are not the same as a duty written into the Bill. We share that concern with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
    I understand that there is an analogy with other legislation currently under consideration—I am thinking of the Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Bill. If that Bill were to reach the statute book, it would impose a duty on various bodies
    "to have regard to the conservation of marine flora and fauna"
    during the discharge of their functions. If the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can incorporate such a duty into legislation being considered elsewhere, why at this stage have we only assurances, not a duty on the face of the Bill? I hope that the Minister will be able to accept one more concession.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The amendment is a small but useful provision which makes explicit the possibility of including conservation matters in harbour revision orders as in local Acts. I therefore recommend that the House supports it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 78 in page 40, line 23, at end insert—
    '(2A) In paragraph 3, after sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
    "(ba) if provision is proposed to be included in the order extinguishing or diverting a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway, the applicant shall—
    362

    (i) serve on every local authority for the area in which the path or way is situated a notice stating the effect of the provision, naming a place where a copy of the draft of the proposed order (and of any relevant map accompanying the application for the order) may be seen at all reasonable hours and stating that, if the local authority desire to make to the Secretary of State objection to the inclusion of the provision in the order, they should do so in writing (stating the grounds of their objection) before the expiration of the period of forty-two days from the date on which the notice is served on them;

    (ii) cause a copy of the notice to be displayed in a prominent position at the ends of so much of any path or way as would by virtue of the order cease to be subject to a public right of way;

    and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, 'local authority' means, in England and Wales, a county council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a parish or community council and a parish meeting of a parish not having a separate parish council and, in Scotland, a regional, islands or district council;".'.
    No. 79, in page 40, line 48, at end insert—
    '(7) In paragraph 14(3), for the words "(b) and (c)" there shall be substituted the words "(b) to (c)".'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

  Clause 60

    CERTAIN ENACTMENTS TO CEASE TO HAVE EFFECT
    Amendments made: No. 47, in page 29, line 29, leave out '40' and insert '24'.
    No. 48, in page 29, line 30, at end insert—
    'in section 25, the words from the beginning to "surface of the road" (except as incorporated in, or otherwise applied by, any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order),
    in section 25, the words "and shall not be opened" onwards.
    sections 26 to 40 (except as incorporated in, or otherwise applied by, any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order).'.
    No. 88, in page 29, line 32, leave out '64' and insert '47'.
    No. 89. in page 29, line 33, at end insert—
    'section 48.
    sections 49 to 64 (except as incorporated in, or otherwise applied by, any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order),'. —[Mr. McLaughlin.]

  Clause 62

    INTERPRETATION
    Amendment made: No. 96, in page 30, line 31, after 'Act', insert
    except where the context otherwise requires'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

  Schedule 4

    REPEALS
    Amendments made: No. 49, in page 41. line 16, column 3, leave out '40' and insert '24'.
    No. 50. in page 41, line 20, column 3. at end insert—

    363
    'In section 25, the words from the beginning to "surface of the road" (except as incorporated in, or otherwise applied by, any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order).
    In section 25, the words "and shall not be opened" onwards.
    Sections 26 to 40 (except as incorporated in, or otherwise applied by, any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order).'.
    No. 90, in page 41, line 22, column 3, leave out '64' and insert '47'.
    No. 91, in page 41, line 26, column 3, at end insert—
    'Section 48.
    Sections 49 to 64 (except as incorporated in, or otherwise applied by, any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order).'.
    No. 92, in page 41, line 50, at end insert—
    '52 & 53 Viet. c.14. The Town Police Clauses Act 1889.In section 3, the words from "duly licensed" to "Act of Parliament.".'.
    No. 93, page 42, line 23, column 3, at end insert—
    'In section I3(1)— the definition of "railway of the nature of a tramway";
    the definition of "tramcar";
    the words "and references to" to "Road Traffic Act 1960".'.
    No. 94, in page 42, line 25, at end insert—
    '8 & 9 Eliz. 2 c. 16. The Road Traffic Act 1960.In Schedule 17, the entry relating to the Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954.'.
    No. 97. in page 43, line 10, column 3, attend insert—
    'Section 124 (except as it applies in Scotland).'.
    No. 51, in page 43, line 16, at end insert—
    '1975 c. 53. The Public Service Vehicles (Arrest of Offenders Act 1975. The whole Act, so far as unrepealed.'.
    No. 52, in page 43, line 31, at end insert—
    364
    '1980 c. 66. The Highways Act 1980. In section 36(2), at the end of paragraph (c), the word "and".'.
    No. 80, in page 44, line 26, column 3, at end insert—
    1n section 57(1), the definition of "large-scale".'.
    No. 53, in title, line 2, leave out operation or use' and insert 'or operation'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, signified.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    6.26 pm
    Mr. Bob Cryer: The speed with which the Bill has just proceeded through the House shows how foolish the Conservative Whips were in failing to move the business motion when the Bill was last under consideration. The only purpose is to speed it through.
    We support the Bill. It was improved in Committee, and I am pleased that the Minister has accepted a number of amendments tabled by the Opposition to ensure that in some instances—although not in a satisfactory number —the order-making powers come back to the House through the negative procedure. I am delighted that the Minister saw the good sense in that and that the Bill has been so improved.
    The Bill was also improved in Committee as a result of ensuring that the powers to obtain light railway orders in Scotland are not made more complicated as was originally the case. The Minister accepted representations which ensured that light railway-making provisions are the same in England, Wales and Scotland.
    The Bill also ensures to some degree—although not entirely satisfactorily—that the waterways provisions are modified. Consultations were undertaken, again as a result of proper consideration in Committee. The Committee proceedings on the Bill were a model of how the Opposition can ensure that there is proper and adequate scrutiny and can produce improvements.
    The examination of the Bill has been worth while. It is a relatively minor Bill but it contains a number of important provisions because it replaces the method used previously—the private Bill procedure—which was often lengthy, cumbersome and unfairly expensive for British Rail.
    It was an historical quirk that railways were authorised by private Acts of Parliament promoted in the House by outside bodies. All the railways across the country have been so promoted, with the exception of those promoted through orders under the Light Railway Acts which are now repealed by the Bill. However, the vast bulk of railways were constructed under private Bills. The Bill will streamline matters, and rightly so.
    We must be cautious about handing powers to Ministers. That was the theme of many of my contributions in Committee and on Second Reading, and it is a theme now. We must be cautious, because a huge

    365
    number of powers are handed to Ministers but there is very little opportunity for them to be debated on the Floor of the House. We are reaching the stage when we need to re-examine the accountability of Ministers to the House for the subordinate legislation that they have the power to produce.
    The Bill simplifies matters and speeds things up. In a complicated society we need to give Ministers such powers —there is no quibble about that—but the question is how, when controversy arises, it can be focused, on the Floor of the House if necessary. If we as a House provide the Minister with powers not subject to any further parliamentary procedure, that opportunity will be denied to future Members of Parliament. That is wrong. That is why I regret that the powers in clauses 1 and 3 are still not subject to the negative procedure instruments that I proposed
    However, the Minister can rest assured that he and his successors—he will have a successor very soon—will be subject to careful scrutiny. Of course, hon. Members now sitting on the Opposition Benches will be sitting on the Government side of the House later next month—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.
    Mr. Cryer: I shall continue, despite rude interruptions from the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who is such a bane that I remember the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) criticising her severely for shouting out so often. That is not something that I do myself, so I hope that the hon. Lady will not keep up her tirade.
    The Minister and his successors should be subject to the scrutiny of the House, and I hope that they will be, whether or not they are specifically required to bring an instrument before the House.
    I should like the first occasion on which the Bill is used to be a link between the two stations in Bradford. I once introduced an Adjournment debate on the subject, but at the time the then local authority did not seem to have much enthusiasm for such a link. However, since then, land that was apportioned and planned for further retail development in the old Bradford Forster square station has become fallow. The retail development has fallen through, as a result of the enormous, deep and long-lasting recession created by the Government's economic policies.
    It would be helpful if the Bill could be used to provide a link between the Bradford interchange and Forster square station. Such a plan has been suggested in Bradford for at least 100 years. It would enable through trains to be operated, rather than there being two termini, with branch lines to Bradford. The present situation causes all sorts of operating difficulties. I imagine that that is exactly the sort of project that could be carried out effectively, cheaply and efficiently under the Bill.
    There will be no need for the complicated business of promoting a private Bill, as there would have been under the old system. Such a scheme would hitherto have come under one of the general British Railways Bills which tidied up a number of projects promoted by BR—a siding here, a loop line there, a connecting junction at the other end of the country, and so on. That was all perfectly legitimate, but it was expensive for British Rail.
    366
    The project that I have mentioned would be of enormous benefit to the people of Bradford, and it would be the ideal subject for a city grant. A few million pounds would help to create jobs and enable a viaduct to be built, joining the two stations by going round the newly built court house—incidentally, that cost £1 million per court; it was an expensive venture. That would provide through trains for the first time in the history of Bradford, and it would help develop inter-city connections and the railway network in and around Bradford. Clearly, that would be a beneficial effect of the Bill.
    The Bill represents an improvement. It places British Rail in a position more squarely comparable with the procedures and costs of promoting road improvements via motorways, bypasses and so on. That is only fair. If there is to be a better deal for railways, if we are serious about moving traffic from roads on to railways, British Rail should not be handicapped, compared with motorways. Road improvements should not have the advantage. The Bill changes things a little in British Rail's favour, while retaining that important degree of accountability.
    I want to see British Rail develop in future, and provide a better service. I hope that it will be a cheaper service, so that more people use it, and I hope that this relatively minor Bill will help to reduce the burden of congestion and pollution on the roads.
    I believe that it will take a Labour Government to put some real drive behind the policy of better rail facilities, rail use and rail development—in contrast to the lamentable policies that have been pursued by the Government. None the less, because the Bill represents a minor improvement in facilities, I shall vote for it if there is a Division tonight—especially bearing in mind the number of Opposition improvements that have been incorporated in the Bill.
    In spite of my reservations about going through the Lobby to vote for a Government Bill, I want to demonstrate that when we see an opportunity, we take it —such opportunities have been very few, I might say to my deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). These have been fallow years; we have had a desert of 13 years of Tory rule, and there has been little that we could support. But I think that my hon. Friend will agree that this is a legitimate occasion to vote for a Government Bill, especially when we bear in mind the part that he played in Committee, helping to organise the manifold improvements in the measure. Voting for the Bill will really be voting for the numerous Labour improvements to it—[Interruption.] In the midst of those turbulent and mischievous comments—
    Mr. Peter Snape: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will support the Government after the general election, too?
    Mr. Cryer: I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that, when I was on the Back Benches between 1974 and 1976, the then Government Chief Whip often used to stand in the entrance to the Lobby and ask me whether I was voting Labour again tonight. But I must also point out to anyone who might be in doubt that, as I voted more often than most hon. Members, I voted more often than most for the Labour Government as well. After the next general election, it will be my pleasure to vote more often than most for the next Labour Government.
    6.37 pm
    Mr. Roger Moate: What a pity that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was drawn back into reminiscences of the previous period of Labour Government, during which he was a Minister. At one moment he waxed eloquent, with all his optimistic and unrealistic thoughts about there being another Labour Government. He even said that such a Government would put more money into railways, although he must remember the times when he went into the Lobby to support a Labour Government who cut investments in the railways.
    However, I do not wish to remind the hon. Gentleman of such sad circumstances—
    Mr. Snape: We have seen the light.
    Mr. Moate: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) says that the Labour party has seen the light. Well, hope springs eternal, and the hon. Member for Bradford, South was diverted into flights of fantasy. It was a pity, because until then I agreed with everything he said —even his strictures about what the Government Whips did the other evening. They usually behave with great sensitivity and perfect judgment, but on that occasion they misunderstood the bipartisan nature of the proposals and the great investment made by hon. Members from both sides of the House in improving the Bill.
    In welcoming the Bill's Third Reading, I should like to place on record our thanks to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), who was in the Chair until a moment ago, for the tremendous effort that went into the reform of the private Bill procedure. The Bill is very much a reflection of that. We should not be here today had you and your colleagues not made considerable efforts to ensure that the matter was examined.
    I should like to record, too, our thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson), who chaired the Select Committee. A number of us served on that Committee which first sat almost five years ago. It has taken five years to get where we are today.
    I also record our tribute to the co-operation that we have received from hon. Members of all parties who have ensured that the Bill has been thoroughly scrutinised. That is as it should be. I disagreed with the hon. Member for Bradford, South when he said that the Bill was a minor piece of legislation. It is of immense significance. A system that has grown up over almost 150 years or perhaps even longer is to be changed by the Bill. It is of tremendous importance and will be of great convenience to Parliament. It will reduce the number of private Bills by 50 per cent. and it may reduce the time taken on private Bills by 75 per cent.
    I venture to suggest that the time saving would not have been enough of an argument to persuade the House to accept the proposal if there were not other powerful arguments. One is the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. I believe that the Bill will help genuine promoters and will help the construction of railways. That is as it should be. We are also introducing a system that is fairer to petitioners and objectors. Fundamentally, we are making it easier for local objectors to go to local inquiries and to put their case more
    368
    effectively and more efficiently. That sense of fairness has driven hon. Members to help to get the Bill on to the statute book.
    The Bill is tremendously important. I feel proud, as other hon. Members do, to have taken part in the changes which will ensure that we have a much better and fairer system for dealing with public works. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister who has taken the Bill through with great charm and skill. I also pay tribute to Opposition Members who have been so constructive. I also give rare praise—I say "rare" because it does not happen often—to the civil servants and staff who have created a clever Bill which deals with complex matters. They have engaged in an exercise in open government by being prepared to listen to representations in a way that is not often achieved in our legislative process.
    I hope that the legislation will reach the statute book by getting through before the election. Just as importantly, that would ensure that we have all the rules in place so that promoters will know this autumn that they can go through the new procedure and will be in no doubt that they will not have to use the old private Bill procedure instead. I hope that the Bill will receive its Third Reading and that this important piece of legislation will reach the statute book.
    6.42pm
    Mr. Fearn: On the whole, I welcome the Bill which could provide a mechanism through which to build, maintain and operate the public transport system that this country so desperately needs. There are one or two concerns, which came out time and again in Committee, about the power that will be wielded by the Secretary of State. Of special note to me was the fact that "matters of national significance" were not explained. We still do not know the criteria that define such matters. Perhaps that will be taken up in the other place.
    I admit to some satisfaction that my concerns about the procedural matters in clause 9, as expressed in my admendment in Committee, have been met halfway by the Government, in tabling amendment No. 85, which was agreed. The conservation bodies must now decide whether they want to pursue the matter further in the other place.
    I am especially disappointed that hon. Members who would like the permissible levels of alcohol for drivers to be reduced were unsuccessful in all the attempts to lower the permissible level for train drivers and related personnel. We were cheated out of the amendments tabled on the subject; they were never debated. The issue is important in ensuring the safety of the travelling public and I am sure that their Lordships will have something to say on the matter. I wish the Bill well on its way, especially as I succeeded with amendment No. 98 this evening.
    6.44 pm
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) mentions the amendments that were not considered on Report. I do not comment on the selection of amendments, which would be improper.
    Anyone who reads the debate in Committee and who read the report of the Second Reading debate will expect the Government to use the powers and regulations to drop the drink limit for train drivers.
    It is unacceptable that a professional:driver of a train, of a bus, of a coach or of a taxi should be able to take a

    369
    bottle of wine, to pour away one glass, to drink the other five and, if the driver were of a reasonable size, be below the criminal limit for driving a train or any other form of transport available to the fare-paying public.
    People may argue that it is difficult to have rules for train drivers which are different from the rules for the drivers of trolley buses. What happens if a tram hits a trolley bus? Can one driver be prosecuted at one level and the other driver at another? There are answers to that.
    Some may ask why a train driver, a coach driver or a cab driver should be prosecuted at a level that would be all right for an amateur driver. The answer is that people who are paid to exercise their profession should accept levels for crime and for health and safety at work regulations which are different.
    The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels on the matter. Many people drive professionally for their living, such as salesmen. They professionally use the roads as a means of earning their living. My hon. Friend must explain how we could expand the legislation. There is the possibility of inconsistency, which worries us.
    Mr. Bottomley: 1 have no problem at all with inconsistency. We should start with professional paid drivers who are carrying passengers, as trains, trams, trolley buses, coaches and cabs do. We have a definable group. We could then discuss whether heavy goods vehicle drivers are in a similar position because of the weight that they carry. Our misjudgments when we are affected by alcohol have greater consequences then.
    The question where the dividing line should come is different from the question of whether in primary legislation we set a limit at which a professional driver is up to five times more likely to be involved in a crash or collision, or to make a mistake. I will not speak at length because the matter would have been more suitable for debate on Report.
    There is no justification for the present limit in the Bill. The House of Lords may not change it.
    I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consult colleagues in the Department of Employment and to talk with the Health and Safety Commission which has the advantage of being a tripartite body. I ask him to see whether they will set up a steering group, including trade unionists, employers and representatives of the fare-paying public, and to have urgent consultation to see whether such a group will suggest a way in which to reduce the limit for public service professional drivers. If we did that, we should be able to use the powers in the Bill and to see which other powers should be used.
    My hon. Friend may say that we are here to talk only about the criminal law and that, under health and safety at work legislation, employers should be able to impose lower limits. I accept that.
    I declare that most train drivers would not dream of taking alcohol before driving. One reason why trains are so safe is the professionalism of the staff on the railways, which have a long and worthwhile tradition.
    It is worth reminding ourselves that, even if the number of deaths on the roads comes to a record low for the year,
    370
    about 4,500 people will still die. If that traffic was on the railways, the number would be only 150. That gives the scale of the change in safety.
    Mr. Robert Adley: I will tempt my hon. Friend. Does he agree that, if we wanted simultaneously to reduce deaths on the roads and to make British Rail the most profitable operation in the world, all we should have to do would be to introduce a one-clause Bill to apply the rules for safety and signalling on the roads which we apply on the railways? Is it not because we expect, as my hon. Friend has said, so much higher standards on the railways that we are willing to cast away human lives and to maim hundreds of thousands of people by being so lax about what happens on our roads?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes a point in support of the argument which is shared across the House. The amendment, which was not selected on Report, had all-party support. My hon. Friend's point is that there is a good argument for having a lower limit for professional drivers. That is why trains have higher safety standards.
    I remember the six people who died and the more than 100 who were injured at Eltham Well Hall about 19 years ago in a crash in which the train driver was well above the limit in the Bill. I do not pretend that a significant number of train drivers take alcohol before driving, and the same applies to the drivers of coaches and cabs. The public deserve an assurance that the criminal law is there to protect them. The Health and Safety Commission could organise consultations in which the unions and other representatives of those involved in such work could come together and give their views. I suspect that their views would be the same as mine, but it is for them to speak for themselves.
    Mr. Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the topic was debated extensively in Committee? Reference was made to the accident at Eltham Well Hall. Does he accept that the behaviour of the driver was so uniquely appalling on that occasion that, even if the limit had been set at the lower level that the hon. Gentleman proposes, that behaviour would have been exactly the same and that it was also the result of some supervisory errors? The hon. Gentleman accepts that such behaviour is a rare occurrence.
    The Committee felt that it would be invidious for public service vehicle, train or metro drivers—that is the only group to which the Bill refers—to be breathalysed and arrested even though he or she had a lower level of alcohol than a bus driver perhaps involved in exactly the same accident. We want a lower limit for everyone.
    Mr. Bottomley: That is helpful. It is good guidance for my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not ask him for a detailed response because I suspect that it would not be different from the response that he gave to the Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich. East (Mr. Snape) that the professional limit should be the same, whether one is on rails or on tyres.
    I wish to make a few remarks on the other provisions of the Bill. It is important to ensure that, under the new procedure, the promoters of private legislation for both roads and railways reach the same standard that the Government ought to achieve more often on roads.
    I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the unsatisfactory decisions behind the answers that I

    371
    received today about Oxleas wood. I hope that private legislation on roads will not disregard a 400 m cut-and-cover tunnel, which would make a great deal of difference to those historic woods.
    I ask the Government to reconsider the decision that they appear to have made to disregard the inspector's report. It seems important that, when an inspector is convinced after a long inquiry, the Government should also be convinced.
    6.51 pm
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has reminded us of the tragedy that took place in his constituency. The whole House will agree that an anomaly is being introduced into the law of this country. It is that the driver of a train or public service vehicle carrying up to 1,000 passengers is subject under the criminal law to only the same law that applies to a person driving alone on the road. I do not understand, and I did not understand in Committee, why the Government could not have said that the limit for drivers of public service vehicles was nil. I do not see who could possibly object to that.
    Mr. Snape: Then let me record my objections. My hon. Friend knows full well that a zero limit is unenforceable and impractical.
    Mr. Spearing: Perhaps zero in precise scientific terms, which is the limit to which my hon. Friend refers, is impractical. But my hon. Friend knows the general drift of what everyone would wish in practical terms. I do not want to go hack into a Committee debate but the point illustrates—with learned Clerks and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at hand—what appeared a rather unusual selection.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has put into words what I would not dare to say. I make it plain that the amendment that was not called and which was supported by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, and the Labour Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), would have set a limit one quarter of that which applies to drivers on the road. That is virtually indistinguishable from a zero limit. It allows for the practicalities to which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred. It is virtually a zero limit.
    Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. But we are dealing with part I of the Bill. Although in some respects part II is consequential to part I, I suggest that it is a series of provisions which are not necessarily all contingent on part I.
    With another constituency example, the hon. Member for Eltham has shown us the dangers of transmitting powers to Whitehall and to one Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can turn down the recommendation of a long, thorough public inquiry. The inspector's report —in this case on Oxleas wood—can be disregarded virtually in the twinkling of an eye. Under that provision, unless the matter is of national significance, an inquiry can be disregarded. Important as Oxleas wood is for London, it cannot be regarded as other than a precedent. However, it shows the dangers inherent in the Bill.
    372
    You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or my colleagues will, that throughout the Committee stage and subsequently, I have expressed doubts about the method that has been adopted to get round the difficulty illustrated by Oxleas wood. The method is to hand to Whitehall powers which were formerly in the hands of Members of Parliament and thereby the representatives of the public. Previously, such matters were not simply left to the Government's discretion.
    Any Member of this Parliament or the next Parliament, and in particular of the next, who complains about loss of power of the House must examine what happened in respect of the Bill. Of course there were difficulties. Many of the private Bills that came before the House on Second Reading and in Committee should never have been private Bills. Many were contentious Bills which involved matters of public policy and would perhaps have been better dealt with as either hybrid or public Bills. With due respect to the Select Committee's thoroughness, it did not sufficiently look into possible ways of eliminating such Bills as private legislation from the Floor of the House.
    As we all know, the result of the private Bill procedure was often that individual Members of Parliament who had good cases, often hacked up by their hon. Friends, either saw to it either that there was a logjam to delay the progress of Bills coming up behind another measure or used the threat of time when speaking on private Members' legislation as a lever for something else. That brought the private Bill procedure into disrepute.
    In addition to that, there were genuine anxieties about private Bills, which I shared. A constituent of mine was told that, to progress a petition on the London Underground (Jubilee) Bill, he would have to expend £70,000. That is an enormous and ridiculous figure, but I saw it in writing. People in wigs and gowns take up the time of Members of Parliament in front of expensive counsel. That was criticised in respect of certain matters, including, for example, the Dartford crossing. That should never have happened, but the question that was not asked and certainly was not answered was how those abuses arid difficulties could have been avoided without handing over so much power to an individual Secretary of State and, in effect, officials who have to do a great deal of work.
    Make no mistake, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Bill will erect inside Whitehall a new bureaucracy in the Department of Transport. I have no doubt that the Department is preparing it all now. Unlike the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport has not been primarily involved in public inquiries before.
    We all agree that the local inquiry on planning matters has many advantages, but no one has asked whether we should not say that no private Bill can be deposited before the necessary equivalent planning permissions have been acquired through the planning process. If that had required a change of statute to extend the time available, we could have done it in respect of matters on which private Bills were necessary. That was not sufficiently investigated. If we had done that, we would have created a new template and a new gateway into the private Bill procedure, but it would have meant that there was thorough local consideration prior to receipt of a Bill in the House.
    All the issues which understandably might deter petitioners could be dealt with at a more local level, but there would also be a secondary and more important

    373
    effect. It would mean that details of the required legislation could be discussed and conciliation could take place before the Bill was drafted. In practice, someone takes a chance, produces a Bill which other people think outrageous, and there is a long-drawn-out struggle.
    I do not know whether you recall the Ginns and Gutteridge Leicester (Crematorium) Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which was debated for either six or 12 hours in the House on Second Reading. I shall tell hon. Members about that Bill if they do not remember it. It authorised a private company to establish a crematorium in the basement of undertaker's premises in the middle of a midlands city. That should never have come to the House as a private Bill, but it took up a lot of our time and added to the disrepute into which this type of private procedure has brought itself. Had planning permission been required before the Bill was submitted I do not believe that such permission would have even been sought, because under existing general law relating to crematoriums such an application would have been prohibited.
    Mr. Moate: In fact the Ginns and Gutteridge application went before the Leicester planning authority and was approved. It should not have come here; the hon. Gentleman is right. If someone wished to dispute it, it should have been revoked in the usual way. He is right in principle, but wrong in detail.
    Mr. Spearing: I am always open to correction and I am grateful for that intervention, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it does not destroy the principle that I was enunciating. I shall not comment on the Leicester planning inquiry into the matter.
    Let us hasten on. Many of the problems that we were concerned with in Committee would have been solved if those possibilities had been considered. By granting those powers to the Secretary of State of the day, we are probably storing up a great deal of trouble for ourselves.
    Clause 5(3) (a) contains the extraordinary provision that an order may
    "apply, modify or exclude any provision of an Act of Parliament (or of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament) which relates to any matter as to which an order could be made under section 1 or, as the case may be, 3"
    Note the word "relates" in the Bill, rather than "necessary for the completion or. Those are enormous powers and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has reminded us, as the Bill stands, unless the matter is of national significance an order will not even be subject to the negative procedure.
    Mr. Cryer: I think that my hon. Friend would accept that that is some qualification. I am delighted that he is as concerned as I am about the powers in delegated legislation. The so-called Education Reform Act 1988 contains much wider powers. For instance, there are 18 occasions when the Secretary of State can repeal, modify or amend, as he chooses, primary legislation. Although my hon. Friend is concerned about this Bill, the powers are qualified. In what I might dare to term more major pieces of legislation, the powers have not been so narrowly defined.
    Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what might be regarded by some people as a precedent. He almost underlines my argument, because I
    374
    do not think that those powers are necessarily proper in the field of education. However, I suggest that the powers of someone in an education institution or within education are not comparable to the creation of such things as the channel tunnel fast link.
    As the Committee agreed, during the next Session of the next Parliament the Secretary of State may well be able to approve the channel tunnel fast link from King's Cross to somewhere in the north downs after an hour and a half's debate—it might be longer but it need not be. That cannot be changed once it is put there, or not without enormous difficulty.
    Secondly, there is a great deal of difference between authorising works by planning permission and authorising powers. Powers and works are not the same thing. The powers and obligations of a promoter or someone running a transport system are fundamentally distinct. We are giving powers to undertakers of transport organisations to do all sorts of things, including the creation of byelaws and of their own police forces, in schedule I of the Bill.
    No, we are handing too much to the Government, to any Government and to any Secretary of State in this Bill. I am sorry that alternative measures were not considered more thoroughly by the Select Committee.
    When you put the Question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if a single voice says no, I am sure that you will collect the voices in your particular manner. I shall not divide the House, but I want to put it on the record that I disapprove of the Bill. Its complications and the powers that we give to the executive are too great and time will show that I am correct. I hope that I am wrong, but in view of the way in which the Minister has dealt with the inland waterways —he did not even inform the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council—we do not have a happy precedent for the way in which Secretaries of State may use the powers enshrined in the Bill.
    7.5 pm
    Mr. Adley: This is a constructive, unglamorous, uncontroversial and doubtless untelevised piece of legislation, which typifies in its own way many of the things that are wrong with the way in which the media operate. All they ever show is Parliament in aggravated dispute across the Floor of the House two or three times a week, which makes good television. The media rarely show the way in which many of us try to improve and to change legislation with agreement across the Floor of the House, with fundamentally no problem, no hassle and no aggravation.
    I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way that he listened to our representations when I approached him with a colleague from the Opposition, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). We had the full panoply of the Minister's civil servants alongside us and made two recommendations to change the Bill. The Minister proposed the relevant Government amendments in Committee, and it is important to put that on the record.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will not mind my saying that I took advantage of the opportunity to speak on Second Reading and managed to escape from the Committee. When I saw him and the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—to name but three members of the Committee—I thought that my

    375
    private discussions with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Selection had been thoroughly worth while. Nothing this evening has caused me to change that view.
    Mr. Snape: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will use his influence on my behalf.
    Mr. Adley: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, ASLEF. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong.
    Mr. Snape: By the National Union of Railwaymen.
    Mr. Adley: I am hoping to become a Conservative Member who is made an honorary member of ASLEF. I put on record one of my few unfulfilled political ambitions. Then I am sure that, in spite of the fact that we might be affilitated to different trade unions, we shall work together, as we always have done, to promote what we see as the railway interest. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman.
    Having listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Bradford, South. I cannot help but be struck by the difference between the Labour party's propaganda and the reality. No one would accuse me of not taking an interest in the welfare of railways, and supporting the retention of lines and so forth. However the reality is that this legislation has come from a Conservative Government. In contradistinction, one of their Labour predecessors closed the Waverley route and the Somerset and Dorset line, under the tutelage of the noble Lady, Lady Castle—I am not sure what Barbara Castle is called now, but I think that that is what she should be called legally. She was Minister of Transport when those lines were closed.
    When my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was Secretary of State for Transport, he achieved something that has never been given its proper recognition—the retention of the Settle to Carlisle railway line. That represented a huge change in policy and reversed a generation of rural railway line closures. They were closed because, judged on purely commercial criteria, they appeared incapable of sustaining themselves. It is worth recording that achievement, which, although it had a minor effect on the main railway lines of British Rail, was an important one.
    At some stage after the Conservative Government have been re-elected, as they will be shortly, I hope that we will consider the problem of so-called redundant track. We now properly boast about the number of stations that have been reopened and the number of lines that have been restored to passenger service. That happened only as a result of sheer chance because those lines were not closed and the track-beds sold off. The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned the docklands light railway. He will know that that railway would never have been built had it not been for the sheer chance that the so-called redundant track on which much of it runs was not sold off. It was lucky that British Rail did not succeed in following the strictures of successive Governments, who wanted it to sell off such redundant track.
    We must recognise that there is some redundant land in British Rail's ownership, but fashions, transport policy and circumstances change. However, if we sell off track, we prevent options for change, if I can use a current military-related phrase, being acted upon.
    376
    My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) spoke about drinking while driving a train and about the need for consultation with the trade unions about that problem. When the Government are re-elected, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that there have been substantial personnel changes within the trade union movement. That welcome change is almost entirely due to the legislation which the Government introduced and which was fought tooth and nail by the Labour party. That legislation has meant that, for the first time, the election of the deputy general secretary of ASLEF is subject to the general vote of that union's membership.
    It is about time our party made more of an effort to bring trade union representatives back into the discussion process, especially as those in positions of authority have been elected by a genuine process of secret ballots and votes. There is much to discuss about the future shape of the railways, and the fact that there have been no direct links between trade union leaders and Ministers is a waste of talent, experience and ability.
    Many of those in the unions have given a lifetime of service to the railways. They believe in them. They have a great deal more experience and knowledge about what might be done to improve services than some of the administrators who have been employed in the past few years. I know that those remarks are out of order, but I hope that we can look forward to further debates on railway policy in the not too distant future.
    7.13 pm
    Ms. Walley: Given what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) said, it is clear that he is making a claim for honorary presidency, or whatever, of ASLEF.
    Mr. Adley: Membership, not presidency.
    Ms. Walley: In Committee, I suggested that we needed two days for the Report stage, but everyone looked at me as though I was not serious. However, the fact that it has taken two days, for whatever reasons, shows how much could be said about the Bill.
    I do not want to delay the passage of the Bill unduly, but it is important to consider the way in which it has changed. When it was introduced, the Opposition accepted it in principle, but we believed that many changes had to be made to it. Our Whips were wise in their selection for the Committee, because my hon. Friends, together with the Minister, who has been amenable to many of our amendments, have caused the Bill to be altered.
    We have tried to be constructive and positive to bring the Bill into the 20th century. In that way our procedures will match the need for changed transport infrastructures. I wish that the Government had the same approach to all other business in the House. Much of our business is conducted in an archaic manner. Many of our practices need to be brought into line with the 20th century—not least in relation to women Members of Parliament. I accept that some progress has been made in that regard, but I know that I am now straying miles from my brief.
    Change was important because neither the Department of Transport nor the Department of the Environment understood why it was important that the commercial waterways should meet transport needs. The hon. Member for Christchurch spoke about the need for co-operation and consultation with the trade union movement, but he is

    377
    13 years too late. When the Bill was first presented to us, it was not even possible for the Government to have proper consultation with their own statutory bodies. I am grateful that we have had the opportunity to discuss, post haste, the various concerns that have been expressed. We have received many letters from those who care about our canals and inland waterways, and I welcome the changes that have been made to the Bill.
    I pay tribute to the work of the rights of way review committee. I appreciate that the changes made to the Bill are not the result of discussions that lasted a few months only—many people behind the scenes have contributed to the changes, which had a long gestation period.
    The Minister has promised that adequate consultation will take place. After the election, whether it is on 2 or 9 April, we shall honour that commitment to consultation. It is important to ensure that the necessary regulations are put in place.
    We have repeatedly expressed our concerns about environmental assessments. It is still necessary to consider those procedures with a fine-tooth comb. Although some amendments have been accepted tonight, we still need to include proper environmental assessment procedures in the Bill. The speech of hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) proved that that was necessary.
    We have sought to ensure that those who have the right to make objections retain the opportunity to do so. That must be counterbalanced by the introduction of necessary timetables, so that, when the order-making procedure is triggered, those who have an interest know when that procedure is due to complete.
    We welcome the safety improvements that have been made in respect of railways. The issue of alcohol safety limits will not go away. We feel strongly that those limits should apply across the board. We should have proper consultation about that soon as it is in the interests of public safety.
    It might be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether the Bill will receive its Royal Assent before the general election. I accept that that is out of his control, but we are now in a race against time. We have always supported the Bill in principle, and I believe that we have helped to make it a more constructive one.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Tonight will go down in history, and we shall often look back to the Official Report of this debate, because the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) admitted that he was about to cross the Floor and join the Conservative party. He said that he would be looking forward to sitting on this side of the House after the general election. The only way that he will do that is if he changes parties, and that will depend on him holding his seat—his majority is not all that good. I had to say that, because hon. Members have expressed their views about what may or may not happen in the forthcoming election.
    Everybody has accepted that this is an important Bill that makes some important changes to the way in which the railway system is developed. I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee, which explored the Bill thoroughly. We debated many amendments, some of which had been tabled by the Government because we were prepared to listen. Some of the debates were long. It will not surprise many to hear that we always failed to convince the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr.
    378
    Spearing), no matter how far we took the changes we were prepared to make. I am sorry that we failed to convince him, but on this issue he is a lone voice because most members of the Committee wanted to see progress.
    By removing the locus standi, the Bill will expand people's rights because that will enable them to make representations direct to the public inquiry, which is the preferable way to do these things. Normally, the other place is regarded as a revising Chamber, but we can rightly claim that we have already done a good job on the Bill, and not many issues will need revising. Most of the changes to the Bill that were requested have been made. I take it that that is the general view of all hon. Members who would like to see the Bill make progress.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) asked about alcohol limits. I know that he welcomes the general thrust of the Bill to cover these issues, because there has been the loophole that people could not be tested for alcohol levels. This was particularly drawn to our attention after the Cannon Street crash, when the coroner wanted the Government to take action. I agree with my hon. Friend that the best rule is for no one to work on the transport system when under the influence of drink. A zero limit is already required in the operators' rule book.
    We do not believe that that could provide the basis for a criminal offence. We considered the options carefully and felt that there was an overriding case for consistency with the criminal sanctions in the road traffic legislation. It would be unjust to discriminate against the railwayman, and in the case of a tram the relevant personnel would be on the road. Differing limits would be unjustifiable in those circumstances.
    My hon. Friend said that a number of professional people use the roads, including not just those in vehicles carrying the public, but those driving heavy goods vehicles which, as he rightly said, can be lethal weapons if the driver is over the alcohol limit. I know the keen interest with which my hon. Friend has pursued this matter on a number of occasions.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: If my hon. Friend were to say that he will send the report of this debate to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, and see whether that is the right body to get the views of the unions and others involved, such as passengers, I should regard this part of the debate as satisfactory.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We consulted the commission when we started to draft the Bill, and it responded to the Government's consultation paper, welcoming the drink-drugs provisions which back up the operators' measures. I take my hon. Friend's point, and I am sure that the commission will look at this matter. It will also be possible under the Bill, as it is under the road traffic legislation, as he knows, to change those levels by affirmative order. I think that we have the right framework. If the case is made and it is decided at some future stage to change those limits, it will be easier to do so than it has been up to now.
    I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee and all the officials who served in preparing the Bill. As has been shown by the debate, the Bill is generally welcomed, and I commend it to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Offshore Safety Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Order for Third Reading read.
7.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stale for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Although this is a short Bill, and essentially a technical one, it is nevertheless crucial to the new safety regime that is a follow-up to the important report by Lord Cullen after the Piper Alpha disaster. It should go without saying that the Government have always placed the greatest possible importance on implementing all the measures in the Bill as quickly as possible, and on implementing measures that go beyond the Bill. We said from the outset, and it has been generally recognised and accepted, that the Bill is only one part, although an important part, of the overall follow-up to Lord Cullen's report.
I should like to place on record my appreciation of the positive approach taken by all hon. Members at every stage of the Bill. This was reflected on Second Reading and in Committee. Although the Bill was not much amended in Committee, a number of important points were raised during our sittings and I tried to answer them not only then but in correspondence subsequently. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Members who raised such points.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister will recollect that in Committee I raised the question of Cullen's recommendation 57. He kept his word and wrote to me but it would be useful if, either now or in his reply, he were to confirm that the Government are doing everything possible about the difficulties of gas getting into rigs, and particularly into accommodation in the light of Fulmar, about which he knows.
Mr. Forth: When pressed by the hon. Gentleman, I gave him an interim reply. I put it that way because the stage that we have reached is that the operators have been asked about the specific and important point that the hon. Gentleman raised, which was a key safety concern arising from Cullen. We have had replies from all the operators, some of which did not arrive until recently. We are looking carefully through them to assess the extent to which the operators are making a proper response to the Cullen recommendations. The inspectors will now be asked, during their inspections, to follow up responses to see how far they are satisfactorily being implemented. Needless to say, they will want to look particularly at any responses that are less than satisfactory, if that turns out to be the case.
I should stress that, under existing regulations and requirements, the primary responsibility for this important work is that of the employers and operators, and that will be even more true as we produce regulations following on the Bill, as and when it becomes an Act. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance, in part thanks to the point that he has raised, that the executive is aware of this matter and has it in hand.
I took the trouble just before the debate—I thought that the hon. Gentleman might raise this point again—to satisfy myself yet again that the matter is well in hand. I am satisfied that, as this stage, it is. As and when any further information emerges, I undertake that we will let the hon. Gentleman know of the progress so that we can keep the
380
maximum pressure on the operators to fulfil their responsibilities following on the recommendations by Lord Cullen. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
The Bill has reached this stage having been given relatively swift—by our standards—but proper scrutiny by the hon. Members who have shown interest in it. I hope and believe that the Bill has been the most correct and expeditious way of taking forward Lord Cullen's important recommendations. I am confident that, taken together, the measures in it—ranging from the new regulations that will now be put in place as speedily as possible to the increased penalties and many other activities related to the Bill but not necessarily contained in it—will provide a significantly higher quality of safety in offshore operations.
I hope that hon. Members will agree with that, and I thank all those who have taken part in every stage of the Bill for their positive and co-operative approach. I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading tonight.
7.31 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I, unusually, place on record my thanks to the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Bill? Although there has not been total unanimity on all aspects of it, the Bill has the Opposition's support. As the Minister said, the fact that the matter has been dealt with so quickly in all its parliamentary stages, both here and in another place, is testimony to the importance that the whole House places in the need for the Bill to be translated swiftly into law.
The Bill arose out of a tragedy—the death of the victims of the Piper Alpha fire. One of the sadder features of health and safety legislation is that it often comes in the wake of disaster. To that extent, it may be the only final tribute that we can pay to the families of those who gave their lives on that tragic night. That fact serves to underscore the importance of ensuring that the Bill is enacted as soon a s possible.
One of the issues raised on Second Reading was the problem of the victimisation of people involved in health and safety matters. Many of my hon. Friends and I believe that those involved in health and safety become the victims of various forms of blacklisting, and some of them have not been allowed back on board the offshore rigs. The Secretary of State and the Minister drew the attention of the House to a private Bill that was making its way through another place.
I understand that the Offshore Safety (Protection against Victimisation) Bill will receive its Third Reading tomorrow in another place and, all being well—I assume that there will be no attempt to block the Bill by maverick activity on either side of the House—that it will come into force at the same time as the Bill that we are now discussing. It is important to protect those who seek to raise health and safety matters and to give them the feeling that they can do their job and raise matters of importance without fear of losing their jobs. I appreciate the Minister's actions in securing suitable amendments to the Bill to ensure that it can do what the House intends.
As we have already heard, the Bill is part of a more general process. A considerable amount needs to be done by way of secondary legislation and we look forward to the regulations being brought before the House so that we can examine them and ensure that they are adequate to

381
implement all the Cullen recommendations. The Bill is a preparatory stage for that. It is important that the whole safety regime is introduced as soon as possible and that we have a guarantee that that will be done. To that extent, the passage of the Bill tonight will at least mean that the first part of the implementation of Cullen is well under way.
May I make a couple of points that concern some of my hon. Friends, especially those with constituents involved in the North sea works and those in the geographic proximity of those works? The first concerns the safety vessels. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is particularly interested in that matter and raised it in Committee. It is important that the Minister takes on board our concern that the safety vessels be brought under a health and safety regime that guarantees the safety of those working on them and ensures that they are also an integral part of the safety structure that surrounds the rigs.
Secondly, the Minister is well aware of the Opposition's view on penalties. Although we welcome the increased penalties for which the Bill provides, we are not entirely satisfied that the whole regime for penalties and the system of prosecution is adequate deterrence to those who flout health and safety at work, not just on offshore rigs but on land. We shall return to that issue on future occasions while we are on this side of the Chamber and, after the general election, when we are in a position to do something about it. We shall now expect the court to use those increased penalties to ensure that, where appropriate, those who are sadly not conscious of or are indifferent to the health and safety needs of their employees are deterred.
Although the Bill is small, it is none the less important. The short speeches that have been made tonight do not show that we view the matter with a lack of seriousness. We have had a thorough and useful debate in the Bill's early stages and it is now important that the Bill leaves this place and is translated into practice. Once again, I join the Minister in expressing my appreciation at how the House has handled the measure.
7.37 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am pleased that the Bill has come to the House for its remaining stages. A couple of weeks ago, I complained to the Leader of the House that he had not mentioned the Bill's remaining stages in his business statement that day, and I impressed on him the importance that many of my constituents place on the Bill. Constituents of mine were killed when that terrible tragedy overtook the Piper Alpha. My concern for the safety of the men out there on the vessels, rigs and platforms predates the Piper Alpha disaster.
The Minister has given me an assurance about the standby vessels by way of a letter dated 27 February. At the risk of causing more work for his officials, I should be grateful if he would send copies of his letter to all Members who served on the Standing Committee, because what he says is important to those of us with constituents on standby vessels. I am sorry to cause extra work, but I am sure that other Committee members would welcome a copy of that letter.
I have been deeply concerned for a long time about the inadequacy of the standby vessels, In Committee, I moved
382
an amendment which the Minister said was, in essence, unnecessary because clause I covered the safety needs and requirements of the crews of those vessels.
I have never forgotten the evidence given to a fatal accident inquiry in Aberdeen 12 or 13 years ago. The inquiry was brought about by the death of the mate of a standby vessel who fell overboard. Despite the fact that he was wearing what was deemed to be suitable gear, his comrades, the crew of the standby vessel, took about 30 minutes to bring him back on board. The reason was the vessel's unsuitability and its near-total lack of manoeuvrability. It was an old side trawler with a high seaboard. The man was in his fifties and, unfortunately, died of hypothermia as he was in the water much too long to survive. I knew of the man and knew some of the vessel's crew. I well remember their deep distress at their failure to bring their colleague back on board while there was still a chance of resuscitating him.
I welcome the Minister's letter. The third paragraph states:
"Standby vessels will also be covered by the proposed safety case regulations as these relate to emergency procedures, and these will be subject to audit by HSE Inspectors. HSE has recruited experts in marine safety to advise on these matters."
Lord Cullen commented on the unsuitability of many of the vessels in the fleet at the time. He severely criticised the lack of manoeuvrability of the Silver Pit, the crew of which behaved in an outstandingly heroic way in seeking to rescue the men from Piper Alpha. I think that I am correct in thinking that there is only one custom-built emergency standby vessel operating in the North sea.
What role will the HSE play in the design of such vessels? In the light of what the Minister said about marine safety experts, will the HSE be consulted on the design of such vessels, particularly with regard to their manoeuvrability and their ability to withstand severe weather conditions while remaining on station? I hope that the Minister can answer that question tonight as, according to his letter, the marine safety experts are to be engaged, presumably on a consultancy basis, by the HSE. It is important to get the design of those vessels right.
The penultimate paragraph of the Minister's letter talks of the intention of the Health and Safety to ensure
"that the requirements of the code will be enforced rigorously and in accordance with its timetable."
I take that comment to mean that those unsuitable vessels will be phased out. As I said in Committee, some of them are already tied up. Some of them have already been scrapped, but there are still vessels in the North sea. God forbid that there should ever be another Piper Alpha tragedy, but we must ensure—especially those of us with constituents in the business—that, if a disaster overtakes a platform or a rig, the emergency services have the best resources and facilities to ensure the speedy discharge of the men from those platforms.
Presumably, the marine safety experts will seek to be satisfied of the vessels' safety by testing them to see whether they meet the requirements of the code of practice and are in accordance with the timetable. Will disciplined and reasonable tests be carried out on the vessels and crews when training? Emergency evacuation procedures must be a necessary requirement of a training procedure.
I promised not to speak for long, and the Minister has given me some assurances on the standby vessels. I view them as important elements in the safety resources given to the men working on the platforms and rigs. Those men

383
must be satisfied that, if a terrible tragedy takes place, they have been given the means, through the legislation and the implementation of the Cullen report recommendations, to leave their platforms in a safe and reasonable manner. Standby vessels play an important role. Along with many of my hon. Friends, I shall continue to monitor the performance of those vessels and their crews as they go about their important safety work.
I welcome the Bill, and am glad that it has been brought to the Floor of the House so that it can receive Royal Assent. I believe that the legislation will bring some comfort to my constituents, a goodly number of whom are at work on those platforms and rigs on the continental shelf.
7.46 pm
Mr. Frank Doran: As my hon. Friends have said, we welcome the Bill. It is the culmination of the legislative activity that became necessary as a direct consequence of the Piper Alpha tragedy. We have already seen its effects with the publication last week of the Health and Safety Executive consultative documents on safety cases. Progress cannot come quick enough for the Opposition. Some of the gaps in the legislation have already been mentioned by my hon. Friends. The Bill stems directly from the concern for safety that was exposed as a result of the Piper Alpha tragedy.
My interest in offshore safety goes back a wee bit further. I have never forgotten my first experience of offshore safety as a compensation lawyer in the north-east of Scotland. The first case that I had was that of an oil worker who worked on a drilling rig and was doused in acid solution. It was quite clear from the evidence and the witness statements that I took that the operators of the drilling rig had taken a calculation, and had weighed the cost of stopping drilling against the cost of the extra insurance premium. The victim had to wait 12 hours before anyone bothered to call a helicopter to take him back on shore to hospital. I am sure that many people have many such stories and experiences. That man was scarred for life as a direct result of failing to receive prompt and adequate treatment.
That incident occurred in the early days of the oil industry. The Piper Alpha disaster showed us that that attitude had not changed even by the late 1980s, as did the Ocean Odyssey disaster, which followed quickly on the heels of Piper Alpha. In the short space since the days of 1988, we have come a long way. I know from my contact with the oil industry that attitudes have changed dramatically, but we have a long way to go before the change filters through to the coal face.
There are still problems on drilling rigs as the discussions on Second Reading and in Committee showed when we spoke of issues such as victimisation and blacklisting. The Opposition expressed concern about proper protection for health and safety representatives and committee members. These matters need to be dealt with —and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) made clear, we intend to remedy them when we are on the Government Benches in a few weeks' time.
It is important to consider the gaps in the Bill, because they point to some of the problem areas in the North sea. There is a serious problem with penalties. In Committee, I made clear my particular concern arising directly out of the Piper Alpha disaster and its close scrutiny by the
384
Crown Office in Edinburgh. There is a gap between the very serious common law offence of culpable homicide and the statutory offences under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The Bill does not fill that gap, and we have serious concerns about the middle ground.
We are still concerned about the problem of standby vessels, the supply of boats and the lack of a uniform approach. Just last week, I obtained the most up-to-date figures available from the Department of Transport on the ages of the boats. I am told that there are now 176 standby vessels in the North sea, 48 of which are 30 or more years old and 64 more than 25 years old. That is an indictment of the Government. There are still three vessels from the 1930s operating in the North sea—the Ewan, which was constructed in 1936; the Grampian Osprey, which was constructed in 1937; and the Cam Valiant, which was constructed in 1939.
The safety regime for the standby vessels should be part of the overall safety regime in the North sea and subject to the rigour of the scrutiny of the Health and Safety Executive and the regulations that apply to the remainder of the industry. While there is that deficiency, no amount of codes of guidance will fill the gap. That problem needs to be addressed.
There is a failure properly to deal with the role of industrial relations. We welcome the Minister's statement about the Bill currently in the other place, which we hope will manage to squeeze through the legislative programme before the general election. We have a strong view, which underpins the whole ethos of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, that industrial relations are an essential part of the safety system. We cannot have bad industrial relations and good safety—the two do not mix. We want that essential protection in place as part of the statutory regime. Certainly it is one area that needs major improvement.
That said, we welcome the Bill. We are all aware that important lessons have been learnt following the Piper Alpha tragedy. Those lessons are being applied not just in this country but throughout the world. We are well aware that we are a part of the focus of the remainder of the offshore oil industry. It is looking at us carefully and the Bill is an important step forward. I welcome it.
7.53 pm
Mr. Forth: Our brief debate has epitomised our proceedings throughout the different stages of the Bill. Anyone reading the record will get a sense of the common purpose that we have all shared in trying to ensure not only that something effective is done, but above all, to ensure that we get the Bill on the statute book—given the constraints that are either real or imaginary, depending on one's point of view. We do not want to take any risks with the Bill, and none has been taken.
As often before, a number of themes have run through the speeches this evening. The first theme, and I can deal with it readily, was the private Member's Bill originating in another place, which has now been amended and which will have its Third Reading tomorrow. All being well, it will come to this House soon thereafter. The Bill was mentioned by many hon. Members—not just Opposition Members, but my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who has a long-standing interest in the matter. I believe that I can say that the Government have

385
been able gladly to respond to the points raised both in this House and in other ways, both by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friend.
We felt that there was an opportunity to take that Bill in the other place and amend it with the sponsor's agreement. We wish it well in this House. I am glad to give an undertaking that the Government will give the Bill a fair wind. It is a private Member's Bill and will therefore be subject to the vagaries of any such Bill. However, I envisage no reason why it should not find its way quickly through this House before there is any reason why the House would not be able to consider it at any great length. That is something in which we can all share satisfaction.
Several hon. Members mentioned the problem of standby vessels, if I can put it that way. It is a problem of which I am well aware. I said earlier during the passage of the Bill that it was a matter in which I had taken some interest, having realised that it was a vulnerable area in the issues surrounding Piper Alpha and the Cullen report. I think that I can reassure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). We have the code, which we wanted to put in place rapidly so that we could deal with the problem of standby vessels. As I have said previously, we had to balance the need to have an effective code with the practical reality of getting an acceptable standard of vessel available to operate in the North sea in standby mode.
We have imposed a series of cut-off points, which will tighten the requirement gradually but fairly rapidly, to ensure that the vessels are satisfactory for their purpose. The regulations that will flow from this Bill—which we hope will soon be an Act—will put in statutory form the requirements that currently exist only in that code. I hope that Labour Members will accept that that is the most rapid feasible way to deal with the problem. We are keeping a close eye on it.
The Department of Transport surveyors are working closely with the HSE to oversee the upgrading of the vessels. As I said in Committee, there must be that co-operation. Part of the responsibility rightly lies with the Department of Transport. The HSE is developing its involvement and expertise in this matter, partly by bringing in the experts to whom I referred in my letter to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. It will he part of that process, and very much in the interests of the operators, to ensure that those designing the vessels
386
work closely with the HSE and others to ensure that the design of the vessels will enable them to meet the regulations that will by then be in place. They will give effect to the requirements following the Cullen report.
That is part of the process, and it would be odd if the operators, in specifying the vessels, did not want to make absolutely sure that any future vessels met the regulatory requirements in every detail. I am sure that we can say with confidence that that will be the case.
A number of hon. Members mentioned penalties. I am aware that in Committee there was a feeling that we were not going far enough in extending the penalties available. I did not, and still do not, share that view. One of the problems—the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) touched on it—is that the House can lay down penalties in many areas of the law, but the judiciary, in its different forms, may or may not choose to exercise them to the full. That problem frustrates us all from time to time in many different areas.
Even now, the average penalty imposed does not come anywhere near the maximum available, never mind those increases that will be available when the Bill becomes an Act. Therefore, I feel that I can say with confidence that the considerable increases in available penalties will be a great help. I shall go beyond that: the HSE and its inspectors always have available, for example, prohibition notices which, in effect, can impose a much greater penalty than the subsequent fine on an operator who is not adhering to the existing regulations. Beyond that, were a matter to be referred by a magistrates court, to the Crown court it would attract unlimited penalties. Therefore, I do not share the pessimism of Opposition Members about this. When the measures come into effect, they will prove most effective in dealing with the problems that have been identified.
Yet again, the House has shown itself to be united in its purpose in ensuring that this important Bill is on the statute book in time to be effective and to ensure that we deliver to those working in the most hazardous conditions of the North sea the maximum possible protection under the law. That has been our intention, and it remains the intention of the dedicated people in the Health and Safety Executive and the many others involved in ensuring and guaranteeing that maximum level of safety. I am glad to give whatever support I can to that. Again, I welcome the wide support given to the Bill by all hon. Members and I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [Lords]
  Clause 5

    FUNCTIONS
    8 pm
    Mrs. Sylvia Heal: I beg to move amendment No. 1 in page 4, line 30, at end insert—
    '(2A) In that subsection, at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
    "(ca) advise the Secretary of State on arrangements for monitoring the provision of courses of further training for nurses, midwives or health visitors already registered;".'.
    The amendment seeks to provide for an overview of the strategic planning of nursing education. Serious concern has been expressed by professional and trade union groups as well as by Opposition Members that the funding for nursing education is to be passed to the regional health authorities without adequate protection for its use and monitoring. We welcome the Government's agreement to ring-fence funds for nursing education, but we are still worried by a lack of long-term assurance on the issue.
    The amendment will help the Secretary of State to ensure that the assurances given by the Minister in Committee closely to monitor post-registration as well as pre-registration budgets from the centre are met. In that way, the commitment will be given statutory force, which I am sure the Minister will welcome, so that Government intentions are not misunderstood or deviated from.
    The national boards' role as validators of training courses and institutions would be enhanced as, under this amendment, they would be in a position to monitor nursing education developments and ensure that the Secretary of State is aware of any developments or discrepancies that need addressing.
    In the absence of statutory ring fencing, which has been rejected by the Government, effective monitoring of nursing education spending by regional health authorities is vital to reassure the professions that their future education is financially secure and strategically planned. Although we do not doubt the professionalism of the national boards in their provision and administration, their outlook could be parochial rather than have the required objective and long-term vision that is crucial to nursing development.
    I have had representations on the issue from nursing organisations and unions, as well as from individual nurses, and, like my hon. Friends, I share their concern about the security of long-term nursing education from health authority cuts. For many health authorities, it will be an easy option, when pressed for money for basic nursing and midwifery courses, to consider cutting essential courses such as family planning or neo-natal nursing courses.
    It is vital that the number of places is monitored annually; the number of midwife teachers to provide such courses must also be monitored. Without adequate provision for post-basic education for midwives, the standard of midwifery care in Britain will obviously be affected. That will have a knock-on effect for mothers, babies and their families. Our midwifery service is
    388
    considered to be the best in the world, and that is the way it must stay. We need to ensure that the conditions are right in order to protect our midwifery services. Unless there is an opportunity for midwives to develop their knowledge through post-registration courses, midwifery will become a less attractive career prospect for many women.
    The report of the Select Committee on Health on maternity services, published today, is the result of evidence from professionals and consumers concerned in maternity care and, as such, is likely to receive widespread support. That report, which I welcome, emphasises in its recommendations the importance of women having greater choice in the type of maternity care that they receive, whether at home or in hospital, and says that the majority of them regard midwives as the group best placed to provide the continuity of care through pregnancy and childbirth. A weakened midwifery profession will not be in an optimum position to implement the recommendations. The report also refers to the importance of education in ensuring that the midwifery profession remains highly skilled.
    As the Minister for Health pointed out in Committee, she did not think that her Department could adequately provide the necessary monitoring because it was too detached from the workplace. I do not share her doubts about the Department of Health's capacity to monitor effectively if it so desires. However, to cater for her nervousness about whether her Department is capable, the national boards are ideal agents of monitoring. They are in close contact with nursing education through their work of validation and will comprise practising nurses, midwives and health visitors who will have the necessary experience to be able successfully to monitor health authorities and their nursing education provision.
    The Minister has already agreed that monitoring post-registration and pre-registration training is important and the amendment simply gives that belief an assurance of statutory force. I commend the amendment to the House.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The amendment is misconceived in seeking to involve the national boards in the arrangements for monitoring post-registration training. We debated this important Bill with a great deal of agreement, and I made it clear that it must be for the NHS, not the national boards, to do its own work force planning and ensure that training provision is adequate for its needs. The role of the boards is different. It will be their job to accredit institutions and to validate courses, to ensure that the standards of professional education of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting are met and to collaborate with the UKCC in the provision of improved training methods.
    I have also made it clear that we fully recognise the responsibility of the NHS to ensure that nurses, midwives and health visitors can maintain and develop their professional skills at post-registration level. In that context, I am, for example, looking forward to receiving the UKCC's PREPP—post-registration education and practice project—formal proposals and discussing with it the implications for the NHS. I have already had informal discussions with the chairman of the UKCC, Dame Audrey Emerton, and her team, and I hope that we can carry matters further forward.

    389
    We also recognise the responsibility of the NHS to ensure that sufficient nurses are trained in specific post-registration skills to enable the changing demands on the service to be met. The hon. Lady is aware of the many specialist areas in which it is fundamental for the delivery of health care to have nurses in sufficient numbers with those particular post-registration skills. I refer to the large groups of the district nurses, health visitors, community psychiatric nurses and to specialist areas such as burns, plastic surgery, renal surgery, paediatric intensive care, neo-natal intensive care, accident and emergency and theatre nursing.
    There have been occasions when we have decided from the centre that it is necessary to ring-fence money particularly to ensure the development of a particular specialty. For example, a former Secretary of State ring-fenced £3 million particularly for the training of high-tech nurses because we are only too well aware that having a sufficient supply of properly qualified staff determines our ability to maintain momentum and provide high quality care. We are making special arrangements in that regard, and although the amendment is misguided in seeking to give responsibility to national boards, that is not to say that monitoring training is unimportant.
    We told regional health authorities in England that post-registration education and training, which is designed to provide specific professional skills, should for the time being be funded from a separate and protected regional budget, managed in a similar way to that for pre-registration training. Budgets will be rolled forward from year to year in the ordinary way, and it will be open to regions to vary them in the light of changing work force demands. Any such variation should, however, be open and transparent.
    We are ensuring also that both pre-registration and post-registration budgets are closely monitored. I said in Committee that we are still working on the precise mechanics, and we shall hold early discussions with the service. I want to be certain that the arrangements that we put in place are consistent with the new approach to planning and commissioning training for NHS non-medical staff generally that will be introduced on the basis of the principles set out in 1989, in working paper No. 10. Many health service staff will be equally concerned with those arrangements.
    I remind the House that, although we made it clear that specific arrangements for post-registration training will be subject to review in the light of experience, current arrangements will continue as long as necessary. We have no plans for changing them in the foreseeable future.
    The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) referred to the Select Committee report on maternity services that was published today. As she knows, there has been a 23 per cent. increase in midwives since 1979, which is of great significance. The report reveals that the pendulum has swung back to recognition of that which the hon. Lady rightly identified as a major strength of our maternity services. It is hard to identify any other health service in the world in which the qualified midwife plays such a significant role. Midwives, like nurses and health visitors, have much to gain from the Bill.
    It would be inappropriate to accept amendment No. 1 because, clearly, mechanisms are in hand. It is in the
    390
    interests of us all—whether as Ministers, NHS managers, or members of the nursing profession—to ensure that training is properly monitored and developed.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mrs. Heal: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in Page 4, line 37, at end insert—
    '(4A) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
    "(1A) In approving an institution under subsection (1) above, National Boards shall pay special regard to the suitability of library facilities available to students of that institution.".'.
    The amendment seeks to highlight the rapidly deteriorating library facilities for nurses engaged in pre-registration and post-registration training and the inability of library services to provide adequate facilities for Project 2000. In drawing attention to that worrying situation, I emphasise the specific need for library facilities to become a significant factor in the national boards' course validation process.
    Project 2000 is an important development in nursing education, in providing a modern nursing profession prepared to meet the new challenges of future medicine and patient care. It has, however, resulted in students adopting different learning methods, as well as the implementation of a broader-based curriculum encompassing areas previously given less emphasis—such as ethics, philosophy, sociology, psychology and environment. Students also undertake much more academically based work involving increased use of library facilities.
    Project 2000 threatens to be derailed because library provision has been virtually ignored. The switch to new training programmes revealed the haphazard approach taken by nursing schools and colleges to ensuring that their library facilities can meet the increased demand that those changes necessitate.
    It is difficult and unproductive specifically to apportion blame, because nursing colleges are under pressure to supply library services that they are ill equipped to provide. The national boards make no requirement to ensure that a validated institution has the necessary back-up facilities. It is apparent that the knock-on effects of Project 2000 were not adequately appreciated and that the library base was already low.
    8.15 pm
    Library funding must be planned to take account of long-term needs. Last year, the Government made one-off, stop-gap payments to some libraries, but they were inadequate to ensure continuous high-level payments and did not meet the most serious problem facing libraries—that of providing qualified staff. There is no planned approach to library provision. Some libraries are excellent, well staffed and well stocked, but many are staffed and managed by clerks who are not appropriately trained in library administration.
    The Nursing Times recently highlighted the problems of a patchy library service. It cited a survey of nursing and midwifery colleges in one region, where disparities between libraries show large differences in the ratio of pupils to staff and books. That magazine's informative feature on nursing libraries highlighted other evidence of a patchwork service that is struggling to cater for the needs of the profession.
    Wrexham college of nursing is linked to Bangor university, which is 70 miles away, but its library facilities

    391
    are inadequate. Students must travel to Bangor for books which involves a round trip of 140 miles. That is a ludicrous way to educate our nurses. The absence of on-site facilities for students is a huge waste of time and resources, and the existing arrangement places on individual students difficulties additional to those that they face in managing their studies and meeting their responsibilities and obligations.
    Shropshire and Staffordshire college of nursing and midwifery in my own region is linked with Wolverhampton polytechnic, which takes students from Shrewsbury, Stafford, and Telford, who must travel 40, 25 and 12 miles respectively to obtain the books that they need. The success of Project 2000 is jeopardised by that situation, and it is important that libraries are a key factor in course validation.
    If our nurses are to be trained to the high standards to which we are accustomed. Project 2000 courses must be able to offer the proper materials. Course curriculums are designed to expand and consolidate nurse training, but there is little point to them if students cannot have access to the material that they need to achieve the excellent standards that we take for granted.
    Students' hard work is being thwarted by a lack of research and learning material. A leader in the Nursing Times of 12 February comments:
    "Libraries are a cornerstone of any education system and the need for good libraries has never been greater."
    Amendment No. 2 acknowledges an obvious but often neglected fact, and provides the impetus for ensuring that libraries have the appropriate resources and materials to support their institutions' training courses. It aims at making sure that funding is not diverted from libraries at times of cuts, and that libraries complement courses rather than act as an optional extra.
    The Royal College of Nursing states:
    "quality nursing requires quality libraries, supported by professional library staff, to ensure good patient care."
    That is the ideal maxim by which we ought to assess our nursing education, and one which national boards should observe when validating courses. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Although I have considerable sympathy with the concern reflected in the amendment, I hope that I can persuade the House that it is unnecessary. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) has raised some important points, and I shall ensure that the appropriate national boards are made aware of them—particularly the point about the college in Wales.
    As I have said, the future role of the national boards will be to accredit institutions, to validate courses to ensure that the UKCC standards of professional education are met and to collaborate with the UKCC in the promotion of improved training methods. In the process of the boards' accreditation of institutions, those institutions are already expected to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the boards that they have a level of education resources sufficient to support their programme. That, of course, includes library resources, and takes into account the extent and range of publications and of librarian support for the students, particularly where multiple sites are being used. Obviously, when—as with project 2000—there is a link with institutions of higher education, the boards take into account the library facilities available in those institutions as well.
    392
    After all, £207 million has already been allocated to project 2000. I had the pleasure of visiting the college in Wolverhampton that serves the hon. Lady's constituency, for an inauguration. It is important for nurses, and student nurses, to be able to benefit both from the caring, hands-on work experience provided by the training, and from the classroom-based side, for which library facilities are needed.
    As I undertand it, there has never been an occasion when a board has refused validation of a course because of unsuitable library facilities, although on occasion boards have made recommendations about the improvement of facilities. That shows not only the high standard that prevails, but the thoroughness with which the boards undertake their task. I have no doubt that, should they feel that the library facilities are not satisfactory, this is a step that the boards would not hesitate to take.
    There has been considerable investment in recent years in the provision, maintenance and improvement of library facilities. For example, regional health authorities were allocated the substantial sum of £5 million in 1991–92, as part of project 2000 funding, specifically to enable them to meet the effects of pay and price increases, bursary increases and other locally identified needs related to the implementation of project 2000, such as—this was made explicit—library additions. As a follow-up exercise, the English national board is currently monitoring how much of this funding was spent on libraries. That is relevant to the hon. Lady's speech.
    I mentioned in Committee last month the generous donation from the General Nursing Council Trust in this respect. The sum of £1,000 per college—£2,000 in the case of larger colleges—has been allocated by the trust, through the English national board, with the express purpose of improving library facilities. Last, but by no means least, the English national board has given £60,000 this financial year to four regions, to enable them to improve their library resources.
    All that goes to show how seriously both we and the boards take the provision of library facilities. There is no question but that "special regard" will continue to be paid to them, as part of the process of approval of training institutions. They are, however, part of a much larger whole, and I think that it would be invidious and perhaps unnecessary to single out this one aspect in the way that the amendment suggests. The boards need to satisfy themselves not only that library facilities exist, but that there are adequate clinical placements and that the teaching is of a proper standard. They must deal with a range of other issues. They are faced with the same old difficulty: once one issue has been identified, others of equal validity may be called into question. As I have said, however, substantial investment has been made in library facilities.
    I recognise the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire, and I shall ensure that the relevant national boards are aware of it. I hope, however, that, in the light of what I have said, the hon. Lady will not press the amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    8.24 pm
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Hon. Members will recall that the main purpose of this important Bill—in brief—is to change the constitution and functions of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and the four national boards for nursing, midwifery and health visiting —the five statutory bodies set up under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979.
    The Bill changes the constitution of the central council from a body the majority of whose members are nominated by the national boards to one the majority of whose members are elected by the professions to which they are responsible. It also changes the constitution of the four national boards from one of elected to one of appointed bodies. At the same time, it takes away the role of the national boards in managing and financing the provision of nursing, midwifery and health visiting education and training.
    In line with the principles of the NHS reforms, that function would be devolved to health authorities, except in Northern Ireland, where existing arrangements will continue to apply. It also centralises all professional-conduct investigations at the council, avoiding duplication of effort, rationalising an important function and removing some of the delays that prove so grievous for those involved.
    Mr. O'Brien: On Second Reading, I drew attention to the problems that affect some state-registered nurses who wish to gain further qualifications under Project 2000, and are having great difficulty in obtaining co-operation and support from the training colleges. I refer in particular to St. James's training college in Leeds. Will the Minister explain why my constituents who want to train under Project 2000 are not receiving the co-operation to which they are entitled?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for his difficulty in getting the precise terms right. On Second Reading, we had some discussion about the exact status of those involved. I think that the hon. Gentleman has now raised the case not of state-registered nurses, but of state-enrolled nurses who wish to move on to a Project 2000 course.
    An enrolled nurse already has some qualifications. The way forward for such a nurse is to join a conversion course, which will move her on to full registered-nurse status. We discussed the point at length in Committee, and I feel that it has considerable validity. I can give the hon. Gentleman the encouraging news that the number of conversion courses increased from six in 1985 to 225 in March 1991.
    It was a condition of the establishment of a project 2000 course that the needs of enrolled nurses should be recognised. We feel, however, that the right approach for someone who is already an enrolled nurse is not to go back to the beginning and embark on a Project 2000 course—which would represent considerable duplication—but to consider a conversion course. In some circumstances, a Project 2000 course has accepted an enrolled nurse, but we would not advocate it.
    I know that nurses will welcome the Bill. It follows a series of measures that the Government have introduced to improve nurses' circumstances. The establishment of the
    394
    review body in 1983 was an important step forward, and the implementation of its recommendations in all its reports this year means that all nurses will gain a 5·8 per cent. pay uplift. A new grading structure has been established so that a long-term career in nursing is more rewarding. The working week has been reduced from 40 to 37·5 hours without loss of pay. In addition, Project 2000 has been introduced—a subject with which my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) may wish to deal.
    That series of important measures recognises and improves the status of nursing and makes it a more rewarding career. That is evidenced by the fact that the length of time spent in nursing, as I told the House on Second Reading, has now doubled. A nurse used to spend an average of seven years in the service, but now spends 14 years. The Bill, which reorganises training and registration, will be a further development for nurses.
    The Bill has been discussed extensively and it is fair to say that the speed with which it has passed through its stages shows the good will that all sides feel for it, and the general recognition of the value of its sensible and worthwhile proposals. We had an enjoyable Committee stage, which is not always the case, and there was considerable agreement on a number of subjects.
    We have consulted the statutory bodies at all stages and have not only listened to everything that the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions have said to us but have acted, in so far as it has been possible, in full accordance with their wishes. We had an extensive debate in Committee on the role and functions of the reconstituted central council and national boards and, in particular, on the professions' expectations of them.
    It may be helpful to refer briefly to the report of the Select Committee on Health on maternity services, especially to its implications for the regulation and training of midwives. We shall carefully study the Committee's recommendations about midwifery education and will deal with them in our formal response, but I am sure that the statutory bodies will take careful note of what the Committee has said.
    I reiterate the Government's commitment to maintaining the unique and separate nature of the midwifery profession. Midwifery shares, and will continue to share, a common regulatory structure with nursing and health visiting, but its special position will continue to be recognised within that structure, as it has been since 1902. At UKCC level, the powers and responsibilities of the midwifery committee will remain as they are now.
    In earlier debates, we discussed the wish of some midwives to change the relationship between the council and midwifery committee by widening the scope of matters on which the council is required to consult the committee and by making it more difficult for the council to reject any of the committee's recommendations. But it is our firm conviction, shared by the statutory bodies, that the current position, whereby the council is required to consult its midwifery committee on midwifery matters, does not restrict its powers and works well. As I said in Committee, I very much hope that future relations between the council and committee will continue to be based, as they have been, on full consultation and constructive dialogue rather than statutory prescription.
    We have given a commitment that membership of each national board will include, either as an executive or non-executive member, a registered nurse, a registered health visitor and a practising midwife. We have also

    395
    formally acknowledged that the boards will need to continue to have special concern for midwifery. That is why we moved an amendment in another place to incorporate the wording of what is now clause 5(5), which requires the boards, in discharging their functions, to take account of differences in considerations applying to the different professions.
    I understand that the English national board has recently reaffirmed its commitment to the principle that midwifery education and practice should be determined, validated and monitored by the midwifery profession. That will offer considerable reassurance to those who have been slightly concerned about difficulties that have emerged in recent months. I have no reason to believe that the reconstituted statutory bodies will wish to depart from that principle, although it will be for them to devise detailed arrangements for putting that into practice.
    Concern has been expressed about the need for some form of health consumer representation on the reconstituted central council—a point that was made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst on Second Reading and subsequently in Committee. We accept that it is clearly more important than ever that the wider public interest in the regulation of the professions should be adequately reflected in the appointed membership. In Committee, I took pains to assure the professions that, in considering his appointments to the central council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would wish to take account of the need to reflect the interests of health service consumers and would take wide soundings about the appropriate individuals who could make that special contribution to the council.
    I have already mentioned the Government's position on the funding of nursing and midwifery education and training, especially post-qualification education and training. We are committed to ensuring that adequate resources are made available for nursing, midwifery and health visiting education and training. We estimate that about £880 million will be spent on such training this year.
    In our view, two main principles should underlie arrangements for organising and financing education and training. First, decisions governing the supply of nurses, midwives and health visitors should be taken as close as possible to the point of service delivery to ensure that decisions are responsive to local needs and to the changing requirements of employers. Central top slicing of a significant proportion of the funds for nursing and midwifery education, as happens now, is inconsistent with that principle. Secondly, the Government have a duty to ensure that, overall, mechanisms are in place to ensure an adequate supply of properly trained nurses, midwives and health visitors to meet the health needs of the nation for today and tomorrow.
    Against that background, we intend that the regional health authorities, in consultation with employers, should have the main responsibility for identifying the demand for qualified nurses and midwives, for deciding the number of students who need to be recruited and trained and for funding pre-registration nursing and midwifery training. To enable that to happen, clause 5(2) removes the existing duty of the national boards to provide or arrange for others to provide education and training, so permitting the transfer of funding for the education and training of nurses from the national boards to health authorities and health boards.
    396
    We believe that this short Bill is vital to the future of the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions. The reconstitution of the profession's statutory bodies will result in increased efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of those bodies and more direct accountability to the professions that they represent. I have no doubt that future historians of the professions will see the Bill as a major milestone in that history.
    8.38 pm
    Mrs. Heal: Once again, I welcome the Bill on behalf of Labour Members. We believe that it is an important and necessary development for the nursing profession. It modernises and updates the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 and streamlines the functions and structures of the UKCC and the national boards, which the 1979 Act left somewhat confused.
    We have been disappointed by the Government's inflexibility over some of the Bill's inadequacies. The Bill has enjoyed rare consensus for a health measure, and we had hoped that the Government would be willing to entertain some amendments that, we feel, would have greatly improved it.
    In preparing to debate the Bill, I have been in contact with the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the National Union of Public Employees and the Health Visitors Association. They have been very helpful in discussing the content and implications of the Bill and must be commended for the professional and practical ways in which they have represented their members and sought to achieve the best possible legislation for the nursing professions.
    As I said, there are still major concerns. I draw the House's attention to the worrying decline in the number of students seconded to health visiting courses in the past 15 years. In 1975–76, there were 1,086, but that figure declined in 1989–90 to 847. More recent figures for 1990–91 are not yet available, but the United Kingdom Standing Conference of Health Visiting Lecturers has reported a further drop of 100 students, to approximately 750.
    That is a very worrying trend, which does not appear to be the result of a lack of suitable applicants. In fact, many candidates are now forced to search nationwide for secondment. It seems that there is insufficient funding for secondments, which has led to a drastic reduction in available opportunities for students. That is even more worrying, as it appears that funds supposedly ring-fenced for nursing education are not being used.
    There is confusion about where the funds are since they were transferred from the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council under working paper 10 to maintain health visitor and district nursing training levels. It appears that many district health authorities are unclear about where and whether money is available for these courses. I call on the Government to take immediate action to investigate and then to act.
    There is known to be a shortage of qualified health visitors in the north-west and some health authorities such as Oldham, Trafford and Rochdale have vacancies that they cannot easily fill. We were assured that that could not happen with ring-fenced funds, but it is happening now. That is why we tabled amendments in Committee to give statutory backing to ring fencing. We feared that, without the protection of statute, funds might be mistargeted or

    397
    misused. The Government have refused to accept that, but they must take action to ensure that the undertakings that they give are observed.
    It is important for the future development of nursing and for the morale of nurses that the people involved see practical evidence that their future is protected. Health visitors see that training courses for their professions have been drastically reduced, and one must question the Government and seek an adequate explanation.
    In 1989–90, Teesside had 12 places but now has no course. Reading had 32 places and now has 20. Liverpool had 24 places but now has none. These are cuts in training and provision. Thirty per cent. of health visitors are over the age of 50 and, although there is a stable turnover of staff at present, one can easily envisage a sudden drop in availability of experienced and trained health visitors in the next few years.
    Health visitors and other community care nursing professions play a vital role in the promotion of good health and the prevention of ill health. Their efforts are crucial to the success and development of a public health policy. Labour is committed to improving the health of the nation, and a Labour Government would launch a national health initiative to promote a healthy Britain. Such a strategy will cut through departmental boundaries and encompass every Department in promoting better life styles and social conditions for the maintenance of good health for all. Tackling poverty and inequalities will be vital steps, sadly ever more necessary today following 13 years of social neglect by the Government.
    The nursing professions will play a vital role in educating, monitoring and preventing ill health among the people of Britain. They can do that only if they are given the opportunity and facilities to train and educate for the new challenges of the next decade and beyond. The Bill has been designed to do exactly that. Labour believes that certain aspects and statutory guarantees would have been more effective in achieving the stated aims of the Bill, but we do not wish to delay its progress on to the statute book.
    We shall watch closely to ensure that the Government's pledges and assurances that we have sought on behalf of nurses and patients are honoured, and we shall watch with interest and shall support the opportunities for nursing that we hope the Bill will create.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Roger Sims: I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) cannot have overlooked the fact that the Government introduced their own health of the nation campaign some time ago and that it is successfully under way. However, I have no wish to inject a party-political note into the debate; that is the last thing I want to do. I do not wish to detain the House and speak only because the Minister for Health tempted me to do so by referring to me.
    The Minister referred especially to the Medicinal Products: Prescription by Nurses etc. Bill which has passed through all its stages in this House and had a Second Reading in another place on Friday. I hope that it will reach the statute book before we must all flee these buildings.
    The Minister also referred to the publication today of the report on maternity services by the Select Committee on Health of which I am a member. I am sure that she will agree that it will prove to be a milestone in the history of maternity services. It refers frequently to the admirable work of midwives and, in particular, advocates that they be given a higher professional status. It is an extremely detailed report and I shall avoid the temptation to go into it because, fortunately, it has already been extensively reported in the media.
    The Bill is the third measure today that has received all-party support and is well on its way to the statute book. This is perhaps a useful opportunity to point out to the nursing professions the enormous respect in which they are held and the great support that they have not only in the House but in the country from all political parties, at a time when the divisions between the parties will be highlighted. Perhaps it is just as well for the public to realise that, whatever words are exchanged in the next few weeks, it is possible for hon. Members to find some issues —such as those that I have mentioned—on which we are united and able to work together for the common good.
    Although I suspect that health will be only one of the issues that will be well to the fore in the coming election, I hope that people in the health professions will realise that, whatever our political party, they have our full support and our admiration.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Disability Living Allowance
8.47 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.
The House will recall debating four sets of regulations setting out the detailed provisions for disability living allowance and disability working allowance last December. The regulations before the House tonight make a number of minor technical corrections to one of the sets —the disability living allowance regulations—which were debated then.
The amendment regulations make five changes. Amending regulation 2(2) corrects the original regulation which provides that payment of the care component of disability living allowance should cease four weeks after admission to hospital. In defining a hospital for this purpose, the original regulation omitted the necessary references to Scottish legislation.
Amending regulation 2(3)(a) is also entirely technical. It merely alters the opening words of the original to reflect the amended structure of the regulation.
Amending regulation 2(3)(b) and (c) corrects an error in the orginal regulation concerning the treatment of the DLA care component for children in the care of a local authority. In the past, attendance allowance has not been paid for children in the care of a local authority when they live in residential accommodation such as a children's home, but benefit has been payable for children living in a private dwelling—for example, with a family. Our intention was to carry forward that entirely sensible distinction into DLA. We made that clear in all the documentation on the regulations but, regrettably, the original regulation was defective. As drafted, it provides for virtually all children under the age of 16 in the care of a local authority to carry on getting the DLA care component regardless of where they live.
We believe that it is sensible not to pay a DLA care component when the care needs are already being met from public funds. As hon. Members may recall, we have decided, from April, to allow children in hospital to continue getting the DLA care component for 12 rather than four weeks, which will be of substantial help to the parents of children who spend protracted periods in hospital.
Amending regulation 2(3)(d) corrects an error in the original regulations relating to the care component for people who are terminally ill. Again, it has been a long standing policy that attendance allowance is not payable when accommodation is provided, or may be provided, from public funds, so as to avoid double provision for the same needs. Once again, with the introduction of DLA we have moved to relax that rule in the case of people who are terminally ill.
The original regulations correctly provided an exemption for terminally ill people living in accommodation where funding may be provided from public funds, but is not necessarily so provided in practice—normally in a voluntary hospice. However, we inadvertently failed to extend the exemption to cases where some public funding is provided to the hospice—for example, via a small grant from the local health authority.
400
We do not believe that such funding should affect the rights of terminally ill people to get DLA or attendance allowance, so the amending regulation corrects the error and ensures that terminally ill people in such accommodation are entitled, as was originally intended, to the care component of DLA.
Amending regulation 2(4) corrects an error in relation to the suspension of DLA care component when a recipient enters hospital or residential accommodation. The policy is for the DLA care component to cease after the recipient has been in the accommodation for 28 days —or 84 days for children under 16 in hospital.
However, the original regulation was defective, extending far more widely than intended. It could have had the nonsensical effect of treating almost any accommodation as "residential accommodation"—meaning for example, that the care component would be withdrawn after 28 days from a person in a private dwelling. The amending regulation removes that unwanted effect, and restores the original policy intention.
From that brief summary, I hope that it will be clear to the House that the regulations are purely technical. I am sorry that it has proved necessary to detain hon. Members at this hour to debate the regulations, but they are technical and beneficial, and no losers are created as a result of any of the amendments. The amendments simply restore the original intention, and guarantee the rights which we had initially intended.
8.52 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: These new regulations may seem wholly uncontroversial. As we have heard, they seek to correct drafting errors by the Government that relate to payment of the disability living allowance in Scotland and tighten the rules on payment of the DLA for 28 days after the claimant has entered hospital or scheduled accommodation.
Nevertheless, I have been widely pressed to oppose the regulations, in order to mark the very deep concern felt by organisations of and for disabled people about the Government's "double-speak"—I quote from a statement last week by the Disability Alliance—about the £300 million of "new" money which, they say, Ministers so misleadingly claim to have put into disability benefits via the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991.
The Disability Alliance is a federation of more than 200 organisations, many of them household names. Its views are therefore highly deserving of the attention of the House, and the charge of "double-speak" is a deeply serious one for the Government. But the charge is well documented. Indeed, the statement from the Disability Alliance in which it appears continues:
"The most glaring example of Government double-speak concerns the £300 million 'new' money they claim to have put into disability benefits in 'The Way Ahead' package (January 1990). In fact, the phasing-out of rights to invalidity benefit (additional pensions), just one of the cuts to disability benefits which form part of the same package, will save the Government £475 million within the next decade."—[Official Report, 21 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 914.]
In other parliamentary replies, the Government have also admitted that they will start saving money on the disabled working allowance within two years and that, in fact, 95 per cent. of disabled people will gain not a single penny from either the DLA or the DWA, whose net cost,

401
as the Disability Alliance has demonstrated, is substantially less than the Government's anticipated saving from just one of their recent cuts to disability benefits.
It will be recalled that, in the social security changes of April 1988, more than 1 million disabled people lost payments that helped them with such unavoidable extra costs of disability as special diets, heating and laundering. Even people who are doubly incontinent, and too weak to carry bedclothes to a launderette, are denied the help that they used to get for their higher laundry costs.
The Government argue incessantly that spending on disability benefits has risen sharply since they came to power. The impression given is that disabled people are individually much better off than they were in 1979, but the increased spending since then has not been on higher benefits; it is accounted for almost wholly by higher take-up of the mobility and attendance, invalid care and other allowances that were introduced long before the present Government came to power. Since 1979, while average earnings have increased by more than 20 per cent. in real terms, disability benefits have risen by only 1 per cent. That is the truth about the Government's claim to have more disabled people better off.
Miss Widdecombe: I mean no discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but we are debating a set of amending regulations. His speech sounds like the arguments that have been rehearsed fairly comprehensively on Second Reading, in Committee, and at later stages. What has it to do with the amendments under discussion tonight?
Mr. Morris: I have referred at several points in my speech to the amendments, and I shall refer to them again as I go along. I have also told the House that there are people in organisations of and for disabled people who have asked me to oppose the regulations, in order to emphasise their deep concern about the Disability Living Allowance and the Disability Working Allowance Act 1991. They want other amendments, and they have asked me to set the Government's amendments in the context of what they would like to see. I have shown that, relative to most other people, disabled people have been made very much worse off, and that neither the amending regulations nor the legislation from which they stem will alter that fundamental truth about the Government's record.
Nor do these amending regulations alter in any way the unacceptable complexity of the rules of entitlement to the DLA care component and attendance allowance for people in all the various forms of institutional care. The main ambiguities revolve around the definition of "scheduled accommodation". It is not clear, for example, how respite care funded by local authorities is classified. Thus, someone looking for respite care for a temporary period is likely to have difficulty finding out whether they are excluded from benefit by regulation 9.
As I pointed out before the Act became law, there will be 11 different combinations of DLA awards. One assessment procedure for what are still two very separate benefits—the mobility and attendance allowances—will not make life any easier for claimants. The DWA is so villainously complex that disabled people qualifying may well not realise before claiming that they will be no better off. In fact, taking poll tax liability and loss of housing benefit into account, they could actually be worse off.
402
The hon. Lady will know that, together with other right hon. and hon. Members, I have had concern expressed to me about the position of claimants who sit on disability appeal tribunals. While the Government are encouraging disabled people to sit on DATs, to do so can affect their benefit levels. The attendance fee for DATs is £100 a day, but the DSS has no plans to change the rules on therapeutic earnings, so disabled people who sit on the tribunals may lose both their benefit and status as "unfit for work". One woman who wrote recently to the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation about this commented:
"We are being punished for doing a public service, which seems very unfair."
I hope the Minister will agree and act urgently to remedy the anomaly.
Again, I hope the Minister will respond urgently to the concern expressed by the ME Action Campaign about which I have made representations to her right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, as I know other right hon. and hon. Members will have done. In their letter to me on behalf of people disabled by myalgic encephalomyelitis, they ask for a rewrite of the entry describing ME in the DLA handbook. Their letter proceeds:
"The fears of all disability groups concerning the Disability Living Allowance have been borne out, and particularly in the case of those disabled by ME, for whom the handbook description is outdated, inaccurate and demeaning and the application forms and tests for mobility are unfair and inappropriate.
We are sure you will agree that it is quite bad enough to suffer from a chronic disabling illness, without also being deprived of the benefits on which so many sufferers depend and regarded as malingerers by Government."
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I very much regret having to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long and considerable interest in the matter, but he is now straying rather far from the scope of the debate.
Mr. Morris: I am asked by the ME Action Campaign to say that, if the House of Commons is amending what is to them very important legislation, their voice should be heard as to other amendments to the Act, which are just as important as those now before the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the scope of the debate is much narrower than that. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a very considerable parliamentarian and has a long interest in and involvement in these matters. However, the scope of the debate is much narrower than the points with which he is now dealing.
Mr. Morris: Of course I accept your view, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much hope that the hon. Lady will give pleasure to all parts of the House by responding to the point I have made, which is an important one for the people for whom I speak.
Mr. Frank Haynes: When the Government talk about changes to benefits for disabled people in their legislation, what usually happens is that they set up a review. I am sick to death of this. Because of an increase in benefit or a change in benefit, the Government set up a review. People who have received disability benefit and who live in a wheelchair have to go through the review and for a period their benefit is stopped. It is a shocking state of affairs and it is high time that the Government came off

403
it. Disabled people, not only in my constituency but nationwide, are entitled to many things. They should receive them, and they should receive proper treatment from the Department.
Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend has spoken with some intensity of feeling. He is taking an opportunity, as his constituents would expect, to represent their concerns. The amending regulations, to which I have referred on several occasions, are narrowly drawn. They have to be looked at in the context—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The regulations must be looked at in the context in which they are drawn. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will now accept my ruling on the matter.
Mr. Morris: I will go no further in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).
Tonight's debate provides an opportunity briefly to raise other concerns that have been voiced about the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991 and, in particular, the charge that the Government's current "so-called information campaign" —again I quote the Disability Alliance—is in fact a propagandist version of the truth which taxpayers are being made to pay for during a general election campaign.
A high-profile media campaign of television and newspaper advertisements is now under way and will end on 6 April. It will now have to take account, no doubt, of the regulations we are talking about here. I have said that the television and press advertising campaign is causing concern to disability organisations which they want the House to hear.
Last Sunday in The Observer, the Department of Social Security placed a huge advertisement about the disability working allowance, with a tear-off coupon for the reader to request information on the disability living allowance. Has confusion ever been more confused? To make matters even worse, the same advertisement appeared in The Guardian the following day. I must take this opportunity to say to the Government that a mistake of that order has to be corrected and very quickly.
I am reminded of the leniency, as some people thought, of Mark Twain's remark that
"Wagner's music is not as had as it sounds."
In the view of many of this country's foremost authorities on disability benefits, the message from the Government's current media campaign is nowhere near as good as it looks.
These amending regulations do not go far enough to meet the concerns of organisations which speak for millions of disabled people in this country. I hope that the Minister will accept the concerns that I have expressed. I hope that she will appreciate the depth of feeling among those who speak for disability organisations. I do not ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment regulations. No legislation, however, was more clearly in need of improvement than the 1991 Act. I hope that there will be more to it for the House to consider from a new Government, and very soon.
9.6 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I wish to speak only briefly on the amendment regulations. I had the honour to serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Disability Living Allowance and Disability
404
Working Allowance Bill. I am pleased to see that it will come into effect on 1 April 1992. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consult closely with her colleagues in the Department of Health, because on the same date the community care plans will also have to be published by local authorities.
I recently received a consultation document published by the Bolton authorities entitled "Bolton Community Care Plan." It draws attention to the needs of nine different client groups, including the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the physically handicapped. At long last, the document identifies considerable unmet needs which would cost in total, in the case of Bolton, some £5 million in additional resources. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consult closely with her colleagues about how those unmet needs can be met.
The plans go into considerable detail. They have been drawn up well. They show that there is a need for £2·3 million in the coming year but that only £600,000 has been identified from existing resources as available to meet those needs. Those resources have been found from competitive tendering. Some £600,000 alone is needed to set up a centre at the former Moss Nook children's home, which will provide about 20 places for both mental health patients and people described as having challenging behaviour, many of whom suffer from severe mental and physical handicap.
I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to visit Bolton if she has an opportunity, to see how the disability living allowance meets the needs to which the plans refer. I hope that she will be able to meet members of the Bolton handicap action group, which I helped to set up a few years ago, and which has played an active part in working with the health authority and local authority to attempt to provide some of the requirements of people whose needs are not met at present. When she comes to Bolton, I hope that she will have a chance to read the document if she does not do so before.
I draw her attention to page 166 where, under the heading of "Corporate Review of services for people with a learning disability" it identifies certain themes where service needs are greatest. I shall mention one theme because it underlines the need to consider these amending regulations carefully and to decide whether anything further can be done. The comment in the report is as follows:
"some people get nothing, others know there is nothing to get, and often the people who need the most get the least".
I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that closely in mind when considering these and any future regulations.
9.10 pm
Mr. Gordon McMaster: I wish to take up several genuine matters of concern which were mentioned by the Minister. The first involves people who are terminally ill. The Minister is perhaps aware that I have written to the Department several times on this subject. The hospices in my constituency—the Accord hospice and St. Vincent's hospice—both mentioned to me some time ago that the previous arrangements were causing a great deal of distress. Many people who were terminally ill, but did not necessarily know it, would apply, under the special conditions for severe disablement allowance. As they did not know that they were terminally ill, the application was perhaps made by their carer or through the Macmillan nurses. However, the regulations

405
state that the terminally ill person must be notified of any decision. That caused distress, because people who did not know that they were terminally ill were sent a booklet which told them that they had been awarded money because they were terminally ill. Will the Minister give an assurance that that will not happen with disability living allowance?
I received an ambiguous reply from the Minister recently which said that the Government would amend the wording, but gave no clear commitment that the carer would be notified if that was the choice of the carer and the terminally ill person.
Secondly, I ask for guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether it would be in order to mention the concerns of myalgic encephalomyelitis sufferers and to ask the Minister whether she has plans to introduce any regulations for them. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) here. He has done a lot of work on that subject. We are worried about the wording in the booklet, as it says that the disease could be all in the mind, when medical evidence is becoming more stacked against that view. We hope that the wording will be revised.
Thirdly, the application form is causing some concern because it is so complicated. A genuine question arises from that. A body of opinion, in the all-party group in the House and in the Disability Alliance, believes that many forums can be consulted about the wording of regulations. Which organisations has the Minister consulted before bringing the regulations to the House? In future, will she consult knowledgeable people, including the Disability Alliance and all the disability groups which are affected?
Finally, the Association of Councillors lobbied yesterday on this subject. As I understand it, one can earn only £39 a week before money is deducted pound for pound. I believe that the Minister of State has given an assurance on more than one occasion that that anomaly has been recognised and that something will be done. The fact is that something has not been done. The result is that councillors can attend only two meetings a week. That is a big price to pay for democracy. When disabled people, no matter what their disability, cannot enter local government because they would be financially penalised, that is a bad day for democracy.
9.14 pm
Mr. Jimmy Hood: I am disappointed that the regulations do not cover the real problems experienced by the sufferers of myalgic encephalomyelitis, of whom there are between 200,000 and 300,000.
The Department of Social Security is well aware of the problem, because it has received representations not only from hon. Members and as a result of private Bills, but from the ME Action Campaign and the ME Association.
There is a strong feeling among politicians, sufferers and the charitable organisations that try to care for those sufferers that there is a conspiracy among the medical profession not to identify the real problems faced by ME sufferers. Only recently, I received a representations from those in psychiatry who have challenged some of my views. However, I should like to restate views that I have already made known to the House.
For too long, the medical profession has used psychiatry as the dumping ground for its failures and
406
inadequacies. More than 200,000 people suffer from an illness that has not been properly recognised. They suffer day in, day out for 24 hours a day, and they need help and recognition of their illness.
The Government talk, rightly so, about spending money properly and getting value for money. We have never been able to calculate the millions and millions of pounds that are spend in the health service on ME sufferers because of misdiagnosis. I challenge the Government to reconsider this matter. If we recognise the illness of ME properly we will not only be able to help those hundreds of thousands of sufferers and their families, but also save money for the health service. That is a true, self-financing Tory phenomenon.
I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and, please, to ignore the advice that is coming from the demagogues of the medical profession who have ignored the plight of ME sufferers.
9.17 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who has done so much work on this disease. All our constituents are grateful to him.
I have a question for the Secretary of State, who is present. In the necessarily fallow period while the elections are taking place, we all know that civil servants put their heads in proverbial cold towels and produce all sorts of plans for whoever are the incoming Government. I ask the Secretary of State to give an instruction while he is on the hustings that a good deal of thought is given to this complex problem. It is not easy, as all of us who have had to deal with this illness at first hand know.
This is a time for consideration and reflection in the Department. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ask his chief medical officer and others who are likely to be producing plans for whoever are the incoming Government to have something ready on ME by the time that that Government are in place.
9.18 pm
Miss Widdecombe: This has been an interesting debate, with many contributions from hon. Members who have earned distinction for the way in which they have pursued these issues—over many years in the case of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
Although most of the points that have been raised have precious little to do with the regulations, they are important. I hope that I shall be allowed the same latitude in answering them as right hon. and hon. Members were allowed in the first place.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) spoke about the terminally ill and the sensitive problem concerning those who do not know that they are so ill, who find out that they have a limited time to live when they are informed about what money they will receive. The problem is fully recognised. Claimants have to be notified that they are receiving money and how much money, and we have not found a way to avoid doing that. However, they are not, and they never will be, told the reasons why.
We shall be watching this closely in view of the representations that have been made. I hope that that is satisfactory, but if, even on that limited basis, the hon. Gentleman can raise cases of distress being caused,

407
perhaps he will continue his correspondence with me and we shall have another look. However, I cannot do as he asked and promise new regulations to take account of that.
I was amazed to be told by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe that the television advertising campaign is propaganda. It is the provision of information, and that has been widely welcomed by just about all the disability organisations. If we had not had a take-up campaign or a series of advertising to get across the message, the right hon. Gentleman would, quite rightly, have been the first to ask what we were doing to make sure that a completely new benefit, and a slightly complex one, was being taken up. I refute any suggestion of propaganda.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a valid point about the unfortunate error in the disability working allowance advertisement. I assure him that anyone who sends off one of these coupons will get the right information and we shall be placing many more advertisements in an attempt to get the right message across and to correct that unfortunate error.
I am aware of the unfortunate business about disabled members of disability appeal tribunals and the problem of the effect on their benefits. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister of State is giving active consideration to how we can put this right.
Three hon. Members mentioned the ME Action Group and, before one of them was ruled out of order, they got in enough points to enable me to respond. The ME Action Group has made representations to the disability living allowance advisory board about whether people with ME should qualify for the DLA. That section of the handbook on ME was rewritten in the light of the helpful comments from organisations representing ME sufferers, but the whole point of the DLA is that it is related not to the illness or complaint of disability but to the effects of those disabilities.
So as to guage accurately those effects, we have the rather long form that has been criticised tonight. For many years, as the right hon. Gentleman will be only too well aware, we have been under pressure from organisations representing disabled people to introduce more self-assessment and to have less what they call "interference" from the medical profession. Self-assessment means asking claimants a large number of questions that would previously have been asked of the medical profession. Therefore, although the form is long, it is designed to address points made in the representations that we have persistently received, and it has been widely welcomed.
Mr. Dalyell: I ask this in an interrogatory spirit rather than a hostile or critical one. Is the Department quite sure that both it and the medical profession can be certain about the effects of ME? I have the impression as a layman that this is one of the problems. Constituency experience has shown me that there is considerable argument about the effects of ME. There is possibly a difference between how doctors see it and how patients perceive themselves.
Miss Widdecombe: Yes, but there is disagreement among the medical profession about the effects. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the advisory board is no longer medically dominated and we now take the advice of those suffering from disabilities and of laymen. It is not just a question of accepting one set of medical advice. We
408
can act only on the information that we are given. I stress that it is the effects that matter, and the effects of most disabilities and illnesses vary from person to person.
Mr. Hood: I thank the Minister for her clarity. I shall photostat a few copies of Hansard tomorrow and send them to one or two doctors who have been ignoring the effects of illness and disability. I agree with the Minister. Those of us who try to advise our constituents on health matters are frustrated by the fact that doctors are getting into a wrangle about diagnosis and are ignoring effects. When a person is disabled, he or she should be treated as such. Although doctors may argue about diagnosis, they should ensure that a person who is ill and bedridden and needs help receives it. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that it is the effect that matters.
Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman's interventon was aimed at getting me to clarify what I said, I have pleasure in confirming that his interpretation is correct —the effect rather than the defined illness matters.
The issue of counsellors relates to a completely different disability benefit—severe disablement allowance. I do not wish to introduce too quarrelsome a note into the debate because it has been productive, but I absolutely refute the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that the Government are guilty of double-speak when it comes to the new money that we are investing in the measure. It must be obvious to anyone capable of moving beads on an abacus that, if people are to receive the same level of benefits and if others are to be brought into the system for the first time, extra money is being made available.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for his contribution. Obviously, we are in constant contact with our colleagues in the Department of Health and we recognise the many community care issues that must be dealt with.
Mr. McMaster: May I press the Minister on a further issue? Who will the Minister consult in future when bringing forward regulations that affect disabled people? Will she consult the groups that know what the problems are and can draft appropriate regulations?
Miss Widdecombe: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having missed that point out of the many that he raised. We have already consulted widely on the regulations, the main Bill, and the various suggestions that were made to us as a result of the Bill and we shall continue to consult widely.
In the meantime, I commend these technical and beneficial regulations, which we have rather forgotten tonight, to the House.
9.28 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: By leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is no part of my intention to forget the amendment regulations. I return specifically to them. It is not just my view but that of many other people who know the 1991 Act well that these amending regulations in no way alter the unacceptable complexity of the rules of entitlement to the DLA care component and attendance allowance for people in all the various forms of institutional care.
It is put to me by organisations closely involved in the care of disabled people who live in institutions that, as I

409
argued, the main ambiguities revolve around the definition of "scheduled accommodation". For example, it is not clear how respite care funded by local authorities is classified, which must be an important point. Someone looking for respite care for a temporary period is likely to have difficulty finding out whether he or she is excluded from benefit by regulation 9. I ask the Minister to respond specifically to that point about the amendment regulations.
I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the validity and force of the point that I made about the appalling mistake in the advertisement that appeared in two national newspapers. I am glad that the hon. Lady has accepted that it was a serious mistake that not only appeared in The Observer on Sunday but was repeated in The Guardian on Monday.
The hon. Lady said that she could not accept my charge that the Government are guilty of "double-speak". I made it pikestaff plain that the charge is not mine. I quoted the Disability Alliance, which speaks for more than 200 organisations of and for disabled people, many of them household names. It states:
"The most glaring example of Government double-speak concerns the £300 million `new' money they claim to have put into disability benefits in 'The Way Ahead' package (January 1990)."
To correct what the hon. Lady told the House, the organisation said that, with one cut alone—
"the phasing-out of rights to invalidity benefit (additional pensions)"—
the Government will save £475 million. It is the totality of help arising from the package with which the organisations are concerned.
The hon. Lady told me that she did not think that the press and television advertising about that benefit was misleading. It is not my charge, but that of Sally Witcher, than whom few people know more about disability benefits, past and present. She was asked to join the consultative panel for the "BBC Select" series and says:
"BBC Select … has so far clearly demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice understandability at the altar of propaganda … Presenting DLA and DWA in such a rosy light will not obscure the gross inadequacies of the two benefits."
The important charge that she makes, and which I have sent to Sir Michael Checkland, is that blatantly misleading election propaganda is to go on being transmitted by a public service broadcasting organisation, without right of comment by other parties, virtually throughout the expected timing of a general election campaign.
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his ridiculous flight of rhetoric, will he tell us whether or not he thinks that measures that extend nearly another £12 a week to 300,000 people should or should not be advertised, so that the money can get to them?
Mr. Morris: I have said nothing against the desirability of advertising. I am quoting the organisations of disabled people. If it is a ridiculous flight of rhetoric, that is a criticism of what they are saying. I ask the Secretary of State, who has great experience in this policy area, and the Minister of State, to meet as quickly as they can with representatives of Disability Alliance and other organisations whose views I have been trying to present to the
410
House tonight. They ought not to be of ridiculous flights of rhetoric. I am simply saying that their views—[HoN. MEMBERS: "What are your views?"] My view is that grave mistakes have been made. It has been accepted—
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again, as this is important. I am not asking him to rehearse the views of organisations outside the House. I am asking him to give me, across the Floor of the House, his view on whether additional benefits of nearly £12 a week to several hundred thousand people should or should not be advertised to those people.
Mr. Morris: I am saying that, if the benefits are advertised, they must be advertised correctly, not misleadingly. When the Secretary of State for Social Security was on the Opposition Benches, I was in government. He was always beside himself in trying to tell the House what organisations of and for disabled people were saying about the policies of the Government of the day—for example, about the mobility allowance that I introduced, the invalid care allowance and so on. He was always telling us what the organisations said. I rest our case there in support of listening to what the organisations say—please listen to them.
9.35 pm
Miss Widdecombe: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. I cannot allow the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) to go unchallenged. Before I come to the unpleasant part of the business, I must say that, on the matter of respite care —the purely technical point raised by the right hon. Gentleman—there is no change in the current position.
I am sorry that a productive, courteous and useful debate has had to end on a note of quite disgraceful propaganda—not from the Government, but from the Opposition. They accused us of issuing propaganda, but when challenged all that they could say was that there had been a mistake in one advertisement. Of what are they accusing us? The right hon. Gentleman cannot wash his hands of it; he has made accusations from the Dispatch Box. What is the right hon. Gentleman's view? Will he give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an answer? Should those benefits be advertised, or not?
Mr. Alfred Morris: I was a Minister for more than five years and I advertised benefits. Every conceivable step should be taken to maximise take-up. I am saying that a great deal of misleading information has gone to people who have enough to put up with because of their disabilities, without having to complain to the House about misleading information.
Miss Widdecombe: We are now clear that the complaint is not about propaganda, but about a mistake. The right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the complaint about election propaganda. Is that what we are to understand? I think that we do understand that.
The two benefits will bring help to an additional 850,000 people, which will give additional help amounting to £300 million—no matter what the Opposition say—and which have been widely welcomed by a vast range of disability organisations, on whose representations we made the changes in the first place. They represent a major advance. I do not want to divide and rule, but most of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have been

411
constructive tonight. The right hon. Gentleman's sentiments will not be shared by those who will now be able to work, but who were not able to work before without severe loss of benefit, and by those who will now be able to claim care components that they could never claim before.
This is a great, humane piece of legislation. It stands as a testimony to the ability and the dedication of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—who, regrettably, cannot be here tonight—and to the humanity and the deep commitment to the disabled of the whole Government. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of the way in which he has warped the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.

PETITION

  Mifegyne
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Michael Lord: I wish to present to the House a petition drawn up by the Ipswich branch of the organisation Life against the drug Mifegyne, also known as RU486. The petition bears the signatures of 194 parishioners of St. Mary Magdalene's church, Norwich road, Ipswich, who believe that untold harm will be done if that pill becomes generally available in this country:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House, which is committed to upholding respect for human life and protection of the weak and vulnerable, will do everything possible to prevent the distribution and use of Mifegyne (known as RU486) and any other drugs which, like it, are produced with the deliberate intention of destroying human life.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Ozone Layer
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
9.39 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the 30 years since I was elected in May 1962, I have had 37 Adjournment debates ranging from Lockerbie to the rain forest, from kidney transplants to unemployment in the then mining villages of Blackridge, Fauldhouse and Stoneyburn which, in 1963, stood at an unacceptable 5·5 per cent. Yet in all that time no topic has approached in importance the plant pathology and skin cancer threat of an ozone hole.
The stakes are mind-boggling. The issues, as the Secretary of State for the Environment was reported to have said in New York earlier in the week, are dramatic for humankind. If some of the more alarmist views are half correct, it could mean that we could go the way of dinosaurus and pterodactyl, and it would be curtains for human life.
However, I am not alarmist. One of the saltier scientists with whom I talked said that, in the short term, if a person spent March and April in the nude in Scotland he would be safer than if he sunbathed on one day at high noon in Malta. That is the view that I take in the short term. In the medium and longer term it may be a different story. In general, I am concerned about the year 2000, 2005 and 2010. By his nodding of the head I think that the Minister assents to that general view.
My application for an Adjournment debate was prompted first of all by the recent NASA public statements, which may, incidentally, have been prompted in turn by internal problems in the NASA set-up and, secondly, by the widely reported statements of Greenpeace.
For example, at the top of page one of The Scotsman on 14 February, over the byline of its justifiably respected environment correspondent, Auslan Cramb, my concerned constituents were told:
"Pollution map points way to ozone hole over Scotland."
That appeared on the front page of a quality newspaper. He went on to say:
"A new map of atmospheric pollution has for the first time given a dramatic early warning of possible ozone destruction above Scotland. It shows exceptionally high levels of the main ozone-depleting chemical—chlorine monoxide—over Scotland, Scandinavia and Russia, with the highest concentrations above Shetland and the west of Norway. Scientists have given warning that the pollution, caused by man-made chemicals, could herald the creation of an ozone hole similar to the one which appears over the Antarctic every spring. The next few weeks will be critical as increasing sunshine in the northern hemisphere encourages the reactions which can destroy the life saving layer."
That is strong stuff, and it is no wonder I came rushing down hoping to put a private notice question, so concerned were my constituents. That article continued:
"Ozone protects the planet from cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation, and health specialists say a 10 per cent. decrease in ozone levels could lead to 300,000 extra skin cancers and up to 1·75 million extra eye cataracts each year.
The possibility of an ozone hole above highly-populated areas was revealed last week by scientists in Europe and America."
What are the people affected to make of that? The article adds:
"The latest graphic representation of the findings, showing the highest concentrations of C10 in yellow and orange, was produced for Heriot-Watt. Dr. Robert Harwood, of
414
Edinburgh University's department of meteorology, stressed that concentrations of C10 would vary, and its presence was not a guarantee that ozone-thinning would take place."
That is alarming enough.
Those of us concerned with the environment are delighted that Geoffrey Lean of The Observer has made a marvellous and miraculous recovery and is returned to health, and he showed enormous courage in doing so. He wrote under the headline
"Fears over the ozone layer spur action on treaty"
the following report:
"The studies predict that harvests in the US and the former Soviet Union will be decimated as the greenhouse effect takes hold. Food exports from the US, which help to feed 100 nations, could fall catastrophically.
The African savannahs, home to 200 million people, would dry out to resemble the Sahel."
That also is alarming stuff, yet with the experience of having written on a weekly basis for New Scientist for more than a quarter of a century, I must tell the Minister that Mr. Chris Rose and his colleagues at Greenpeace have produced serious work that deserves serious and detailed Government reply.
Greenpeace knows that I am the public friend of the nuclear power companies, of British Nuclear Fuels and, heaven help me, of Nirex—and do not always share Greenpeace's opinions. Rather than repeat everything that they said, and although I am fortunate to have a little extra time, I shall truncate their remarks. However, I asked Mr. Chris Rose to submit his material to Dr. Alan Apling of the Department of the Environment and to the Minister's other advisers. I also gave notice to the Minister of other authorities that I consulted in preparation for this Adjournment debate and before formulating my questions.
Those to whom I spoke included Professor Tom Blundell, FRS. director of Agricultural and Food Research Council: Professor John Dale, professor of botany at Edinburgh university, dean of the faculty of biological sciences-I should say I am a member of the university's biological sciences advisory committee; Dr. Joe Farman of Cambridge, who first identified the ozone hole above the Antarctic; Professor John Knill and his colleagues at the Natural Environment Research Council; Sir John Mason, a distinguished cloud physicist who was the former head of the Meteorological Office; Dr. Paul Rogers of Bradford university, and expert of NASA and a plant pathologist by training; and Dr. David Royle of Long Ashton research centre. I received valuable briefs from the House of Commons Library science section, and from the Labour party.
I just have time to make brief reference to the Greenpeace brief that was sent to the Department. It states:
"We are pressing for a complete and immediate ban on ozone depleting substances and will continue to do so in the run up to the March 23 formal EC Environment Ministers meeting. Germany has reiterated its intention to go further than the EC informal agreement (of a 100 per cent. phase out by the end of 1995) and intends to phase out all CFCs in 1993. There is no legal obstacle to Britain doing the same (it is allowed under Article 130 of the Single European Act)."
Greenpeace believes that the results from NASA, and from the European Arctic stratospheric ozone experiment, show that severe ozone depletion, possibly resulting in the creation of an ozone hole could occur over parts of the northern hemisphere—including Britain—in the next few weeks or months. Preliminary NASA results released on 3 February show that the development of a late winter or

415
spring ozone hole is increasingly likely. The reason is that CFCs and other chlorine-containing chemicals have reached the stratosphere and have been broken down to chlorine monoxide, with halons being broken down to create bromine monoxides. NASA has found 1·5 parts per billion of chlorine monoxide over eastern Canada and northern New England—a higher level than has ever before been recorded over the north or south polar regions.
Data have also indicated a lessening of the atmosphere's predicted ability to recover from periods of ozone depletion. The likelihood of significant volcanic ozone loss over the northern hemisphere, now and in the future, is greatly increased by the presence of large quantities of natural volcanic particles in the lower stratosphere, which effectively lock up oxides of nitrogen that would otherwise combine with reactive chlorine before it is involved in the reactions that lead to ozone destruction.
An increase in the number of sulphuric acid particles, which act in that way, is the result of a tenfold increase in stratospheric aerosol created by the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption. That eruption has affected the likely timing and severity of ozone depletion, but it would not cause that without the chlorine and bromine pollution.
The chemicals that contribute to the pollution include CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, HCFCs, methyl chloroform and halons. In the United Kingdom, ICI is the largest manufacturer of those chemicals. It has announced the closure of its CFC 11 and CFC 12 plants from early 1993, but it then intends to import CFCs from the Dutch chemical company Akzo.
The Department has received the rest—and, indeed, the summary—of the hard work done by Greenpeace. Let me add that, according to the opening leader in New Scientist on 15 February—written by an extremely responsible and knowledgeable man—
"New Scientist does not always see eye to eye with Greenpeace, but it happens that when Greenpeace calls for a ban on the production of all substances that deplete ozone, it is talking sound scientific common sense. The Prime Minister should not instinctively reject its proposals."
Having received notice, will the Government tell me their reaction to the work of Greenpeace?
The Scotsman says:
"Springtime is the danger period in both northern and southern hemispheres, when sunshine arrives after a long dark winter, causing the perfect conditions for ozone destruction by chemical reaction. The ozone overhead in Europe during this month and next month is already 8 per cent. less than it was a decade ago. Tackling the problem is not so much a political opportunity, but a life-saving opportunity, and the Government should act now. It will give scientists and environmentalists no satisfaction to say I told you so. In a week's time the satellite which suggested the ozone layer above Britain was primed for destruction, will face the northern hemisphere again. What it then reveals should be irrelevant. The need for drastic action has been proven."
My distilled view is that we are not dealing with an ecological time-bomb that is likely to go off in 1992 or 1993, but by 2005, the situation could be horrendous. However, because it will get worse before it gets better, we have a five to 10-year lag time. The questions that I ask are therefore urgent and really for the here and now. The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy and a knowledgeable chemist, knows that there are such things as lag times. I see that he assents to that general view.
416
The chief danger may not be human beings but the effect on crops. I understand that there is a possibility of ultra-violet damage to crops, especially seedlings. DNA absorbs strongly in ultra-violet, which causes chromosome breakages and mutations in higher plants, and that is proportional to dose. The suggestion is that natural levels of ultra violet, for example in polar regions and the tropics, may affect species distribution favouring those with a low nuclear DNA content.
If that hypothesis is correct, increases in ultra-violet may have long-term effects on ecosystems leading to the exclusion of species with high nuclear DNAs. Some evidence suggests that ultra violet can damage chloroplast DNA, the extra-nuclear genetic machinery present in green cells. This may lead to abnormalities in photosynthetic machinery and loss of yield, quite apart from any other effects through the nuclear genetic mechanism.
The susceptibility of seedlings to ultra violet varies with species. Most experimental work is done with young seedlings, because they grow quickly, in a limited range of crop plants. More work must be done, particularly in relation to flavonoid synthesis. On exposure to high levels of ultra violet, many plants produce large amounts of flavonoid pigments, which absorb ultra violet and thus minimise damage elsewhere in the cell. Quite a lot is known about the biochemistry of the effects, and ultra violet appears to increase transcription rates of genes involved in flavonoid synthesis.
There are common features of the biosynthetic pathways leading to flavonoid production and to production of anti-fungal compounds and phytoalexins, which are produced on exposure to fungal attack. I do not know—nor do those with whom I have talked—and I have been unable to find out whether exposure to ultra violet, thus stimulating the flavonoid pathway, also confers anti-fungal resistance by stimulating that part of the route common to phytoalexin synthesis. Plants weakened by ultra violet damage may be more liable to fungal bacterial attack nevertheless.
There is a desperate need for research in this field. I understand that researchers led by Dr. David Royle and Dr. Keith Brent at Long Ashton and by Peter Ayres at Lancaster are applying for a number of grants and help in dealing with this situation.
The Library of the House has produced some excellent material on the consequences for plants of ozone depletion. Dr. Ann Davies of the Library has written on that subject and the information will be available to the Department. I found it extremely convincing.
On 25 February, I asked the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment the departmental plant pathologists had made of the results for agriculture of changes in the ozone layer. The Under-Secretary replied:
"Against the background of the Department of the Environment's continuing programme of work on the effects of ozone depletion on plants, this Department is considering advertising for a research proposal on this matter."
Why do not the Government agree at once—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Mr. Dalyell: Why do not the Government agree at once to back the proposal of the Agricultural and Food

417
Research Council from Long Ashton and Lancaster about the effect of climatic changes on plant diseases, especially in relation to ultra-violet radiation and moisture within the biological adaptation to global and environmental change programme?
I shall ask questions of which I have given notice. What information does the Minister have on the ozone-depletion studies being conducted by United Kingdom scientists at Kiruna in Sweden? What is the current and predicted depletion of the ozone layer this season? What is the percentage increase in ultra violet reaching the surface, and what data are the United Kingdom getting from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on ozone depletion and ultra violet increase?
I commend to the Department an article by Dr. John Pyle which 1 know that it has read. I ask about the European Arctic stratosphere ozone experiment which has a better understanding of stratospheric ozone and how it is destroyed around the Arctic. Dr. Pyle ends his study by saying:
"While the experiments end in March next year, that is not the end of the project. Analysis of the data will continue for months and in some cases for years afterwards. The experiments will provide new data that should reveal valuable and exciting information about the processes controlling the evolution of the low stratosphere. It will he a period of sustained concerted effort to monitor all the processes contributing to ozone loss in the northern hemisphere. The scientists involved hope for many advances from this innovative combination of data, experiment and theory. By its very nature the project already marks a significant success, the coming together of the European atmospheric scientists in an endeavour in which national and European Community funds have been pooled to build an enterprise well beyond the work of a single country."
There was a good deal of argument in the House yesterday about diversification of defence. There is a crying need for resources at the very limits of technology to do the work of the kind Dr. Pyle mentions, which, at the end of the day, may protect us all.
I draw to the Government's attention the Greenpeace note on ozone depletion over Sweden. Do they think that there are any inaccuracies in it?
What is the effect of ultra-violet on phytoplankton, and to what depth does it have an effect? That is a very important question in the view of Sir John Mason.
I refer to the letter of 3 March from Secretary of State for Scotland in which he said:
"We do however share your concern which is why we have asked the advisory group, the Committee on medical aspects of radiation, to consider the implications for health."
I have given notice to the Department that I should like a comment on the work of that organisation.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on initiating the debate. The subject has been a matter of concern for many Members of the House, and has been the subject of two well supported early-day motions. Will my hon. Friend also say that it should be a matter for concern to the Government that in 1990 this country exported about 40,000 tonnes of CFCs, and that an earnest of Government concern would be an attempt to persuade exporters to curtail those exports rapidly and completely?
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is one of those Members who knows how best to use the considerable, expert and scholarly resources of the Library. He may like to read the
418
briefs that have been prepared for me by Christopher Barclay and Nicola Donlon. In my view that is excellent work, which would go some way towards providing a serious answer to my hon. Friend's question.
What are the Government doing about sheer basic information to prevent the likelihood of cancers—simple advice such as saying, "If you must sunbathe, do so after three o'clock when the sun is lowering, rather than when the sun is high in the sky"?
In an excellent study in The Bandar times this week. Sean Ryan, its environment correspondent, wrote:
"'Politicians say the right thing, but they never seem to get around to committing themselves to doing it …
in 1985 … we reported the ozone hole. It was obvious there was a problem then but seven years later people are still arguing about whether it's necessarry to do anything'.
Only time will tell who is right."
The figures for the occurrence of skin cancer appear in a written answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) at column 582 of Hansard of 27 February. I refer the Minister to what his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, told the House there.
Do the Government agree that there is no long-term future for CFC substitutes? What is their policy for recycling, and will they have proposals for the Copenhagen conference in November—whichever Government represent us there? What is the Government's commitment to getting rid of halo-carbons?
In that context it is vital to support the work of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. A year ago I went to Rothamsted, and was the guest of Professor Lewis and his colleagues. Professor Lewis has written a powerful letter to Professor Blundell, which is available to the Department, as is the work being done at Long Ashton, just outside Bristol. Some fairly quick decisions are wanted.
For example, some of the work being done is to determine the ranges of tolerance to key climatic variables of pathogen parameters important in determining epidemic development, especially the effects of ultra-violet light and moisture—in order to contribute to our understanding the effects of climatic change on the occurrence of fungal plant diseases. Incidentally, the fungal aspects are enormously important, as the hon. Member for Rochford, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy knows.
Finally, why have the Government not yet paid their cheque for the Montreal convention, and why have they not pressurised our European partners to ratify the protocol?
My good fortune in having a little more time that I expected has enabled me to give just a taste of the kind of evidence now emerging. I am glad that the Minister now has 22 minutes in which to reply, because more people will be interested in what the Government are doing, and in what the Department is thinking, than in what I have to say on the matter.
10.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this important topic. It is a complex topic which requires a degree of intellectual honesty, and which requires us all to rely on the best science and to have regard

419
to principles such as the precautionary principle. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue with his usual courtesy and with his usual thoroughness.
The threat of stratospheric ozone depletion and the potential impacts that that might have on human life and on the environment have been of concern to the Government since the negotiations leading to the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer in 1985. Throughout the period, United Kingdom scientists have made major contributions to unravelling the complexities of ozone depletion. The Government have played a full and often leading role in developing the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, restricting and eventually phasing out the production of ozone-depleting chemicals.
We have made a payment of United States $1 million towards the Montreal protocol. That represents the United Kingdom contribution towards work programmes already agreed. We remain fully committed to meeting our obligations to the interim multilateral fund as agreed in June 1990, but it will be difficult for us to make future payments unless the fund starts forecasting future disbursements and receipts to give donors confidence that it is not building up excessive cash balances. We believe that contributions to the fund should match as closely as possible expected annual disbursements against work programmes and should not be required as arbitrary divisions of the total. Good, realistic financial planning and credible assurances that successive cash balances will not be built up are required and are routinely provided by other funding agencies such as the World bank.
We are determined to meet all our obligations to the Montreal protocol. We have taken a leading part in the work of the Montreal protocol.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister clarify the question of subscriptions to the protocol?
Mr. Baldry: With respect, that is the point with which I have been dealing for the past three minutes. I am happy to repeat my comments, but I suspect that, if the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I have dealt with the matter at some length.
United Kingdom industry has also contributed by voluntarily limiting the use of ozone-depleting chemicals, taking a leading role in the development of substitutes and planning to phase out the production of the principal components ahead of the Montreal protocol requirements.
In recent weeks, considerable confusion and anxiety have arisen among the general public about the possibility of health risks from increased ultra-violet radiation as a result of ozone depletion. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw the House's attention to that concern. I will try to answer the concerns, some of which are largely based on misunderstanding, with the hon. Gentleman's other important points.
First, it may help if I summarise the facts as we know them about stratospheric ozone depletion. I will take particular care to differentiate between general ozone layer depletion and the special conditions that apply over the polar regions.
Only in the past year or two has painstaking analysis of satellite and ground-based measurements given clear evidence of general ozone layer depletion. In the mid-latitudes of both northern and southern hemispheres, including the latitudes of the British Isles and Northern
420
Europe, total column ozone appears to have decreased at a rate of about 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. per decade over the past 12 years. The depletion is higher in late winter and spring than in summer. Total ozone layer reductions since measurements began in the 1950s could be up to 8 per cent. in those latitudes. There still seems to be very little depletion over equatorial regions.
The so-called ozone hole which now appears over south polar regions between September and December each year was much more easy to detect than general ozone depletion. It was the first measured stratospheric ozone depletion to be linked directly with chlorine and bromine containing chemicals released into the atmosphere from human activities. It has appeared every year since it was first reported by Dr. Joe Farman and his colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey in 1985. The depletion in 1991 was as deep and extensive as any seen in previous years, with total ozone over Antarctica being some 60 per cent. less than the pre-1970 levels.
The key to these dramatic Antarctic springtime ozone reductions is a combination of chlorines and bromine-containing chemicals and special meteorological conditions. Ice crystals that form in polar stratospheric clouds under the intensely cold conditions of the southern polar winter provide surfaces for chemical reactions which multiply the ozone-depleting effect of chlorines and bromine-containing chemicals. These reactions are triggered as the sun returns in the austral spring.
An ozone hole has not been observed over northern polar regions. There are some obvious arguments why this should be so. In the southern hemisphere, winds are relatively free to circulate, building up a vortex of intensely cold, isolated air during the Antarctic winter which is ideal for the formation of polar stratospheric clouds and development of the chemistry which precedes ozone depletion. In the northern hemisphere, the abundant land masses interfere with wind circulation and the winter arctic air mass is neither as cold nor as isolated as the Antarctic vortex.
Nevertheless, as levels of chlorine and bromine chemicals in the stratosphere are bound to increase for some years to come, irrespective of international actions taken on controlling production, there is concern that enhanced Arctic ozone depletion may eventually develop driven by the concentration of ozone-depleting chemicals.
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister uses the word "eventually". Is any timespan tagged to that? Incidentally, I welcome the presence of the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who takes the matter extremely seriously and went to Estoril some 10 days ago.
Mr. Baldry: We cannot predict with any certainty. In several areas, one relies throughout on the precautionary principle, of which I shall say more in a moment. Indeed, the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside and the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, to which the hon. Gentleman referred earlier, demonstrate that the whole Government take the matter seriously. Indeed, that is why I welcome the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to ensure that some of these matters can be recorded in Hansard for everyone to see.
It might be helpful if I were to give some indication of the present Arctic research campaign. This winter and

421
spring, an intensive study of the Arctic atmosphere is being carried out by the European Arctic stratospheric ozone experiment. The experiment involves more than 250 scientists from 17 EC and EFTA countries. The key management role is being played from Kiruna in northern Sweden by the European Ozone Research Coordination Unit, directed by Dr. John Pyle and funded by the Department of the Environment and the European Community. It is fortunate that measurements are also currently being made from the new United States upper atmosphere research satellite launched last September and the United States airborne Arctic campaign. The three experiments complement each other and there is good collaboration between the teams of scientists involved.
The Arctic experiment is an exciting one. We hope that it will add substantially to our understanding of the scientific details of ozone-depleting chemistry and lead directly to improved predictions of future ozone depletion, about which I will say more later.
Unfortunately, early results from the study have been widely misinterpreted. There was genuine misunderstanding on the part of various commentators. That has led to recommendations for people to take unnecessary precautionary measures and to considerable anxiety among the general public. The hon. Gentleman made reference to certain articles in national newspapers which had exacerbated those anxieties.
The problem began in early February, when United States and European scientists announced the first results of the Arctic campaigns. Those results showed that, largely as expected, the chemistry of the Arctic stratosphere exhibited all the classic ingredients now well known from Antarctic studies that lead to enhanced ozone depletion, provided that polar stratospheric clouds are formed in sufficient quantities to provide the essential reacting surfaces.
An additional complicating fact this year is the presence of particulate matter injected into the stratosphere by the eruption of the mount Pinatubo volcano which might provide an additional source of reacting surfaces for ozone-depleting reactions.
Those reports were unfortunately misinterpreted as announcing actual or imminent ozone-holes of Antarctic proportions over the northern hemisphere. The misinterpretations have in turn led to calls for ultra-violet radiation forecasts and health warnings, arousing considerable but unnecessary general anxiety.
Let me say very clearly now, that there is no Arctic ozone hole and no indication of severe ozone depletion over Britain. That has been forcibly pointed out by Dr. Joe Farman, the discoverer of the Antarctic ozone hole, in the national press last week, when he emphasised that ozone levels over Britain were still within the range of natural variability at this time of year.
Mr. Dalyell: I have also talked to Joe Farman. Does the Minister accept that he is concerned about the years 2000, 2005 and 2010, and, whereas that is probably true in the immediate future, we had better not be complacent, had we?
Mr. Baldry: Nothing that I have said has been complacent. If the hon. Member gives me a chance, I shall get to the future. He asked a large number of questions, all
422
of which I am endeavouring to answer, but they are complex and it is obviously important to get the science right.
The scientists studying the Arctic stratosphere are in constant, direct contact with Governments. They report that the perturbed chemistry that they have observed has not progressed to extensive enhanced ozone depletion of the kind seen in Antarctica. The ozone depletion that was observed in January and early February appears to have been broadly consistent with the rate of general ozone depletion of some 4 to 6 per cent. per decade in northern mid-latitudes.
Continuous measurements of ultra-violet radiation made in the United Kingdom by the National Radiological Protection Board on a routine basis, and research measurements made as part of the Department of the Environment's research programme show no evidence of being significantly higher than the normal range for this time of year. I have our results for Lerwick for 3 March, which at 324 Dobson units are well within the seasonal norm. Any sudden apparent increase outside the norm would immediately be notified.
The claims of possible danger to human health amongst people going about their normal business in the United Kingdom at this time of year are totally unjustifed, and I believe we need to get the risks of ozone depletion back into perspective.
There is no doubt that, all other things being equal, less stratospheric ozone means that more ultra-violet B radiation from the sun will reach ground level. Exposure to UVB is associated with a variety of human health problems. However, human beings are naturally subject, and voluntarily subject themselves, to a range of exposure which is much greater than any yet implied or expected due to ozone layer depletion. Even assuming clear sky conditions, UVB radiation levels in Britain are some twentyfold greater during the summer than in the winter simply because the sun is more directly overhead in the summer. Also in the summer, UVB levels in popular holiday areas at lower latitudes, like Spain—the hon. Gentleman mentioned Malta— are more than double what they are in southern England. We increase our exposure during the summer, and particularly while on holiday.
The Government are of course concerned at the significant increase of skin cancer, both in the United Kingdom population and in other countries, that has occurred in the past 10 years. The suspect factor is thought to be sunbathing, and the increased opportunities for sunbathing that modern travel and technology afford. The important point to bear in mind is that everyone should take care in the sun. Existing advice issued by the Health Education Authority about minimising exposure to sunlight should be observed.
In that context, a small increment due to ozone depletion on the already low levels of UVB that we receive at this time of year is insignificant.
However, coming to the question which the hon. Gentleman just raised, if that is the position, what is the concern? Is it at all justified? I believe that it is for four reasons. First, the concentrations of ozone-depleting chemicals in the stratosphere are bound to continue to rise for the next 10 years or so. This will remain true even if we are successful in advancing production phase-out dates for ozone-depletion chemicals when the parties to the Montreal protocol meet in November this year. We shall certainly take a full part in those discussions.

423
Secondly, we cannot yet predict with confidence how the increased ozone-depleting chemical levels will affect stratospheric ozone. Present predictive models only partially explain polar ozone depletion, and under-predict by a factor of about two the general ozone depletion now thought to have occurred in mid-latitudes.
Thirdly, while the present concerns over increased exposure in the United Kingdom as a result of ozone depletion at this time of the year are unfounded, in global terms there are data to indicate that skin cancers, cataracts and other eye problems and immune suppression would become more prevalent if ozone depletion continued, particularly if it extended towards the currently unaffected tropical regions.
Finally, the research base on effects on plants and natural ecosystems is far from well developed. There is some scientific consensus that increased UVB might overall tend to depress crop production yields, but precise estimates are difficult given the myriad other factors which affect the performance of agricultural crops. Similar arguments apply to natural ecosystems, including the oceans and phytoplankton, the basis of the ocean food chain.
There is considerable research in hand around the world, and within the United Kingdom science base, particularly the research programmes of the Natural Environment Research Council and the research programmes of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment. The general areas for concern are well identified and have been summarised in the recent impact assessment carried out under the Montreal protocol. The active interest and co-operation in this area is well illustrated by the session on ozone depletion and UVB effects being held in April this year at the Lancaster meeting of the Society for Experimental Biology, which the DOE is supporting.
The study of UVB impacts on plants and ecosystems is particularly difficult, because laboratory results are not easily extrapolated to the real world.
Mr. Dalyell: That is true.
Mr. Baldry: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the correctness of that.
The research into this matter involves some difficult areas of science. Other factors such as competition between species and pathogens and nutrient supply may well dominate. Results are being obtained steadily. I will, for example, be particularly interested to hear from our specialists an evaluation of the studies of impacts on Antarctic plankton reported by scientists from the university of California last month. However, we must expect progress towards confident quantitative predictions of effects to be slow in this difficult area of research.
I hope that it is clear from what I have said that the Government are greatly concerned about the possible effects of ozone depletion. Misleading and unwarranted scares about health impacts in the United Kingdom in
424
winter are not helpful in developing a better appreciation of the real problems on which much further work needs to be done. There is no element about which we are complacent.
Action on controlling ozone-depleting substances does not depend on more research on either the science or effects of ozone depletion. Last December, we proposed that the European Community should support an earlier phase out of ozone-depleting substances when the Montreal protocol is reviewed this year. The Community will decide its position this month and the Government will be urging other member states to support the toughest possible measures.
The hon. Gentleman said that other member states seem to be taking tougher measures than we are. I suppose that the member state that is most frequently mentioned is Germany, which, in common with us, is a producer of CFCs and has a law for phase-out in individual sectors. Its law is extremely complex and it has many exemption clauses. Germany's position on phasing out CFCs by the end of 1993 is far from clear. Officials from my Department attended a major conference on CFCs in Berlin as recently as 24 to 26 February, at which German industry representatives and the German Government, including the Minister for the Environment, Dr. Klaus Topfer, were present in force. However, no mention was made at any stage of a 1993 phase-out.
The United Kingdom is committed to phasing out CFCs, carbon tetrachloride and others by the end of 1995 at the latest and halons by the end of 1994. Both United Kingdom producers have stated that they will cease production of those chemicals no later than the end of 1995. My hon. Friend the Minister of State proposed to the European Community Environmental Council in December that the protocol's phase-out dates be brought forward to the end of 1994 for halons and the end of 1995 for CFCs, carbon tetrachloride and tricholoroethane methyl chloroform.
It has often been asked why we do not ban CFCs straightaway. An immediate ban would not be practicable for a number of applications. For example, medical aerosols such as asthma inhalers still use CFCs: they cannot use recycled materials. We are determined to phase them out as soon as it is humanly possible. We are working closely with our EC colleagues and it is important, now that we have a single European market, to achieve that aim.
The depletions in stratospheric ozone that has so far been detected, our imperfect understanding of the science, and the evidence so far available on the possible impacts of ozone depletion are sufficient reasons for minimising as far as possible any further build-up of ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere. That is the objective that the Government will pursue as we approach the next review of the Montreal protocol.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

ENERGY

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of Nuclear Electric concerning the level of electricity prices to be offered to large industrial electricity consumers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of Nuclear Electric from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

ENVIRONMENT

  Farm Shops
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations or guidelines cover the proportion of the produce sold in a shop attached to a farm or smallholding which is required to have been grown on the farm or holding, in connection with planning requirements.

  Mr. Yeo
  There are no hard and fast rules but guidance is included in the new planning policy guidance note 7, "The Countryside and the Rural Economy". It is normally assumed that the use of a farm shop only for the sale of goods produced on that farm or smallholding is a use which is ancillary to the use as a farm/smallholding not requiring planning permission, whereas use as a farm shop selling a significant amount of "imported" produce amounts to a use on its own account and is therefore subject to planning control.

  Sir Walter Raleigh Statue
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the relocation of Sir Walter Raleigh's statue in Whitehall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  A study has been commissioned to consider the siting of the proposed new statue of Lord Alanbrooke on Raleigh green, Whitehall. Although the study is not yet complete, there are no current plans that include the relocation of Sir Walter Raleigh's statue elsewhere. However, it is clear that a repositioning within the green will be needed. The siting plans emerging from the study will shortly be ready for consultation with interested parties, including the Royal Fine Arts Commission, English Heritage and Westminster City Council and no final decision will be taken until that is complete.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the revenue support grant and standard spending assessment for Dorset for 1992–93 as compared with 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  The standard spending assessment for Dorset county council at £369·8 million for 1992–93 is 8·2 per cent. above that for 1991–92 at £341·8 million. Revenue support grant at £125·1 million is 23·7 per cent. higher than the sum of RSG and community charge grant for 1991–92 of £ 101·2 million.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the impact of outstanding rating appeals both domestic and non-domestic on local authority finances in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: Rating appeals under the new non-domestic rating system have no impact on local authority finances. Within any given level of aggregate external finance, any variation in rates yield due to such appeals would be matched by a corresponding variation in the level of revenue support grant. Figures are not available nationally on the effects for those years of appeals in respect of the 1973 valuation lists. The effect of these appeals on local authorities' budgets and charges will depend on their own past budgeting decisions. As I announced on 27 February, we have decided to issue supplementary credit approvals totalling some £9·5 million to assist those authorities most affected in 1991–2 by the results of rating appeals notified to them after 1991–92 budgets had been set.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet a delegation of residents from Coventry to discuss the effect of the standard spending assessment for 1992–93 on the level of education provision and social services in the city.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: No. Within Coventry's budget, the spending priorities given to education and social services are a matter for the city council.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings or other discussions his officials have had with local government officers or councillors from Coventry about the city's standard spending assessment in 1991 and 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 4 March 1992]: Coventry City Council made representations on standard spending assessments for 1991–92 and I met a delegation from the West Midlands joint committee, including Coventry, to hear representations on the SSA for 1992–93. For 1992–93 Coventry's SSA increases by 5·8 per cent. and is, at £1,080 per adult, one of the highest of any metropolitan district.

  Nuclear Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the European Commissioner for environmental matters to discuss the impact of the Sellafield reprocessing plant on the Irish sea and the surrounding environment.
  161
  Mr. Baldry
  Mr. right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  New Towns (Land Sales)
  Sir Charles Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to extend to other new towns his recent decision to allow the Commission for the New Towns to make land available at Telford at a price intended to facilitate the construction of low-cost housing.

  Sir George Young
  The Commission for the New Towns is a disengagement authority, charged with maximising the receipts obtainable from the sale of its assets. Disposal of housing land at less than the best price reasonably obtainable can normally be justified only where this can be expected to lead to an overall enhancement in the value of its remaining assets.

  Sir Charles Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend to the Commission for the New Towns the power of local authorities to sell land for less than the market price.

  Sir George Young
  The role of the Commission for the New Towns is disengagement and to maximise the receipts for the Exchequer obtained from the sale of its assets. It is the responsibility of the local housing authorities to co-ordinate arrangements to ensure that the social housing needs of their areas are met.

  United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport West, 24 January,Official Report, column 347, when he received the non-governmental organisations' report of the Paris planning meeting for the forthcoming United Nations conference on environment and development; and which proposals made in the report have been included in the United Kingdom submissions for UNCED.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has not yet received a formal report from the Paris meeting.

  Long Leasehold Flats
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he plans to make to the proposals for the enfranchisement of long leasehold flats, which he announced last July; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Following extensive consultation the scheme for enfranchisement in England and Wales, which I announced last year, is to be modified and extended.

  The main framework of the scheme to give long-leaseholders of flats the collective right to buy their freehold will not be changed. Nor will the compensation arrangements. But we shall simplify the criteria for qualification of long-leaseholders and buildings, and give a right to former freeholders to lease back parts of buildings let direct to renting tenants or used for business purposes.

  In addition, we will give flat owners in blocks which are not eligible for enfranchisement a right to extend their leases, at market price. The details of this proposal will be subject to consultation.
  162
  We will also remove the rateable value, and rental equivalent value, limits on eligibility of houses for enfranchisement. Long leaseholders of houses of any value will be given the right to buy their freeholds at market value.

  A revised information leaflet will shortly be available to the public on request from the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office. I will be placing copies of text, together with a brief resume of our proposals, in the Library. We will introduce this legislation when parliamentary time permits.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the present and planned sites for monitoring of air quality, stating for each which pollutants are measured.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department of the Environment is currently operating the following number of air pollution monitoring sites:

  Number

  Ozone:

  18

  Carbon monoxide:

  6

  Nitrogen oxides:

  12

  Acid deposition:

  32

  Atmospheric hydrocarbons:

  4

  Trace gases:

  3

  Smoke and sulphur dioxide:

  258

  Lead:

  17

  The enhanced urban monitoring initiative will place monitoring sites in 24 more towns and cities across the United Kingdom by the end of the decade. Each will measure ozone, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, small particulate matter—PM10—and toxic hydrocarbons.

  The first 10 sites will be in Cardiff, Belfast, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Newcastle, London, Liverpool, Bristol, Leeds and Aberdeen, the Government are awaiting independent scientific advice before choosing the locations of the remaining sites.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on data for air quality in Greater London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Bristol at similar periods in each year from 1980 to 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: Data for the cities and years requested are available only for smoke and sulphur dioxide.

  The 98-percentile daily mean smoke and sulphur dioxide concentrations for representative urban sites in Greater London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Bristol are given in the table. The values can be compared with the EC directive limits for smoke and sulphur dioxide of 213 and 350 B5;gm-3, respectively.

  Smoke µgm-3

  SO2 µgm-3 as 98-percentile daily mean

  Birmingham

  1980–81

  51

  156

  1981–82

  107

  237

  163

  Smoke µgm-3

  SO2 µgm-3 as 98-percentile daily mean

  1982–83

  59

  115

  1983–84

  68

  128

  1984–85

  55

  123

  1985–86

  46

  111

  1986–87

  58

  87

  1987–88

  64

  96

  1988–89

  64

  180

  1989–90

  65

  91

  1990–91

  65

  93

  Bristol

  1980–81

  66

  115

  1981–82

  80

  134

  1982–83

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  1985–86

  45

  83

  1986–87

  44

  90

  1987–88

  46

  76

  1988–89

  55

  49

  1989–90

  43

  60

  1990–91

  29

  43

  Leeds

  1980–81

  51

  110

  1981–82

  87

  115

  1982–83

  78

  125

  1983–84

  89

  139

  1984–85

  87

  158

  1985–86

  69

  129

  1986–87

  68

  98

  1987–88

  62

  94

  1988–89

  71

  82

  1989–90

  47

  79

  1990–91

  54

  101

  London (Enfield)

  1980–81

  48

  134

  1981–82

  56

  138

  1982–83

  39

  101

  1983–84

  49

  113

  1984–85

  49

  111

  1985–86

  41

  97

  1986–87

  37

  94

  1987–88

  49

  137

  1988–89

  17

  78

  1989–90

  28

  90

  1990–91

  26

  93

  London (City)

  1980–81

  54

  184

  1981–82

  67

  212

  1982–83

  62

  176

  1983–84

  58

  95

  1984–85

  51

  85

  1985–86

  53

  117

  1986–87

  49

  142

  1987–88

  49

  97

  1988–89

  40

  66

  1989–90

  41

  64

  1990–91

  62

  88

  London (Croydon)

  1980–81

  63

  144

  1981–82

  37

  82

  1982–83

  19

  58

  1983–84

  13

  44

  1984–85

  16

  42

  1985–86

  16

  54

  1986–87

  47

  84

  1987–88

  26

  62

  1988–89

  20

  62

  1989–90

  22

  66

  1990–91

  32

  66

  Manchester

  164

  Smoke µgm-3

  SO2µgm-3 as 98-percentile daily mean

  1980–81

  54

  180

  1981–82

  98

  250

  1982–83

  73

  180

  1983–84

  84

  181

  1984–85

  81

  155

  1985–86

  66

  122

  1986–87

  71

  112

  1987–88

  75

  151

  1988–89

  116

  204

  1989–90

  91

  126

  1990–91

  89

  106

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, on 11 February 1991,Official Report, column 295, concerning council debts.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: I have arranged for the available information to be laid in the Library of the House.

  Manchester Olympic Bid
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the report commissioned by the Government from financial consultants as to the feasibility of the Manchester Olympic bid.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: The studies were commissioned by the Manchester Olympic bid committee with the financial support of the Government. It is not proposed that they should be published.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many repossessions have been stopped as a result of the agreement reached between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and mortgage lenders, as announced on 19 December.

  Mr. Maples
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is too early to provide an estimate of the number of repossessions which have been prevented as a result of the measures agreed with the Council of Mortgage Lenders. However, excellent progress is being made on the implementation of the package. The Bill to suspend stamp duty on properties valued at up to £250,000 has received royal assent and the Bill to make income support payments of mortgage interest direct to lenders has passed all its Commons stages. In addition, the major lenders have committed themselves to helping borrowers in difficulties through mortgage rescue schemes involving funding of up to £3/4 billion. Such schemes are now coming into operation. The various measures will have a substantial impact on the level of repossessions this year.

PRIME MINISTER

  Charities (Europe)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments will be involved in consultations on the proposal for a European Community regulation on the statute for a European association.

  The Prime Minister
  The Home Office will be taking the lead with the Charity Commission, bringing in other Departments in respect of their particular interests in the proposed statute.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Bolivia
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs where in Bolivia the land now being used for soya bean production, under a World bank programme, is situated; what acreage is involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The land involved is the eastern lowlands region in the department of Santa Cruz. The area cultivated for soya bean production in 1989, when the project started, was 110,000 hectares. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 17 January, at column 679, and my answers to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 27 January, at column 421, and 28 January, at column 531.

WALES

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dwellings have been sold under the improvement for sale scheme by each local authority in Wales in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Since 1988 a total of 21 dwellings have been sold under the improvement for sale scheme. A breakdown is given in the table:

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Ogwr

  9

  3

  6

  —

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Carmarthen

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many properties have been sold under home leasing schemes in each local authority area in Wales for each year from 1988; and what is the total amount granted in improvement grants and mortgage finance within each local authority area for participants in such schemes.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Since 1988 a total of 12 properties have been sold under home leasing schemes, a breakdown of which is provided in the table. Information is not centrally available on improvements grants and mortgage finance issued for these properties.

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Arfon

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Carmarthen

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Delyn

  —

  —

  1

  —

  166

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Ogwr

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3

  2

  —

  —

  Source: Welsh Office housing returns.

  Discount Housing Schemes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the total number of vacancies released to date under each transferable discount housing scheme operational in Wales; and how many vacancies are(a) two bed, (b) three bed, (c) four bed and (d) over;

  (2) what is the total number of (a) formal grant applications, (b) grants approved, (c) grants paid, (d) applications withdrawn and (e) grants refused under each transferable discount scheme application in Wales to date;

  (3) of the lettings released under each transferable discount scheme operational in Wales to date, how many were allocated to (a) those transferred from other local authority property (b) households accepted as homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985 and (c) households from the authority's waiting list;

  (4) if he will publish an anonymised list of all grant purchasers under transferable discount housing schemes showing in each instance (a) the amount of grant, (b) the property prices, (c) the location, (d) the household type and (e) household weekly income.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans ADAS has to withdraw from Llandrindod Wells, Dolgellau new town, Brecon, Pontypool, Haverfordwest and Lampeter and to shed jobs at Caernarfon, Carmarthen and Trawscoed; and if he will make a statement on the future development of ADAS in Wales(a) prior to the setting up of the new Government agency and (b) from April onwards.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  When ADAS becomes a Government agency on 1 April 1992 its organisation in Wales will be based on consultancy centres at Cardiff and Ruthin, and a research centre at Pwllpeiran. As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement on 23 July 1991, Official Report, column 454, ADAS will continue to operate after April 1992 from the existing locations, though the precise number and location of offices required to meet its business needs, and the needs of its clients, are being reviewed. The future development of ADAS in Wales will depend on the business it is able to secure for its customers.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT was paid per annum by a family consisting of a married man on half of average male earnings, his wife, and two children in 1978–79; and what is the most recent estimate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that reliable estimates of amounts of indirect taxes paid by families are available
  167
  only for those earning between three quarters and one and a half times average male earnings. Outside this range error margins are too large for estimates to be meaningful.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amounts of VAT paid in Wales during 1990–91; and what is the estimated figure for the current financial year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: Precise figures for VAT paid in Wales are not available, but it is estimated that the contribution to United Kingdom VAT in 1990–91 was around £11/2 billion. The estimate for 1991–92 is about £1·3 billion to £1·4 billion.

  Car Tax
  Mr. Willian Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons and companies in Northern Ireland are registered for car tax; and, of these, how many make the vehicles on which tax is due.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Three companies in Northern Ireland are registered for car tax, one of which manufactures chargeable vehicles.

  PAYE
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he issues on the treatment in the PAYE system of payments made to employees by way of compensation for breach of contract when they are not allowed to work their notice period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Inland Revenue publication "Employer's Further Guide to Pay As You Earn" gives guidance in section L on the tax treatment of lump sum payments, including payments in lieu of notice, and advises employers who are uncertain about the position on any particular payment to contact their tax office. I have arranged for a copy of the employer's guide to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Debtor Countries
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current total of outstanding debt owed to the United Kingdom by each of the groups of countries defined by the World bank as (i) Trinidad-eligible debtors, (ii) other low income debtors and (iii) middle income debtors; and what is the combined debt owed to the United Kingdom by all three groups of countries.

  Mr. Maples
  The World bank does not define a group of debtor countries eligible for the Trinidad terms. The World bank classifies those countries where per capita income in 1990 was no more than $610 as low-income countries. Middle-income countries are those where per capita income in 1990 was more than $610 but less than $7,620. The amount owed to the United Kingdom Government by the low-income debtors is about £4 billion. This comprises £3·75 billion owed in claims and oustanding interest on those claims owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department and £1/4 billion owed to the Overseas Development Administration. The amount owed to the United Kingdom Government by the middle-income debtors is also about £4 billion, comprising a little over £31/2 billion in claims and outstanding interest on those claims owed to the ECGD, and about £350 million owed to the ODA.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what staffing implications were envisaged in 1989 by the board of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on the implementation of the review of anti-smuggling controls; and what is the current assessment of the staffing implications.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The review of anti-smuggling controls initiated a move away from static controls to controls applied according to risk. No central estimate of the staffing effects of the review was made in 1989. Instead local senior managers were asked to reassess their staffing levels taking account of the principles of the review, the main theme being a move away from the 24 hour rostered attendance to flexible attendance by better-equipped, better-informed anti-smuggling teams—FASTs. FAST attendance depends very much upon an informed assessment of the risk at each location and on account of each movement.

  The current assessment of the staffing implications is that between 370 and 396 posts can be saved in the four year period from 1991 to 1995. However, these savings do not represent a net loss to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and must be viewed in the light of additional posts to be used on anti-smuggling work in connection with the channel tunnel and funds for the provision of extra equipment—£1 million in 1991–92 to 1992–93—extra training—£0·4 million in 1992–93—and extra intelligence gathering—£0·6 million from the seized assets fund in 1992–93. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is also involved in numerous international initiatives and a further sum of about £125,000 will be provided in 1992–93 as part of the commitment to a European customs information system.

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what future relocations of Government Departments and agencies are planned(a) by which Departments, (b) by number of jobs involved and (c) to which locations.

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

  Department and dispersal location

  Number of posts

  Likely timing

  Inland Revenue

  Middlesbrough

  185

  1991–92

  Sunderland

  190

  1991–92

  Barnsley

  170

  1992

  Birkenhead

  170

  1992

  Dundee

  160

  1992

  Falkirk

  160

  1992

  Hull

  180

  1992

  Leicester

  160

  1992

  St. Austell

  160

  1992

  Swansea

  165

  1992

  Wrexham

  180

  1992

  Nottingham

  1,800

  1992–95

  Washington

  60

  1992–93

  3,740

  169

  Department and dispersal location

  Number of posts

  Likely timing

  Social Security

  Leeds

  662

  1992–93

  Belfast

  500

  1993

  Birkenhead

  500

  1993

  Dudley

  500

  1993

  Falkirk

  500

  1993

  Plymouth

  500

  1993

  3,162

  Defence

  Bristol

  3,000

  1995–96

  Home Office

  Ruddington

  120

  1992

  Birmingham

  12

  1992–93

  Derby

  1,700

  1993–95

  1,832

  Customs and Excise

  Liverpool

  1,290

  1990–95

  Manchester

  390

  1990–95

  Newry

  94

  1992–93

  1,774

  Employment Group

  Runcorn

  400

  1990–93

  Sheffield

  848

  1990–93

  Aberdeen

  85

  1992–94

  Bootle

  56

  1992–94

  1,389

  Health

  Leeds

  1,200

  1992–93

  Average change in 1991–92 (£)

  Compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  Compared with 1987–88 indexed regime

  Range of individuals income in 1991–92 (£)

  Income Tax

  Income Tax and National Insurance

  Income Tax

  Income Tax and National Insurance

  Under 5,000

  110

  160

  40

  70

  5,000–10,000

  310

  290

  100

  180

  10,000–15,000

  640

  520

  170

  300

  15,000–20,000

  970

  720

  240

  380

  20,000–25,000

  1,370

  930

  330

  470

  25,000–30,000

  1,830

  1,360

  420

  540

  30,000–40,000

  2,340

  1,880

  380

  500

  40,000–50,000

  3,900

  3,430

  930

  1,030

  50,000–60,000

  6,600

  6,150

  2,020

  2,100

  60,000–70,000

  10,050

  9,590

  3,520

  3,600

  70,000–80,000

  13,300

  12,800

  5,450

  5,520

  Over 80,000

  45,600

  45,100

  18,800

  18,800

  Average

  1,010

  880

  310

  410

  I regret that a reliable analysis of taxpayers with incomes over £100,000 is not available.

  For the purpose of the calculations in the first two columns of the table, the indexed regime of 1978–79 has been applied directly to the income base of 1991–92. In practice, retention of the 1978–79 regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.
  170

  Department and dispersal location

  Number of posts

  Likely timing

  MAFF

  York

  1,000

  1994–96

  Land Registry

  Birkenhead

  110

  1992–93

  York

  110

  1992–94

  220

  Treasury

  Norwich

  200

  1992–95

  TOTAL

  17,517

  Taxation Changes
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average individual cumulative gain(a) in cash prices and (b) in 1991–92 prices to those earning (i) £5,000, (ii) £10,000, (iii) £15,000, (iv) £20,000, (v) £25,000, (vi) £30,000, (vii) £40,000, (viii) £50,000, (ix) £60,000, (x) £70,000 and (xi) £100,000, as a result of changes in (1) income tax and (2) income tax and national insurance, giving changes since 1979 and 1987, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: Latest estimates of the reductions in income tax liability resulting from the changes in tax rates, allowances and thresholds are in the table. The 1978–79 and 1987–88 income tax regimes have been indexed to 1991–92 levels by reference to the statutory formula, and allowing for independent taxation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Charities (Europe)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration was given to the proposal for a statute for European associations in the preparation of the discussion paper "The Individual and the Community: The Role of the Voluntary Sector".

  Mr. John Patten
  In preparing this paper, we noted that such a proposal has been made by the European Commission; it is mentioned in part 8.3 on page 40.
  171
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official report, column 93, whom his Department intends to consult on the proposal for a European Community regulation on the statute for a European association; and when he intends to undertake the consultation.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  We will seek views from the main bodies representing the interests of the voluntary and charitable sectors and will take account of comments from any interested parties. Consultations will begin once the text of the statute has been formally communicated to us.

  Hong Kong
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the governor of Hong Kong has yet submitted his first report on the discharge of his functions under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Governor of Hong Kong submitted his report to me on 3 February 1992. A copy has been placed in the Library.

THE ARTS

  Libraries
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many county councils have cut library opening times since 1979.

  Mr. Renton
  This information is not available. However, the number of libraries open in English counties for over 10 hours a week has increased in the last 10 years by 3·6 per cent. and those open for 10 to 44 hours a week have increased by 4·3 per cent. in some cases, opening hours have been changed to reflect changing needs and also to make better use of resources.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what he expects to be the net expenditure on legal aid and advice in the current financial year and the next two financial years, in cash terms and at 1991–92 prices.

  The Attorney-General
  Legal aid expenditure for 1991–92, excluding administration, is expected to be around £900 million net. The current provisions for 1992– 93 and 1993–94 are £857 million and £885 million respectively, although, in view of the statutory demand-led nature of the fund, additional funds may be requested as necessary. These figures are expressed in cash terms as the legal aid fund is not calculated in constant price figures.

  Family Law
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Government's programme for the reform of family law.

  The Attorney-General
  During the passage of the Children Bill my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General announced the establishment of an 172
  interdepartmental working party to oversee a rolling programme of work directed at improving family law and business. Its terms of reference were particularly directed towards the implementation and operation of the Children Bill. That legislation is now in operation, and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has decided that the working party's terms of reference should be amended to the following:

  The Working Party shall oversee a programme of work directed at improving all aspects of family law and business. In particular, it shall:

  (a) oversee, co-ordinate and monitor progress of the review of the family justice system set out below;

  (b) report to and advise the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the Secretaries of State for Health and Social Security, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other interested Ministers on that review; and

  (c) assess and monitor the resources implications.

  Review of the family justice system

  Responsible Departments shall consider and formulate advice on:

  (a) the reform of divorce law and practice, including any part which might be played by conciliation and mediation services and how they might be organised and funded:

  (b) the reform of the law governing civil remedies for domestic violence and rights to occupy the family home;

  (c) the functions and organisations of the support services in family proceedings;

  (d) the reform of adoption law;

  (e) the extension of the concurrent jurisdiction of the Magistrates' and county courts and the High Court under the Children Act 1989 to other family proceedings;

  (f) the rules governing access to and the reporting of family proceedings;

  (g) the rules governing financial and property division on family breakdown;

  (h) the law relating to the care and upbringing of children and in particular the future role of wardship, and any matters arising from the operation of the Children Act 1989;

  (i) such other reforms of family law as seem appropriate and in particular necessary to the creation of a unified jurisdiction; and;

  (j) such other changes in the rules of evidence and procedure as seem desirable to ensure uniform and appropriate means of dealing with family business in all levels of court.

TRANSPORT

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider moving the approach road to the east London river crossing from the A2 further to the east to avoid Oxleas wood.

  Mr. Chope
  The alignment of the road was thoroughly considered at very lengthy public inquiries in 1985–86 and before the then Secretaries of State took their decision in 1988. There are no grounds for re-considering that decision.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a cut and cover road tunnel south from Shooters Hill to the A2 in Eltham would require land outside the existing orders.
  173
  Mr. Chope
  No. But the new design would need to be published and could involve a further public inquiry, particularly if it required deletion of the slip roads at Shooters Hill interchange.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the traffic effects of dropping the southern slip roads where Shooters Hill crosses the proposed approach road to the east London river crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  This issue was thoroughly considered by the then Secretaries of State in 1988. They concluded that the benefits of a tunnel through part of Oxleas wood did not justify the additional cost and loss of traffic benefits from deletion of the slip roads. No new evidence has emerged which would justify any change to that decision.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the additional net cost of a cut and cover tunnel south from Shooters Hill to the A2 in Eltham if the southern slips were dropped.

  Mr. Chope
  The estimated additional cost of a cut and cover tunnel about 400 m long would be about £20 million at current prices.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons and companies in Northern Ireland who are registered for vehicle excise duty are(a) wholesalers and (b) retailers.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is not available. Responsibility for the payment of vehicle excise duty rests on the keeper of the vehicle. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's register of vehicle keepers does not contain business or occupational details.

  A262
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are his Department's plans for the improvement of the A262 link between the A21 and Ashford; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish the most recent traffic statistics on the A262 between the A21 and Ashford stating when these were measured; and what plans he has for further data collection.

  Mr. Chope
  Possible improvements along the A262–A28 route between the A21 and Ashford are a matter for Kent county council as the local highway authority responsible for both of these roads.

  Last April the consultants preparing a traffic model for the south-east region counted traffic at points on the A262 and A28, and following is the information:
  A262 Goudhurst, 23 April 1991–16 hour day (6 am—10 pm) Eastbound 3,234 vehicles and westbound 3,209 vehicles of which, in each case, some 1·5 per cent. were HGVs.
  A28 Tenterden, 26 April 1991–16 hour day (6 am—10 pm) Eastbound 3,720 vehicles, of which 2·9 per cent. were HGVs. Westbound 3,663 vehicles, of which 2–6 per cent. were HGVs.

  My Department also conducts an on-going national census of traffic covering all major road links on a six year cycle. The next counts for sections of the A262 and A28 are scheduled for 1992 for 1993 respectively.

  Market Testing Programme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each private sector consultancy firm, which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

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

  A1
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusion he has reached as a result of the interdepartmental study on the future of the A1.

  Mr. Chope
  In a statement issued on 2 March the Secretary of State announced the Government's conclusion that it would be desirable for the A1 to be fully dualled from Newcastle to Edinburgh. Future planning will take this into account.

  Bournemouth Central Station
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the restoration of Bournemouth central station.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am asking British Rail to review options for the future of Bournemouth station, including options for restoration and the scope for commercial development in partnership with the private sector. As far as funding is concerned, British Rail will have an opportunity to review requirements for the period to 1995–96 in the annual public expenditure round this year.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received about the timing of the investment for British Rail's 465 Networkers; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he received the investment submission from British Rail for the 465 Networkers; when the Government made their response to British Rail; and when he expects British Rail to place the order.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received a number of representations about BR's class 465 Networkers.

  The then Secretary of State received on 10 August 1989 a submission seeking approval in principle for investment in 676 class 465 vehicles. On 31 August 1989 approval in principle was given. Firm authority was given for 400 of these vehicles. The first of these vehicles will be introduced into service with the May timetable.

  On 23 January 1991 my right hon. and learned Friend received a submission seeking approval for investment in 86 class 466 vehicles—the 466 is a two-car version of the 465—and in 188 further 465s. My right hon. and learned Friend gave approval for the former on 9 May and BR has ordered these vehicles. My right hon. and learned Friend gave approval for the 188 vehicles on 19 June, but BR is not yet in a position to say when the order for these vehicles will be placed.
  175
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with the chairman of British Rail about the placing of the order for the 465 Networkers; and what was the outcome.

  Mr. Freeman
  I meet the chairman of British Rail regularly to discuss current issues. BR is not yet in a position to say when the order for a further 188 Networker vehicles will be placed. Already some 486 Networker orders have been placed and are under construction at a total cost of £364 million.

  Motorways
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorway there are in England.

  Mr. Chope
  There were 1,692 miles of motorway in England at 1 April 1991.

  Liverpool Airport
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had about the future of Liverpool airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the past few days we have received correspondence drawing attention to the effect of British Midland's recent decision to end its service between Liverpool and Heathrow. That decision was one for the commercial judgment of the private sector airline concerned. The operation and marketing of Liverpool airport, to encourage airlines to provide services appropriate to meet demand, is a matter for its management.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest information he has as to(a) how many people presently have cars registered in a company's name and (b) how many are women and how many are men; and what is the regional distribution of these figures.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: The records kept at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency show that, at 31 December 1990, there were 2,579,000 licensed cars in the PLG tax class registered in a company name.

  Table 1

  London Transport investment and funding

  £ million (1990–91 prices)

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  11984–85

  London Transport investment

  London Underground Limited

  141

  150

  126

  161

  164

  London Buses Limited

  90

  99

  73

  89

  60

  Other2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Funding

  Grant

  209

  222

  194

  241

  147

  Internal resources

  13

  21

  1

  5

  98

  1 15-month period.

  2 Includes investment by the DLR, LT Trading, LT Property and LT Central Services.

  176
  The regional breakdown is as follows:

  Number of licensed cars in PLG tax class registered in a company name

  Region

  Thousand

  Northern

  81

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  182

  East Midlands

  168

  East Anglia

  110

  South East

  1,012

  South Western

  174

  West Midland

  328

  North West

  280

  Scotland

  171

  Wales

  70

  Not known

  5

  Total Great Britain

  2,579

  No information is available from this source about the sex of the driver.

  Subsidies
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the total of capital investment in(a) London Underground, (b) London Buses, (c) Network SouthEast and (d) British Rail in each year from 1980–81 to 1994–95 (estimated), showing the financing sources for such subsidy in each year.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: Investment by London Underground is funded by a combination of Government grant and internal resources such as property receipts and contributions from third parties. Grant is not paid separately in respect of London Transport's subsidiaries. It is not possible to apportion particular sources of finance for British Rail and Network SouthEast between investment and other expenditure. Details of overall funding are given in the "Department of Transport Annual Report 1992".

  Table 1 shows London Transport investment broken down by London Underground, London Buses and other together with the amounts of Government grant and other funding. Table 2 shows British Rail and Network SouthEast investment levels.
  177

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Investment

  London Underground Limited

  179

  219

  259

  234

  328

  London Buses Limited

  53

  46

  24

  28

  30

  Other1

  48

  43

  73

  82

  115

  Funding

  Grant

  262

  293

  234

  192

  255

  Internal resources

  17

  15

  123

  162

  218

  1 Includes investment by the DLR, LT Trading, LT Property and LT Central Services.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Investment

  London Underground Limited

  459

  2353

  Total for London Transport £3·5 billion3

  London Buses Limited

  28

  236

  Other1

  147

  170

  Funding

  Grant

  451

  2503

  41,082

  41,202

  4999

  Internal resources

  183

  56

  1 Includes investment by the DLR, LT Trading, LT Property and LT Central Services.

  2 Forecast outturn.

  3 Estimated.

  4 EFLs announced in 1991 Autumn Statement.

  British Rail and NSE investment 1990–91 prices (£ million)

  BR

  NSE

  1980

  566

  n/a

  1981

  2464

  n/a

  1982

  381

  179

  1983

  378

  169

  11984–85

  399

  157

  1985–86

  542

  151

  1986–87

  559

  171

  1987–88

  672

  285

  1988–89

  682

  356

  1989–90

  776

  387

  1990–91

  834

  302

  1991–92

  3950

  n/a

  1992–93

  41,301

  n/a

  1993–94

  n/a

  n/a

  1994–95

  n/a

  n/a

  1 1984–85 was a 15 month period. The figure for investment is a 12 month equivalent.

  2 Figures for 1981 to 1990–91 are for rail investment.

  3 DTp estimate.

  4 Ceiling—source: Department of Transport Report 1992.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make arrangements to enable city technology colleges to participate in the schemes for articled and licensed teachers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Licensed teachers are employed in accordance with regulations made under section 218 of the Education Reform Act 1988. By virtue of section 218(12), these regulations do not apply to CTCs. I propose to bring forward legislation when the parliamentary timetable allows to enable CTCs to employ unqualified teachers under a licence leading to the award of qualified teacher status on the same terms and conditions as in maintained and grant-maintained schools.

  There is no statutory impediment to CTCs' participating in the articled teacher scheme, which is a pilot
  178
  programme for the development of school-based teacher training. My officials will be consulting CTCs on how best they can play their part in this and other forms of school-based training.

  Sport
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy for the provision of facilities of excellence for British sports and on the financial arrangements for them.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: Our sports policy statement "Sport and Active Recreation" published in December 1991 identified, among the Government's primary objectives for sport, the achievement of higher standards of performance amongst participants and encouragement to those with potential to excel.

  The continued development of the sports councils' national centres of sporting excellence will provide an essential element of this strategy. Responsibility for the centres in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will lie with the home country sports councils, with the United Kingdom Sports Commission controlling the English centres and providing overall co-ordination. To complement these and existing world class local authority sports facilities, the Government's initial investment of £55 million in Manchester's bid to host the millennial Olympics will create major new facilities to encourage sporting excellence.

  Human Genome
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom position on patenting of sequences of the human genome.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The United Kingdom Government recognise that work on human genome sequencing has great potential both for the advancement of the understanding of human biology at the most fundamental level and for the delivery of medical advances for the
  179
  public good. They wish to promote a climate in which the scientific and industrial communities in the United Kingdom and internationally can play a full part in realising that potential, while recognising that there are genuine ethical concerns which must be respected.

  It is accepted that research will be most rapidly and effectively progressed in a spirit of full international collaboration. The Government take the view that this would be greatly facilitated by an international agreement that no country should seek patents on genome sequences of unknown utility identified as a result of publicly-funded research. The United Kingdom will pursue an international agreement to that end.

  In the absence of such agreement, however, a decision by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council not to seek patents when researchers funded by public bodies in other countries have or may do so could place the United Kingdom at a relative disadvantage. The Medical Research Council has, therefore, decided that it should file patent applications on certain sequences in order to protect the United Kingdom position, while allowing researchers early access to its sequence data. The council has made clear that if and when an international agreement not to patent is reached, it will waive its actual or potential rights in this area.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment Costs
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the overall cost to the Exchequer of unemployment(a) in 1991 and (b) in 1992.

  Mr. Jackson
  Figures for calendar years are not available. Gross benefit payments to the unemployed in financial year 1990–91 were £5·04 billion. The cost of administering unemployment benefit was calculated at £182 million for the same period. Administration costs for other benefits paid to the unemployed cannot be separately identified and we do not calculate estimates of foregone tax revenues. The latest estimate of benefit payments to the unemployed for the financial year 1991–92 is £7·36 billion.

  Departmental plans for 1992–93 currently allow for expenditure in the region of £7·9 billion.

  Employees (Statutory Protection)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the statutory provisions relating to(a) protection against unfair dismissal, (b) rights for those with family responsibilities and (c) a right to trade union representation.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Part V of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provides employees with protection from unfair dismissal, including dismissal on grounds of pregnancy or membership or non-membership of a trade union. They may have additional protection against dismissal under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976.

  (b) The employment protection legislation does not specifically cover family responsibilities as this is an area best left for agreement between companies and their employees to suit individual needs and circumstances. However, women who are pregnant
  180
  and who satisfy the qualifying conditions are normally protected against unfair dismissal and have the right to return to work after confinement. They also have the right to reasonable paid time off for antenatal care regardless of length of service and hours of work. Employees may have additional rights under the Sex Discrimination Act depending on the circumstances.

  (c) There is no statutory right to trade union representation.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the statutory provisions relating to the protection of(a) part-time, (b) temporary, (c) sub-contracted and (d) home workers.

  Mr. Forth
  All workers—that is, those who work under a contract of employment or service or who have a contract personally to execute any work or labour—are protected against discrimination on grounds of race, sex and being married, regardless of whether they a:re part-time, temporary, sub-contracted or home workers. They are also covered by the provisions of the Equal Pay Act and the Wages Act 1986.

  Similarly, all employees—that is, those who work under a contract of employment or service—are protected against discrimination on grounds of trade union membership or non-membership and are entitled to certain payments under the insolvency provisions and to reasonable paid time off for antenatal care.

  Employees who are trade union members are also protected against unjustifiable discipline by their trade union and other abuses of union power. Employees who work for at least 16 hours a week are also eligible for the employment protection rights listed in the table, in the same way as full-time employees, provided they satisfy any required qualifying conditions of service. If they work at least eight but fewer than 16 hours a week they can qualify after five years' service.

  Written statement of main terms and conditions

  Right to itemised pay statement

  Right to guarantee payment

  Medical suspension provisions

  Time off for carrying out trade union duties and for trade union activities

  Time off for public duties

  Time off to look for work or make arrangements for training

  Right to return to work after confinement

  Right to notice

  Right to written statement of reasons for dismissal

  Right not to be unfairly dismissed

  Right to redundancy payment

  Departmental Measures, Bournemouth
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those measures taken by his Department since 1987 which have benefited employment, training, small businesses and tourism in Bournemouth.

  Mr. Jackson
  A wide range of measures which benefit employment, training, small businesses and tourism are provided by this Department in Bournemouth, as elsewhere.

  The Department funds a wide range of training and enterprise programmes including youth training, employment training, training credits, high technology national training, career development loans, opening learning, the loan guarantee scheme and loan funds of the Prince's Youth Business Trust.
  181
  The establishment of the network of 82 training and enterprise councils in England and Wales, and 22 local enterprise companies in Scotland, to plan and deliver training locally, ensures that the needs of the labour market are considered in identifying and targeting training to meet skill needs. The TECs also encourage and support new and existing small businesses through locally tailored counselling and consultancy schemes and the enterprise allowance scheme.

  The Government's commitment to the success of the tourist industry includes direct funding of tourist boards, support of the seaside resorts campaign and grants to other organisations such as English Heritage and the Countryside Commission. The relaxations in the liquor licensing laws, the introduction of brown and white signs for tourist attractions, facilities for the disabled, care of the environment and improvements in training are among other measures which are benefiting the industry.

  Travel-to-work Areas
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will separate for statistical purposes the Barnstaple and Ilfracombe travel-to-work areas.

  Mr. Jackson
  A review of all travel-to-work areas will be undertaken when the relevant 1991 census of population data become available in the second half of 1993.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which bodies are entitled to nominate candidates to the Health and Safety Commission.

  Mr. Forth
  No bodies are entitled to nominate candidates to the Commission. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, is required by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to consult such organisations representing employers, employees, local authorities and such other bodies, including professional bodies, as he considers appropriate before making appointments to the commission.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade, Hungary
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the latest trade figures between the United Kingdom and Hungary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on United Kingdom visible trade is regularly published in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which is available in the Library of the House.

  In 1991 the United Kingdom had a crude trade surplus with Hungary of £28·5 million.

  British Technology Group
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the Government's plans for the sale of the British Technology Group.

  Mr. Lilley
  Following consideration of the final bids, the Government have decided to enter a period of 182
  exclusive negotiation with a consortium led by managment and employees and CIN Venture Managers. The terms of their bid maximise the proceeds consistent with the best prospect of the continuation of BTG's existing technology transfer activities. Parliament will be informed of the outcome of the negotiations in the usual way.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for the Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Leigh
  No such consultancy appointments have been made.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department spent on the promotion of(a) London docklands and (b) London as a whole in each year from 1980–81 to 1991–92 (estimated).

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: The DTI's Invest in Britain Bureau and English unit actively promote inward investment to the United Kingdom and to the English regions respectively. In dealing with individual enquiries from potential inward investors, the IBB and the DTI south-east regional office can draw attention to particular sites or premises in London docklands or other London locations, as appropriate. The DTI keeps in close touch with the London Docklands development corporation and the economic development units of individual London boroughs. The Invest in Britain Bureau publication "Britain, the Urban Opportunity", carries information about London docklands and other London urban areas. It is not possible to estimate what proportion of DTI's total expenditure on inward investment could be attributed to promotion of London.

  Weapons Exports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department's export control office has had with the German Zollkriminalinstitut in Cologne about the application of the new law, the Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz, on sensitive export control and how the new arrangements will affect the operation of the single European market.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 28 February 1992]: The German Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz, which controls the export of specifically military goods, was last amended in November 1990.

  On 23 January this year the Bundestag adopted a new law on export controls which significantly extends the powers of the customs authorities.

  The Department's Export Control Organisation has not had formal discussions with the German Zollkriminalinstitut on the application of the new German legislation on sensitive export controls. It is too early to tell how these new controls will affect the operation of the

  183
  single European market: the EC is currently trying to reduce the number of border controls across the Community.

  Additionality
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will indicate whether the Government intend to apply the full additionality criteria for EC funds or whether the money will be top-sliced from existing initiatives.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: I refer to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on 2 March and 28 February respectively, Official Report, columns 18–19 and 642.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department approached several firms on an informal basis, in order to assess their approach to a step change in market testing.

  Further to these discussions, the Department has decided to award a contract covering a preliminary exercise to assist with the selection of areas for more detailed examination.

  In view of the small size of this contract, it was felt to be not cost effective to carry out a formal competitive tendering exercise.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff; and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Mr. Curry
  Pay and grading issues are kept under review within the Department and within its executive agencies. KPMG has done some work in relation to ADAS which is due to become an agency on 1 April 1992.

  Meat Inspection
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total cost to the industry of inspection charges in Great Britain for(a) beef, (b) pork, (c) lamb and (d) poultry meat.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government do not collect information on the levels of charges since these are the responsibility of individual local authorities. However, we estimate the total cost to the industry for 1990–91 at about £31 million. Of this amount approximately 73 per cent. relates to red meat and 27 per cent. to white meat. It is not 184
  possible to estimate, from the information available to us, the percentage of the red meat costs which relate to beef, pork and lamb.

  Model Farm, St. Petersburg
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to commence construction of the model farm near St. Petersburg.

  Mr. Curry
  A team of British experts will shortly be visiting St. Petersburg to carry out a detailed pre-investment feasibility study on the model farm. Their advice will inform the timetable for further work.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list current and past rates of payment, at 1991 prices, per hectare for each of the environmentally sensitive areas which have been in existence for more than three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  For the current rates of payment, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him earlier today. The former rates of payments in the stage I areas under the schemes which terminated on 31 December 1991 were as follows:

  £

  Broads

  Tier 1

  125

  Tier 2

  200

  Pennine Dales

  Tier 1

  100

  Somerset Levels and Moors

  Tier 1

  82

  Tier 2

  120

  South Downs

  Tier1

  35

  Tier 2—Arable conversion

  160

  West Penwith

  Tier 1

  60

  The payments in the former and the revised stage I schemes are not strictly comparable since the revisions to the scheme introduced variations in the conditions and some totally new measures.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the payment per hectare in each environmentally sensitive area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The current payments per hectare in each environmentally sensitive area are as follows.

  Areas designated in 1987 (stage I) and revised in 1992

  £

  Broads

  Tier 1

  125

  Tier 2

  220

  Tier 3

  250

  Tier 4—Arable reversion

  200

  Tier 4—Grassland margins

  280

  Conservation Plan (up to a ceiling of £3,000 over 2 years)

  75

  185

  £

  Pennine Dales

  Tier 1—Pasture

  90

  Tier 1—Hay meadows

  125

  Tier 2

  210

  Woodland supplement

  25

  Conservation Plan (up to a ceiling of£3,000 over 2 years)

  100

  Somerset Levels and Moors

  Tier 1

  120

  Tier 2

  180

  Tier 3

  350

  High water level supplement

  70

  Conservation Plan (up to a ceiling of £3,000 over 2 years)

  75

  South Downs

  Tier 1

  40

  Tier 2

  40

  Tier 3—Arable reversion to chalk downland

  240

  Tier 3—Arable reversion to grassland

  200

  Tier 3—Conservation headlands

  60

  Conservation Plan (up to a ceiling of £3,000 over 2 years)

  75

  West Penwith

  Tier 1

  65

  Conservation Plan (up to a ceiling of £4,000 over 2 years)

  100

  Areas designated in 1988 (stage II):

  £

  Breckland

  Section 1 —

  100

  Section 2 —

  125

  Section 3—Uncropped wildlife strips

  300

  —Conservation headlands

  100

  North Peak

  Tier 1 —

  10

  Tier 2 —

  20

  Shropshire Borders

  Tier 1 —

  30

  Tier 2 —

  8O

  Suffolk River Valleys

  Tier 1 —

  70

  Tier 2 —

  180

  Tier 3 —Arable reversion

  200

  Test Valley

  Tier 1 —

  80

  The payments in respect of stage I areas will apply to new agreements made in response to applications under the revised schemes introduced on 15 January 1992.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the new environmentally sensitive areas that he intends to designate and how many existing environmentally sensitive areas he intends to expand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the reply, 11 November 1991, c. 420]: I am today issuing for public consultation proposals on the boundaries, aims and operation of six new environmentally sensitive areas. They cover:

  The Avon Valley (south of Salisbury)

  Exmoor

  Lake District

  North Kent Marshes

  South Wessex Downs (Wiltshire and Dorset)

  South West Peak

  The areas proposed will add some 417,000 hectares to the 387,000 hectares currently within ESAs in England.
  186
  They vary in character from coastal marshland to mountain and moorland, and include some of Britain's most beautiful countryside and important wildlife habitats. I am making copies of the consultation documents available in the Library of the House.

  ESAs help farmers to conserve and enhance special habitats, landscapes and features of historic interest. They have been widely acclaimed by both farmers and environmentalists. I am therefore delighted to be able to announce proposals for this major extension to the farmland covered by ESAs.

  The six new schemes covered by the proposals will open for applications in the summer, after the results of the consultation have been analysed and the detailed arrangements finalised. A further six ESAs will be introduced next year.

  Farm Shops
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards farm shops attached to farms and smallholdings.

  Mr. Curry
  In line with our policy of encouraging appropriate forms of farm diversification my Department gives farmers investing in farm shops free advice and grants towards the costs of detailed feasibility studies, capital expenditure and marketing costs.

  Coastal Protection, Bournemouth
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much grant aid for coastal protection and beach replenishment has been provided to Bournemouth since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Since 1979, the borough of Bournemouth has received £5·6million in grant aid for coastal defence works. This sum includes in excess of £1·2 million paid for beach replenishment.

  Government funding for flood and coastal defence work in England has risen substantially since 1986–87 and further increases have been agreed as part of the 1991 Public Expenditure Survey. Grant to the National Rivers Authority (flood and sea defence) will rise from £21·6 million in 1990–91 to £48·2 million in 1994–95. For local authority schemes (flood and sea defences and coast protection) the grant available will increase over the same period from £18·2 million to £22·7 million.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now take steps further to control the use of nutrition claims in food labelling and advertising, as recommended by the Food Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following the continuing absence of proposals from the European Commission, the Government are to consult on further controls on the use of nutrition claims in food labelling and advertising. These controls are based on advice from the Food Advisory Committee.

  Nutrition claims can provide a useful source of information for consumers seeking a healthy, balanced,

  187
  diet but there is a continuing need for them to be fully protected from misleading claims and for all claims to be made on the same basis.

  The Government have therefore issued, for consultation, draft regulations to implement the Food Advisory Committee's recommendations as part of its general policy to ensure that consumers are properly informed about the foods they buy and eat.

  The draft regulations lay down conditions for making claims such as "low fat", "no added sugar", and "high fibre".

  The intention is that these regulations will add the necessary pressure on the Commission to come forward with proposals soon.

  I have arranged for a copy of the consultation letter and draft regulations to be placed in the Library of the House.

  BSE
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the experimental host range of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  It has been known for some time that, under experimental conditions, BSE can be transmitted to a range of species—mice, cattle, sheep, goats and pigs. In most cases, this has been accomplished only by direct inoculation of large doses of infectious material from cows affected with BSE, although mice have also succumbed after being fed with large quantities of infected cattle brain material.

  As part of this programme of work designed to clarify the range of species susceptible to BSE, an experiment conducted by the Medical Research Council and MAFF has resulted in BSE being transmitted to a marmoset, following inoculation of cattle brain material derived from a BSE affected cow into its brain and body cavity.

  Although it was already known that marmosets were susceptible, under similar artificial laboratory conditions, to other spongiform encephalopathies, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, chaired by Dr. David Tyrrell, was immediately asked to advise on the implications of this experiment. The committee concluded that the results of the experiment were not surprising and had no implications for the safeguards already in place for human and animal health. I am arranging for a copy of this advice to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council held on 2 and 3 March.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting of the Council accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) Parliamentary Secretary in my Department.

  Discussion concentrated on the proposals for reform of the CAP. The presidency presented a new compromise document which was, however, seriously questioned by most delegations, among them the United Kingdom. After an initial table round the President concluded that a satisfactory basis for continuing negotiations at this
  188
  meeting did not exist. Discussions will continue at official level and the President suggested the Council might come back to this dossier at its next meeting on 30–31 March.

  In an informal joint meeting with trade ministers consideration was given to draft schedules on agricultural support and protection, drawn up by the Commission for submission in Geneva as a Community contribution to the current GATT negotiations. The Commission said that it would probably submit these schedules later this week, taking account of points made in discussion.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he proposes any changes relating to occupational pensions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State made to the House on 27 February 1992 at columns 1131–38.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Benefits Agencies (BA), Contributions Agency (CA) and Information Technology Services Agency (ITSA) have been carrying out reviews into the pay and grading of staff. CA and ITSA received limited assistance from, respectively, Price Waterhouse and PA Consulting.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total amount of money paid out from the social fund by his Department's local offices in the London borough of Wandsworth; and how many people received payments.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information as is available is in the Library.

  Pensioners' Costs
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the figures on pensioners' expenditure in the regions given in his answer of 13 March 1991,Official Report, columns 536–37 to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, (Mr. Salmond).

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The information for 1989, the latest year available on this basis, is in the table:

  1. Pensioners' average weekly annual expenditure 1989

  Fuel, light and power

  £ per week

  Region

  North

  8·12

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8·20

  East Midlands

  8·50

  East Anglia

  8·10

  189

  Fuel, light and power

  £ per week

  Greater London

  7·70

  South East, excluding London

  18·60

  South West

  7·60

  Wales

  8·50

  West Midlands

  9·30

  North West

  19·60

  Scotland

  9·30

  Northern Ireland

  111·60

  All United Kingdom

  8·50

  2. Pensioners' average weekly winter expenditure 1989

  North

  18·40

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19·40

  East Midlands

  18·70

  East Anglia

  18·40

  Greater London

  18·50

  South East, excluding London

  19·90

  South West

  18·40

  Wales

  9·40

  West Midlands

  110·30

  North West

  110·10

  Scotland

  19·30

  Northern Ireland

  110·10

  All United Kingdom

  9·20

  Notes:

  1. The tables are based on data from the Family Expenditure Survey for 1989.

  2. Estimates marked with ' are derived from samples smaller than 100 units. They are, therefore, less reliable than the other data presented and should be treated with caution.

  3. The figures are for pensioner households which are defined as those occupied by one pensioner tax unit only. This may be a single pensioner or a couple where the head of the tax unit is over pensionable age.

  4. The regions shown are the standard breakdown. Any further disaggregation could not be supported by sample sizes.

  5. Winter has been defined as the five months of the year when higher fuel bills might be paid (January to May).

  6. Figures will be affected by the receipt of rebates relating to earlier periods.

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support claimants had mortgage interest included in assessment of income 190
  support; what was the annual equivalent mortgage interest included in assessment of income support for each year since 1979 for assessments during the first 16 weeks of the claim, and others beyond that period; and what is his estimate of the current number of claimants affected, and the current total amount of mortgage interest included.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The table gives estimates from 1979 to 1990, the latest year for which information is available:

  Year

  Number of claimants receiving help with mortgage interest (000's)

  Amount includes in assessments £ million

  1979

  98

  —

  1980

  134

  —

  1981

  196

  —

  1982

  235

  —

  1983

  242

  —

  1984

  277

  219

  1985

  1—

  1—

  1986

  356

  351

  1987

  334

  335

  Year

  Number with half mortgage interest

  Amount £

  Number with full mortgage interest

  Amount £

  1988

  38

  33

  262

  253

  1989

  30

  34

  251

  319

  1990

  40

  71

  270

  483

  Source: Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Statistical Enquiries 1979–1990.

  1: No enquiry was undertaken for 1985.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Roads Budget
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he plans to take to ensure that funds are allocated to the roads budget which will enable major reconstruction to take place.

  Mr. Needham
  Following the recent announcement of the Government expenditure plans, more than £140 million has been allocated in each of the next three years to maintain and improve the road system, with priority being given to maintenance work.

  Air Quality, Belfast
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the air quality results for central Belfast, for January, June, October and December each year from 1985 to the present for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and low level ozone and any other relevant measurements for which he has results.

  Mr. Needham
  Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and low-level ozone have not been monitored in Belfast to date, although carbon monoxide and ozone are to be included amongst the pollutants measured at a new city centre monitoring station which will come into operation shortly.

  Sulphur dioxide is monitored at nine sites throughout Belfast, including the city centre, by the Warren Spring laboratory and Belfast city council. Smoke levels are also measured. The results from April to March are published annually. The figures for the months requested are set out in the table, and include provisional, unpublished data for June, October and December 1991.

  Average Concentrations of Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) and Smoke Recorded at College Street, Belfast Between 1986 and 1991

  CONC (UG/M3)

  January

  June

  October

  December

  1985

  SO2

  108

  44

  63

  60

  Smoke

  73

  16

  66

  48

  1986

  SO2

  69

  37

  44

  57

  Smoke

  40

  10

  22

  50

  1987

  SO2

  96

  49

  77

  117

  Smoke

  59

  23

  47

  85

  1988

  SO2

  91

  37

  NRR

  NRR

  Smoke

  48

  12

  NRR

  NRR

  Sheltered dwellings built

  Constituency

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Antrim East

  67

  35

  —

  —

  —

  Antrim North

  —

  49

  —

  —

  31

  Antrim South

  —

  —

  23

  —

  —

  Belfast East

  —

  51

  —

  30

  25

  Belfast North

  40

  —

  45

  —

  31

  Belfast South

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast West

  —

  31

  40

  —

  72

  Down North

  31

  35

  —

  92

  —

  Down South

  41

  43

  —

  —

  25

  192

  CONC (UG/M3)

  January

  June

  October

  December

  1989

  SO2

  N

  23

  42

  122

  Smoke

  N

  13

  27

  106

  1990

  SO2

  58

  23

  37

  99

  Smoke

  39

  5

  25

  77

  1991

  SO2

  68

  120

  12

  136

  Smoke

  37

  113

  113

  141

  N = indicates sampling criteria not met—usually due to a shortage of daily results.

  NRR = no results were received for that month.

  1 = provisional data—not yet published.

  Source:— Warren Spring Laboratory, Summary Tables.

  Training Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the latest information he has about the number of people who are participating in(a) the youth training programme, (b) the job training programme, (c) the enterprise allowance scheme and (d) job clubs.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:Youth training programme—14,702 trainees at 31 January 1992.
  Job training programme—3,559 trainees at 31 January 1992.
  Enterprise allowance scheme—752 participants at 21 February 1992.
  Job clubs—3,286 participants during the period 1 April 1991 to 31 January 1992.

  ACE
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the latest available date how many people were employed on action for community employment; how many of them were employed part-time or full-time; and how many were(a) male or (b) female.

  Mr. Needham
  At 21 February, 5,128 men and 4,522 Women were employed on ACE. Of these, 4,375 men and 1,744 women were in full-time employment and 753 men and 2,778 women were employed part time.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sheltered dwellings have been built in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and if he will break down the figure by constituency.

  Mr. Needham
  The information for publicly-funded dwellings, all of which were built by registered housing associations, is set out in the table. There are no statistics held centrally on the number of sheltered dwellings built by the private sector.
  193

  Constituency

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  23

  —

  —

  61

  —

  Foyle

  59

  39

  —

  51

  62

  Lagan Valley

  —

  39

  23

  —

  —

  Londonderry East

  44

  40

  23

  26

  —

  Mid Ulster

  —

  23

  29

  —

  24

  Newry and Armagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strangford

  —

  27

  —

  41

  36

  Upper Bann

  34

  40

  105

  31

  38

  Total

  376

  452

  288

  332

  344

  1 Figures for 1991–92 are estimated.

  Teachers
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers have been unemployed in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Unemployed claimants who last worked in the teaching profession January 1987–1992

  Number

  January 1987

  1,693

  January 1988

  1,573

  January 1989

  1,521

  January 1990

  1,285

  January 1991

  1,147

  January 1992

  1,311

  Belfast Airport
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 644, on which dates the Conservative party hired the facilities at Belfast international airport; on which dates the Conservative party was issued with invoices for the hire rental; and if all rents have been paid by the Conservative party.

  Mr. Needham
  I am informed by the management of Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. that the Conservative party hired the facilities at Belfast international airport on 1 June 1991 and on 1 February 1992. The invoices for the hire rental were issued on 1 June 1991 and 1 February 1992 respectively and both invoices were paid promptly.

  Squatters
  Mr. Peter Robilison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were occupying Housing Executive properties without a tenancy agreement in each of the last five years.

  Number of recorded meetings of the Northern Ireland Housing Council

  1989

  1990

  1991

  8

  11

  10

  District council

  Members

  Attendance

  Antrim

  S. Dunlop

  2(4)

  —

  —

  J. Allen

  3(4)

  10

  10

  Ards

  H. J. S. Gibson

  1 (4)

  —

  —

  D. S. Smyth

  3(4)

  8

  8

  Armagh

  J. Speers

  7

  9

  9

  Ballymena

  A. Spence

  8

  8

  9

  Ballymoney

  W. J. Logan

  8

  11

  10

  Banbridge

  S. Cowan

  4(4)

  —

  —

  J. Dobson

  3(4)

  5

  6

  Belfast

  S. Wilson

  2

  5

  0

  Carrickfergus

  S. J. Stewart

  12(4)

  9

  9

  Castlereagh

  W. Abraham

  2(4)

  3(6)

  —

  194
  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I am advised by its chief executive that the number of Housing Executive properties occupied without a tenancy agreement at 31 March in the years 1988 to 1991 was as follows:

  Number

  1988

  932

  1989

  838

  1990

  736

  1991

  592

  The number of such properties at 31 December 1991 was 589.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many squatters have been evicted by the Housing Executive in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I am advised by its chief executive that one squatter was evicted by the Housing Executive during each of the following years: 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90. No squatters were evicted during 1990–91, but two were evicted during 1991–92 (up to 31 December 1991).

  Housing Council
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the members of the Northern Ireland housing council; on how many occasions the council has met during the past three years; and how many of these meetings were attended by each member of the council.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:
  195

  1989

  1990

  1991

  8

  11

  10

  District council

  Members

  Attendance

  I. Robinson

  —

  3(5)

  4

  J. Clarke

  0(4)

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  A. Kane

  4

  5

  6

  Coleraine

  P. Armitage

  5

  6

  7

  Craigavon

  S. Cairns

  5

  10

  4

  Derry

  S. T. Carlin

  3(4)

  —

  —

  G. Peoples

  4(4)

  9

  10

  Down

  W. Brown

  4(4)

  —

  —

  E. O'Neill

  4(4)

  8

  6

  Dungannon

  M. Morrow

  2

  6

  5

  Fermanagh

  T. Maguire

  0(4)

  —

  —

  C. McClaughry

  0(1)

  —

  —

  W. C. Noble

  3(3)

  10

  10

  Lame

  T. Baxter (deceased)

  0(1)

  —

  —

  J. McKee

  0(2)

  —

  —

  R. McKee

  1

  11

  9

  Limavady

  S. Gault

  7

  8

  9

  Lisburn

  W. Belshaw

  6

  3

  5

  Magherafelt

  M. McSorley

  7

  9

  10

  Moyle

  A. P. McConaghy

  4(4)

  —

  —

  G. Kane

  4(4)

  10

  7

  Newry/Mourne

  J. McCart

  4(4)

  —

  —

  A. Ruddy

  4(4)

  7

  7

  Newtownabbey

  J. Smith (deceased)

  5

  7(19)

  10

  W. Snoddy

  .—

  —

  2(4)

  A. Beattie

  —

  —

  5(5)

  North Down

  D Vitty

  2(4)

  2(5)

  —

  G. Green

  3(4)

  5(5)

  10

  Omagh

  C. McFarland

  3(4)

  3(5)

  5(6)

  B. McGrath

  2(4)

  —

  —

  L. McQuaid

  —

  2(6)

  0(4)

  Strabane

  I. Barr

  0(3)

  —

  —

  E. Turner

  4(5)

  11

  8

  Note: Figures in parenthesis show the possible number of meetings which the member could have attended during the period of appointment.

  1 indicates that the District Council did not appoint a representative for a period of time.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to encourage the use of independent bodies to undertake environmental impact assessments.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many environmental impact assessments have been(a) undertaken and (b) brought to a conclusion in Northern Ireland; how many in each case were carried out by (i) the developer (ii) an independent body and (iii) his Department; and how many of the conclusions reached by (1) the independent body and (2) his Department have been at variance with the assessments carried out by the developer.

  Mr. Needham
  Twenty environmental impact assessments (EIAs) have been undertaken, of which 13 have been brought to a conclusion.

  In all cases the developer provided an environmental statement which was considered by the relevant Department. No independent body was involved. No case where an EIA was carried out has been refused.

  Environmental Issues
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide an update for the table on page xv of the Environment Committee's first report of Session 1990–91 entitled, "Environmental Issues in 196
  Northern Ireland", providing a list of known legislative commitments for the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Copies of the legislative programme prepared by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland during February 1992 have been placed in the Library.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to establish an environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  When details of the proposed agency in England and Wales are available careful consideration will be given as to whether or not any proposals for change in Northern Ireland should also be made.

  Job Creation
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show for each of the last six years and the current year the number of jobs created and the number of firms setting up in Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each year were the result of investment from outside Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The figures for jobs promoted by the industrial development agencies for the last six financial years are as follows:
  197

  Total jobs promoted

  Jobs promoted through inward investment

  Industrial Development Board

  1985–86

  2,910

  224

  1986–87

  4,187

  415

  1987–88

  5,300

  867

  1988–89

  5,653

  1,856

  1989–90

  5,131

  1,977

  1990–91

  4,402

  1,294

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  1985–86

  3,888

  n.a.

  1986–87

  4,244

  n.a.

  1987–88

  4,047

  n.a.

  1988–89

  4,581

  n.a.

  1989–90

  5,510

  n.a.

  1990–91

  6,004

  n.a.

  The number of firms setting up in Northern Ireland as indicated by VAT registrations over the past six calendar years are as follows:

  Number

  1985

  3,700

  1986

  3,300

  1987

  3,400

  1988

  3,600

  1989

  3,900

  1990

  3,600

  1991

  n.a.

  n.a.= Not available.

  The place of origin of a firm and the initial number of jobs created cannot be determined from VAT returns.

  Dental Practitioners
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are being made to provide regular continued training in resuscitation techniques for general dental practitioners as recommended in the Poswillo report; and what funding is being provided for such training.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Department of Health and Social Services will be entering into discussions shortly with the Northern Ireland Council for Postgraduate Medical Education on the nature, extent and cost of the training required for dentists and their teams as recommended in the Poswillo report. The resource implications of this training have not yet been quantified and no funds have been allocated.

  Vehicle Imports
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in each of the last three financial years and the current year, how many new motor vehicles have been imported into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Needham
  The information set out in the table relates to new vehicles registered for the first time on importation to Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland.
  198

  Number

  1988–89

  305

  1989–90

  145

  1990–91

  120

  11991–92

  183

  1 To end of January.

  Planning Proposals
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement outlining what redress is available to an objector whose duly submitted and duly acknowledged objection was not known to, or considered by, the relevant planning officers when making their decision on a planning application.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: In such circumstances the objector could lodge a complaint with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for Northern Ireland who may carry out an investigation. The objector could also make application to the courts for leave to apply for a judicial review of the Department's decision.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the standards promised by the citizens charter and their relevance to the treatment of planning proposals and objections by the planning service, development offices and road services.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: The citizens charter is about providing a high standard of public service. Accordingly, the Department of the Environment has adopted an objective of normally consulting district councils on planning applications within eight weeks.

  In determining applications, the Department considers objections and has regard to the development plan and other material considerations.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement clarifying where responsibility lies for ensuring liaison or co-ordination between the different offices and services of the Department of the Environment when they are each involved in particular development proposals.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: Responsibility for such matters rests with the Permanent Secretary of the Department.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give at 1991–92 prices the gross cost of uprating the retirement pension by average earnings, whole economy, in each year since 1980–81.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The estimated costs are as follows:

  Financial year

  Gross cost (£ million)

  November 1980–81

  3

  November 1981–82

  11

  November 1982–83

  14

  November 1983–84

  16

  November 1984–85

  30

  November 1985–86

  34

  199

  Financial year

  Gross cost (£ million)

  November 1986–87

  53

  November 1987–88

  78

  November 1988–89

  95

  November 1989–90

  114

  November 1990–91

  123

  November 1991–92

  126

HEALTH

  Hospital Costs, Merseyside
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to the Mersey regional health authority for a patient spending a week in hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Financial returns submitted to the Department by district health authorities in the Mersey region for 1990–91 indicate the average treatment cost for all specialties to be approximately £80 per bed day (i.e. in-patients and day care).

  This figure is provisional. It covers all direct clinical and diagnostic costs but excludes expenditure on support and hotel services.

  Dental Fillings
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will initiate an education campaign to warn patients of the potential health implications of leaching mercury from amalgam fillings in teeth;

  (2) what advice he makes available for dentists and the general public as to the safe level of mercury which can be absorbed from leaching amalgam fillings;

  (3) when a product licence was issued for mercury for use in the manufacture of dental amalgams;

  (4) what is the quantity of mercury that has been planted in teeth in the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Current advice from the committee of toxicity is that the use of dental amalgam is free from the risk of systematic toxicity and only a few cases of hypersensitivity occur. Dental mercury is not a medicinal product, and a product licence is not required. Information is not available on the quantity of mercury planted in teeth in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has indicating that mercury from dental amalgam fillings are capable of compromising the immune system, reducing total T-cells by a substantial percentage.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have no such evidence.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give guidance to health authorities on the advertising of senior posts in order to promote equal opportunities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will recommend health trusts to advertise all vacant senior posts in order to promote equal opportunities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The NHS is committed to equal opportunities in employment. Individual appointments are a matter for the relevant employing authorities,200
  who are aware that we expect that all NHS posts, including those at senior level, should normally be advertised and openly competitive.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior posts in the NHS between April and December 1991 were filled by means other than by open advertisement; how many(a) men and (b) women were appointed to these posts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  GP Training
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many course organisers for general practitioner trainees were employed in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and for the most recent point in 1992; what was the cost of employing such course organisers; and to which part of the national health service budget these costs are charged.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The table gives the numbers of course organisers employed in 1990 and 1991. Figures for 1988, 1989 and 1992 are not available.

  Course organisers (England)

  1 October 1990

  326

  1 October 1991

  330

  The twenty-second report of the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration estimated that the cost of employing 368 course organisers in England and Wales was £1·56 million per annum. The cost of employing course organisers is at present part of the general medical services budget. In line with the recommendation of the review body, this sum will be transferred to a medical education budget in April this year.

  Dentists
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the General Dental Service Committee concerning the proposed payment system for dentists.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The proposed increase in target net income of 8·5 per cent. which was recommended by the Doctors and Dentists Review Body (DDRB) was accepted by the Government. To ensure that the level at which fees are pitched in the coming year will deliver this proposed increase in dentists' net income, the Health Departments consulted the General Dental Services Committee (GDSC). Following discussions between the GDSC and the Health Departments agreement was reached to hold a joint inquiry to review the level of payments to dentists in 1991–92, the results of which will be considered by the Health Departments and the GDSC in May when they reconsider the appropriate fee scale for 1992–93; simultaneously, they will begin a more fundamental review of the structure of dentists' remuneration.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in the Durham area have indicated that they will no longer treat people aged 18 to 64 years who are not eligible for free service.
  201
  Mr. Dorrell
  Last September we asked family health services authorities to conduct on our behalf a sample survey of 20 per cent. of dentists on their dental lists. All the dentists in Durham who took part in the survey indicated they would continue NHS treatment for adults, including those who pay charges.

  Whitley Nursing Agreements
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service trusts have agreed to opt out of the Whitley agreements in relation to nursing staff; and what is the total of nursing staff involved overall.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for health if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A study into the pay and career structure in the Medicines Control Agency is currently being conducted by consultants Price Waterhouse.

  Hip Operations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients awaiting hip operations were on the waiting list of Leighton hospital, Crewe, in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Waiting time information on individual hospitals is not collected centrally.

  Market Testing Programme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Dorrell
  One consultancy firm has been retained by the Department to advise on the market testing programme; it is KPMG Management Consulting which was appointed as a result of competitive tendering.

  Neither of the agencies within the Department have retained any consultancy firms to advise on the programme.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities provide Novapen needles free to diabetics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Nurseries
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each local authority(a) the number of local authority-provided day nursery places
  202
  and (b) the number of places in registered day nurseries and express these as a percentage of all children aged under five in the local authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested on the number of places in local authority and registered day nurseries is published in "Children Day Care Facilities, England". The latest publication is for March 1991 and is provisional, a copy of which is available in the Library. These numbers expressed as a rate per 1,000 children under five in the local authority are set out in the table.

  Places in day nurseries at 31 March 1991 as a rate per 1,000 children under five

  Local authority

  Places in local authority day nurseries rate per 1,000 population

  Places in registered day nurseries rate per 1,000 population

  Cleveland

  6·62

  28·24

  Cumbria

  4·97

  19·79

  Durham

  3·92

  8·30

  Northumberland

  2·21

  3·31

  Gateshead

  12·32

  18·56

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  9·61

  11·86

  North Tyneside

  18·02

  1·72

  South Tyneside

  10·31

  6·11

  Sunderland

  15·06

  4·08

  Humberside

  0·00

  55·58

  North Yorkshire

  0·00

  31·88

  Barnsley

  0·00

  4·87

  Doncaster

  2·45

  9·24

  Rotherham

  0·00

  0·68

  Sheffield

  10·88

  11·38

  Bradford

  14·99

  18·01

  Calderdale

  4·41

  61·04

  Kirklees

  5·64

  27·10

  Leeds

  26·60

  16·80

  Wakefield

  0·94

  15·76

  Cheshire

  7·23

  34·85

  Lancshire

  16·94

  31·31

  Bolton

  9·80

  42·49

  Bury (1990)

  8·93

  30·21

  Manchester (1990)

  37·54

  13·83

  Oldham

  13·51

  21·81

  Rochdale

  20·43

  23·17

  Salford

  27·52

  11·81

  Stockport

  2·14

  15·56

  Tameside

  29·03

  9·06

  Trafford

  18·37

  48·81

  Wigan

  11·89

  19·30

  Knowsley

  0·00

  7·93

  Liverpool

  26·51

  30·80

  Sefton

  15·35

  24·83

  St· Helens

  3·41

  12·28

  Wirral

  10·61

  21·66

  Hereford and Worcester

  2·91

  29·10

  Shropshire

  0·00

  25·86

  Staffordshire

  5·97

  37·92

  Warwickshire

  0·00

  27·48

  Birmingham

  19·64

  32·73

  Coventry

  17·52

  25·95

  Dudley

  0·00

  17·56

  Sandwell

  0·00

  18·90

  Solihull

  0·00

  34·14

  Walsall

  6·55

  1·91

  Wolverhampton

  14·07

  7·18

  Derbyshire

  8·02

  13·03

  Leicestershire

  11·29

  20·54

  Lincolnshire

  2·12

  18·47

  Northamptonshire

  2·68

  42·83

  Nottinghamshire

  7·57

  16·63

  Bedfordshire

  7·28

  28·99

  Berkshire

  0·00

  33·50

  203

  Local authority

  Places in local authority day nurseries rate per 1,000 population

  Places in registered day nurseries rate per 1,000 population

  Buckinghamshire

  0·00

  18·13

  Cambridgeshire

  3·69

  19·42

  Essex

  2·76

  21·13

  Hertfordshire

  0·00

  0·18

  Norfolk

  0·00

  25·63

  Oxfordshire

  0·95

  22·88

  Suffolk

  0·41

  12·88

  Camden

  41·48

  95·39

  Greenwich

  25·82

  11·31

  Hackney

  33·49

  30·85

  Hammersmith

  31·14

  37·43

  Islington (1989)

  54·40

  40·00

  Kensington

  44·02

  129·74

  Lambeth

  38·73

  36·02

  Lewisham

  20·18

  27·28

  Southwark

  36·76

  32·95

  Tower Hamlets

  29·24

  13·73

  Wandsworth

  37·55

  106·49

  Westminster

  42·74

  55·48

  City of London

  622·22

  1,111·11

  Barking

  15·19

  9·67

  Barnet

  14·63

  1·57

  Bexley

  2·98

  12·40

  Brent

  18·52

  63·80

  Bromley

  0·00

  21·27

  Croydon

  6·91

  14·80

  Ealing

  17·06

  26·14

  Enfield

  0·00

  2·41

  Haringey

  19·34

  39·89

  Harrow

  6·29

  5·92

  Havering

  10·52

  11·13

  Hillingdon

  12·04

  30·17

  Hounslow

  11·47

  27·56

  Kingston upon Thames

  9·27

  32·45

  Merton

  8·63

  7·50

  Newham

  13·16

  5·79

  Redbridge

  0·00

  19·20

  Richmond upon Thames

  12·05

  25·83

  Sutton

  5·72

  43·56

  Waltham Forest

  17·15

  13·54

  Hampshire

  0·00

  0·00

  Isle of Wight

  13·06

  0·00

  Kent

  0·24

  47·11

  Surrey

  1·07

  14·87

  East Sussex

  0·00

  41·04

  West Sussex

  0·00

  26·17

  Avon

  9·40

  29·25

  Cornwall

  0·00

  11·17

  Devon

  0·00

  20·46

  Dorset

  3·58

  16·65

  Gloucester

  2·86

  38·32

  Isles of Scilly

  0·00

  0·00

  Somerset (1990)

  3·27

  27·06

  Wiltshire

  0·00

  7·51

  Note: Where an authority has not made a return for 31 March 1991 the most recent years return has been quoted and the year of return shown in brackets.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will detail the number of child minders registered by local authorities and the number of places available with child minders, for each year since 1979 to date;

  (2) if he will detail the number of places in local authority day nurseries for each year since 1979 to date;

  (3) if he will detail the number of registered day nursery places for each year since 1979.
  204
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Day care provision at 31 March in England

  Year

  Number of registered child minders

  Number of places with registered child minders

  Number of places in LA day nurseries

  Number of places in registered day nurseries

  1979

  1—

  1—

  28,313

  22,381

  1980

  1—

  1—

  28,437

  22,017

  1981

  1—

  1—

  28,252

  22,031

  1982

  44,145

  98,495

  28,383

  21,131

  1983

  47,912

  106,429

  28,630

  21,889

  1984

  53,041

  116,331

  28,872

  23,124

  1985

  58,390

  126,847

  28,904

  25,242

  1986

  64,160

  137,732

  28,920

  27,923

  1987

  69,244

  150,643

  28,880

  30,867

  1988

  74,588

  163,700

  28,951

  36,252

  1989

  83,904

  186,356

  28,789

  45,026

  1990

  93,074

  205,567

  27,978

  57,669

  1991

  103,300

  229,800

  26,900

  76,600

  1 Information about child minders for years 1979 to 1981 is not reliable.

  Data for 1991 are provisional.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 108, when he expects the electoral registration figures for each parliamentary constituency in England and Wales to become available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Statistics relating to the 1992 electoral registers are still being collected by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys from local electoral registration officers. An OPCS monitor containing all constituency electorate figures which have been received and verified will be published before the general election.

  Compensation
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in the last five years how many awards there have been for compensation from national health service hospitals and trusts because of negligence with radiotherapy exposure;

  (2) which regional health authorities have set up pooling schemes to share the burden of large compensation awards between health districts in the region;

  (3) if he will list regional health authorities in rank order according to (a) the number of negligence awards made against them and (b) the total amount of the negligence awards in the last year for which figures are available;

  (4) in 1991, which district health authorities had awards against them totalling more than (a) £1 million and (b) £2 million for negligent death or damage to their patients;

  (5) what was the total amount of compensation for negligence awards made against all district health authorities in each of the last five years, including awards made against national health service doctors insured by the medical defence organisations;

  (6) how much extra money has been allocated to the regional health authorities to meet the cost of negligence awards after the introduction of crown indemnity on 1 January 1990.
  205
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: Information is not currently held centrally about the numbers, the type of damage and the level of settlements arising in connection with medical negligence which would enable the Department to single out specialties or to rank regional health authorities in order of payments. The Department in consultation with NHS Management, is reviewing arrangements for the central collection and publication of improved figures from the NHS with regard to the number of claims for medical negligence, contingent liability and settlements.

  Between the introduction of NHS indemnity on 1 January 1990 and March 1991 it is estimated that English health authorities spent about £60 million on costs associated with legal claims for negligence against doctors and dentists in NHS hospitals. This includes payments of damages to plaintiffs, legal and other fees, and in-house expenses. Information is not available prior to January 1990 when these liabilities were borne by the medical defence organisations.

  The Government provided substantial extra resources to the NHS which should help health authorities to meet the costs of medical negligence. In addition the NHS has access to funds set up by the medical defence organisations as part of the agreements when these liabilities were passed to the NHS. Between January 1990 and March 1991 payments of some £9 million were authorised from these medical defence organisation funds. Most regional health authorities operate pooling or other arrangements to assist district health authorities with the cost of large settlements and are keeping these under review in the light of experience.

  Hospital Discharges and Deaths
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital discharges or deaths have occurred in England, in the age groups up to four years and five to 14 years, in the international classification of diseases (ICD) categories, in each of the years 1986 to 1991,(a) acute glomerulonephritis, (b) 581 nephrotic syndrome, (c) 582 chronic glomerulonephritis, (d) 583 nephritis and nepropathy, (e) 584 acute renal failure, (f) 997.5 acute postoperative renal failure, (g) 585 chronic renal failure, (h) 779.80 chronic renal failure in newborn, (i) 586 renal failure (unspecified), (j) 788.9 uraemia, (k) 587 renal sclerosis, (l) 590 infections of kidney, (m) 591 hydronephrosis, (n) 753.2 congenital hydronephrosis, (o) 753.1 congenital cyst of kidney, (p) 593.6 postural proteinuria,

  (q) 593.7 vesicoureteric reflux, (r) 595 cystitis, (s) 599.0 urinary tract infection, site not specified and (t) 599.7 haematuria.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: The information available centrally is given in the table.

  Estimated numbers of ordinary and day case admissions: Completed episodes by main diagnosis in NHS hospitals in England

  1989–90

  ICD code

  0–4 years

  5–14 years

  580. Acute glomerulonephritis

  Male

  8

  33

  Female

  13

  19

  581. Nephrotic syndrome

  Male

  218

  294

  Female

  134

  143

  206

  1989–90

  ICD code

  0–4 years

  5–14 years

  582. Chronic glomerulonephritis

  Male

  0

  15

  Female

  0

  8

  583. Nephritis and nephropathy, not specified as acute or chronic

  Male

  34

  138

  Female

  18

  81

  584. Acute renal failure

  Male

  19

  13

  Female

  13

  6

  585. Chronic renal failure

  Male

  83

  143

  Female

  20

  109

  586. Renal failure unspecified

  Male

  23

  14

  Female

  14

  69

  587. Renal sclerosis unspecified

  Male

  0

  16

  Female

  1

  6

  590. Infections of kidney

  Male

  30

  63

  Female

  41

  149

  591. Hydronephrosis

  Male

  122

  83

  Female

  48

  27

  593.6. Postural proteinuria

  Male

  1

  0

  Female

  0

  0

  593.7. Vesicoureteric reflux

  Male

  259

  89

  Female

  177

  193

  595. Cystitis

  Male

  5

  13

  Female

  5

  36

  599.0. Urinary tract infection, site not specified

  Male

  2,293

  1,019

  Female

  2,804

  1,706

  599.7. Haematuria

  Male

  109

  455

  Female

  59

  118

  753.1. Cystic kidney disease

  Male

  231

  16

  Female

  65

  6

  753.2. Obstructive defects of renal pelvis and ureter

  Male

  566

  50

  Female

  179

  28

  779.8. Other (other and ill-defined conditions originating in the perinatal period)

  Male

  882

  0

  Female

  636

  0

  788.9. Other (symptoms involving urinary system)

  Male

  13

  17

  Female

  10

  12

  997.5. Urinary complications

  Male

  30

  21

  Female

  2

  1

  Source: Hospital episodes statistics.

  Administration Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the amount of administration expenditure by his Department in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 18 February 1992]: Net current expenditure for the years 1986–87 to 1991–92, as published in the Departmental Report (Cm. 1913, table 3), is as follows. The figures for 1986–87 to 1988–89 are an estimated apportionment to the Department of Health in the period before the split of DHSS. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  Outturn

  £ millions

  1986–87

  139

  1987–88

  144

  1988–89

  153

  1989–90

  166

  1990–91

  201

  1 1991–92

  235

  1 Estimated outturn.

  207
  The increased expenditure in 1990 and 1991–92 is accounted for as follows:

  £ million 1990–91

  Changes in charging basis for Accommodation costs

  6·3

  Real rises in accommodation and related costs

  7·0

  Pay and price inflation

  13·2

  NHS review

  5·6

  Other

  3·0

  35·1

  1991–92

  Pay and price inflation

  13·4

  Accommodation and related costs

  7·0

  Relocation to Leeds

  9·5

  Project

  Duration

  Research director

  Institution

  1. Dental needs of an ageing population

  1 December 1990 to 30 November 1993

  Dr. A. W. G. Walls

  Newcastle university

  2. A clinical study to evaluate a simple radiographic quality assurance programme in general dental practice

  1 June 1991 to30 September 1992

  Mrs. V. E. Rushton

  Manchester university

  3. The changing pattern of use and difficulties associated with the use of non-sterile gloves in general dental practice

  17 April 1989 to 30 September 1992

  Mr. F. J. T. Burke

  Manchester university

  4. A qualitative assessment of the laboratory

  1 September 1990 to

  Dr. Barsby

  London hospital

  stages of complete denture construction

  29 February 1992

  Dr. Schwarz

  medical college

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EC Developments
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had in the foreign affairs troika of the EC about EC developments and initiatives for the remainder of 1992.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Troika discussions cover political co-operation and other intergovernmental business, such as justice/home affairs. We have regular discussions with the Portuguese presidency and with the Dutch on these issues.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures Her Majesty's Government take to promote respect for human rights abroad.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Her Majesty's Government make frequent representations on human rights both bilaterally and jointly with others. We play an active role in United Nations and European human rights forums, including the current session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Further information is given in the foreign policy document, "Human Rights in Foreign Policy", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Cyprus
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what effort he will make to assist the United Nations initiative in Cyprus.
  208

  1991–92

  other

  4·2

  34·1

  Dental Health Projects
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in tabular form details of all dental health projects receiving funding from his Department; and if he will specify the nature and duration of each project, the name of the principal researchers and the institution at which the work is being carried out.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: The Department is currently funding the following dental health related research projects:

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We continue to give full and active support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting solution of the intercommunal dispute.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had, and with whom, as to the opening up of Famagusta as an open town under United Nations auspices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Varosha will be a key element in any settlement of the intercommunal dispute in Cyprus. All parties to the dispute are well aware of our strong view that there should be no change in the status of Varosha nor any settlement of the area in contravention of United Nations Security Council resolution 550 of 11 May 1984.

  Russia and Ukraine
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his counterparts in Russia and Ukraine to discuss relations with western countries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Kozyrev, in New York on 31 January and in Moscow on 20 January. He last met Mr. Zlenko, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, on 19 January in Kiev. A wide range of subjects, including relations with western countries, was covered at each of these meetings.

  Eastern Europe (Embassies)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many new embassies have been established in east European countries during the past 12 months; and in which countries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Four—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine.

  EC Presidency
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what particular initiatives and objectives are planned for the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency of the European Community.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Her Majesty's Government's objectives for the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Our first task is to run an efficient presidency.

  Top policy priorities are completion of the single market; preparations for EC enlargement; support for democracy and reform in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe; and preparing the ground for implementation of the Maastricht treaty.

  Burma
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Burma.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We deplore the continuing intransigence of the Burmese military authorities. Their human rights record, and their failure to fulfil their avowed commitment to the democratic process, makes them an international pariah. We urge them to respond to the growing criticism of their policies.

  Libya
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek improved relations with Libya.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There can be no prospect of any improvement in relations with Libya until Libya complies with Security Council resolution 731 which endorsed the demands made by the United States, United Kingdom and France on 27 November.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the question of human rights in East Timor.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in regular contact with our European Community partners on this question, and with other western countries at the current session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. The EC issued a further statement on the East Timor question on 13 February.

  Conflict Resolution
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have made any proposals for increasing the role of the United Nations in conflict resolution.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  At the high level meeting of the United Nations Security Council on 31 January, we successfully proposed that the Secretary-General prepare a major report, by the first of July, in the United Nation's work in preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping. We shall contribute ideas to it.

  Republic of Ireland
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise in international forums the Republic of Ireland's territorial claim over part of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hurd
  No. Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom is fully recognised in national and international law.

  International Co-operation
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, to discuss mechanisms for co-operation between the developed countries in international matters.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is often in touch with Secretary Baker and hopes to meet him again at the CSCE review conference in Helsinki on 24 March.

  Middle East
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Israeli ambassador to discuss the Israel-Palestine peace proposals.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the ambassador briefly last week. We are in frequent contact with the Israeli Government at the highest level to discuss the peace process.

  Sir Dennis Walters
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress towards a middle east peace settlement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The peace process continued in a fourth round of bilateral negotiations in Washington last week. A regional settlement remains an important and realistic aim. It is encouraging that all parties remain determined to continue the process. I applaud Secretary Baker's continued commitment to a settlement. We will maintain our full support.

  South Africa
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the South African ambassador to discuss prospects for a multiracial constitution.
  211
  Mrs. Chalker
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Foreign Minister Botha on 9 February, the South African ambassador was present. They discussed the constitutional negotiations that are taking place in South Africa.

  EC Cohesion Fund
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the anticipated cost to the United Kingdom of the EC cohesion fund.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No decisions have yet been reached on the size of the EC cohesion fund, and the cost to the United Kingdom cannot be estimated at this stage. Details will be considered in the context of the forthcoming review of Community finances, based on Commission proposals published on 12 February.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he can give further details of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The foundation was incorporated on 26 February. Its board of governors was appointed on 4 March, and will be holding its first meeting on 9 March.

  Lockerbie Bombing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the British interests section in the Italian embassy is represented at the trial of the suspects for the Lockerbie bombing in Tripoli.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not aware of any trial that has taken place or which is taking place in Tripoli of those accused of the bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Lebanon and the implementation of United Nations resolution 425.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The situation in south Lebanon appears to have stabilised in the last few days. We condemned the acts of violence which took place in south Lebanon and in northern Israel over the period 14 to 21 February. They served no purpose and led only to needless suffering. We supported the statement by the President of the United Nations Security Council on the 19 February which reaffirmed Security Council resolution 425. We want to see the removal of all foreign troops from Lebanon, the effective deployment of the Lebanese army throughout the country, and the cessation of attacks from Lebanon on Israeli targets.

  Vietnamese Migrants
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest situation relating to Vietnamese migrants in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The current position remains as set out in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for 212
  Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' reply of 18 February to the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton). Since the orderly repatriation programme was agreed last October, the camp population in Hong Kong has fallen from 64,314 on 5 October 1991 to 58,762 now. Only four Vietnamese migrants have arrived in Hong Kong so far this year. In total, more than 20,000 migrants have now returned to Vietnam from first asylum countries in the region; there has not been one substantiated case of persecution.

  Visas
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the provisions of international agreements which restrict the kind of information regarding visa applications which may be entered by officials on behalf of one Government in passports issued by another Government.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are not aware of any such international agreements.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the forthcoming CSCE Helsinki follow-up meeting and the summit meeting in July; and what are Her Majesty's Government's proposals for them.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's Government attach importance to, and will play a constructive part in, the CSCE follow-up meeting in Helsinki from March to July 1992. Her Majesty's Government will work to promote stability, human rights, democracy and economic transition in the participating states; we will also advocate increased emphasis on the implementation of CSCE commitments and the further development of CSCE institutions in order to help achieve these objectives.

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have retained the services of Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte to advise on market testing. They were chosen through competitive tender.

  The chief executive of Wilton Park, the FCO's only executive agency, decided not to retain a private sector consultancy in response to the Government's White Paper "Competing for Quality" because of the small size of the agency.

  The Overseas Development Administration has separately retained Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, but without competition. The Natural Resources Institute, an executive agency of ODA, retained KPMG Peat Marwick without competition.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those parts of his Department, including executive agencies, carrying out
  213
  reviews over the last 12 months into the pay and grading of staff; and the firm of consultants engaged, where appropriate.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Neither the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Overseas Development Administration nor their respective executive agencies have carried out a review of pay and grading over the last 12 months. Decisions on these matters will be taken in the light of Government policy on pay and grading.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider using BBC World Service Television for the purposes of the dissemination of Government information.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are not considering such a move, which would not be possible without compromising the editorial independence of the BBC.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the purpose of the new service to be provided by Worldwide Television News for Her Majesty's Government; and who will have editorial control.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has retained the services of Worldwide Television News to provide short topical news items for transmission by satellite direct to TV stations abroad for their use in news bulletins. The service will be under the FCO's editorial control. It will form part of the FCO's overseas information effort aimed at explaining and winning support for the United Kingdom's policies.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial support he has given to BBC World Service Television.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have given no financial support to BBC World Service Television, which is now broadcasting on a commercial basis throughout Europe, Asia and the middle east.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial support he intends to give Worldwide Television News; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We do not intend to give Worldwide Television News any financial support. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has signed a contract with the company for a specific service, the provision of a TV news service for satellite transmission overseas. Worldwide Television News tendered successfully for the project in competition with others.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will agree to meet Dr. Ibrahim Rugova of the Democratic League of Kosovo.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have kept in regular touch with Dr. Rugova both in Kosovo and on his visits to London. We shall continue to do so.

  Albania
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the procedures by which an Albanian citizen resident in Albania can secure a visa for entry to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has no resident mission in Albania and does not run an entry clearance operation there. Visa applicants resident in Albania or their sponsors may apply by post or in person to any of our visa-issuing posts of which there are several in neighbouring countries.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements exist for the protection of the interests of British citizens travelling in Albania.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is no British representation in Albania. The resident missions of other European Community members can give help to British visitors in a serious emergency.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British overseas diplomatic mission takes responsibility for Albania.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None at present. A decision has yet to be announced on the form of our representation in Tirana. Until it is, the Foreign Commonwealth Office will continue to communicate directly with the Albanian Foreign Ministry.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees makes of the return of Tamil refugees from India; and what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take to ensure the safety of the refugees.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The UNHCR is not involved in the repatriation programme agreed between India and Sri Lanka, but the UNHCR is helping people displaced by fighting in northern Sri Lanka and is aware of the situation in the areas where refugees returning from India are being resettled. We are monitoring the situation, and have pledged £20 million for reconstruction and rehabilitation in the north and east when conditions permit.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the effects on child mortality of the ban on medicine and food items by the Government of Sri Lanka in northern Sri Lanka, including in the camp managed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Contrary to the reports of a ban, our information is that the Sri Lankan Government are arranging the provision of basic food and medical supplies to the north, including to UNHCR relief centres, via the UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will make representations to the Government of Sri Lanka
  215
  for the removal of the economic blockade on the north-east and the banning of items including fuel and medicine.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have frequently expressed to the Sri Lankan Government our concern that it should ensure the welfare of all its citizens, and we welcome the efforts it has made to supply basic food and medicines to areas held by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. We could not expect the Sri Lankan Government to lift their ban on other items until the LTTE has renounced its terrorist campaign.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will now make representations to the Government of Sri Lanka to accept an immediate ceasefire in the civil war and a return to negotiations with mediation by the United Nations Secretary-General.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No, we do not believe it would be right to press the Sri Lankan Government to declare an unconditional ceasefire with the LTTE, which broke off negotiations and initiated the present round of fighting in 1990. We have, however, urged the Sri Lankan Government to continue to pursue a political settlement, and would support any efforts they might make to seek the good offices of an external mediator.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government have had with the Government of Sri Lanka on their reasons for refusing the offers of mediation from the Commonwealth and from other Governments to help to settle the conflict in the island.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We regularly discuss the prospects for a settlement of the conflict in Sri Lanka with the Sri Lankan authorities, both in London and in Colombo. The Sri Lankan Government have indicated that they doubt whether mediation would be successful while the LTTE continues to show no readiness to negotiate on its demands.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to ensure the implementation of UN resolution 690/1991 on western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Security Council resolution 690 (1991) approved the establishment of a United Nations mission for the referendum in the western Sahara (MINURSO). We have contributed towards the cost of MINURSO and provided 15 military observers. We continue to give the Secretary-General our full support in seeking an early settlement of the western Sahara dispute.

  Commonwealth (Elections)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department has been asked to give to Commonwealth countries on the holding of elections in the past year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have agreed to provide the Lesotho Government with a chief election officer for their forthcoming elections, and have responded to requests from the Governments of Bangladesh, Zambia and Guyana for Commonwealth monitors and advisers.

DEFENCE

  United States Army (Machrihanish)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for the last 12 months the types of aircraft that have operated from the United States army special forces airfield at Machrihanish.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following types of aircraft have used the airfield at RAF Machrihanish since February 1991:

  Military Aircraft

  Nimrod

  Tornado GR1

  Tornado GR1a

  Hawk

  C-130

  Bulldog

  Jetstream

  Jaguar GR1

  Jaguar T2

  Harrier GR5

  Buccaneer

  HS 125

  HS748

  Devon

  Dominie

  Shackleton

  Canberra

  Hunter

  Jet Provost

  Wessex

  Sea King

  Lynx

  Gazelle

  Puma

  MBH-5

  CH47

  Tornado F3

  Scout

  C-12

  C-141

  P-3

  VP-3A

  KC-135

  Harrier T4

  Alpha Jet

  C-21

  F-16

  A-10

  C-9

  C-2A

  Mirage F1

  An 26

  C-160

  ND-16

  CP-140

  Atlantique

  FK-27

  C-20

  CH-53

  Civil Aircraft

  SH-360

  DHC-6

  C172

  PA28

  PA23

  PA42

  E121

  B105

  C525

  SAAB 340

  Luscombe

  BN-2

  Seneca

  C152

  PA38

  217

  PA 31

  Beech 35

  Beech 200

  Beech 90

  ATP

  C421

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying complaints the regional community relations officer for the Borders region has had to deal with since taking up his appointment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In response to the recommendations made in the Defence Committee's report on low flying, HC 120, the Government have, on a trial basis, appointed regional community relations officers for the Lake district and the Borders. These appointments serve areas remote from RAF stations and provide the local community with a focal point for their enquiries on low-flying matters.

  The regional community relations officer for the Borders was appointed at the beginning of January 1992. By the end of February he had received 64 inquiries or complaints on matters relating to military low-flying training.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by month for the last 12 months(a) the number of German air force sorties, and (b) the aircraft type, that have operated on low-flying sorties from (i) RAF Leuchars and (ii) RAF Lossiemouth.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information requested is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Aurora
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department has given to the United States armed forces operation Aurora; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The existence of any such operation would be a matter for the United States authorities.

  Fallingbostel (Bullying)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will instigate a full inquiry into bullying at Fallingbostel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. Inquiries are instigated only when specific allegations are made.

  Type 22 Frigates
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 13 February,Official Report, column 632 and 20 February, Official Report, columns 291–92, what impact the provision of extra accommodation for young officers has had on the ships' military, logistic or other capabilities; where the accommodation space has been found; by how much the normal ship's company will be reduced as a result, and in what branches; and if he will set out the arrangements by
  218
  which ships' companies will maintain the operational effectiveness of these ships in between officer training periods.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The provision of extra accommodation for young officers—YOs—has no impact on the military, logistic and other capabilities of the type 22 Frigates designated for initial sea training—IST. The additional accommodation has been provided in the largest junior rates mess deck. Depending on the number of YOs to be taken on board for their period of IST, each ship's commanding officer will land up to 20 ratings, from a variety of branches, taking into account the ship's current drafting state and programme. On completion of IST, all ratings landed will be re-embarked. In the periods when the type 22 frigates are not required to carry YOs, they will maintain their operational effectiveness through regular operational sea training and exercises.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) all measures taken by his Department in the last 12 months to prevent nuclear proliferation, (b) the number of personnel in his Department working to prevent nuclear proliferation and (c) his Department's total expenditure on control of nuclear proliferation in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence, together with other Departments, has worked consistently during the last 12 months to prevent nuclear proliferation. Among measures taken, the Ministry has supported the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in its attemps to increase support for the non-proliferation treaty; participated in discussions in COCOM and other international non-proliferation groupings to prevent transfer of relevant technologies; provided a member of the commission and several inspectors for the United Nations special commission set up to oversee the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, together with support personnel and equipment for International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of Iraq's nuclear capability; agreed to provide hardware and consultancy advice to Russia to assist in former Soviet nuclear weapons reductions; and provided technical advice to the Department of Trade and Industry on export licensing.

  The answers to the other parts of the question could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Overseas Allowance
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes there have been over the past 12 months in the local overseas allowance payable to(a) Royal Marine and (b) Army personnel currently serving in Norway; why these changes have been made with retrospective effect; under what authority these changes have been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Rates of local overseas allowance for service personnel stationed permanently in Norway were increased on 1 September 1991 following a full review. A reduction in the rate of local overseas allowance payable to some service personnel on temporary deployment to Norway was implemented without the normal period of notice. This reduction has now been rescinded.

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Navy Nursing Service
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why he proposes(a) to increase the maximum number of Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service personnel which may be maintained during financial year 1991–92, as shown in House of Commons Paper 225, and (b) to increase the maximum number of such personnel which may be maintained during the financial year 1992–93, as shown in House of Commons paper 227.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence votes A represent the maximum numbers of personnel authorised by Parliament to be maintained in the individual armed services. During 1991 it was discovered that nearly 200 QARNNS medical assistants had been included in the RN figures in error. Added to this, intake to the QARNNS increased unexpectedly and exceeded the forecast figure which had been based on the previous poor intake. A supplementary vote for 1991–92 was therefore presented, increasing the QARNNS figure and reducing the RN figure. The 1992–93 votes included a further increase for the QARNNS in anticipation of the improvement in recruitment being maintained.

SCOTLAND

  Nebulisers
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the arrangements concerning charging for NHS nebulisers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Certain hand operated nebulisers may be prescribed by general practitioners, and where the patient is not exempt, a normal prescription charge is levied. Powered nebulisers are provided free for domiciliary patients through the hospital service if they are considered by a hospital consultant as being clinically necessary.

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) representations, (b) requests for assistance and (c) general inquiries he has received regarding the future ownership of Prestwick airport; what have been his responses; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 January 1992]: My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations from local interested parties regarding the future ownership of Prestwick airport. Details of any requests for assistance are commercially confidential. The future ownership of Prestwick airport is a matter for its owners, BAA plc.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the proportion of male employees in Scotland who work part-time.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 27 January 1992]: In September 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, 7·4 per cent. of all male employees in
  220
  employment in Scotland worked part-time. This information comes from the 1989 Employment Department census of employment.

  Development Areas
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the work force in each of the regions of Scotland live within the boundaries of development areas.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: Information in the form requested is not available. However, information is available on the proportion of employees in employment in each of the regions of Scotland who are employed within the boundaries of development areas. This information, taken from the 1989 Employment Department census of employment, is given in the following table.

  Proportion of employees in employment employed within the boundaries of development areas by region in September 1989

  Region

  Percentage employed within development areas

  Borders

  —

  Central

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3·7

  Fife

  —

  Grampian

  —

  Highland

  —

  Lothian

  13·0

  Strathclyde

  92·2

  Tayside

  58·8

  Islands

  —

  Scotland

  47·1

  Source: 1989 Employment Department of Census of Employment

  Note: There are no development areas in Borders, Central, Fife, Grampian, Highlands and Islands.

  Scottish Refugee Council
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will respond positively to the application by the Scottish Refugee Council for increased funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: The Scottish Refugee Council's application has been carefully considered along with other competing applications. While we are unable to provide the full increase sought, the Scottish Office has today written to the Scottish Refugee Council offering to continue providing the salary costs of a part-time case worker up to a limit of £5,957 in 1992–93, an increase of 4·5 per cent. on the present year's grant.

  Management Agreements
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of management agreements under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which have been entered into in Scotland in(a) national nature reserves and (b) sites of special scientific interest for each year since 1981, indicating in each case whether the proposed damage was done to (i) agriculture or (ii) forestry; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: The information is as follows:

  221

  National nature reserves

  Sites of special scientific interest

  Number of management agreements

  Threat of damage

  Number of management agreements

  Threat of damage

  Year

  Forestry

  Agriculture

  Forestry

  Both

  1982

  1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1983

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1984

  0

  0

  10

  6

  2

  0

  1985

  0

  0

  22

  9

  9

  1

  1986

  0

  0

  31

  14

  8

  2

  1987

  0

  0

  49

  22

  12

  0

  1988

  0

  0

  39

  17

  14

  1

  1989

  0

  0

  51

  24

  8

  3

  1990

  0

  0

  45

  12

  9

  0

  1991

  0

  0

  13

  4

  7

  1

  TOTAL

  2

  2

  264

  109

  69

  8

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the 10 sites of special scientific interest and (b) the 10 national nature reserves in Scotland which have the most expensive management agreements giving the name of the site, region in which it is located and the amount which has been or is due to be paid out and if the landowners are required to enhance the site as part of the conditions of payment; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: Details of individual management agreements are confidential to the parties.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of management agreements that have been entered into under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in Scotland where payments have been given in the following ranges(a) up to £9,999, (b) £10,000 to £19,999, (c) £20,000 to £29,999, (d) £30,000 to £39,999, (e) £40,000 to £49,999, (f) £50,000 to £59,999 and (g) over £60,000.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: Agreements may involve either annual or capital payments. An analysis of the information by both categories is set out in the following table.

  Range of costs

  Type of cost

  Annual

  Capital

  No costs

  73

  79

  Up to £9,999

  176

  130

  £10,000 to £19,999

  11

  12

  £20,000 to £29,999

  4

  11

  £30,000 to £39,999

  1

  12

  £40,000 to £49,999

  1

  6

  £50,000 to £59,999

  0

  1

  Over £60,000

  0

  15

  Table 1: Residents in mental handicap hospitals as at 31 December each year

  Health Board

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Argyll and Clyde

  378

  360

  358

  353

  348

  346

  344

  337

  337

  328

  Ayrshire and Arran

  74

  73

  75

  68

  74

  67

  65

  61

  59

  62

  Borders

  85

  81

  77

  65

  61

  59

  59

  58

  55

  54

  Fife

  455

  472

  468

  463

  436

  417

  381

  355

  333

  312

  Forth Valley

  1,109

  1,074

  1,055

  1,022

  962

  893

  858

  764

  726

  680

  Grampian

  696

  692

  692

  682

  641

  628

  574

  540

  506

  458

  Greater Glasgow

  1,407

  1,354

  1,290

  1,193

  1,147

  1,067

  1,009

  968

  930

  885

  Highland

  222

  229

  230

  228

  227

  197

  169

  162

  158

  146

  Lanarkshire

  612

  591

  520

  517

  513

  496

  519

  506

  501

  492

  Lothian

  856

  847

  756

  705

  679

  661

  634

  606

  575

  569

  Tayside

  535

  534

  530

  525

  497

  454

  402

  381

  356

  299

  SCOTLAND

  6,429

  6,307

  6,051

  5,821

  5,585

  5,285

  5,014

  4,738

  4,536

  4,285

  222

  Range of costs

  Type of cost

  Annual

  Capital

  266

  266

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements for transfer of dowry funds with resettled mental handicap patients to local authorities have been made in each health board; under what terms these payments are made; and if he will list by health board the sums transferred each year on this basis.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: Arrangements for transferring funds between health boards and local authorities were first set out in 1985 in circular NHS(GEN)18. This enabled boards to provide support finance to social work departments to develop community-based services.

  On 13 January this year a consultation paper was issued on cash and other transfers between health boards and local authorities. A circular will be issued after the consultation period ends on 28 February.

  The information sought on the amount transferred by each health board in past years is not held centrally.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number, for each health board, of in-patient residents in health service facilities for patients with a mental handicap for each year since 1981; and what proportion of the reduction in numbers is due to discharge and what proportion due to death, for each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: The information is contained in the following tables.
  223

  Table 2: Status by 1990 of Residents in Mental Handicap Hospitals in 1981

  Health Board

  Percentage Died

  Percentage Discharged

  Percentage Still Resident

  Argyll and Clyde

  13·0

  54·2

  32·8

  Ayrshire and Arran

  8·1

  43·2

  48·6

  Borders

  11·8

  28·2

  60·0

  Fife

  8·4

  43·1

  48·5

  Forth Valley

  14·8

  30·0

  55·3

  Grampian

  15·4

  38·4

  46·3

  Greater Glasgow

  17·9

  28·5

  53·6

  Highland

  9·5

  43·2

  47·3

  Lanarkshire

  15·4

  26·3

  58·3

  Lothian

  9·7

  40·4

  49·9

  Tayside

  12·3

  42·2

  45·4

  SCOTLAND

  13·8

  35·6

  50·6

  In Scotland the 1990 residents were made up of 76 per cent. from 1981 and 24 per cent. from admission since 1981.

  Patients with mental handicaps resident in establishments dealing primarily with other client groups are excluded from these figures. The numbers are likely to be small.

  Diabeties (Syringes)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the total number of plastic syringes supplied on free prescription to sufferers from diabetes in the last available year for which statistics are available; and what was the total cost of these supplies;

  (2) what is the estimated total cost of the needles required for insulin pen injectors if these were supplied free on prescription to all sufferers from diabetes who are currently supplied with plastic syringes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: The total estimated number of plastic syringes and needles supplied to diabetics in Scotland in 1990 is 4·5 million at a total cost of £414,000. The needle is an integral part of the plastic syringe.

  The Department of Health is presently negotiating with manufacturers the specification and cost of pen injecting systems and associated needles. It is therefore not possible to estimate the cost of needles for pen injectors.

  Nursery Education
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply of 3 February to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong),Official Report, column 77, if he will inquire into the
  224
  reasons for the Western Isles having no children between the ages of three and four years in nursery schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: It is for education authorities themselves to decide the level and mix of provision they make for pre-school children in their area. Although the Western Isles has no children aged three and four attending nursery schools, in 1991, over 50 per cent. of children under four received day care of some form; the second best outcome in Scotland.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of whether the designation of sites of special scientific interest is the best option for the protection of extensive envirionmentally sensitive areas in Caithness and Sutherland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: The system for notifying sites of special scientific interest is vital for the continuing protection of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. In response to concerns that other forms of protection might be more appropriate for large areas of land a provision was included in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 for the designation of Natural Heritage areas. Such designations will allow the adoption of land use policies and practices which recognise the interdependence of the economic, social and environmental well-being of communities.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland about alternative mechanisms for the protection of large environmentally sensitive areas in Caithness and Sutherland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: None. The Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 provides that my right hon. Friend may designate Natural Heritage areas on recommendations from Scottish Natural Heritage, the successor body to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, which assumes office on 1 April 1992.

  In addition the proposed land use and development strategy for Caithness and Sutherland to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member on 29 January 1992 at column 624 should, once formulated and agreed, strengthen the protection given to important areas of nature conservation interest by reducing the potential for conflict in these areas.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his mother.

Mental Health Act: Training for Practitioners
Lord mottistone Lord mottistone asked her majesty's government:
whether they are satisfied that psychiatrists, general practitioners and social workers are receiving adequate training in the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the training needs of psychiatrists, general practitioners and social workers having responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 are being adequately met. We shall continue to seek such further improvements as experience suggests are necessary.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend fully satisfied that the psychiatrists and particularly the GPs receive adequate instruction on the 1983 Act, in particular on the recently amended code of practice?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the training of those groups is carried out under their professional bodies. We have every reason to believe that they are fully briefed on the Act, on the code and on the circular amending it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, what makes the Minister feel so confident? Has she seen the comment of the Mental Health Act Commission that it:
"remains extremely concerned about the apparent lack of knowledge amongst doctors and other health professionals about the consent to treatment provisions in the Mental Health Act"?
What training do general practitioners and psychiatrists receive on that part of the Act?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is part of an extremely extensive programme in which doctors are expected to have had three years' post registration experience and at least six months' full-time psychiatric experience. Forty per cent. of trainees in general practice have had six months' experience as a senior house officer, which means that they must be well aware of the Act.
I remind the noble Lord that in support of my noble friend Lady Hooper he drew attention to further assistance and said that since the adoption of the code of practice:
"I am informed that officers of MIND have travelled up and down the country advising social workers, doctors and nurses on the terms of the code".
We are grateful for that.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the recent Audit Commission report published about a fortnight ago which is totally at variance with which she has just told the House? The commission judges that there is a widespread lack of understanding on the part of staff at all levels, including GPs and others in the district health authority, of what are the Government's excellent objectives. The commission predicts chaos in April 1993 unless urgent additional steps are taken to train staff and in particular to select and train effective care managers.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I reply to the noble Lord by quoting from the Audit Commission report which states:
"The process is only now starting and it is not yet possible to describe the full implications. At present it is easier to outline the problems than the solutions".
However, the Audit Commission's press release stated:
"considerable guidance has already been provided by the Government on the implementation of the Act".
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, am I right in believing that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship has sent to the department details of a whole number of cases in which patients have been let down and have suffered as a result of a lack of knowledge of the Mental Health Act 1983 either by general practitioners or by social workers?
Although it is not easy to reach GPs, particularly elderly ones, surely we can give adequate training to social workers, especially those who have to deal with the mentally ill, to make sure that they are fully aware of all the provisions of that very important Act. It is obvious that many are not now adequately trained.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the department has reason to be very grateful for the constant help which it receives from the fellowship which has drawn points and cases to its attention. That has been of great assistance. The Government are aware of the need to train social workers. In 1992–93, £29 million will be spent on training local authority social workers. In the past three years the total amount of spending has risen by almost 100 per cent.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I refer to the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, about the assessment of social workers who have pursued the 60-day course laid down for the training of social workers who are to be mental health officers and psychiatric social workers administering the Mental Health Act. Is it not true that in 1986 the 60-day course was started and that the Council for Education and Training in Social Work wished the social workers to be assessed as being satisfactory to carry out the work, but that NALGO—the trade union concérned—stood in the way of that arrangement? Is my noble friend aware that NALGO opposed it and that the Minister of the day supported NALGO? If the social workers are not assessed, can my noble friend say how we are to know that they are the best people to carry out that work?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Council for Education and Training in Social Work approves the programme and monitors the standards of the courses for approved social workers and, as they are called in Scotland, mental health officers. It is for the local authorities to satisfy themselves that social workers have reached a satisfactory standard before approval. I am sure that noble Lords will be pleased to know that the council is currently reviewing the regulations for the training of social workers who seek approval.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for quoting my very wise words. I ask her to read them again. She will discover that I was talking about the training of social workers. At that date the Mental Health Act Commission had not made its report which explicitly relates to psychiatrists and general practitioners. I hope that the noble Baroness will address her mind to that part of my original question.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, all training schemes in psychiatry are assessed with a view to accreditation by the Royal College of Psychiatrists subject to accreditation being withdrawn if the exacting criteria are not met. Higher professional training includes clinical experience in this area and knowledge of the Mental Health Act. I hope that explanation reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Government's prompt reaction to the debate on the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lord Mottistone on 16th January, by issuing an amendment to the code of practice, is extremely welcome; as is the massive increase of expenditure on training to which my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield has referred?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to welcome my noble friend's comments which are again evidence of the close co-operation of everyone concerned in this area.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Mental Health Foundation estimates that 6 million people—10 per cent. of the population—suffer from mental illness and that all but 60,000 of them are living in the community? Is the Minister also aware that it is estimated that 3.7 million people are deemed to be seriously at risk? Therefore, does the noble Baroness agree that it is vitally important that GPs, social workers and health professionals are fully conversant with the Mental Health Act and particularly with the procedures as regards hospital admission?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, draws attention to matters of serious concern which are also recognised by the Department of Health. It was announced in February that a national task force is to he established to further the development of locally-based mental health services. It will be concerned with questions of "how" and not "whether".
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, in view of the advances in the treatment of psychiatric patients, what arrangements are the Government making to ensure that general practitioners and social workers are aware of the latest developments, particularly as their work loads may already be very heavy?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to assure the noble Lady that full arrangements have been made not only by the Government but by the practitioners' own professional establishments.

DES Staff: Teaching Experience
2.48 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many civil servants of Principal rank and above in the Department of Education and Science have had experience of teaching in schools.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, to provide this information would involve scrutinising the personal records of about 280 members of staff. This would not be a productive use of civil servants' time.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very amused though dissatisfied to get the same Answer that received about four years ago when I asked this Question. I should have thought that someone would have learnt to count by now. I cannot believe that it is not possible, with modern methods of treating records, to find out the rather important answer to the question. Why is there this obstinacy and secrecy in the DES?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is neither obstinacy nor secrecy, but out of respect for the confidentiality of the personal records of people recruited into the Civil Service. There is a policy of using generalists in the Civil Service who bring to bear on the work a great deal of variety and experience. It is absolutely essential that they have access to professional advice. In the Department of Education that comes from very many people, including Her Majesty's Inspectorate itself, the National Curriculum Council, the School Examinations and Assessment Council, and many other bodies who can provide very good, sound and expert professional advice.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords—
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if we were to abandon the principle of enlightened, dedicated and well-educated amateurism in the Civil Service and insist on specialised experience, it would be impossible to man the Civil Service at all?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I think the suggestion behind this question is that administrators in the Civil Service should all be teachers. But should people in MAFF all be farmers? Should all in the Department of Transport have a direct professional involvement with the service? We have a very good Civil Service that

837
serves us well. The important aspect is that when they are involved in policy-making they have access to good, sound, professional advice.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I too find the implications of this Question rather disquieting. Does the Minister agree, for example, that the fact that Home Office officials have not served as police officers, or sat on the Bench, should not rule them out of advising on police policy or criminal justice?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It is important that education is not simply about teaching in the classroom. There are many other aspects of education to which it will be necessary to get a much wider range of experience to be brought to bear.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, at the third attempt, since all that is being sought is a statistic, what has personal confidential information got to do with it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, apart from it being personal and confidential information I said that it would not be the most productive use of civil servants' time. I have to ask noble Lords opposite, to what purpose is the information required? Is it because they believe that civil servants in the Department of Education and Science can only, and should only, have teaching experience?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a silly idea that the administrative Civil Service should come from a teaching background, when the professionals who advise the administrative Civil Service all come from a teaching background? Perhaps the Minister will go a little further with me on that and consider the possibility that those people who have been in the inspectorate for, say, five or six years would be better for a return to the classroom where they might then put their theories into practice?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend will forgive me if I side-step his final point, because that is another Question. However, my noble friend makes an important point. If we have teachers teaching, teachers advising, teachers inspecting, teachers administering, I believe that the teaching policy advice would be the poorer for it. It is the richer for having sound professional advice when it is appropriate, and to temper that with the general expertise of civil servants.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that one of the things I most like about her is that she always likes to ask questions of this side of the House? I only wish that standing orders enabled one to do that all the time! Is it the Government's view that what would be a very simple task is simply uninteresting? No one is saying that everybody who works at the Department of Education and Science should have some teaching experience. The Question leads on to whether any of the civil servants have such experience. Is the Minister saying that it would be
838
completely uninteresting if we were to discover that nobody in the department had any teaching experience at all? To answer her own question, I have to say that it would be interesting to know how many have had some experience.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am making the distinction between what would be interesting and what would be good use of civil servants' time. I have said that the information is available but that it is in the personal records. It would require going into each and every personal record to gather that information. I can tell the noble Lord that some have teaching experience and some do not. I am asking: what purpose would it serve, other than to be very time consuming and to no productive end?
Lord Airedale: My Lords, despite what has been said, might it not be an improvement if the people who cannot make up their minds whether to call themselves "educationists" or "educationalists" decided to call themselves neither?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the question was entirely characteristic of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. Again, I believe that that is a question for both "educationalists" and "educationists" to respond to.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, has not the position changed under this Government? The Government have centralised the whole education system. An increasing number of schools are financed directly from the DES and the Government have quite unprecedented powers to interfere in every kind of educational institution from the universities downwards. Therefore, is not Parliament entitled to expect that a fairly large number of the people who are doing this job know what goes on in schools, with their experience there? The Secretary of State does not have a clue about what goes on in schools; but at least we can expect that some of the civil servants who serve him, and who are managing our schools now, do have that kind of experience.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the civil servants know a great deal about what goes on in our schools. However, I must say that I disagree so much with what the noble Lord said. This Government have done more than any other to devolve operational autonomy down to where it belongs; that is, to the schools.

British Film Industry
2.55 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further proposals they have to assist the British film industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, at present I have no proposals to announce to add to the assistance which the film industry already receives, worth over £20 million a year.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the concern that the promising initiative taken in No. 10 Downing Street some two years ago is now running into the sand? In particular, will he say when the DTI working party report is to be published? Is the Minister further aware that the industry is not looking to the Government for big injections of government money but for tax incentives, not least capital allowances? There is no doubt that such changes would bring in a great deal of investment, not only from this country but from the United States. Will the Government look at this as a matter of urgency, especially as last year only 13 feature films were made in this country and so far this year only one is in production?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a number of points. The Government give considerable support to the film industry and have assisted the industry in a number of ways since the seminar to which he referred. Last year, for example, we set up the British Film Commission, the aim of which is to attract overseas film production to this country. We also set up the European co-production fund to stimulate the joint production of films with European partners. Some people think that that is the direction in which the film industry might go.
As regards the working party, it is in the process of finalising its report. I hope to receive it within the next few weeks.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British film industry really is in the doldrums now? Is it not sad to note that no films are being made at Elstree and that no feature films are being made at Pinewood and none is on stock? It is obvious that help is required. First, I ask the Minister what more can the Government do to encourage more British investment in the British film industry? Secondly, can they do more to back the British Film Commission in its endeavours to revive the British film industry? Is it being properly financed?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as far as concerns the tax measures to which both noble Lords have referred, that is a matter which must be for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can say nothing about that now, except that he has received representations from the industry. The demise of the British film industry, which both noble Lords have tried to highlight, is greatly exaggerated. Figures published recently by the trade magazine Screen International have indicated that the number of films made in this country, or by British film companies abroad, was 51 last year compared with 39 two years earlier. That suggests that the state of the film industry is not as bad as has been painted and that there are signs that it has been improving recently.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that tax incentives are government money or, to be more exact, the money of other unfortunate taxpayers?
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We do not think that taxpayers' money should be spent on
840
encouraging the making of films which nobody wants to see. We do not believe in wholesale subsidies for the film industry or any other industry.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister said a few minutes earlier that the film industry was certainly not in as bad straits as my noble friends have pointed out. Then immediately, in answer to a question from his noble friend, he jumps in with both feet and makes a general statement about making films that nobody wants to see. That is the sort of discouragement from which the film industry is suffering. Does the Minister understand that that is what concerns us? Does he also agree, and will he confirm, that in the European Community our film-making rivals have managed to overcome many of the problems of finance and investment with government-backed investment and also the fiscal incentives to which my noble friends have drawn attention?
Lord Reay: My Lords, so far as concerns general policy, I believe that subsidies generally are a disincentive to paying attention to the demands of the market and are an encouragement for the making of films which no one wants to see. We have a talented and capable film industry which should be able to attract investors' money to make films which it has persuaded investors people will want to see.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend said that 51 British films had been made either at home or abroad. How many have been made in this country? That is what questioners would like to know. Studios have been closed and those are the base of the industry.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not think that the figures are available. Certainly I do not have figures exclusively for films made in this country. There are different definitions for British films. Indeed many producers today would not want films to be excluded from the list of British films because they had been made abroad. I remember that "The Third Man", a British film of which I thought very highly, was certainly made principally, if not wholly, abroad. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred earlier to foreign countries' aid to the film industry. Non-English speaking countries are in a different situation from English speaking countries. Their film markets are much smaller than the English speaking market and people want to see films made in their own language. I therefore think that there is less justification and less public support for subsidies in this country than in non-English speaking countries.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that no one is talking about subsidy for films that no one wants to see? Is it not the case that, if finance cannot be found in this country, films will be made abroad and the money, prestige and so forth for films which are essentially British will then go abroad? I have in mind the films that Sir Richard Attenborough has had to make abroad which could not be made in this country because the money was not here.
Lord Reay: My Lords, a considerable number of films are made in this country. There are plenty of opportunities for more films to be made in this country and I have no doubt that that will continue to happen.

Blue Arrow Prosecution: Cost to Public Funds
3.2 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the cost to public funds of the prosecution of four persons connected with Blue Arrow; and whether expenditure of this order is, in their view, in the public interest.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the cost to public funds of criminal proceedings arising out of the Blue Arrow flotation is £2,870,118.61. This includes the costs of the Serious Fraud Office, court time and also some provision for the costs of acquitted defendants. The final costs are not yet known.
It is not possible to separate out the proportion of those costs of four defendants alone.
Where investigation reveals criminal misconduct such that in the opinion of the prosecuting authority the circumstances, including the costs involved in the prosecution, are such that public interest requires the institution of proceedings, it would be wrong to refrain from prosecuting solely on the grounds of costs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Does it include a suggestion on his part, which I think it does, that it would be right to secure reductions in the costs of court proceedings so that proceedings of this kind can be instituted without imposing a very heavy burden indeed on the taxpayer?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, certainly I would welcome any effective steps that could be taken to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of such proceedings.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, arising from the course of the recent trials, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that the defence of stress or premature senility is now available in all criminal trials and is not confined simply to these very lengthy trials for fraud?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I doubt whether either of those is a defence in any case.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is it not a fact that, since the Serious Fraud Office became operational with all-party support in 1988, it has brought 63 cases to trial involving 137 defendants, 94 of whom have been convicted? Is that not on any view a reasonable success rate for the Serious Fraud Office in these serious City fraud cases which must, in the public interest, be prosecuted?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as sometimes happens with figures, there is a possibility of a number
842
of different figures. But I think we are probably agreed that the success of the Serious Fraud Office in its prosecutions has well justified it being set up. I of course would be the last to judge the propriety of prosecution by the success rate of the prosecutor. The job of the prosecutor is to prepare a case and present it fairly. Therefore that must be taken into account. But I believe that with that safeguard, as it were, the figures that the noble Lord gave, which are not very different from the figures I have, justify the conclusion that he stated at the end of his question.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it not a question of procedures which lead possibly at times to excessive costs? Is the noble and learned Lord aware of the concluding remarks of Mr. Justice McKinnon in the case that was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? He said:
"What is beyond all doubt is that all involved in this case have had to endure what no one in our country should be called upon to cope with. That includes defendants, their families, the jury and me".
Taken together with the letter which the lady foreman in the Guinness No. 2 trial wrote to the Financial Times, are not our procedures which lead to these heavy costs in question, not the justice of a prosecution being brought? In these circumstances, and because of the urgency of the matter, can the noble and learned Lord tell us when the Royal Commission is likely to report?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course I am aware of the words of Mr. Justice McKinnon at the conclusion of the case cited by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is fair to say that it is easier to see the problem than to diagnose a satisfactory solution to it. So far as concerns the Royal Commission report, the time suggested when it was set up was of the order of two years. I have no reason to suppose that it will not report within the original timespan.

Business
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Prisons Management (Northern Ireland).
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should not exceed 10 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.

The Economy
3.8 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston rose to call attention to the state of the economy and its social consequences; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to welcome our maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I shall refrain from reflecting on how unpredictable is the course of human events which sees him sitting where he is. I shall merely emphasise how much I and all noble Lords are looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
My speech is organised as follows. I shall set out briefly the present state of the economy. I shall then pose and answer the question: how did we get into the present mess? Finally, noble Lords will wish to hear any suggestions I have to make on how we can solve our problems. Many of the relevant topics will be covered by my noble friends. In particular, the rather difficult question of the public sector borrowing requirement will be covered by my noble friend Lord Donoughue at the end of the debate, although I may find a moment or two to make one or two remarks on that myself.
I shall concentrate on our economic predicament: on what caused it, what remedies are available and how long they will take to work. Before doing so, however, I must emphasise a point of principle. We are not interested in the workings of the economy for its own sake. Our concern is and must always be for the welfare of the people and how that is affected by economic performance, including financial performance. By "the people" I mean the whole community and not some favoured fraction of it. I shall have much to say on this Government's failings in the economic sphere. But the greatest objection to their policies is how little of what prosperity we have achieved has accrued to the poorest people in our society.
In that connection, it is all very well for Mr. Lamont, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to argue that the rise in unemployment is a price worth paying for a fall in inflation —a proposition which, incidentally, the Prime Minister does not seem to have felt able to repudiate. But those who bear the costs —those who bear the unemployment—are not those who receive the benefit; they have lost their jobs, many of them permanently and many others for long periods. What have they been given in return? They have been given a tougher regime on social security benefits and there has been a failure fully to index link child benefit and pensions which are not index linked to earnings. But, worse still, they have also been offered the insult that they are the cause of their own troubles and the further insult that they are the cause of ours.
Perhaps I may put the following proposition to your Lordships. Let us consider a party that offered the following: "If you elect us to power we shall achieve these things: inflation will be our top priority and we shall do anything needed to control it. We shall
844
therefore produce an average inflation rate of 7.5 per cent. per annum. We shall produce an economic miracle. Our gross domestic product will grow at an annual rate of 2.1 per cent. per annum"—that is, gross domestic product per person employed at 1.7 per cent. per annum; in other words, an economic miracle corresponding precisely to the previous decade of their period in power. "Unemployment will treble and on a sustainable basis will be some 50 per cent. above the level we inherit".
"Despite experimenting and manipulating the figures, we shall always keep unemployment above the level that we inherit. The balance of payments on current account through our years of office, despite the bonus of North Sea oil, will deteriorate. At its worst, the deficit will equal 4 per cent. of gross domestic produce. The external value of sterling will fall by 15 per cent.—i.e., we shall devalue sterling by 15 per cent. We will raise total tax and social security revenue relative to national income but make sure that more of the burden will fall on poorer people. The chief gainers will be the relatively rich".
"More generally, and with respect to income and wealth, we shall widen inequality. Although we are against taxation and public expenditure and favour prudent finance, we shall eventually worsen the public finances so that the public sector borrowing requirement comes to exceed 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, rising towards 5 per cent. We will then finally, as part of our manifesto, create at least two recessions in which output actually falls. One of these will be the deepest and the other may turn out to be the longest of modern times".
Would any party go to the country on such a platform? More to the point, would it expect to be elected? But the latter is a summary of the economic record of this Government—a government who have the cheek to attack the Labour Party for the damage which it might do to the economy. We have no need to retaliate in kind; we can let the Conservative record speak for itself.
I have said that I wish to discuss policy, but I shall do so with some trepidation. All I know is what is in the public domain. I have a suspicion that matters are actually worse than they seem to be and that the Treasury knows a good deal more than it is letting on. In a few weeks I, and, more importantly, my right honourable friends, will be confronted with the worst case scenario. It has always been my view that economic policy must be based on considering what is the worst thing that may happen and not on the motto "Things are looking up", which is the approach of the Prime Minister and his Chancellor of the Exchequer.
In that connection I must say, first, that it is impossible to emphasise too much the weakness of a balance of payments on current account. The figure just announced for last month of a current account deficit of £794 million is simply too bad to be true. But, even if next month's figures turn out to be somewhat better, we are still confronted with a serious deficit in the depths of a recession. That means once again that we are constrained by the balance of payments. Above all, it means that a consumer-led

845
recovery will be foolhardy. It also means—and I regret to say this because it will affect the new government —that no recovery can be very rapid.
Secondly, the unemployment figures continue to deteriorate. It is hard to believe it, but it is now clear that unemployment is likely to rise to 3 million this year on the present method of measuring. If we examine the record of this Government's anti-inflation policy, what it has actually turned out to be is nothing more than the 19th century view that if you create enough unemployment you will deal with the inflation problem. The position that they leave us with —that is, with about 7 per cent. of the labour force being unemployed—is where inflation starts to get out of control. That has happened despite all their alleged reforms of the labour market. The headline inflation rate is down. But it is down from the level that the Government pushed it up to. It is far from zero. The core rate of inflation—or, if one prefers it, the underlying rate of inflation—is in the general area of 5 per cent. per annum.
Thirdly, the manufacturing base was seriously eroded, as noble Lords have pointed out, between 1979 and 1987. It has improved since that time, but in 1991 manufacturing output fell again. The Government's one signal success, on which I would always congratulate them, has been the improvement in manufacturing productivity. There can be no doubt that there has been an improvement. But it is still nothing like sufficient to solve the trade problem and has not turned out to be an engine of economic growth of the kind that one might have wanted.
Fourthly, while looking at the balance of payments constraint and the state of the economy, perhaps I may quote a statement from the Financial Times, which despite its pink paper is not usually sympathetic to my party. It says:
"The likely medium-term combination of a tight monetary policy with a deterioration in the structural fiscal position"—
that is the Government's policy—
"is frightening".
I hope that noble Lords will note the word "frightening". It continues:
"It looks especially risky for a country with a substantial current account deficit in the midst of a deep recession, above all if the tax cuts were largely aimed at boosting consumption".
More generally on policy, we have the old cliché—whether we are talking about Sir Alan Walters, Professor Minford or many others—that with friends like that the Government do not need any enemies. Mr. Lamont must be encouraged in his labours at this time to be told that they are opposed to tax cuts and increased borrowing and that they refer to laxity in public expenditure and favour leaving the exchange rate mechanism. Who is it who talks about the Government commanding,
"more and more of people's savings in order to pursue the hare-brained ideas of Heseltine and the social soporifics of Patten and his 'compassionate Conservatism"?
It is certainly not me; I am too kind and gentle. Those remarks belong to that loyal Tory supporter, Sir Alan Walters.
My heart goes out to Mr. Patten. Underneath the electoral posturing which inevitably accompanies
846
being chairman of the Tory Party is an intelligent and concerned person. He ought to know that no amount of ranting and raving will satisfy those in the mad militant wing of his party. He would be better off not trying to pacify them at all.
How have we got to where we are? I think that the main policy mistakes are the following. The Government eased monetary policy excessively after the stock market crash of 1987. That was a mistake, but I do not blame them for it. I must tell noble Lords that I would have made the same mistake.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peston: My Lords, I think that "hear, hear"s are a little premature.
Following that mistake, the Government saw too slowly that a slump was not in the offing. Therefore, monetary policy stayed relatively easy when that was not what was needed. But the biggest error took place in the period between 1985 and 1988. In those years output grew respectively by 3.9 per cent., 3.7 per cent., 4.4 per cent. and 4.1 per cent. per annum. The Government, and notably the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, convinced themselves that there had been an economic miracle and that the sustainable growth rate of the UK economy was 4 per cent. per annum; in other words, they made the biggest mistake that a government can ever make—they believed their own rhetoric.
There had been no miracle. All that had happened was that the economy had got back on to the right track with its historical growth path of 2.5 per cent. per annum. To go faster than that meant balance of payments problems and inflation getting out of control. That, too, was recognised rather late in the day, with the obvious result that restrictive measures, both monetary and fiscal, were introduced with too much delay and also in an over-reactive fashion. The effect has been the recession, or the slump—call it what one will—of 1990 and 1991. There has been no doubt that the recession was government-induced. There is also no doubt that it has lasted as long as it has because of the Government's over-optimism in three respects which we heard in your Lordships' House throughout last year. The first is their over-optimism about the recovery in consumer spending and the fall in the propensity to save despite the debt overhang. The second is their over-optimism about the recovery in business spending despite the worsening markets and high interest rates. Finally comes their over-optimism about the expansion of world trade. Essentially the Government failed to see what was happening.
Perhaps I may quote again from the Financial Times, which stated:
"The unexpectedly sharp rise in the trade deficit has simply added to the air of general economic malaise that currently engulfs the UK economy. It may have strengthened Mr. Major's misplaced claim that the world economy is to blame for the absence of recovery".
However, it then rightly states:
"But few are fooled".
The cause of the absence of recovery is the Government's failure to act.

847
I am sure that noble Lords are by now finding my catalogue of government errors rather tedious, so I shall turn instead to the principles of policy. The first matter about which I hope to persuade noble Lords is a technical one. I certainly do not see that it has anything to do with party politics.
When we look at the Budget we must get into the habit of distinguishing current expenditure from capital expenditure and, in so far as we are concerned with balance, we must start with the concept of balance when paying for current expenditure. Equally, however, it makes perfectly good sense for a government to borrow for long-term capital expenditure. The principles that apply to governments are no different from those that apply to firms.
Let us take a first example. If we build a hospital this year, we use resources this year and in that sense it is obvious that it is paid for this year, but I know of no valid argument that says that this year's taxpayers must pay for the whole of that hospital which will be available to the taxpayers of the next 50 years. It makes perfectly good sense to borrow for capital investment, bearing in mind that eventually one will have to tax to repay that capital, but that is another matter. That is why we must distinguish the current from the capital side of the account.
Secondly, just as a business should not be afraid to borrow in the right circumstances, nor should the Government. Perhaps your Lordships will notice that I said "in the right circumstances." That means—and Keynesian economists, of which I am one, often forget this—that one spends in a recession but also that one does not spend in a boom. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues seem to think that one should spend all the time. But that is not my view.
Having mentioned investment, I should say that what is mostly needed is an encouragement for both the private sector and the public sector to invest. There may be consequential increases in consumption, but there should be no—what is the ghastly expression?—"kickstart" coming from consumption. We want the start to be the result of investment.
I hope that it is not controversial to say that I believe that we must keep sterling within the exchange rate mechanism at its present parity. I, for one, favour moving as soon as possible to the narrow bands. I regard that as the best anti-inflationary policy that we have because, to the extent that that is credible, the rate of interest can come down. However, noble Lords should accept—this is again a technical point—that in a free international capital market world forces will always dominate what happens to the rate of interest. The monetarists are wrong to think that leaving the ERM and allowing the pound to float will cause the rate of interest to fall. If anything, because of the exchange rate, it will cause the rate of interest to rise. In my view, floating the pound is simply an invitation to governments to solve their problems by inflation.
The size of the public sector borrowing requirement —that deficit—and the size of the external deficit, both of which are left by the outgoing administration, mean that the incoming administration's immediate priority must be to bring the national finances under control.
848
The Conservative Government are spending money as if it will become obsolete in the near future. Indeed, on their policies it may well become obsolete in the near future. We still hear about tax cuts but, given the dangerous outlook, we must be extremely careful about further promises on public expenditure.
In my judgment, however, once the nation's finances are controlled by my right honourable friend Mr. John Smith, who is a prudent Scotsman as well as a lawyer and therefore has the advantage of not being an economist, there will be strong possibilities that economic growth will enable us to meet desirable commitments on health and education. Our view is that we should spend the money once we have it—not what the Government are doing, which is to spend it before they have it.
One problem for the Government is that they have now run out of alibis. They blamed us for their inheritance and then proceeded to make things worse. They now blame their good friend, Mr. Lawson, for excessive expansion, although they were happy to accept his claims about an economic miracle at the time that he made them. They blame the rest of the world for going into recession just when we were counting on the rest of the world to have a boom to get us out of our slump. They blame consumers for saving, which is a curious turnround from this Government who supposedly favour financial prudence and deplore profligacy. They even seem to be insinuating that the present Opposition are somehow to blame when it will be only a couple of months until they really can blame us because we will be in charge. I suppose that noble Lords opposite and their friends in the other place are trying to get in practice for their period in opposition in the near future. But at the moment all this is extremely worrying.
The basis of rational action is to face reality and to accept responsibility. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer seem unable to do that. However, while they retain their jobs they have responsibilities to analyse the present position and to choose policies that do not make things worse. The Prime Minister claims to have laid the foundations for further advance but I for one think that that is nonsensical and that a consumer boom would be deadly dangerous.
In conclusion, the Government now consist of tired men who cannot find remedies to cure the ills that they have created. The time has come for them to step aside for a rest cure and let us take over to put things right. I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I am pleased to see that the Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, acknowledges the crucial link between economic performance and social welfare. The record of this Government on social issues is one of real progress in increasing provision to those who most need it. This progress has been based on a fundamental improvement in the UK's underlying economic performance.

849
It is the underlying strength of an economy that generates the prosperity which makes a high level of social provision possible. Wanting to help is simply not enough. It is also necessary to generate the prosperity that makes it possible to help. It is this fundamental truth that noble Lords opposite all too often fail to understand.
It is easy to forget just what a state the British economy was in when we came to power in 1979. The runaway inflation of 1975 had led on to the humiliation of going cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund, normally the preserve of third world countries. Along with the IMF bail-out came imposed economic discipline and, for a brief period, even single digit inflation. This, however, was soon swept away by the wage explosion that accompanied the winter of discontent, and by May 1979 inflation was back over 10 per cent. and rising.
Our poor inflation performance in the 1970s had its counterpart in slow growth. As in the sixties, the UK economy grew more slowly over the period than that of any other G7 or EC country over the decade of the seventies. In 1979 a Conservative Government were elected with a clear mandate to defeat the inflation that had so damaged our economy.
There were many in 1981 who argued that we should relax monetary policy. Notable among them were the 364 economists, including the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who wrote to The Times warning of never ending recession at just the time when we now know that a strong and sustained recovery had already begun.
The reward for holding firm against those calls was low inflation, which fell to below 5 per cent. by the start of 1983. And, just as high inflation in the '70s was accompanied by low growth, so lower inflation in the '80s was accompanied by higher growth than was enjoyed by our competitors. Indeed from 1981 we had eight consecutive years of growth averaging over 3 per cent. per year.
More important than our growth rate at the height of the cycle, however, was the improvement in our performance over the decade as a whole. In the period from 1980 to 1990 our economy grew faster than those of any other major EC country apart from Spain.
That improved performance was aided by a transformation in productivity growth. In both the '60s and the '70s manufacturing productivity grew more slowly in this country than in any other of the G7 industrialised nations. Over the 1980s it grew faster than in any of these countries. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, acknowledged that fact.
That rapid improvement in productivity contributed to much healthier company profits. Higher profits led in turn to a huge increase in business investment, which rose by more in the three years to 1989 than in any similar period since the war. Higher investment contributes to better productivity growth in the future, so setting off a virtuous circle, and the extent of the improvement in our investment record is demonstrated by the fact that, even during the recession, business investment as a proportion of GDP has remained higher than it was at any point under the Labour Government. Higher productivity
850
and investment have helped us to arrest the long-term decline in our share of the world trade in manufactures, which is likely to have risen for the third successive year in 1991, after stabilising during the 1980s, following decades of decline.
In 1987 stock markets around the world experienced their worst crash since the Wall Street crash that heralded the great depression of the 1930s. There was no post-war precedent from which to gauge what effect this would have on modern economies. Our response, as in other countries, was to allow some easing of monetary policy to offset the feared repercussions. This happened at a time, as I have said, when the economy had been growing strongly for several years.
With hindsight, it is clear that the effect of the stock market crash was less than we feared, demand pressures were stronger than we realised, and we loosened monetary policy too much in response. As a result, some of our hard-won progress in eliminating inflation from our economy was lost. That episode demonstrated that the struggle against inflation is never finally won. Constant vigilance is needed.
In retrospect, there was one signal that should have warned us that we were heading off course. For the first time since our coming to power, the Opposition supported our monetary policy. Indeed even when we had recognised our mistake the Opposition continued to urge yet more easing of policy.
I would not deny that the relative position of the UK has fallen back a little as we have started this decade by going into an economic downturn earlier than other European countries. I would remind noble Lords that the UK did exactly the same at the beginning of the 1980s. But we emerged from recession earlier than most other countries and then grew more rapidly than most over the decade as a whole. I have every confidence that under the continued stewardship of this Government we shall do the same in the 1990s.
After a difficult period, we now have in place the conditions for a return to sustainable growth. Not only the Government but virtually every independent forecaster expects the economy to recover this year. The preconditions for such success are already there for everyone to see. We have cut inflation by well over half since the autumn of 1990. Our rate is now below the EC average and virtually the same as Germany's. We have cut interest rates eight times since October 1990, by a total of 4½ per cent. And our commitment to keeping inflation low as been reinforced by joining the exchange rate mechanism.
Earnings growth is lower than for 25 years and yet —because of low inflation—real earnings continue to rise. And there were fewer days lost to industrial action last year than in any year since records began a century ago. For decades high inflation and poor industrial relations were seen as main symptoms of the so-called "British Disease". The 1980s will be seen as the years during which that disease was cured.
We have laid the ground for a return to sustainable growth, and the benefits of that growth will be felt by all sections of the community as they have been over the past decade. As a result of the policies pursued by

851
this Government over the past 13 years, living standards have risen markedly. For example, for a married man on average earnings, with two children, real take-home pay has risen by 35 per cent. since 1979. The average real net incomes of pensioners rose by 34 per cent. between 1979 and 1988.
The solid foundation of prosperity that we have laid has also enabled us to maintain and improve the social programmes which are important to all sectors of society. In the health service, for example, total spending has grown by over 40 per cent. since 1979 and 30 per cent. more in-patients and day patients are being treated annually.
Spending on education is an investment in the long-term future of the economy. Between 1979–80 and 1989–90 expenditure per pupil in English schools rose by no less than 40 per cent. in real terms. Another area of real concern is homelessness. Here too we have been able to make extra resources available.
That degree of activity, in the face of the current economic climate, is possible only because of the overall discipline within which government spending is carried out.
The subject for debate today is of course wide-ranging, and I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time than I need. But it would be wrong for me to sit down without mentioning unemployment. I do not deny that the recent increases in unemployment are disappointing. They reflect the fact that recovery from the recession is being affected by world economic circumstances. Rising unemployment is not unique to the United Kingdom. Unemployment has risen in recent months in most EC countries and is higher today than it was a year ago in every EFTA country and in every G7 country. It should also be remembered that the United Kingdom has a higher proportion of people in work than any other EC country except Denmark. The latest figures show that the total workforce in employment is still 575,000 larger than it was in 1979. To help cope with the tragic effects of unemployment on individuals, we are expanding the help available through the employment and training programmes. Nearly 1 million places will be available in 1992–93, which is an increase of 100,000 on this year. That amounts to more help than has ever before been provided to unemployed people.
The state of the economy has inescapable social consequences for good or ill. But the prudent management of this Government has enabled us in better times to make the investments which now shield the major social programmes from the ravages which they suffered during the uncontrolled inflation of the 1970s.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we thank the Minister for his gallant reply. I am not sure that it bore much relationship to the facts, but we congratulate him on being steady under fire from economic facts. One of Adlai Stevenson's better and more remembered remarks was:
852
"I offer my opponents a bargain. If they will stop telling lies about me, I will stop telling the truth about them".
I offer the Government a bargain. If they will stop going on with the nonsense about the miracle of the 1980s, I shall not pretend that the present deep recession is due exclusively to the Government's mismanagement. Considerable world factors are of course involved, but they are by no means exclusively the factor, because the British recession, as the Minister admitted, came earlier, has gone deeper and may well last longer, on present indications, than in the countries of most of our competitors.
That is essentially the case because, first, the miracle was always spurious; and, secondly, because of the gross mismanagement by successive Conservative Chancellors since 1988. If there was a miracle, the speed with which Mr. Lawson, Mr. Major himself during his year at the Treasury, and now Mr Lamont have dissipated it is remarkable. Although the mismanagement has been prodigious, I do not believe that it has had quite the full consequences because I do not believe that the miracle was ever there.
I believe that for the following reasons. Many people have admitted that there were five major faults in the British economy at the beginning of the 1980s —deep-seated, long-standing faults for which everyone bears a share of the responsibility. Over the decade of the 1980s three of them have remained more or less the same, uncured but not particularly exacerbated. However, two have become markedly worse over the period. The three which have remained more or less the same are, first, a long-term deficiency of investment; secondly, a poorly educated and inadequately trained workforce by international standards; and, thirdly, an inflationary tendency well above the average for the Western world.
The last point requires a gloss of explanation. In the 1970s probably most of us, at any rate in our hearts, would have put the main blame for the tendency on excessive trade union power and aggressiveness. That power and aggressiveness have been cured in the 1980s. In my view, that is one of the relatively few achievements of this Government. However, in its effect it has had more of a socio-industrial result than an economic result for it has failed to make a significant impact on the high inflationary tendency which was thought to be its most damaging and obvious result.
On the other hand, the two faults which have become markedly worse have been, first, the inadequacy of our manufacturing base, with its clear effects upon the balance of payments. There is inadequate export capacity and any pick-up in the economy goes disproportionately into imports. This deficiency was made much worse by the since uncorrected effects on manufacturing industry of the deep slump of 1980 and 1981.
The second of the faults which have become worse is the bad British disease of short-termism, with the pattern of ownership making industrial companies subject, to an incomparably greater extent than in Japan or Germany, to the urge of investment fund managers to out-perform each other on a year-on-year basis. Immediate profit thus becomes more important

853
than long-term market share. The deleterious effects are greatly increased by the Government's policy of encouraging corporate raiding and by their complete indifference to the vulnerability of even the companies closest to the heart of our national interest to takeover bids.
So that is the score—three diseases uncured, two made worse. The result is the present unenviable position: a massive balance of payments deficit at the bottom of the worst slump or recession since the 1930s. The Prime Minister, who seems to have been miraculously converted, almost in the past 24 hours, to the virtues of anti-cyclical Keynesian economics, should bear in mind what a menacing position this is. The normal pattern is to be in surplus or, at the very worst, in balance at the bottom of a recession and to be ready, therefore, to rise up from the trough to dissipate the surplus. To have the present deficit before the upswing even begins is frankly catastrophic —and with North Sea Oil as well!—plus a public sector borrowing deficit of £25 billion before any stimulus which the Chancellor, looking desperately unsteady as the last man in on a bumping pitch with a blinding light, may decide to apply in the Budget.
It really is a case both of, "If I wanted to get to Ballylicky, I wouldn't start from here", and of improvidence on a gigantic scale. As I pointed out previously in your Lordships' House, the great improvident Chancellors of the post-war period have been Conservatives to a man. I see the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, sitting in the Chamber. He was not one, but he was the exception. They were Maudling, Barber and Lawson and now probably Lamont. It really is a formidable roll call.
How do the Government react to this? They react, first, by screeching at their opponents, almost as though they were southern state American TV crooked evangelists denouncing sin. They screech at them, "You're improvident, you're improvident". Secondly, they react by the spectre of Mr. Lamont trying to make up his mind not what the economy needs but whether the electorate will respond to an income tax bribe or whether it means what it says when it asks for better services instead. If he is not taken seriously as Chancellor, Mr. Lamont has only himself to blame for adopting that posture.
There is a case, which I accept a little cautiously, for increasing borrowing even from the present high levels for investment in the future. But there is no case at all for doing it for an income tax cut, which will certainly be taken back, either directly or indirectly, after the election.
To hold the balance, in my view the case against the Opposition is not they are improvident now but that they have become so anxious to appear cautious and respectable that they have become like rabbits caught in the headlights of a car, losing all room for initiative. I would be more worried that Mr. Smith in office, if he gets to No. 11 Downing Street, may turn out to be more like—
A noble Lord: Mr. Jenkins!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: —Philip Snowden than Hugh Dalton. Mr. Major made a remarkable
854
statement overnight, in which he said that there had been only handfuls—I was not sure whether he meant one handful or two, five or 10—of years with a budgetary surplus since the days of Henry VII, which I thought was pitching it a bit strong. As a progenitor of one of that handful, I nonetheless recommend Mr. Smith to have a bit more of a song in his heart. At least it would be difficult to sound worse than the chirpings of Micawberism—which is all we hear at present from the Government—of economic failure. Their only sign of morale is their passionate desire to cling to office.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we were told that the noble Lord the Leader of the House wished to make a Statement now.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, we have discussed the matter through the usual channels and I understand that it was not convenient for the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to respond for the Opposition at this juncture. Therefore, in order to accommodate him I have arranged through the usual channels—and I hope this is acceptable to other parties in the House—that the Statement should be taken after the speech by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, 50 years ago HMSO printed a report for which people were queuing in the streets. That was the Beveridge Report. Beveridge and the British people wanted to slay five dragons; those of want, disease, squalor, idleness and ignorance. Nye Bevan sought to slay the dragon of disease and Rab Butler's 1944 Education Act sought to slay the giant of ignorance. A strong local government was to tackle the squalor of dereliction, homelessness and the need for town and country planning. All parties were determined to eradicate the idleness of unemployment.
To tackle want Beveridge devised a new social security system based on insurance and national assistance. Many of your Lordships were associated with those great changes. Yet since 1979 health care has been sent into the market-place, and so, increasingly, has education. Local government has been devastated. On the old calculations unemployment is now running close to 4 million. The number in poverty has more than doubled since 1979. According to the European Commission's definition of poverty —not mine —of 50 per cent. of average income, 4.9 million people were in poverty in 1979. That figure is now nearly 12 million or, to put it another way, one in four of the households in the EC defined by the EC as poor live in Britain. That is a higher figure than in any other member state. Who are those people? About a quarter of those in poverty are unemployed and another quarter are in low paid or part-time work. A further quarter are pensioners and most of the rest are single-parent families or the disabled.
The number of unemployed people has tripled under this Government. Young people cannot enter the labour market and older men cannot re-enter it. The low paid and part-time workers often comprise women, disabled people and black people. Precisely

855
because they are in marginal jobs, they go in and out of the peripheral labour markets between bouts of unemployment. They never get out of poverty. In consequence, there is now a wider gap between the top 20 per cent. of those in work and the bottom 20 per cent. That gap is not only wider than it was in Beveridge's time 50 years ago, but it is also wider than it was in Charles Booth's time 100 years ago. Are we comfortable with that position?
A further group of very poor people comprises pensioners. Two-thirds of them are women, for poverty is a women's issue. Pensions now stand at 16 per cent. of average male earnings. That is a quarter less in relative terms than in 1979.
The final group dependent on benefits comprises single-parent families, the disabled, and the 16 to 18 year-olds who lost their benefits in 1988 on the grounds that they should go home: back home where they may have been abused or in care. That latter group is in many ways the most horrifying of all. They are now at risk of everything we dread for our own children. They are at risk from hunger and sleeping rough and from petty crime, drugs, prostitution and suicide attempts. If we dread such a fate for our own children, we should not tolerate it for anyone else's.
The number in poverty in 1979 was 5 million and now that figure is nearly 12 million, one-fifth of our population. Why is that? Sometimes people become poor through fate. They may be in the wrong place at the wrong time, have the wrong skills or have the wrong gender or race. Their poverty is rarely due to lack of personal skills. Such poverty is not God ordained. The crux of my argument is that it has been largely Government constructed.
Since 1979 we have seen a cynical, callous paring of benefits that has driven down the income of our poorest people. What have the Government done? They have scrapped some benefits, halved others, frozen yet others and tied the rest to the RPI. They have scrapped some benefits. They have scrapped industrial injury benefits for nine out of 10 of those eligible for them. The earnings related supplement has been scrapped and, above all, benefits for 16 to 18 year-olds have been scrapped.
The Government have halved other benefits. Mortgage interest payments were halved in 1988 for the first 16 weeks of claiming benefit. The definition of what was full-time work has been reduced from 30 hours to 24 hours. In April it will be reduced still further to 16 hours. At that point people lose income support and passported benefits such as help with their mortgages. Child benefit was frozen, housing benefit cut.
Alongside the 30 adjustments to unemployment figures that have occurred we have seen some 15 cuts in unemployment benefit. As a result, it is now worth only 80 per cent. of what it was worth in 1979 to a couple with two children. As the Government have chosen since 1980 to tie benefits to RPI rather than earnings, that has meant that old age pensioners have lost something like £28 per couple. That cut in pension was paid for by a cut worth 5p in income tax. The real average income of the population has increased by 35
856
per cent.; the bottom 10 per cent. of the population —after taking into account housing costs—has seen no improvement at all.
Social security expenditure has grown but almost entirely because of the number of claimants and above all the number of unemployed. Indeed the most recent academic research has shown that a family on income support with two children where the adults do not smoke or drink and use electricity or paraffin heating, who pay off no debts and whose sole recreation is going for a walk or watching the TV, and who live confined lives on a drab diet wearing dreary clothes, now receive income support that meets just 64 per cent. of what Government departments themselves say is essential to meet basic daily needs.
Of course those people can always apply to the social fund, can they not? That is true, but 75 per cent. of the applications to the social fund are refused either because families have not been on income support long enough or because the money has run out, or because they are too poor to repay the loans. One should make sure that if one's cooker, job or marriage expires, it does so in May or June when there is still a chance of money in the budget. So cruelly ill-conceived has the social fund been, that yesterday the Social Security Advisory Committee called for its fundamental reform as it is too much of a lottery. It drives people into debt.
The independent Institute of Policy Studies showed last week that 2.5 million families are in debt. That is a higher figure than at any time since the 1930s. Those are mainly families with young children, on low pay or desperately low benefits. The Institute says those families are unable to meet their basic needs. They face multiple debts of housing costs, poll tax, water rates, fuel charges, court fines and HP costs. Every time they borrow to pay off those debts, they displace those debts and go further down into poverty from which they cannot recover.
It is worth reminding ourselves that 44 per cent. of those in prison for less than six months are there because they cannot pay their debts. The institute says that these people are not feckless, just very poor. I would argue that the Government have helped to make them so. There have been choices. Those of us on £40,000 a year have received tax cuts worth some £77 a week. That represents virtually the entire pension for a couple. Those of us on £70,000 a year have received tax cuts worth £700 a week. We have seen rebates worth £6 billion given for private pensions. Real choices have been made. The Government have chosen to encourage the rich to work harder by cutting their taxes and the poor to work harder by cutting their benefits.
The Government have increased insecurity and called it enterprise. The Government have increased inequality and called it initiative. The Government have chosen punitive means testing but have called that targeting. We see around us the waste of people, of opportunity and of our common wealth. We have seen the re-emergence of Beveridge's dragons of stress, distress and destitution. Things can be different. There are pathways out of poverty. Those pathways are training, investment, a minimum wage and decent

857
pensions and benefits. There are pathways and we must take them if we are to call ourselves a civilised society. As Beveridge said:
"want, squalor, disease, ignorance are common enemies of us all—not enemies with which we may individually make a separate peace, escaping oneself to personal prosperity, while leaving our fellows in their clutches. That is the meaning of social conscience—that one should refuse to make a separate peace with social evil".
3.59 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, the present situation is deeply poignant for the people of this country, particularly for those whose lives have been, I hope only for the moment, transformed for the worse. It is also poignant on a lesser scale for the Ministers concerned who had hoped that their efforts during the early 1980s had by the mid-1980s set this country on an increasingly internationally competitive course with benefits to come for employment and prosperity and, through social benefits, for those for whom the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has just spoken. If there were more time I should have liked to take up some of the points which she made because in my view she overstated the case, but I want to concentrate on the central issue of the Government's handling of the economy which has led to our present recession and higher unemployment.
We can surely all agree that with hindsight what turned into an unsustainable boom was not recognised officially and by the bulk of the members of most parties in sufficient time. There were people, even economists, who recognised early what was likely to turn into a boom which might be dangerous. I mention Tim Congdon and Nick Budgen in another place—I am still not quite sure how to refer to colleagues in the other House—who both proclaimed as early as 1985 that the acceleration of house prices and land prices boded ill for the future. However, as far as one can tell the officials and Ministers concerned were comforted by the falling rate of inflation, which had dropped to about 3½ per cent. in 1985, and the rising demand for jobs, unemployment having peaked in 1985 or 1986. The situation looked extremely healthy for our international competitiveness in comparison with what had been the case. I shall not upset the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, by talking of miracles, but the improvement in productivity surprised and pleased everyone in this House. It is true that the reduction in trade union power was the principal cause, but it produced benign results for this country's prospects for prosperity and full employment.
The question we have to ask ourselves is why the officials and Ministers concerned, who were all deeply dedicated to keeping inflation on a downward trend, did not recognise the dangers. He or she would be foolish who judged that it is easy to decide what is the reality. I regret that the middle term financial strategy, which, ironically, had been invented by Mr. Nigel Lawson and Sir Geoffrey Howe, was jettisoned early in the mid-1980s and that we ignored the danger signals of what was then M3. I recognise some of the arguments—that we had deregulated and it was difficult to use the figures as a valid guide. However,
858
the fact is that an unsustainable boom was not recognised in time. Her Majesty's Opposition did not help. They were arguing for lower interest rates when, belatedly, the Government decided to raise interest rates in 1987–8.
On top of that misjudgment came what, to my mind, was the second parallel and interrelated mistake of rushing into the exchange rate mechanism. I am not a classicist and I had to look up the encyclopaedia to make sure of my reference, but there is a horrifying story from mythology of the past of the shirt of Nessus. The shirt was given by Nessus, a ferryman, to the mistress of Hercules with the advice that if ever Hercules' love should wane the shirt should be given to him, and it was so medicated that it would revive the love of Hercules for that particular maiden. In fact it had been poisoned. Hercules was persuaded to put it on. In due course he tried to take it off—and I invite noble Lords to consult the encyclopaedia if they wish to know the rest of the nauseating story. The ERM was predicted to become the shirt of Nessus if we joined it because domestic conditions requiring a lowering of interest rates might he precluded by the ERM rules. That is precisely the shirt which the Government have put on.
Ironically, it was also the shirt which Her Majesty's Opposition put on. The very Opposition which clamoured for lower interest rates just when the Government had nerved themselves to raise them—and they needed to be raised—is now precluded from asking for lower interest rates because the ERM prevents the Government from doing so. That is an honourable posture but it does not serve the interests of this country well when Her Majesty's Opposition support a government policy which, in my view, has been mistaken; namely, joining the exchange rate mechanism.
Because of that prohibition on lowering interest rates in order to avoid falling from our allotted place in the ERM, the Government are struggling to find some alternative0 remedy to provide a tonic to revitalise the economy which only a fall in interest rates could achieve. They have to turn their hand to the alternatives. Should they lower taxes and encourage investment? It is for the Opposition, as well as my noble friends on this side of the House, to have some sympathy for the Government which both sides have encouraged to wear the shirt of Nessus which has prevented them taking the obvious course.
We have to take comfort from what has happened. We have to take comfort from the dramatic and now sustained rise in unit productivity. That bodes well for international competitiveness in the future. However, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. We can agree that standards of education and of training need improvement. The Government have creditably embarked on what are, at least to some extent, unpopular steps to improving both of those. It will take time to achieve that. However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that, in judging the Government's performance, we must look at the quantity of investment alone. There has been plenty of investment in the past. Alas, it was the quality of that investment,

859
the productivity to which it was put, and the markets which it sought to serve which were often mistaken. We must judge the quality as well as the quantity.
In the meantime let us see the poignancy of the present situation, which is made worse because the alternative remedies are reduced by the exchange rate mechanism handcuffs which the Government have put on themselves. Let us at least rejoice in the improved productivity and some of the other underlying improvements which are observable. For my part—and I hope that the House will not think it a King Charles's head—I hope that we shall appreciate the importance of the entrepreneurial function. We do not seem to have that in as much abundance as we should like. However, be the businesses created small or medium sized or whether they lead by heroic entrepreneurship to large industries and businesses, let us recognise that we shall not prosper and we shall not have anything like full employment unless, by British means or by means of overseas investment in Britain, we have a much larger volume of highly respected entrepreneurship than we have now.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the unpredictability to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred in his kind opening remarks brings me to this House in the twilight of a Parliament. I find that it is a somewhat awkward experience, because it has drawbacks and surprises—but perhaps that is an excuse to make a maiden speech at a rather indecently early stage so that I shall not be left hanging and waiting for a new dawn after the election has taken place.
The other surprise to me is that I was led to believe that the House was marked by a robust independence of party which occasionally spilled over into consensus, but it seems to me that there has not been a great deal of seeking after consensus this afternoon. I hope that it will provide an excuse if I occasionally stray from the anodyne into the mildly controversial. Perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that, if I do so, I hope that he will regard my remarks as of a general nature—shall we call them generic? —in that they would be addressed to any other government at any other time in comparable circumstances.
I was elected to another place almost exactly 30 years ago. I remember the frequent debates that we had on the economy at that time. This country had enjoyed a long period of prosperity after the great reforms and inevitable austerity of the immediate post-war period. But, as we learned, that prosperity concealed a historic decline and by the early 1960s the party was over. Indeed, there was a debate in this House on 18th April 1962 to call attention to the economic situation. In other words, the terms of the Motion were not very different from the terms of the Motion that is before the House today. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for the Opposition, mentioned:
"stagnation in production and repeated crises in exports and balance of payments". [Official Report, 18/4/62; col. 843.]
860
Lord Mills, Minister without portfolio, referred to inflationary pressures and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that the budget which had just been announced, was no stimulus to invention, exports, output or consumption.
Everything changes but everything remains the same. The terms of the debate may be different but the problems with which we seek to deal are very much those which confronted this country and this House 30 years ago.
For the past four years, and perhaps a little longer, I have had some responsibility as director general of the Royal Institute of British Architects. That has brought me very closely into touch with the fortunes of the construction industry. Only seven weeks ago your Lordships had a debate about the construction industry and housing. What was said then—and my own personal experience as director general of the RIBA—is germane to our debate today.
With the leave of the House, I shall say a few words about the economic situation, looked at not from the position more generally of the construction industry but specifically from the viewpoint of a profession. That profession is one in which many architects are struggling for survival. By nature an architect's profession is responsive and flexible. The profession is well accustomed to dealing with recessions and finding a way through them. But this recession, taking its length and depth together, is worse than any that anyone can remember.
The profession will admit, as I know this House and noble Lords opposite admit, that the peak of the boom was too high. But I believe that the onset of the recession was plain much sooner than the Government were ready to concede. From January 1989 in every quarter of the year the RIBA's own figures showed that architectural workloads were in decline. Indeed, since 1989 commissions have fallen by 50 per cent. At present underemployment in the profession is almost one-third. Figures lately made available by the Association of Consultant Architects show that 31.5 per cent. of all architects and technical staff have been made redundant during the past two years. Some of the largest, best known and most successful practices have fared worst.
Today I lunched with people from a successful and distinguished West End practice. I talked to them about this debate and the issues as seen by them. They said that three years ago there were 425 people employed by their firm and today there are only 150 people. The message they gave to me and which I pass on to this House is that what is impossible for them to cope with is a wild see-saw in the economy. They ask for stability. They would much prefer to avoid the very good times if they could only avoid the circumstances with which we are faced today.
It often seems that we order our affairs in a strange way. By common consent we need more schools, more homes and greatly improved infrastructures. There is an immense job to be done of maintenance and repair. The construction industry, and architects with it, have too little work to do. There is an identified need and an available means but we cannot put the two

861
together. I believe that we must in the future find a solution that is far more permanent than any that we have found in the past 30 years.
It would be pleasant if I could argue that there are some advantages in the situation and that somehow the construction industry and the profession will come out leaner and more successful. I see no evidence that that is the case. With their present difficulties architects cannot spend money on training. They cannot buy new technology. Of all the students at present in training, one in three is unable to obtain practical experience. I find it difficult to believe that, when this recession is over, it will be possible to point either to that profession or to any of the professions in the construction industry—or to the industry itself —and say that some advantage has resulted from this very unhappy period. To highly trained professionals, with seven years' full-time training behind them, unemployment comes as a profound shock. I hear every day that many architects are selling their homes; many have lost their lifetime's savings; and many can scarcely afford the subscription to their professional body. There is real hardship and no good can come out of it.
I should like to thank noble Lords for their very friendly welcome in the Corridors and Lobbies and I am grateful for their tolerance of my rough remarks today.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, it is an honour to follow so distinguished a parliamentarian as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I congratulate him on an excellent and powerful maiden speech. It is clear that we have much to look forward to in his future speeches in this House.
The subject that I wish to address in relation to the economy is the consequences of crime in our society. Of all the social consequences that may be produced by a mismanaged economy, an increase in the levels of crime causes not only great distress to victims but captures the attention of the media. Over the past few weeks we have seen banner headlines about the doubling of recorded crime since 1979. In that year the figure for recorded crime in the United Kingdom stood at about 2.5 million. In 1990 the figure was over 4.5 million and for last year it is likely to be over 5 million—a 20 per cent. leap in one year. Moreover, behind those headline figures there is the dark figure of unreported, unrecorded crime, which may be four or five times as high.
I believe that many of the Government's ideological and economic policies have been directly responsible for the disintegration of society and social controls, with a consequent rise in crime. Society needs a sense of structure and moral continuity if it is to exercise influence over young people, who are mainly responsible for crime.
The causes of crime are multifactorial. A career in crime, like any other career, is not the outcome of a single factor. The influence of family, friends and teachers as well as job opportunities and living conditions are all relevant. Certain conditions of despair, truancy, bleak job prospects and criminal
862
associates will, however increase the probability of some boys and young men, and more rarely girls, becoming criminals.
The peak age of criminal offending is 15. It is at that crucial point of transition from school to work—of adolescent rebellion against authority—that government policies have been most destructive, removing the support of social security benefits from 16 and 17 year-olds, and offering them in return neither job prospects nor adequate training. It is no wonder that London looks like a third world city with its young beggars and vagrants.
Relatively more criminals come from broken homes-26 per cent. of adult prisoners have been in care—or from families which have moved around. The vain pursuit of employment can only have increased that disruption. Unified families, integrated with the local community, are less likely to produce criminal children, but economic pressures —unemployment, high levels of debt due to the 1980s credit boom—may trip some over the edge into disintegration and crime.
I am amused to see that the Home Secretary has lately become a convert to the idea that crime has a social basis. No doubt he will now be getting his task force to make further explorations along the wilder shores of criminology where it will discover Durkheim and may even find something called "society"! In 1895 Durkheim suggested that,
"fiercely rising commercial competition … broke … through traditional rules and restraints … Society put before people the one goal of getting rich, but many, especially in the poorer classes, could sec no hope of arriving there if they stuck to the rules for doing it legally".
If the only goals presented to people are materialistic then those are the ones that will be pursued by fair means or foul.
Over the past 13 years the Government have suggested that material wealth is the only goal worth pursuing and that all human endeavour must he measured in monetary terms. The pursuit of value for money in the police service has thus, for example, devalued human qualities and the role of the police officer in the community because its worth cannot be calculated in pounds or ecus. The focus instead has been on performance indicators such as response times, clear-up rates and devolved budgeting.
This Government have propounded the most materialistic ideology that we have seen this century and have underpinned it with 18th century notions of magic market forces for which Government need take no responsibility and on the curious idea that wealth is subject to the force of gravity. They have also mounted a sustained vendetta against local government, destroying the essential foundation for secure and positive local communities. A government that have, on the one hand, centralised power and, on the other, rejected strategic planning has been ill-placed to counter long-term and deep-seated problems. Even they have not pursued all of Adam Smith's ideas. In this squeamish age the idea that too high a level of unemployment can be reduced by heightened levels of child mortality has been too much even for them.
Most crime is petty and squalid with both victims and perpetrators living in deprived areas on

863
featureless housing estates where many families are on social security or below the poverty line. That has not been assisted by the present system of government grants to local authorities which places Westminster eighth, Liverpool 30th and North Tyneside (where last year's riots took place) 150th. The increasing centralisation of power in this country has left local authorities with less and less power to build decent housing or provide the services to the community which would prevent crime and increase social integration and local autonomy.
On 20th February a leader in The Times quoted Home Office research which indicated that,
"in years when the average personal spending rises little or even falls, property crime grows relatively fast".
Over 90 per cent. of crime is property crime. A quarter of that is motor vehicle crime; that is, mostly stealing car radios and other portable property from cars, rather than stealing cars. In view of the current state of the economy it is not surprising that property crime has risen by leaps and bounds.
I also believe that it is no coincidence that the 1981 riots on the streets of our major cities coincided with the previous recession, nor that we had serious disturbances in Cardiff, Oxford and North Tyneside last year. I do not look forward to the coming summer with much optimism.
To redress the existing damage to our society will not be easy. We need to pursue policies that are integrative rather than divisive. We need to reduce the gap between rich and poor. We need to develop a different value system which emphasises human rather than materialistic values. Education should be seen as an end in itself, not merely as a route to a non-existent job. Policing should be community based, not merely reactive. Surveys of people living on bleak housing estates have shown endlessly that people are concerned about hooliganism, vandalism and car parking, not about serious crimes. Yet most police resources have been directed to specialist squads dealing with serious crimes, drugs, robbery and so on. We live in an increasingly overcrowded and impoverished planet. We have, I believe, very little time left in which to develop a society in this country which will be sufficiently integrated, mature and resilient to withstand the difficulties of the years ahead.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is a temptation to follow the noble Baroness in her disquisition on the causes of crime. However, owing to the strict time limit under which one operates I prefer to come straight back to the main central issue of the debate, which is the state of our economy, the responsibility of the Government for some of its difficulties and the remedies which could properly be effected.
Before I do so, I wish to add my tribute to the noble Lord who has just made his maiden speech. He made it with a confidence that for a moment made one almost forget that it was a maiden speech. I hope indeed that we shall hear him frequently in future. I have no doubt that we shall have that felicity.
864
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, opened the debate with a tirade—I think that that is the correct word—against the Government, alleging that virtually all the economic difficulties which the country is encountering were the direct and inevitable result of government policies which would have been avoided had the noble Lord, Lord Peston, been in charge of our affairs. But of course he neglected entirely to look at some of the more agreeable and cheering aspects of what is, in truth and fact, a very mixed situation. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place. For example, he wholly ignored the fact that countries such as Japan, which have complete freedom as to where to invest and to make investments in industry, are investing and continue to invest in this country. Objective, sensible people seeking to invest profitably and to build up successful businesses would not invest predominantly in a country whose condition was anything like that which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, described. It is one of the reassuring factors of the present situation that objective investors are investing in this country. It obviously indicates the view that in the not necessarily long term, but in the reasonably short term, this country is in for an economic recovery in the profits of which those countries hope to participate. That is a very reassuring factor to which we should pay attention.
Another important factor—it has been mentioned briefly once or twice—is the way in which we are now virtually free from strikes. That is the direct result of the series of measures affecting trade union law and industrial relations for which the Government have been responsible. Year after year improvements have been made in our labour relations law and the result can now be seen in the great freedom from serious industrial disputes which we now enjoy. The fact that the trade unions now operate in an infinitely more sensible way than they did some years ago is again one of the cheering factors.
We are, of course, dealing with the consequences of a world-wide recession. There is no avoiding some of those consequences, particularly their effect on our export market. But the picture that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, sought to draw of this country in that situation was completely unreal. He did not refer to the most important aspect of Government policy; that is, their recent success in the battle with inflation. Indeed, if I understood him correctly, he went so far as to suggest that inflation did not matter to the poor. He said that the poorest section of the population would not suffer from it.
That was a most extraordinary observation. The noble Lord has only to contemplate what is happening in other countries which suffer from inflation. The Commonwealth of Russian States is one example and Germany some years ago is another. If one has inflation, with the value of money diminishing weekly, the poorest—that is, those with the least money —will be brought up against its effects most sharply and most immediately. To argue that policies which combat inflation are not designed or intended to have the effect of helping the poorest section of the population shows an utterly unrealistic approach to the problems of our economy. In fact, the

865
Government have been most successful in dealing with inflation. Our rate is now below the European average and it is extremely cheery to see that.
The noble Lord made another extraordinary observation. He said that if the Government had stated at the beginning of their career that they offered a 7.5 per cent. rate of inflation they would not have been elected. That is an interesting figure because it is exactly half the rate of inflation which subsisted throughout the Labour Government of 1974–79; the average rate was 15 per cent. Again, the noble Lord, in his anxiety to damage the Government in every possible way, seemed to be departing from reality.
I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord is not in the Chamber. I hope that he will read my observations. Although it may be an exercise of wild optimism I hope that they will have an effect upon him. I do not believe that a speech such as he delivered to your Lordships' House is particularly helpful in a debate of this kind. It is a debate on the second most important public problem with which we must cope. The first most important is the preservation of peace. Beyond that, the proper management of the economy is the most important of subjects.
As your Lordships may know, I was involved in the subject from time to time, having two tours of duty at the Treasury. I know that it is most difficult to judge various factors against each other and get one's priorities right. That is a most difficult aspect of the matter. The Government, rightly, have given priority to coping with inflation. Inflation produces misery all round, not only to the very poor but to almost everyone. It is damaging to the efficiency of the economy and to the morale of those engaged in industry and commerce. It is gratifying to note that the firm and courageous measures that the Government have taken have been extremely effective. We should express our gratitude for them.
The recovery is on the way. Of course, its timing is a matter of uncertainty and doubt. The fact that it is on the way is supported by most of the organisations which are in direct touch with industry and commerce. The recovery is coming as the result of the courageous handling by this Government of the policies to which I have referred. I am quite sure that they will bring us through the present difficulties. As the world recession recedes and as world trade builds up again, so this country will continue to play a leading part in that recovery. It will be possible to say, as in the moving words of the poem:
"The threats of pain and ruin to despise
To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land
And read their story in a nation's eyes".

Prison Management, Northern Ireland
4.35 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement on Lord Colville's report on the
866
management of paramilitary prisoners in Belfast prison. Before dealing with the substance of his report, which is published today, I should like to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Colville for the thoroughness and speed with which he carried out a very difficult task.
"The House will recall the tragic events which gave rise to his review. On 24th November last a device exploded in the dining hall in C wing in Belfast prison. One prisoner was killed outright, another mortally wounded and several others less seriously injured. The efforts of staff in rendering first aid immediately after the explosion were in the highest traditions of the Northern Ireland prison service and earned the thanks of the relatives of the prisoners who died. On 26th November the Provisional IRA admitted responsibility for the outrage.
"Three inquiries were established: a murder investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which continues; an internal and necessarily confidential review of security procedures in the prison by a senior official of the prison service—most of its recommendations have been implemented and decisions on the others will be made shortly; the third strand was Lord Colville's inquiry into the operational policy for the management of prisoners of opposing factions in Belfast prison.
"The central conclusion of his report is strongly against further segregation within the prison system. It also recommends that in Belfast prison numbers in A wing, the only wing at present housing exclusively paramilitary prisoners, should be reduced; that out of concern for visitors' safety those prisoners should have separate visiting arrangements; and that time on remand in custody awaiting trial should be reduced, his preferred method being that the powers in Section 8 of the 1991 Emergency Provisions Act should be used.
"Mr. Speaker, I accept the report. I shall comment on each of the recommendations in turn.
"First, the question of segregation. Lord Colville brings out very clearly the increased risks posed to security by segregation. He says (and I quote): 'All the lessons from history suggest that segregation facilitates escapes, and escapes will give freedom to paramilitary fanatics of both factions who will kill and maim outside prison'. On security grounds I am satisfied that Lord Colville's recommendation is right.
"Moreover, I am also satisfied that segregation would make it more difficult to offer constructive regimes for inmates, as it already has at the Maze. It would constrain the flexible and effective use of the available accommodation. And the opportunity which segregation would provide the paramilitaries to reinforce their cohesiveness within the prison would have an adverse effect on the morale and self-esteem of staff.
"I turn now to the reduction of numbers in A wing. There are obvious advantages in keeping untried prisoners together in a more central location. I am pleased to tell the House that the governor can implement this recommendation

867
within the next few weeks, when the necessary construction work will have been completed, without the need to move those prisoners out of Belfast prison.
"The recommendation on separate visits is not free from difficulty. But Lord Colville believes that the change is justified in the interests of the safety of visitors and I have concluded that it should for that reason be accepted.
"The case for cutting down remand times has always been strong. Lord Colville concludes that it is now unanswerable and I accept that conclusion. Delays in these cases are, of course, inextricably linked to the terrorist situation, which gravely complicates the investigation of crime and the criminal process as a whole. But it is not acceptable that people should remain for long periods without a trial. Together with my ministerial colleagues, I am urgently considering how the very real problems which exist might best be resolved so that these unacceptable delays can be overcome.
"Mr. Speaker, segregation remains a key objective of the paramilitaries. In resisting campaigns by both factions, prison governors and their staff have implemented the policy of successive Administrations. There now have been three major reports by respected and independent figures which say segregation is wrong. Lord Gardiner, in his report published in January 1975 on measures to deal with terrorism, recommended that special category status—segregation writ large —should be ended and that the influence of the terrorist leaders must be reduced. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir James Hennessy, in his 1984 report into the Maze escape of the previous year was in no doubt about the increased threat to security posed by segregation. Lord Colville having taken evidence from a wide range of people has come to the same conclusion. My predecessors accepted the recommendations of Gardiner and Hennessy and I in turn have concluded that I should accept the recommendations of Lord Colville. I do not believe that it would be acceptable to this House for the clear stand which has been taken over the years against segregation to be set aside as a result of paramilitary violence and in the face of unequivocal advice from three such distinguished sources and the powerful arguments that they have deployed.
"Mr. Speaker, the bomb explosion in C wing in Belfast was an act of terrorism no different from the murder of workmen at Teebane or the killing of people who happened to be in a betting shop at the wrong time. None of those events will deflect the Government from what they believe to be in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland." My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which the Secretary of State made in another place. Moreover, on these
868
Benches we wish to be associated with the tributes which have been so deservedly paid by the Secretary of State to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who conducted the inquiry with his customary thoroughness, fairness and speed.
It seems to me that once again the people of Northern Ireland are immensely indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. This report is another distinguished contribution.
As is pointed out in the Statement, the inquiry—which was the third one to be set up in Northern Ireland—was set up after the act of terrorism in Crumlin Road gaol on 24th November last. We are pleased to note from the Statement that the internal report of the review of security procedures has been completed. Of course, that is a confidential report but it is reassuring to know that the recommendations are being implemented. We trust that the RUC is also making progress with the murder investigation, because it was a murder. In fact, two murders were committed in the gaol as a result of that act of terrorism.
The inquiry by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made four recommendations, which are referred to in the Statement. We are pleased that they have been promptly accepted by the Government. As the Statement makes clear, the issue of segregation of prisoners at Crumlin Road gaol has been a critical issue for years. We are gratified and grateful that the Government have accepted that recommendation. We fully support the Government's stand against segregation which, after all, is one of the key objectives of the paramilitary organisations which seek to dominate the prison.
On that particular recommendation, I have not had time to study the report but the Statement tells us that the central conclusion of the report is strongly against further segregation within the prison system. Does that mean that for some time the present degree of segregation will continue?
The second recommendation of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is that the number of prisoners in A wing should be reduced. I am relying on my memory but I believe there were about 100 prisoners in A wing on that date in November last year. We understand from the Statement that building works are in hand which will make it possible to bring about the necessary reduction. We are pleased to note from the Statement that those works are likely to be completed within a few weeks.
We fully agree that time on remand in custody awaiting trial should be reduced. That is a difficult issue involving many interests. Is the Minister able to throw any further light on how the Government hope to be able to achieve that desirable objective?
The final recommendation is that there should be separate arrangements for visits. Again, in principle one agrees with that but presumably it will take a little time to organise.
The situation in Crumlin Road gaol has been volatile for years. Therefore, from these Benches we join with the Minister in paying tribute to the members of the prison service who are employed in that particular prison. Between June and September of

869
last year 40 prison officers were injured in that prison. The homes of some prison officers were also attacked. Therefore, we owe the prison officers in Northern Ireland a great debt of gratitude. I wonder whether the Minister knows how the prison officers are responding to the recommendations. I spoke to a member of the prison service just before coming into the Chamber and I understand that they are fully supportive of the Statement.
We fully support the Statement and its recommendations because they are in the best interests of Northern Ireland.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, from these Benches I give an unequivocal welcome both to the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and to the Government's very constructive reaction to his recommendations. The House, Parliament as a whole and the Government are extremely well served by the invariably judicious and thoughtful recommendations of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Once again, that is the case on this occasion.
The issue at the centre of the report is segregation of prisoners. The report states:
"There is no middle ground between the fundamentally opposing attitudes".
I am certain that the attitude which the Government have taken—recommended by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and which we on these Benches support—is right. We cannot be seen to allow the terrorists and the paramilitaries a say in how prisons are run. We cannot let the terrorist culture pervade other prisoners who, because of segregated community loyalties, would be infected by the germ of terrorism. We cannot let that happen. We cannot let them decide how prisons should be run. I am quite certain that the Government and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, have come to the right conclusion.
As regards time on remand, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is right to draw our attention to the fact that a terrifying period of one and a half to two years is the average time which prisoners spend on remand. I should like to ask the Government what they believe should be done about that. I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has recommended that the average should be reduced from one and a half to two years to half of that time—something like nine months. Even nine months is a long time to be on remand without trial.
However, in bringing down that average—and perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he accepts the specific recommendation on that—what will be done in particular about the 11 prisoners who have been on remand for more than two years? Within the generally hopeful response given by the Government of bringing down the time, what is to be done about the 11 specific prisoners?
As regards separate visits I too welcome the conclusions drawn. They seem humane and sensible, although I understand the difficulty. I welcome the fact that the Government feel able to accept them. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, says how tough the conditions are in Crumlin Road prison. What are the Government's plans for spending the £20 million
870
which have been allocated for the improvement of the gaol? I hope that it can be done urgently. They are very grim conditions.
There is one final question that I wish to ask. Do the Government have any comment on the noble Viscount's understated but nevertheless quite clear dismay, shown in paragraph 2.5 of his report, that the Loyalists were locked up after the incident without any apparent help or consultation in what must have been a situation of great fear and concern to them? It certainly cannot be thought to be conducive to good conditions and attitudes in the prison. With the exception of those reservations and questions, from these Benches I very much welcome both the report and the Government's reaction to it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for their reception of this report. In particular I thank both noble Lords for stating their parties' support for the stand against segregation which is in the report and which has been accepted unequivocally. The other three recommendations have also been accepted. The recommendation on segregation has been accepted unequivocally by my right honourable friend. It is enough for me simply to rejoin that this is the third of three distinguished reports by independent observers and investigators on the Northern Ireland scene. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, it is entirely wrong for the prisons to be run by any faction of those who are in them. I am grateful to both noble Lords for their unequivocal support on this extremely important point.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me about the meaning of the words in the Statement as regards the recommendation that there should be no further segregation. He wonders whether that means that segregation at this particular prison is something which exists and which is not going to be attended to. It does not mean that and I say that unequivocally. The situation in Belfast prison is that, following representations which were made in 1990 by certain public representatives, the governor introduced new unlocking arrangements to reduce the possibility of confrontation between the factions in the prison. These arrangements involve staff making an assumption about which faction will accept the offer of exercise or evening association so that it is possible to that extent for that particular faction to be taking exercise or evening association without the other faction being there.
The Government feel that these are sensible and pragmatic arrangements which fall far short of segregation on the wings, which is exactly what the paramilitaries are after. I say quite bluntly that there is still segregation at the Maze prison. I make the point that that prison is an establishment which has been having a declining prison population. Anyway, it is the policy of the prison service always to encourage occupants of the Maze prison to move to Maghaberry prison in order to conclude their sentences. As both noble Lords will know that is an integrated prison.
The noble Lord asked me perfectly fairly how we were going to move prisoners, as the recommendation says in the report and which my right honourable

871
friend has accepted, from A wing to other parts of the prison. The Statement which I have repeated says that not only can we accept that, but we can do it without actually having to move prisoners out of and back into the prison. We will move out some sentenced prisoners and reallocate some accommodation within the prison. We plan that the present A wing population will be divided between A and B wings and some physical construction work will be required. However, I very much hope that new arrangements will be in place literally within the next few weeks.
The noble Lord also asked me how prison officers have reacted to the main recommendation against segregation. Very helpfully, the noble Lord said that from personal contact his understanding was that prison officers would be very positive. I add to what the noble Lord said by saying that, as always, prison staff will implement ministerial policy. In case that sounds rather complacent, I add that it has always been the line which has been taken by the Prison Officers' Association and the Governors' Association. I am confident that, whatever the challenges involved, the prison officers in Belfast prison will do exactly that.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked what the Government were doing as regards waiting times on remand. I admit to the noble Lord that that is the most difficult of the recommendations. My right honourable friend is determined to do everything possible to reduce the length of time which some prisoners in Northern Ireland have to wait on remand before trial. Figures are deployed in the report. An official working group on delays in the criminal justice system has been re-established to report to Ministers. It will seek to identify practical and effective ways of reducing remand waiting times and to consider the implications of introducing statutory time limits for scheduled cases under Section 8 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, which is the specific recommendation that my noble friend Lord Colville makes.
The noble Lord asked me about the 11 prisoners who have been on remand for more than two years. I know that every effort will be made to see that their cases are brought forward. Without going through a long list of things which were done, it is right to say that a number of administrative measures have been introduced over the past few years to help reduce waiting times. They included a review of the organisations' staffing levels at the DPP's office, at the relevant sections of the RUC and at the forensic science laboratory; the establishment of a fast stream to identify and take forward cases which can be brought to trial relatively quickly. There was also an increase in the strength both of the judiciary and also of the numbers of Queen's Counsel at the Northern Ireland Bar. I very much hope that, with these administrative arrangements being in place, we shall be able to see those cases brought to court in the near future.
The noble Lord quite rightly said that my noble friend's report says that the regime in Belfast prison is tough and asked what the Government are going to do
872
about that. To a large extent the answer lies in the hands of the prisoners themselves. The present regime in C wing shows what can be done when prisoners co-operate together and with the management of the prison. Many of the restrictions on the paramilitary type prisoner, such as tightly controlled movements, were introduced following representations and have resulted in a number of improvements. In addition, as the noble Lord probably knows, we have plans, which we have stated publicly on many occasions, to refurbish the prison as soon as we possibly can. We have already begun making financial arrangements for that plan.
The noble Lord said that the report indicates that prisoners were locked up after this terrible explosion. Yes, that is true, in a situation which was terrible for all concerned, both staff and prisoners. However, action has been taken in the prison. For instance, psychologists have been appointed and put into place very quickly. A very great deal was done by the supportive services including the chaplaincy. In concluding what I am saying to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I remind him that at the beginning of the Statement there was a tribute to staff which I believe was well deserved.
5 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, my remarks will be very brief. I have one question to put to the Minister, but first I should like to thank him for repeating the Statement and join with my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and the Minister in acknowledging the debt of gratitude we owe to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I am sure that all peaceful citizens in Northern Ireland who have been living in anxiety and fear also join with their thanks. I am certain that all those involved with the prison services, including the prison officers, the probation board, voluntary workers in the prisons and also prisoners and their families will welcome this timely report.
The point I wish to make to the Minister concerns the administrative arrangements he mentioned. I am pleased to hear the recommendation that remand time should be reduced. Will the Minister consider publishing information about this report to the public as well as to those at official level? I am especially concerned about welfare groups associated with prisoners, such as bona fide welfare groups from Churches and other such organisations. The sooner they are aware of the recommendations and are able to communicate them to prisoners' families and to prisoners themselves, the sooner the heat and the tension that has arisen will be relieved. It will be useful to consider not only the administrative arrangements that are to be made in the legal sense but also the promotion of the information and how it is to be achieved outside.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blease, whose knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs, and specifically of these affairs, is very extensive. The report will be on sale tomorrow in Her Majesty's Stationery Office bookshops and there will

873
inevitably be publicity on TV and radio. But the real answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, is that one of the matters in which the prison service in Northern Ireland can take pride is the relationships which the service has with the splendid voluntary organisations who do so much for the prison service, not least in transport matters and also in running visitors' centres outside the prisons. I have no doubt at all that the prison service will be talking with voluntary groups as well about the contents of this report.

The Economy
Debate resumed.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, we return to the Motion, so well moved by my noble friend Lord Peston, to call attention to the state of the economy and its social consequences.
After 13 unlucky years of Tory rule we find ourselves in the longest recession this country has endured since the 1930s. That is perhaps an aspect of the state of the economy, but it is also an aspect which has grave social consequences of all kinds; and the Government expect to get re-elected! If they are re-elected it will be a case of never in the history of British politics have so many been conned by so few.
Sir John Harvey-Jones said in the Observer last Sunday that we have declining production, falling GDP, diminishing re-investment in productive capacity, increasing unemployment, falling property prices, a record rate of house repossessions, near record rates of bankruptcy, and increasing bad debt provision by the banks. What do the Government call this scene of disaster over which they have presided? They call it ideal conditions for recovery.
They admit that the light at the end of the tunnel which Tory Chancellors used to see—indeed, the present Chancellor caught a glimpse of it earlier in his incumbency —has temporarily disappeared; but the Chancellor desperately hopes that it will not be long in coming back. It is just round the corner, he imagines. No doubt it will miraculously reappear if Mr. Major is sent back to Downing Street, they plead.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who spoke on behalf of the Government, put a brave face on the sad condition. He did rather better than some of his colleagues I have witnessed in another place Ministers who looked to me rather like a bunch of con-men who had lost their confidence. The Government say that it is not their fault that we are in this mess. They say that we have got ourselves into it by over-consumption. Now they say, with even less conviction, that we can only get out of the mess by resuming our bad old habits and over-consuming still more.
Who is going to swallow that prescription? Will the banks begin lending recklessly again? Is the increasing consumption to he met by increasing home production or will it be met by further increasing imports? As my noble friend Lord Peston pointed out, we cannot even achieve a trade balance now. The Government's medicine will surely kill the patient.
874
The Japanese and German economic performance is not based on "hands-off" government and low taxation; it is based on government intervention and government support, and on very low defence expenditure. But that is anathema to our ideologically-driven Government and to their supporters who mismanage and misdirect much of our declining industrial base. It would be interesting to see whether, as I suspect is the case, that like our incompetent Government our business directors are also mainly the product of our so-called public schools. That is another handicap which they do not suffer in Japan and Germany.
The Institute of Directors is the equivalent of the old Trotskyite fringe in the Labour Party. Unfortunately for the Government, their Trots are still influential. While that remains the case, as Sir John Harvey-Jones has pointed out, it is not easy for I British business to establish the sort of relationship with civil servants which has been a factor in finding common goals in competing countries. Fortunately, compared with the Institute of Directors, the more important CBI is relatively sane.
The truth is that over the past 13 years, taken as a whole, we have been losing ground. The outdated doctrines which still underpin—or perhaps the word should be undermine—the Government are a main cause of the trouble. It is time for a change. No sudden cure is possible, but it is possible to arrest and reverse the 13-year decline. For that we need a new government, and Labour is ready to take over. For 13 years the electorate has been conned into returning a Tory majority. If the voters fall for the con yet again, the consequence would be irretrievable disaster.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, by background and inclination and in spirit I am an islander. I take as a theme for my intervention today one of those sayings I remember as a child when things were bad and one felt depressed—"Pray for the undertaker's wind", that soft offshore breeze that carried away all the bad thoughts and bad smells and left clean air in which to sleep and think.
In taking as a theme the word "undertaker", I remembered that somewhere "undertaker" was looked upon once with enthusiasm and pride. It was replaced, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, reminded us, with the word "entrepreneur". But an undertaker was someone who initiated or took part in a business enterprise. The Oxford English Dictionary today puts after that definition the word "rare". Indeed there was a period when the undertaker was extremely rare. But a new wind blew with this party when it came to government and created what we called the spirit of enterprise which has been attacked today. It encouraged people to go out, to start on their own with pride, to borrow money with pride, and build businesses. That spirit led to a change of attitude in this country which, whatever our political beliefs may have been, we had to welcome.
Someone will ask, "What went wrong?" We have heard analyses today of a number of factors. I shall touch on a few briefly. What went wrong involved not

875
just domestic issues or international issues but a failure to recognise what was being said at the coalface. I am not a bright economist but I have often thought, when governments have done things that I have felt were wrong, "Why did they do it?" I believe there is a long lead time when information which is the truth about an economic situation makes its way through the corridors of Whitehall to the thinking minds of the Treasury.
The first sign to me was when we had moved into Europe and should have joined the ERM, which I supported. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, did not. The mistake was that we joined it too late. That has been said before. We joined it after the crisis had come and we were forced to raise interest rates. As a result, we ended up going in at too high a rate. The second sign was the over-reaction in relation to Black Monday and the crash of the Stock Exchange. That was a fairly shallow reaction but it was, as noble Lords on all sides of the House have said, predictable. They would perhaps have reacted in the same way. The stock markets have a habit of predicting recessions way in advance of things. We were probably in for recession in any event, but that it hit us earlier and harder is obvious. Indeed when I last spoke on economic matters I referred to a really great depression which I believed we were in and would possibly remain in for some time.
I do not have a solution but I believe that in part of this debate we have a right to make suggestions to government. I shall do so on a couple of fronts. I begin on the home front. The depression at home is in part real and in part psychological. I shall direct my remarks, if I may, to the Liberal Democrat Benches because one of the factors that causes greater depression is fear of loss of wealth and the feeling that recovery will never take place. We are, within Europe and within the G7, the greatest home-owning democracy. The fear that houses may be repossessed or that the value of our houses may fall is a very depressing factor indeed. The initiative taken by the Government—perhaps encouraged by noble Lords on those Benches—of removing stamp duty temporarily should be extended so that stamp duty is removed altogether for first-time buyers. That would help to stimulate the market. One does not look for help for the top end, but for those who are marrying and starting out there has to be a starter move because we will not change the attitude—the good attitude—of wishing to own homes.
The second area lies in this strange question of mortgage relief. I am one who opposes the whole concept of distorted mortgage relief. However, if there is no support for homes at this time we may have this continual feeling of depression as wealth is tied up in houses.
The third area on the home front that should be considered —I do not follow any socialist policies on this—is spending on infrastructure. There always needs to be spending on infrastructure. The time to spend money on infrastructure, if one has to, is when it is cheaper to do so than ever before. At the moment the water authorities, which have been privatised quite
876
successfully, have recognised that they can complete their infrastructure more quickly, more efficiently and at a lower cost today than they could in a boom period. I suggest that the Government might at this time consider advancing their own infrastructure programme. They may find that they can do it far more cheaply today than if they defer it over a longer period.
I shall now move into international themes. We think that the depression applies only to us. I thought that we were way behind other countries but I have just been to Germany, France and Switzerland. I have also met Norwegians and others. I must tell the House that in many cases their state of depression is greater than ours although from different bases. At one time Switzerland had negative rates of interest. The rates are now 7 per cent. or more. Such countries are not used to it. Germany also has its problems. France may come out of depression more quickly but the North Sea area of Norway and the whole of Scandinavia have suffered serious problems. It is not a domestic issue. We must ask ourselves how we can recover, because in a way it will be an international recovery that leads us out of depression.
The Labour Party says "invest", but one only invests if one sees an opportunity to trade. Some say that my party believes that the recovery should he consumer led. All recoveries should be genuinely trade led. At the moment, with around 90 per cent. of the world virtually cut off from the G7 group because of currency problems, we have created by accident a narrower and narrower market. If we trade only with G7 countries we are incestuous and cannot create growth.
I suggest that the Government might look again at increasing the resources made available for the financing of trade and extending such concepts as the know-how agreement. They should not withdraw in these areas, as has happened before, because manufactures cannot be sold to countries with soft currencies unless there is some form of support. Bilateral trade is the way to encourage growth.
The Government have made an important point on which I support them. Our inflation has come down to a level which is below the average of the G7 countries and of the EC. That is commendable. But if part of the policy is the use of interest rates, and if our rate of inflation is below the average of the EC and the G7 countries, why are our interest rates 2.5 per cent. above the average of those countries? How can the United States, which had interest rates of 10 per cent., drop them down to 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. and not suffer? In fact the dollar is relatively stable.
I believe that a way could be found, perhaps in discussion with other members of the ERM, of moving towards a substantial reduction in interest rates. I do not believe that our own interest rates should ever be allowed to rise above twice the prevailing rate of inflation. At 10.25 per cent. they are too high. Perhaps the past has strapped us into an undesirable strait-jacket. Be that as it may, the point should be considered.
We shall not move out of this depression quickly and that may not be a bad thing. I have been taught

877
by my son, who is a pupil of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that when one has depression, ultimately the level of activity falls to a minimum. There is a minimum level because of government spending even though there may be postponement of decision. Then the shrewd and wise man or wise virgin invests not for tomorrow but for the day after the day after tomorrow —for the future. Production has been cut back and we have an efficient industry. There are prospects of a good recovery for us in competition with others.
At the end of my allotted time I return to the theme of the undertaker. I ask myself why that noble person, the man who went out to help people to do things, is replaced by what in French one calls a croque morte. When examining this I came to the conclusion that there were people around who wanted to deal with the dead bodies of good people. They used to go and bite the toe of the body to see whether it was alive or dead, as may have happened with noble Lords opposite today. They would say as they bit it, "Croque madame" or "croque monsieur". One is a toasted ham and cheese sandwich and the other a toasted cheese and ham sandwich. I would not accuse noble Lords opposite of being "old croques", but their policies certainly are.
5.20 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I think that I have seen the day when I could get up and make a 10 minute speech as good as that of the noble Lord who has just sat down without a note of any description. Perhaps noble Lords will excuse me if, at my age, I use what might be termed "copious notes". I should like, first and foremost, to congratulate my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, on his excellent maiden speech and on the fact that he concentrated, and put across a very good point, on the construction industry. En the House of Commons we used to sit on the same Benches; but he has moved around since that time. However, I notice that he is sitting at the end of the Chamber and that he has not far to go to move across if he wishes to do so some day.
I propose also to speak about the economics of my own industry. But I should like first to point out what I suppose are the social consequences mentioned in the title of the Motion in some industries, as illustrated by the headlines of the Observer which I read about three weeks ago in the business section. I was amazed at the eight headlines that I read. I have the newspaper here with me should any noble Lord doubt my word. I have put them together in order. The first one said, "Virgin Atlantic dips to £3 million loss". The second one was, "Ramsden lost £57m on the horses". The third one said, "Bank resists rate cut as redundancies mount". The fourth one referred to "Fraud: Nightmare on Elm Street". I do not know where Elm Street is, but that was the headline. The fifth read, "Mafia linked to $800bn share scam". Again, I am not too familiar with the word "scam". The sixth stated, "Axe poised over NatWest". The seventh read, "Levitt faces £56m fraud charges". The eighth said, "Mayhew acquittal threatens Guinness II". Then, in the corner of the newspaper, there was a nice little piece about one of my friends, Mr. Peter Walker, who has collected
878
something like £400,000 to leave Maxwell's empire. I do not know what the pensioners are saying about that detail, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
If one adds to that list what is happening at Lloyd's and at Maxwell's—and of course I do not want to embarrass noble Lords opposite on the headline which appeared in the Independent today, but I think that it is one of the social consequences which will have to be investigated so far as I can see—one wonders what is going on in those businesses, and what the directors do which allows such things to happen. I do not understand it. I am glad to say that my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, who is not present today, has tabled a Question for Tuesday of next week on the matter. I look forward to hearing the Government's reply.
I turn now to agriculture. Farming, forestry and horticulture use the land in this country and the three together form our largest industry. Farming and horticulture together are a very good second. We employ directly 650,000 people and produce up to 75 per cent. of our temperate foods. Turnover is £12.5 billion, and of course the processing and distribution of that turnover creates many jobs in other industries. That is something that we are inclined to forget. Over the past few years, farming has also been spending about £8,000 million on inputs, services and capital goods, which create industries to produce them. Those industries find it of great value to have home business. They can also export, particularly as regards tractors and much of the agricultural machinery that we produce in this country.
I do not wish to bore your Lordships with too many figures, but I should like to give the House some idea of the increases in productivity. From 1950 to 1989 the rise in wheat was from two-and-three-quarter tonnes per hectare to seven tonnes per hectare. I must give the plant breeders, for whom I have great respect, considerable kudos for that. They have done a tremendous job in giving us plants to enable us to do such things.
Production of milk rose from 2,500 litres per cow to 4,750 litres per cow. That is nearly double. That has been achieved by a tremendous improvement in the nutrition and the management of the dairy cow. Increases in labour productivity, taking 1978 at 100, rose to just touching 160 in 1989. The whole country's economy on the same basis rose to just under 130. That is roughly the picture up to the beginning of 1990, except that a trade balance in food in 1980 of £2.8 billion in our favour has gone to a £12.8 billion deficit in 1990—that is exactly 2.3 per cent. of gross national product.
That cannot be allowed to continue. Over the past 20 years, but particularly in the past 10, agriculture has lost 122,000 workers—that is, 31 per cent. At the same time, the number of farmers has dropped from 230,000 to 178,000. That is a fall of 52,000—over 20 per cent. Bankruptcies are about 200 per year. That figure does not include the enormous number giving up voluntarily. All told, the farmers leaving the industry amount to about 50 per week. That is not surprising when the drop in profits is just touching 50 per cent.

879
What is the effect of all that? There are two main ones: the physical and environmental change in the countryside; and the loss to the economy of a fully productive agriculture. Apart from anything else, farmers have taken 400,000 acres out of production by taking set-aside grants. That means a loss of about £80 million to £100 million worth of production, plus the cost of the grants.
The average size of farms in the UK is about 180 acres. If the present trend continues—and I discussed the matter with my noble friend Lord Carter who is not present in the Chamber today—it will have a tremendous effect. They will get bigger and bigger with more emphasis on cropping and less on stock. It is stock that we require in this country to produce milk, beef, and so on. We need a balanced agriculture. We shall not achieve that if the present trend continues. The working population will decrease and there could be a complete change in the countryside as we know it. We do not want that to happen.
I could say more. I have not touched on forestry. It is too big a subject to deal with in 10 minutes; nor have I mentioned GATT or the common agricultural policy. The delay in coming to some decision between the two is most frustrating. Farming is a long-term business. A bicycle can be produced in a few days, but it takes nine months to produce a calf, and you need a year's warning to produce a crop of wheat.
British agriculture is capable of producing nearly 100 per cent. of the food that the nation requires. If that was done, it would mean a boost to the economy of more than £1.5 billion. Agriculture will need some help and encouragement if it is to do that—and, my goodness! that is sorely needed. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, will agree with me on that. We need that help; but, above all, we need the promise of long-term planning. The uncertainty that has been created is having a very bad effect on the farming community. I like to think that whichever party forms the next Government. it will recognise that point and will ensure that agriculture is given its proper place in the economy.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, first, perhaps I may add my congratulations to those that have already been paid to my noble friend Lord Rodgers on his excellent maiden speech. I welcome him to his rightful place on these Benches. As many noble Lords have acknowledged, the recession is not unique to Britain and our recovery from it necessarily depends upon developments in other major economies, as well as here. However, we cannot blame our neighbours for the fact that the recession here is worse than elsewhere.
The blame for that must lie closer to home. To be charitable—as several noble Lords have been—we seem as a nation to suffer from an addiction to boom-bust economic management. But the Government cannot escape the blame for their inaction in early 1988, and especially for their Budget at that time which fuelled the credit blaze and the
880
house price bonanza. Action came too late, by which time the damage was done and the path for our current difficulties was set.
We now have a situation where all parties profess to believe that the boom-bust cycle must not be allowed to repeat itself. All are committed to ever closer convergence with our Community partners and, above all, to the exchange rate mechanism. It is important to remember that our membership of the exchange rate mechanism is one very important difference between our situation now and our situation in the previous recession.
There are several other important difficulties, all of which have some alarming implications. I shall touch on three. First, the extent of consumer indebtedness is quite unprecedented. As was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, personal debt in relation to personal disposable income is running at no less than double the level of the previous peak nearly 20 years ago in 1973. As a corollary, personal discretionary saving collapsed during the second half of the 1980s and began to recover only in 1990 as the recession started to bite. It is still at levels well below those pertaining in the last recession. That suggests that consumers, faced with an unprecedented level of debt, with a depressed housing market and with unsure employment, may require a prolonged period in which to build up their savings again. Consumer expenditure may thus remain sluggish for some time to come.
The second rather alarming difference between this and previous recessions is the rapidly rising public sector deficit. There was a continuous swing from deficit to surplus during the 1980s but at the end of that decade the combination of the slump and the Government's discretionary spending increases had caused a dramatic reversal. My noble friend Lord Jenkins has already referred to the worrying increase in debt. A public sector borrowing requirement of £30 billion is widely expected for next year. If in the event consumers prove more cautious than expected and Treasury growth forecasts are not achieved, that figure could be pushed still higher to levels that have not been seen since the crisis years of 1975 and 1976 when Denis Healey turned back from Heathrow and the International Monetary Fund stalked the corridors of Whitehall.
The third major difference—and perhaps the most worrying—is the weakness in the balance of payments, to which several noble Lords have already referred. A dash for growth foundering in the face of a balance of payments deficit is a familiar story in this country. However, in previous recessions we have actually run a balance of payments surplus, with the deficit arising only as we emerged from the recession. This time we have a deficit of about 1 per cent. of gross national product at the trough of a very deep recession.
The significance of those three factors is that we are on very thin ice. We face serious consequences if we succumb to over-stimulating the economy in a vain effort to buy votes. Our chances of maintaining our ERM commitment would evaporate—the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and probably several other noble Lords would welcome that—but it would mean a return to

881
high interest rates, to currency depreciation and to renewed inflation. No, the patient needs careful aftercare if he is to return to normal health and be fit enough to play alongside our Community partners.
There is one hopeful sign—perhaps I do not fully agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkins on this. There are some encouraging signs that pay increases may at last be responding more flexibly to economic conditions than in the past. Percentage pay increases have recently been falling rapidly and it is vitally important that that trend continues. The only hope of achieving the prize of non-inflationary growth lies in reducing our inflationary expectations and our pay increases to 3 per cent. or less and keeping them there. That is the advantage to be gained from our commitment to the exchange rate mechanism, and we must not shrink from it.
The economy may now be past the trough of the recession, but it needs an extended period of convalescence. I hope that the Chancellor will not be blinded by perceived electoral advantage into taking measures that will start the boom-bust cycle all over again. That would be very damaging to this country and decidedly ungracious to his successor.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am pleased to be sandwiched to speak between the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who has already spoken, and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, because they were two of my colleagues on the Aldington Committee on overseas trade in 1985 when we, as a cross-party committee, forecast precisely what would happen and why. We said that, unless manufacturing and overseas trade were supported by the Government following the decline in oil revenues, what has happened would happen. I do not intend to go into the details of that because we have debated it several times, but our conclusions are still worth reading as an analysis of the present situation. The Government disregarded our conclusions then and the results have been as we forecast.
When the noble Lord, Lord Henley, replies to the debate, I think that we are entitled to hear a statement of Conservative socio-economic philosophy and the policy on which the Conservative Party bases that. I think that we are entitled to that because we are bound to be in some confusion. In 1980–81 in the first recession under this Conservative Government, we were told that it was wrong to increase the public sector borrowing requirement because that would be inflationary. We were told that we must restrict our money supply and that it was wrong to budget for a deficit. We were told that government spending would only increase inflation, that financial deregulation would set the markets free, that trade unions must be hit hard in order to bring them to heel, that manufacturing industry had to be devastated—the Government called it a "shake-out" —and that there had to be a massive increase in unemployment.
Then in the latter part of the 1980s we saw the Government expanding credit, increasing the money supply, cutting taxes, shadowing the mark and
882
encouraging bank lending—with the normal consequence of high inflation followed by high interest rates. Which of those is the Government's policy? Or, as we are now told in this second Conservative recession, which has lasted from 1990 to the present day or even some time into the undisclosed future, is it the case that the one feature that is common to both is that unemployment must rise? Indeed, unemployment has risen by over 1 million in the past 12 months. This time, however, we are told that it is right for the Government to borrow to pay for tax cuts; for the Government to increase tremendously the PSBR, and that there should be a massive increase in the money supply. Which of those policies is now being followed by the Government? Which belongs to Conservative socio-economic philosophy and the policies derived from it? We have a right—I hope that the Minister will fulfil the obligation—to be told clearly what is the Conservative Party's philosophy and what are the policies upon which it is based.
Within all the various trends of Conservative Party policy there has been one constant theme: provided that people become richer, that benefit will trickle down to all the other stages of our society. The trickle-down theory was the rationale for cutting the top rate of income tax. Has that worked? Will the Government tell us whether it has worked? I shall supply them with some hints. From 1979 to 1989—taking the annual real income of an average household —the income increase from £10,560 to £13,084 (at 1989 prices) is £2,523 per year; but the income of the poorest 20 per cent. of households fell from £3,442 to £3,282, which is a decrease of £160 a year. We should not let the Government tell us that all sections of society have benefited from their economic policies. They have not. The poorest have become poorer in absolute terms. The poorest households are today suffering from a lower household income than in 1979. Those are the Government's own figures. However, the richest 20 per cent. of households have increased their average income from £20,138 to £28,124, an increase of £7,986—just about twice the average income of the poorest households.
On other figures, the poorest 20 per cent. have lost 4.6 per cent. over that 10-year period, whereas the richest have increased their income by 39.7 per cent. I challenge the Minister to deny those figures which are taken from government sources. In this country the poor have become poorer, but we live in a global society. It is right in the debate also to ask what have been the social effects of economic policy on rich and poor in the world as a whole.
It is hardly necessary for me to repeat that over the past 10 years, especially in the poorer parts of Africa, there has been an absolute decline in standards of living. They have declined to the mortality of starvation. What has our country been doing during that period? I say this again in reference to the Aldington report. The committee went into this matter in great detail. We were given evidence by manufacturers in this country about the impact British aid has on their trade with the developing countries. Between 1979 and 1980 our exports to developing countries fell from 27 per cent. to 18.5 per

883
cent., a decline of 8.5 per cent.; our imports declined from 20.8 per cent. to 14.5 per cent., a decline of 6.3 per cent.; and our share of world trade with developing countries also declined, but I do not have time to give the figures.
That means in effect that we have been diverting our trade from the developing countries—the half of the world where the market is closed—to our developed competitor countries. I shall give one example that I have given before: in 1985, British Leyland closed down the Bathgate factory which made vehicles. Why? It was because it had been tooled up to make vehicles for Nigeria, but the oil price collapse in Nigeria meant that they could buy no more than 2,500 vehicles, although the factory had been tooled up to produce 10,000 vehicles. The Bathgate factory was closed; British workers were put out of work; and the Nigerians did not have the vehicles to transport food around the country. That is the direct connection between our economic and social standards and those of the developing world.
As we know, during their period in office the Conservative Government have reduced aid to the developing world from 0.53 per cent. of GNP (as it was when we left office) to 0.27 per cent. The committee was told time after time that aid and trade go together. Aid assists British trade. We now see that not only has that aid been reduced; there has been a change in the direction of resources. More resources are coming from the developing world into this country and the rest of the developed world today than are leaving the developed world for the developing countries. The Government's economic policy has caused deepening class polarisation at home and has contributed to the widening gap between rich and poor in our global village.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am happy to be reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, of the Select Committee upon which he, my noble friend Lord Selsdon, and I were privileged to serve. I think that he will agree that many of the complaints made in the Select Committee report about manufacturing industry have since been remedied.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords—
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I shall not give way, if the noble Lord will forgive me. We are debating the state of the economy and its social consequences. I shall take the state of the economy first. I concede straight away that there has been the most protracted recession since 1945. It has not been the deepest by a long way. We have had six quarters of recession; that is, if we ignore the sectional point about the oil. I am sure that we are now coming out of the recession. All the signs are that we are coming out of it in the first quarter of this year. It was most severe in the first two quarters of last year. It steadied, and almost levelled out, in the last two quarters of last year. All the signs are now that we are on that improving trend.
There were reasons for the recession, and they have been referred to during the debate. Obviously some
884
mistakes in the economic management were made. Reference has been made to the drop in interest rates after the October 1987 crash. With hindsight we now see that that was wrong. Noble Lords opposite rightly do not take advantage of that fact because they thought, as I thought, that it was the right course to take at that time.
What is more important is the world recession. We are not an isolated country that can operate regardless of what is happening in the world as a whole. There has been, and is, a massive recession in countries that are of considerable importance to us: the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, much of Europe, and the like. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, held out Germany as an object lesson to us—a model that we should follow. If we look at what is happening to Germany now, we find that it has inflation comparable with ours at the moment, but its inflation is increasing while ours is coming down.
In Germany, increases in wage demands are in excess of 10 per cent. against our increase of 4.1 per cent. Money supply is rising at a rate which is unheard of in Germany, interest rates are comparable with ours and unemployment is rising. The model state of Germany, held up as an example to us, is, I believe, going through a worse period than we are, as we come out of it. Many countries are in a worse economic position than Germany—countries which have been and are important to our economy. We cannot steer clear of the world recession and believe that we are isolated and can operate without regard to it.
I very much welcome the clear and encouraging signs that we are coming out of the recession. Perhaps I may quote one or two facts. I said that our pay settlements are now 4.1 per cent. and that has enabled our unit costs to equal the lowest in Europe. At the same time, because of the productivity increases forecast by the CBI of over 6 per cent., average earnings have been able to increase to about 3 per cent. above inflation, with no increase in unit costs.
As regards destocking, for a period of two years at all levels of industry there has been destocking. That is coming to an end and stocks are building up again. That may have an adverse impact in the short term on our balance of payments, but it will regenerate the recovery for which we are all waiting.
Exports are holding up very well indeed, being about 8 per cent. up on last year. Here I disagree with my noble friend Lord Joseph. I have always followed his views with care and admiration, but I do not share his anxiety about the ERM. I believe that it was right to join and that, despite those who feel we went in at the wrong rate, the way in which our exports are holding up shows that we went in at the right rate.
Company debts have been reduced by £8 billion during 1991. We know that interest rates have come down eight times. A further fact of which we must take account is that the savings ratio has been building up to an exceptionally high figure in the country—11.2 per cent. I believe that during the coming 12 months we shall see it reduced to a more normal level, about 10 per cent., which will release purchasing power into the economy. That will help our recovery.

885
For the 91 per cent. of the population who are in work, the economy is pretty good. There has been an increase in their spending power of about £40 a week, if we take account of the reduction in interest rates and the increase in earnings. I see from the Financial Times today that, according to a survey published yesterday, the average British household is 20 per cent. richer in real terms than it was 10 years ago. I accept that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, would say, dealing with averages is misleading. Many people have a reduced standard of living and do not share in the degree of prosperity. However, the general buoyancy of the economy has not been reflected by the Benches opposite.
The consequences of the recession have been extremely painful for those who are unemployed. I know that the increase in unemployment concerns all sides of the House. The Government are putting more and more resources into employment services with improvement in training, but the figure for the unemployed will diminish only as the recovery takes place. There is a lag in the figure, as we all know.
Of course, there have been too many business closures. There is always a cycle of such closures and we should not forget that there are now 3 million companies in the country whereas 10 years ago there were only 2 million. Neither should we forget what is being done in taxation. Corporation tax was 52 per cent. and it is down to 33 per cent.
Another sector which has suffered is housing and I am sure we all have great sympathy for the problems of those whose homes are repossessed. There again, government support for mortgage interest, rescue schemes for lenders, the suspension of stamp duty and the like are aimed at alleviating that difficulty.
I believe that we are coming out of the recession. We need world growth in order to obtain the full benefits from our economy. If we run through what has been provided and is available to British industry, it should put us in a good position. First, inflation is at a rate below that of the whole Community. We have the lowest taxation level for industry in the industrialised world. Our industrial relations are unequalled. I believe my noble friend said that for 100 years there had not been a record of industrial peace to equal what happened in 1991.
Export volumes are at record levels. We export a higher proportion of our GDP than Japan. However, listening to the Benches opposite, I feel they are clearly out of touch with the real figures and what is happening in the world or in our economy. If we look at inward investment, people are investing more in this country than anywhere else in the Community; 40 per cent. of OECD overseas investment comes into the United Kingdom. We have three times the investment of France and six times that of Germany, and that is something of which we should be proud. It shows that there is confidence in the strength of our economy which has not been echoed by the Benches opposite.
The Financial Times carried out a survey of the top companies in Europe; 181 of the 500 were British, 63 French and 63 German. We have what I believe is a proud record. We have problems; we are all sorry about the consequences of the recession and
886
everything possible should be done to alleviate them. We have a sound and healthy economy. The only thing that would spoil it is if the Benches opposite were to become the Government.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I extend my warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, not only on his maiden speech but on becoming a Member of your Lordships' House. He brings all the qualities which fit him to make a notable contribution to those things that your Lordships' House does best. I am sure that he will add to the quality of our debates in times to come.
In looking at the problem of the economy, I have wondered whether it is worthwhile giving a glance to others who may be in the same boat. I find that it is a pretty big boat, containing many countries and millions of people. We talk about our economy—probably it suits us politically to do so—in terms of the mistakes and fumblings of government. But forces have been at work which transcend anything that governments could do to keep economies in balance, where there is a free society open to those forces. The biggest was the monstrous tribute imposed on the world of oil usage by the monopoly power of the OPEC countries. That lies at the root of many of our problems today. It let loose on the world's money markets a great deal of the spare resources which had been demanded and yielded by economies of countries all over the world. They were used to finance many non-viable enterprises.
However, let us look at the present default on borrowing. Banks are going, countries are going, individuals are going. That suggests that we have all become too laden with debt. It seems to me that debt is justifiable if one borrows money which will yield an added value and which will enable one to service and repay the debt. If we observe that condition when we borrow, far less borrowing would be undertaken. At least that situation would represent the reality of the use of money and of borrowed money. We must attribute a good deal of our difficulties to easy borrowing. That is also the case on the domestic front. There is scarcely a household in Britain which, over the past few years, has not taken advantage of loans, hire purchase and other so-called easy means of acquiring goods or services. As I have said, if people default on those loans, that would have serious effects upon morale and upon the economy.
Let us look abroad for a minute or two and look at Canada. Let us put the European countries aside for a moment and consider kindred spirits who follow Western traditions and our form of representative government. Canada is usually a follower of the Gladstonian tradition of peace, retrenchment and reform. In its recent adjustment to economic difficulties it has decided, among other measures, to bring home 8,000 troops from Europe. That move of course startles NATO considerably. We also have troops in Europe. The future of NATO concerns us all, but we cannot continue to maintain multiple

887
defence expenditure when there is no obvious purpose to defend and when there is no obvious person to attack.
Canada has also decided to assail, to some extent, some of its social benefits. Canada's benefits have been the highest benefits in the world. The benefits are non-contributory and non-taxable social benefits. However, Canada is now continually chipping away at family allowances which have been at a high level for the past 47 years.
In Australia a measure has been introduced which is known as Keating's kick start. That constitutes a package of measures which have been introduced in the past week. Behind that introduction lies an astute political purpose. Mr. Keating has introduced immediate measures that are of great importance to many households in Australia. He has accompanied those measures with firm promises of what he will do to reduce the incidence of direct taxation, if only he is re-elected in 13 months' time. He will then embark upon a four-year plan of economic recovery in Australia.
Mr. Keating has some bright ideas as regards his package of measures. He has offered a cash bonus to all families. He has said he believes it will benefit the economy if families with children spend more. The cash bonus will also help families from a social point of view. A one-off cash bonus is to be paid to every family in Australia. In addition, those who receive the family allowance supplement—that is our form of social security—will receive additional permanent increases in their benefits. Those are to be given on top of the cash bonus. That is quite a novel idea. Mr. Keating is also lifting some product taxes. We have a product tax on motor cars. There is at present no general interference in Australia with the level of taxation, although interest rates there were reduced last November and are now lower than our interest rates. However, until last November the interest rates in Australia were much higher than ours.
The steps I have just described are dramatic steps. It also appears that a Labour Prime Minister in Australia is in a better position to persuade the Australian trade unions to knuckle down on their pay increases than our politicians here. The Australian Prime Minister says he has obtained agreement from the Australian trade union movement not to press for pay increases that are higher than the kind of average pay increases that are being awarded in countries that are Australia's competitors. That is an orderly affair. Out of the measures introduced in Australia will come immediate benefits to a large number of people. Some pensioners and unemployed people will also benefit from social improvements.
Australia will borrow but it will borrow for capital expenditure. Australia, of course, has plenty of room for capital expenditure and that expenditure can be visibly employed in Australia. Those measures taken together, and a few other interesting details, constitute a new approach.
I should not be a bit surprised if Prime Minister Major does not do something now and leave something else to be done in the next Parliament. He
888
will not get a Finance Bill through that contains a lot of complicated detail. He will want to get a Finance Bill through before Parliament is dissolved. However, he will want the country to know that he proposes to do other things if he is re-elected. He will want the country to know that another Finance Bill will be introduced later in the year to implement the other measures he proposes to take. I cannot tell the Prime Minister anything about political skill and strategy. The measures I have just outlined are the kind of measures politicians take. Such a strategy may well be the best way to introduce measures of considerable importance. My time is up. I hope it has been interesting to your Lordships to hear what is happening in countries outside the United Kingdom. We should stop looking quite so closely and for such long periods at our own navel. There is a bigger world outside and other countries have problems too. On the whole we are a lucky people.
6.7 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in repeating the congratulations he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, was in his place at present. His maiden speech was revealing. I knew that things were bad in Portland Place but I did not know they were that bad. It seems there is a higher rate of unemployment among architects than there is among estate agents. There is a significantly higher rate of unemployment among the latter groups than there is among plumbers. That just goes to show how far and wide this recession has spread.
I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing this Motion on the state of the economy and its social consequences. It is natural that many of us on this side of the House, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Hilton, should focus on the social side of the equation. I suppose it is not remarkable that no one on the other side of the House has followed the noble Baronesses on that subject. Indeed almost everyone on the other side has said they do not intend to comment on that subject. It is difficult to follow the noble Baronesses as virtually everything they said is incontestable.
It is also natural that many noble Lords on our side of the House—for example the noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Peston—have focused on the unemployment side of the equation. It is, after all, the level of unemployment which is the most immediately evident consequence of the Government's economic policies. The House knows too well that we have the highest rate of unemployment of any country in Europe but two. We have the highest rate of unemployment of any country in the OECD but three. We have the highest rate of increase of unemployment of any country in the OECD and that position has persisted for some months.
Our rate of unemployment—whether one measures it on the old count or the new—is on average more than twice the rate of unemployment when the Government came to office. Therefore we on this side of the House are bound to focus in this debate on the

889
level of unemployment. To me it is remarkable that so far noble Lords on the other side of the House have not addressed themselves to that problem.
If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that we should think about inflation and trade union power and what the Government had done about those things rather than think about the level of unemployment. He said—and we have heard this before—that "recovery is on the way". Rather as the early Christians said that the second coming was on the way, the recovery is said to be on the way. When will it arrive and where are the signs that it is on the way?
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, made something of the fact that there are many other countries more depressed than we are. He mentioned Switzerland. If he looks at most of the indices of economic growth such as inflation and growth he will see that there is no reason why the Swiss should be more depressed than us. The only reason he gave was that we are more used to being depressed. That is not very convincing.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, seemed to say, in so far as they addressed the problem at all, that the central difficulty was that at some time in the past the Government had taken the advice of the Labour Party and that was disastrous. On two occasions they agreed with the Labour Party—in relation to interest rates in 1986 and somewhat later in relation to the ERM. I can think of hundreds of occasions when they did not take the advice of the Labour Party. If they had taken the advice of the Labour Party rather more systematically they might be in a better position.
The fascinating point is that there is another argument in defence of the Government's policies which has been made by spokesmen in another place. I should like to ask whether the Government are still putting forward that argument. For example, the Secretary of State for Employment is still putting forward that argument, so it is somewhat surprising that we have not heard it today. That argument is that the situation is bad and unemployment is dreadful, but the situation would have been so much worse if the Government had not introduced eight employment Bills and made cuts in social services and if they had not opposed what the European Community want them to do in connection with the Social Charter. The argument runs that not only would the situation have been much worse if they had not done those things, but it would be even worse if there was a Labour Government and all that the Tory Party had done in those respects was reversed.
It is true, as noble Lords who have been in this House for any length of time will know, that government spokesmen on the other side argued that they had to abolish rights in relation to unfair dismissal for workers who have been in a job for less than two years because that would have a positive effect on employment. They argued that they had to remove protection for women and young workers in respect of night work because that would affect employment. They said that they would abolish the wages councils because it would help the growth of employment. They now oppose the working time
890
directive of the European Commission and the atypical workers directives because, they say, otherwise the level of employment in this country would be significantly worse than at the moment.
The Government are right to link all those things. The argument that we cannot afford employment protection is exactly the same whatever form of employment protection one talks about. If the Government were consistent they would he arguing that the employer knows best in all respects. Therefore, they should go before the electorate and argue for the repeal of the Health and Safety at Work Act and the abolition of all forms of industrial injuries legislation and not just nine out of 10, as the noble Baroness said. That is the logic of their position—that employment protection of any kind restricts the level of employment and therefore one must vote for them because one will not have any employment protection.
A number of arguments can be advanced about that assertion. Essentially, once one moves away from the a priori argument and considers the evidence relating to the argument that employment protection reduces jobs. There are two methods used to settle such arguments—simulations by econometricians based on assumptions concerning the relationship between labour costs and labour demand and empirical investigations of what happens when one changes the level of employment protection.
The central point about the first of those—simulations—is that the Government's simulations, for reasons which are not entirely clear, are invariably, and especially when made by the Secretary of State for Employment, far in excess of the figures produced by anyone else. The best example is the recent study carried out by Mr. Bazen for the Institute of Personnel Management. He averaged out the major forecasting models and produced an estimate of the direct and indirect effect of the Labour Party's proposals for minimum wages on employment of some 96,000 jobs. The Treasury estimate referred to frequently by the Secretary of State claims the figure to be 750,000 jobs. Mr. Nicholls, in a Parliamentary Answer, suggested 1.4 million jobs, and Mr. Howard, in a report in The Times on 25th June, said that the figure would be up to 2 million jobs. Therefore, in the case of Mr. Howard one has to divide by a factor of 20. There is no real explanation as to why the Government exaggerate all other estimates.
Moreover, if one looks not at simulations but at the empirical evidence, one finds a considerable volume of evidence to show that when employment protection is extended, whether protection against unfair dismissal, wages councils or something else, there is no observable effect. In so far as there is any effect at all it is just as likely to improve employment as to reduce it.
Therefore, I conclude that the Government cannot say that the only justification for their policy in relation to unemployment is that it would have been worse if they had not taken the action they did because there would not have been a government destroying employment protection.

891
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that recovery is on the way. Yes, my Lords, but not until after the election.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, as I listened to the debate I was reminded of a piece which I used to quote at one time. I have jotted it down and if I have remembered it correctly it goes as follows: "If a man runs after money he is money mad; if he keeps it he is a capitalist; if he spends it he is a playboy; if he does not get it he is a ne'er-do-well; if he does not try to get it he lacks ambition; if he gets it without working for it he is a parasite; and if he accumulates it after a lifetime of hard work he is a fool who never got anything out of life".
Noble Lords may have heard that before but I was reminded of it because how one addresses the problem depends on one's point of view. Noble Lords opposite have tried to show that this country is in financial difficulties. The reality is just the opposite.
The noble Lord who has just spoken mentioned unemployment. By 1991 we were employing more people in this country than we have ever employed in the whole of our history. We are now employing more people than we employed 10 years ago. The opportunities for more people to be employed has grown enormously with the range of jobs now offered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, painted a picture of a country which is far from the reality in the area in which she lives. Cambridge has expanded and invested—as has Peterborough—at a level which is unprecedented. The growth of investment, job opportunities and exports from those areas are now at levels which were never dreamt of 10 years ago. It is true, as many noble Lords have said, that over the past two or three years there has been no growth, but growth in the middle 1980s was unprecedented and a couple of years ago was very high indeed and there was need for a slight adjustment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, rightly said, in the world economy in which we have to operate and in which growth was running at 4 per cent. only a couple of years ago, there has been nil growth, excluding EC countries, over the past 12 months. That is likely to continue for the next 12 months. We have to operate within that economy. But that does not mean that we do not have to look forward to see how we can ensure that the economy of Britain is competitive with the rest of Europe, that we take full advantage of our opportunities and that we continue to grow.
I agree with the noble Lords opposite who have shown concern for those who are not able to obtain employment. Although there are more people employed than ever we expected, there are still many who cannot find work. What concerns me most is that many major companies which are shedding jobs to maintain their efficiency are getting rid of people of very high calibre who have enormous ability to provide wealth and opportunities for the country. I believe that we must address ourselves to that area.
892
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he agreed with our entry into Europe and the need for a stable European currency. I agree entirely with him. I believe that if our export companies are to develop their opportunities in the world, it is absolutely essential for Europe to have a stable economic and financial system. Without that they cannot take the long-term investment decisions that are necessary.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who mentioned the wrong attitude of short-termism. Short-termism is created because companies do not have the long-term confidence in financial structures to be able to take a long-term investment view. In my opinion that is essential. As we move into Europe, we shall have a tighter structure of finance, exchange rates, interest rates and currencies generally. As they become more fixed, companies will have to become more flexible in other areas. One of the inevitable consequences will be flexibility in employment.
There is already a great move in that direction. Companies which traditionally have sustained a level of employment necessary for their peaks of production are now maintaining employment for the troughs of production and bringing people in and out to cope with the difference. If that change comes about and there are many very able people who do not have long-term opportunities within existing businesses, there will be only one way forward. We must encourage much more investment to utilise their skills. I think that every speaker so far has agreed with me.
On the other hand, automatically we seem to put obstacles in the way of the very investment that we want to achieve. I have heard in this House many noble Lords utter their concern about the levels of growth of investment. Yet to solve the social problems to which many speakers have referred we have to create in our society the wealth to deal with those problems. In the North West, from which I come, there are new hospitals, new schools and new opportunities which are unprecedented. During the boom periods in the middle 1980s we were able through development and investment to generate the money which made those things possible. Once we take our eye off that ball and stop saying that growth, investment and an increase in our economic base should take place every year, very rapidly the picture changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, frequently refers to the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur is the very person who is prepared to take personal risks. It is not easy to sit around the kitchen table and decide to put one's house at risk by moving into a business which, if it works, will bring wealth and opportunity for the family but which might go down the tubes. I have made such a decision on a number of occasions. Some enterprises have gone down the tubes but, thank God, not all of them.
However, if there are no people to do that or if entrepreneurs are not confident that the full weight and enthusiasm of the nation is behind them, either those people will go somewhere else or they will not undertake the business at all and generation of wealth does not take place. I believe that we have the answer to the problems with which the noble Lords opposite

893
are quite rightly concerned. We have many skills that we do not use. We have to compete in the greater world to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred. As a nation we must make economic growth our prime priority. We must put all our efforts into it. We must not put up barriers of planning which prevent people from taking action. We must not cut back on the construction of roads and economic developments just because there might be some little birds which might be affected. We must take the overall view as a nation to generate growth. By doing that we shall create the wealth which will make it possible to solve those problems. We shall then be able to improve the environment rather than use it as an argument to prevent growth.
I believe that that is the way ahead. If we take that view, the opportunities for the nation will be staggering. Having undergone the sacrifices entailed in moving into Europe we can now use that market-place and go on from there into the world. We can develop and continue to grow in employment and investment at an unprecedented rate and during the 1990s have that level of growth which we had in the mid-1980s.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, on his speech, I compliment him in particular on not having told us that economic recovery was just around the corner, as did the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, more or less. Unfortunately for the noble Lord, throughout last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us repeatedly that recovery was just beginning. On 19th March 1991 he said that there were good reasons to expect that the recovery would begin around the middle of the year. On 29th April, which is nearly a year ago, he said that recovery was around the corner. On 9th October, even more oddly he said that the green shoots of spring were appearing once again.
Meanwhile, those who believed that joining the ERM at the end of 1990 at a grossly overvalued rate would mean intense deflation, took a rather different view. I am not being wise after the event. On 16th February last year I said in this House that with a fixed ERM rate interest rates would stay high, factories and industries would close and unemployment would reach 2.5 million by the end of 1991.
What in fact happened over that period? We now know that in 1991 total national output fell by 2.5 per cent. Since early 1990 the fall has been as great as 3.7 per cent., which is a disastrous result. The only puzzle is that so many people are surprised by that fiasco. It was quite inevitable, in the already weak state of our economy, that fixing a 20 per cent. overvalued exchange rate would produce a collapse. We are now suffering not just from a world recession which has been mysteriously visited upon us by Providence, but from a recession which has been aggravated by man-made inflation caused by the uneconomic exchange rate and the Government's resulting policies. An overvalued exchange rate means high interest rates, flagging investment and flagging exports —exports flagged only last month—and therefore
894
falling output, rising unemployment and, in this case, a balance of payments deficit, all at the same time. We are suffering from all that.
Having failed to understand the effects of their policies, the Government now say that the situation has nothing to do with them. But, strangely enough, as noble Lords will remember, the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer said: "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working". That implies surely that he intended it to hurt. Indeed, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said that high unemployment was a price well worth paying. That surely implies that he intended it to occur.
The Government state that others are suffering as well as ourselves. Certainly France and Italy have 10 per cent. unemployment. That is very much the same as ours. However, that is largely because their currencies are also fixed by the ERM against the deutschmark. In fact the ERM is forcing high unemployment on all its members other than Germany. The economist, Mr. Christopher Dow, who spent some years at both the Bank of England and the Treasury, an impressive record, states:
"The nailing of currencies to the DM is now crucifying the policy of Germany's neighbours Italy and France as well as the UK".
All 20th century experience—and experience is really a better guide than ideology—proves the importance of the exchange rate for a country like the UK which exports and imports about 30 per cent. of its GNP and proves the damaging effect of overvaluation. In 1925 a 10 per cent. overvaluation of the pound led to six years of unemployment. After realignment in 1931, the UK economy enjoyed five years of steady advance in real GDP. Manufacturing output increased 50 per cent. in those years. That is a solemn thought. The move to a competitive rate in 1949, we can now see, gave the UK uninterrupted growth and very low unemployment throughout the 1950s and very few rises in prices. Indeed, it brought the whole dollar and sterling worlds into better balance.
Similarly the gross overvaluation which this Government permitted in 1980 was one main cause of the intense depression and unemployment of 1980–81. We can now see that one real main cause of the 1988–89 recovery in production was the fall in sterling against the deutschmark in 1985–86, a year or so before. Indeed, it is not often remembered that Germany itself had the sense to devalue with us in 1949 and has very cleverly maintained its rate at an undervalued level ever since.
I give one illustration. A glaring example of the effects of the exchange rate on us is our vital coal industry which government policy at present is so seriously undermining. We are told that British coal cannot compete with imports. But if the sterling rate were at a competitive level, the British industry at the moment could compete even with a heavily subsidised Germany industry and with our own nuclear power industry. It is absurd to condemn an industry because the rate of exchange makes it uneconomic.
As a result of the present exchange rate, the UK economy is now running, at the very least, at about 10 per cent. below productive capacity. That means that

895
we are throwing away about £60 billion or £65 billion worth of GDP every year—and, incidentally, £25 billion or £30 billion worth of government revenue. We have let that happen through our policies. We then argue about £1 billion or £2 billion more or less in the budget.
Some people seem to have forgotten that deflations are cumulative. Every time 1,000 people are thrown out of work, their purchasing power is reduced, their spending is reduced and another group loses its jobs in turn. The decline does not necessarily stop by the hand of politics. The great depression in 1933 did not stop until the United States Government took very drastic action. It is worth remembering that 19th century British cyclical depressions did not end until the bank rate came down to 2 per cent., and sometimes even below 2 per cent.
It is nonsense to say that if the exchange rate were set free interest rates would still have to stay at their present levels. If that is the problem the solution is to reduce interest rates and to let the exchange rate find its own economic level. By depriving us of the interest rate weapon, the fixing of the present uncompetitive rate was really an act of unilateral disarmament by this country. As long as those rates are maintained I believe that we are condemned to having 3 million unemployed and a balance of payments deficit at the same time. Whatever government are in power, the change to a competitive rate will have to be made. I believe that the longer that that is delayed the greater damage will be done meanwhile.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, one effect of this Government's economic policies has been to widen the gap between the income of the richest and poorest sections of the community, and unemployment has been allowed to reach higher levels than at any time for 60 years. My noble friend Lady Hollis has graphically described the situation, I believe very movingly.
It is true that absolute poverty has been mainly avoided through the operation of the social security system. But relative poverty and unemployment, as I hope to indicate, have detectable and important effects on health. Nine years ago I based my maiden speech on the Black Report on inequalities in health, published in 1980 but largely ignored by the Government. In fact it was issued only in limited numbers in a typescript version because it made uncomfortable reading for the Government. However, the Pelican edition was extremely well received and was widely praised for its scholarship and recommendations, almost none of which was accepted by the Government.
Professor Black's working group wrote the report because it had been asked in 1977 to consider the wide and apparently increasing gap in health between the different social classes in Britain, a problem which had much concerned my noble friend Lord Ennals while he was Minister for Health. In 1987, an update of that report entitled The Health Divide —Inequalities in Health in the 1980s, another work of high quality,
896
commissioned and published by the Health Education Council, also found some difficulty in reaching the light of day, or the light of the reading lamp, due to official disapproval. The story is interesting, but I have only 10 minutes in which to speak. That report and a number of more recent studies show that although the overall health of the people of this country is gradually improving, the gap between the best and the worst off is increasing in health as well as in wealth.
It is therefore disappointing that the Green Paper The Health of the Nation failed to face squarely that inequalities in our society were a basic reason for our indifferent showing in international comparisons of health statistics. The fact that the Green Paper was published at all is to be welcomed. But I am sorry that the White Paper based on The Health of the Nation will not be published before the election. I can only assume that many of the hundreds of submissions of evidence may have proved difficult for the Government to swallow and a rejection of a large part of that evidence might have proved politically damaging in the run up to an election.
As an illustration of how inequalities pull our health down as a nation, it is worth considering that basic health statistic the infant mortality rate—the number of babies that die before one year for every 1,000 that are born. Our current figure is just under nine per 1,000. In fact, it is a remarkably low rate historically speaking. The figure was over 20 when I qualified some 38 years ago. However, it is equalled by many other developed countries which have come up from behind. Some are now overtaking us—for example, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy and Germany, which used to have very poor health statistics.
A long way ahead of us, with infant mortality rates of only five or six per 1,000, are Japan, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. Even Hong Kong and Singapore do much better than the United Kingdom. The country with the highest gross national product, the United States, has worse statistics than the United Kingdom but it also has the greatest social inequalities in the developed world.
The infant mortality rates of the different socio-economic groups in the UK show that the professional groups have a rate which is the equal of Japan and the advanced Scandinavian countries. However, our average rate is pulled down by the much higher rate of the more disadvantaged socio-economic groups. Their rate is about twice as high as that of the professional group in Social Class 1. The statistics for almost all other health measures, including life expectancy, show a similar variation among the social classes.
The parallel between health and the income distribution within developed countries was examined in detail in a recent paper published in the British Medical Journal and written by Dr. R. G. Wilkinson of the Trafford Centre for Medical Research at the University of Sussex. The centre was named after the late Lord Trafford who, all noble Lords will agree, is greatly missed on all sides of the House. Dr. Wilkinson concluded:
"If Britain were to adopt an income distribution more like the most egalitarian European countries … about two years might be added to the population's life expectancy".

897
He further stated:
"The contrasting experiences of Britain and Japan illustrate the possible effects of income distribution on health. In 1970 income distribution and life expectancy were similar in the two countries. Since then they have diverged; Japan now has the highest life expectancy in the world … [but also] … the most egalitarian income distribution of any country on record. In Britain, on the other hand, income distribution has widened since the mid 1980s".
I must explain that an increase in life expectancy is not simply a question of adding a couple of years to the life of already senile people. It is associated with less chronic disease and disability throughout life and a longer active life.
As my noble friend Lady Hilton described, there is in many cities a growing under class of dissatisfied unemployed young people. Even if they take a training course, and are thus taken off the unemployment register, often they do not obtain jobs afterwards. Some members of that group escape boredom by drifting into dependency on drugs, alcohol and/or crime—crime which is often committed in order to finance an expensive drug habit. The desperate sub-culture of drug users becomes an absorbing way of life, much more exciting than sitting around while on the dole. It is estimated that there may be 50,000 opiate abusers in the United Kingdom. Nearly all are unemployed or on income support, but they each need upwards of £25,000 per annum to finance their habit. One estimate of the money spent per annum on illegal drugs is £1.5 billion.
Even if that is an exaggeration, it is clear that the cost of drug abuse is one of the central reasons for the rise in property crime described by my noble friend. This Government's attempts to deal with the drug problem, like their attempts to stop crime, are proving woefully ineffective. There is a heavy emphasis on stopping the supply rather than on reducing the demand. Radically new approaches to drug addiction and other offences, including better treatment and rehabilitation, are required. But that can be only partly effective while a sizeable proportion of our younger citizens are made to feel that they are unwanted and have been cast aside.
Instead there should be a major government initiative—"a new deal", to follow my noble friend Lord Jay—which would be appropriate. Our Tennessee Valley Authority should start building the houses that we need, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, convincingly argued in his maiden speech. There should be modernisation or repair of our infrastructure which would help to make our goods competitive as the world recession lifts.
Like my noble friend Lord Peston, I believe that the bogey of inflation is not such an evil monster as that of unemployment. I am confident that as a good Keynesian he will be able, with his right honourable colleague Mr. John Smith, to find a means to avoid both evils.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the evidence of the failure of economic and political policy as presented in this House leaves absolutely no room for complacency. We have heard of the dissipation of oil wealth, declining industrial production, a stagnating GDP, an
898
appalling balance of payments, under-capitalised industry, diminishing reinvestment (down 15 per cent. last year), growing unemployment with all that means in wasted, despairing, broken human lives and families, falling property prices, repossessions at a record level, bankruptcies and bad debts accumulating and, as my noble friend Lady Hilton powerfully reminded us, a crime rate that is soaring.
Even more telling is the fact that we encounter daily the strains on public services; health, education and the care of the elderly and infirm. As was emphasised by my noble friend Lady Hollis, perhaps most distressing of all is the fact that we are moved, or ought to be, by the growing number of homeless people, young and old, sleeping in cardboard boxes, pedestrian subways and under bridges in almost all our larger cities. Some are sleeping almost on the doorstep of this House. That is not a reassuring prospect.
My noble friends Lord Hatch and Lord Houghton have reminded us of the wider world. Of course we are locked into that wider world strategically, economically and morally. As we contemplate our own difficulties it is perhaps as well to remember that in that world a small child dies from poverty every 2.4 seconds of every day; one in five people live on less than £175 a year; 1.5 billion people are still deprived of any health care whatever; 1.75 billion people still have no access to safe water; and 3 billion still live without adequate sanitation. Average life expectancy is 12 years less in the South than in the North. The South's maternal mortality rate is still 12 times higher than that in the North.
If all that were not challenging enough the size of the problem has been accentuated by the new needs which have become evident in the former Soviet Union and in eastern Europe. But despite the valiant efforts of the Minister for Overseas Development, whose personal sincerity and commitment are beyond question, the Government are proportionately providing 12 per cent. less of our national wealth for the battle against world poverty than they were in 1979.
Overshadowing those grim realities at home and overseas is the potentially terminal global environmental crisis. We have a damaged ozone layer, global warming, rising seas and climatic change coupled with accelerating depletion of the world's non-renewable resources. As we come up to the special United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio, Maurice Strong, the secretary of that conference, has estimated that the price of dealing with the world's environmental problems is in the region of £350 billion per year. Of that, one-fifth will need to be transferred from the North to the South.
But it is a mistake to imagine that the bulk of the environmental problems arise in the poor world. It is the insatiable consumption of resources and the reckless pollution of the planet by the industrialised world, including the United Kingdom, which relates directly to the depletion of the ozone layer and to the global warming. It is the North which is responsible for 80 per cent. of global fossil fuel use. It is we in the

899
North who consume 40 times or more per head of environmentally exploitative goods than do the poor in the third world.
In the face of those immense challenges at home and across the world, it would be wanton irresponsibility for governments or oppositions to indulge in opportunist election tax cut drives, endeavouring to secure votes at the expense of our children and their children.
We know that education and training matter as the way to ensure that our children fulfil their potential and as an indispensable investment in our future. We know that health services matter to ensure a decent life for our parents, children, friends and family and as an indispensable investment in a dynamic and effective community. We know that good public transport must make sense on our crowded island. We know that adequately financed environmental and overseas development policies are essential for a peaceful secure world—indeed, for the survival of humanity itself.
Ideological preoccupations, purist monetarism and unbridled market economics will not provide the answers. We need a reassertion of value-based common sense and pragmatism. We need to be rid of the greed, selfishness and short-termism among too many of those in leadership positions in finance and commerce. Those have eaten away at the foundations of civilised values. We need to rediscover strength in our belonging, in our commitment to community and to society and in our social responsibilities. The private, the public, the voluntary, the employer, the trade union and governmental sectors need to come together in a positive shared responsibility to strategic long-term and economic policy, especially for priorities in investment.
To assist in ensuring a viable world community—an absolute priority for an internationally dependent nation like ours—it is clear that we must address the following issues at international level without delay: tariff and non-tariff barriers which trap the South in poverty by hampering its production of exports; ensuring access for the South to the markets of the North. We need to address the problem of dumping subsidised agricultural surpluses by the North at low production costs on world markets causing havoc to third world agricultural economies. We must tackle the need for assistance to third world countries in upgrading production, improved marketing, infra-structural development and diversification. We must look to protection and stimulation of third world agricultural production within the framework of GATT to promote food self-sufficiency in third world countries.
We must look also to the revamping of GATT and of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and to their possible merger to ensure an international agency, sensitive to third world global needs, geared to protection of the environment, to ensure improved technology transfers to the third world and to ensure accountability of transnational companies.
We must also give priority to far-reaching
900
extension of debt relief, building on the welcome Trinidad terms. We must look to structural adjustment and debt relief policies designed expressly to enhance sustainable national-level food security and to encouraging popular participation in environmental rehabilitation and protection rather than programmes focused only on a short-term national economic growth rationale.
We must look also at population policy developed in the context of effective primary health and functional literacy programmes. Against all that, we must give urgent priority to less wasteful consumption and pollution by the North.
I believe that when history is written of the age in which we live, the past decade will be put down as an age of quantitative preoccupations. I believe that we are learning that the salvation of humanity cannot be founded on a quantitative preoccupation. We must reassert the qualitative dimensions in society. We are learning that social priorities and values are as essential to successful economic management as is the economic technocracy itself.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I suppose that this is probably the closest we get in this House to a censure debate on the Government. We heard a highly provocative and political speech by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I make no complaint about that. I welcome it and indeed I enjoyed it. However, I hope that in return I shall be allowed to be a little bit political.
The main difference between being in government and being in opposition is that in government, you must make choices which are often hard choices. In opposition it is possible to have the enjoyable but somewhat dangerous occupation of riding several horses at once. It does not matter a great deal to the country if you fall off. However, as we get closer to an election, it is not unreasonable to expect an opposition to have chosen one horse or another. In many areas, the Opposition have not yet done that. Those noble Lords who heard Mr. Gerald Kaufman this morning on the "Today" programme trying to explain to Mr. Brian Redhead whether or not a Labour government would buy a fourth Trident submarine will know exactly what I mean.
For many years the Tory Party too tried to ride two horses at once. They tried to control inflation while having full employment. They tried to share power with the unions and the CBI while trying to run the country. They tried to keep huge chunks of loss-making industry in the public sector while controlling public expenditure. They had taxation rates of over 90 per cent. while hoping that entrepreneurs would not leave the country. In other words, for a long time the Tory Party ran what I—and perhaps others—would describe as a socialist consensus.
I suppose that the light started to dawn after the defeat of the Conservatives in 1974. The person most responsible for removing the scales from our eyes was my noble friend Lord Joseph. The turning point was when he said to the Tory Party:

901
"Beware of the middle ground. It is like the will-o'-the wisp, constantly moving to the left".
Those lessons were learned by the Tories but I am sure that they have not yet been learned by the Labour Party.
The main job of any government is to put the country into a position of comparative advantage. That includes making our industry more competitive. But that is not all. I shall review some of the ways in which, over the past 13 years, the Conservative Party has improved our comparative advantage. In doing that I shall pause to contrast what has been achieved with what, as far as it can be perceived a Labour government would do.
First, I deal with inflation and unemployment. The Government have said, "Let inflation be the judge and jury". That seems a reasonable test. Except for the Korean war, we did not reach double digit inflation until Mr. Heath's Government. Indeed, in my view, Britain's inflationary problems were initiated by Mr. Heath's government. Of course inflation got totally out of control during the Labour government which followed. There was high inflation for the first three years of Mrs. Thatcher's government: in 1979, it was 17 per cent.; in 1980, 15 per cent.; and in 1981, 12 per cent.
There were three main causes of that: first, was two years of public sector pay comparability under the Clegg formula. That was a terrible mistake; secondly, the increase in VAT which was a price well worth paying, to coin a phrase; and, thirdly, the pressures from the petro-pound. However, since then, except for 1990, inflation has been low and over the coming months I believe that there will be a further fall.
The Labour Party does not often refer to inflation and is somewhat ambivalent about it. If it does only half the things it wishes to do—in particular, large increases in public borrowing—that will probably bring about double digit inflation quite quickly. It is not always very easy to know exactly what the Labour Party would do. However, fortunately we have an excellent text to help us. It is a very good book which I recommend to your Lordships. I have brought a copy with me. It is called Choose Freedom. It is written not by Mr. Kinnock, whose memoirs I believe are still in the first draft, but by Mr. Roy Hattersley, Labour's deputy leader. Therefore it is a book of authority. It is carefully thought out and combines both philosophy and policy.
If we had any doubts as to the thoroughness with which this book has been researched, we can see in the preface that especial help and acknowledgment is made to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Williams of Elvel. The crucial philosophical difference in it is that Mr. Hattersley rejects equality of opportunity, saying:
"The equal start and open road are not enough".
He wants equality of opportunity to be replaced by "equality of outcome". He writes:
"Changing the organisation of society—to produce the most equal outcome—is what is meant by 'equality of outcome'".
Mr. Hattersley then goes on to deal with the crucial issue of taxation. Since the Tories came to power they have reduced the top rate of tax from 98 per cent. to
902
40 per cent. and the standard rate from 33 per cent. to 25 per cent. I make a special tribute to Nigel Lawson because he took the most courageous decisions on tax. At the moment the Labour Party is in an awful muddle over tax. I believe that Mr. John Smith was genuinely surprised at the political uproar which greeted his "moderate" 59 per cent. marginal top tax rate. It is of course moderate in comparison with 98 per cent., but I fear that the electorate do not see 59 per cent. as moderate in comparison with the present top level of 40 per cent.
Mr. Kinnock may well be confused by all this, but Mr. Hattersley will be there to remind him where his duty lies. He writes:
"A socialist government committed to real equality will clearly embark on a massive programme of redistribution, confident it is more likely to improve overall economic performance than to depress it and certain that it will produce a more efficient rather than a less efficient use of resources".
Lord Jay: Quite right.
Lord Marlesford: I am so glad that the views of the deputy leader are so loyally followed by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. Who can seriously doubt that the privatisation of such industries as British Airways, British Telecom and of electricity distribution has been a success. I declare an interest but claim no credit— I am a director of Eastern Electricity. But wait; Mr. Hattersley again has a view:
"Public ownership, in the form of state corporations centrally owned, planned and administered, is essential for the public utilities".
Surely, noble Lords opposite realise by now that a privately-owned company can go to world capital markets without adding to the PSBR; that it is far easier for government to regulate, in the interests of the consumer, the employees and the environment, a company which they do not also own.
Finally, perhaps I may express my own deep concern for the effects of the recession on jobs, houses and small businesses. I blame to a considerable extent the banks for their contribution. In short, they have lent money when they should not have done and they are now looking as though they are not able to lend money when they should do so. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who made a similar point. One of the most immoral slogans that I have ever read came from a credit card company which said that their card "takes the waiting out of wanting". That is very bad advice.
In this country there has been a tradition for borrowers, particularly individuals and small business people, to assume that the banks, in making a loan, assess the credit-worthiness of the borrower. They believe that if a bank will lend, then it is prudent to borrow. The trouble is that the bankers have been looking at underlying assets instead of the borrowers' cash-flow capability for servicing and repaying the loans. Thus they have lent money against the security of absurdly high property prices. Now I fear that the banks are looking at their own ratios and calling in loans at just the time when they should be extending them. I am worried that we may in fact be faced with a liquidity crisis at a time when recovery is coming. That is why I believe that the Chancellor must do his bit next week to counteract that risk.

903
I would like to make some suggestions. I know that it is probably too late because the Chancellor has probably made his decisions, but someone somewhere might hear them. He should reintroduce, on a temporary basis, probably for two years, 100 per cent. capital allowances which were, unwisely in my view, reduced to 25 per cent. by Mr. Lawson. I would extend these allowances from merely plant and machinery to buildings as well. I would also extend, again on a temporary basis, VAT zero rating to expenditure on improvements to both commercial and domestic premises. There might be some difficulties of definition and thus some leakage, but it would, again to coin a phrase, be a price well worth paying.
I have a few words to say about the ERM. Of course there is a conflict in using interest rates to maintain parity in Britain at a time when it would be useful to cut rates to stimulate demand. That was a problem for three decades when we were tied to the Bretton Woods agreement. That is the main reason why Mrs. Thatcher was so reluctant to join the ERM. But we do not now have a realistic option of coming out; therefore my view is that the sooner we can move to a single currency, the better.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I was going to speak about all kinds of noble things; social, ecological and so forth, but the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, with whom I am normally twinned by the normal channels, is too tempting to let go. He said that inflation should be the judge and jury. Therefore, I shall talk about the inflation record of this Government.
This Government have twice doubled the rate of inflation. They have caused recession twice; one the deepest and the other the longest recession. They have doubled the rate of VAT. When noble Lords opposite talk about taxation, they never talk about overall taxation, which has gone up; they speak only about direct, personal income tax. We have to remember that the burden of taxation in this country has not gone down. The average level of unemployment has trebled between the 1970s and the 1980s. Despite that, the inflation record of the Government over 13 years is so abysmal that even now they have to go on saying "Wait a little longer and we will do better".
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that when the Labour Party left office the inflation rate was 10 per cent., though it had been slightly lower before. Mrs. Thatcher soon made it 20 per cent. It is also very interesting to note that noble Lords opposite quote annual rates of inflation when talking about their record and the quarterly rate of inflation when talking about ours. The four quarter rate of inflation—that is to say, inflation in one quarter over the previous quarters—was 20 per cent soon after Mrs. Thatcher took office.
The problem was not the petro-pound as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said. In any case an overvalued pound should cause deflation and not inflation. Despite the petro-pound we had one of the highest rates of inflation in OECD countries. We shall
904
forgive that. That inflation was brought down to 3.5 per cent. at a horrendous cost in terms of unemployment. What happened then was entirely predictable. While congratulating my noble friend Lord Peston in raising this topic, I must berate him a little for being too kind to Mr. Nigel Lawson. The problems that we have were not caused by Black Monday and what followed, but by electionitis which often hits Tory Chancellors rather severely. It hit Mr. Maudling and Mr. Barber rather severely, but we shall not talk about them. It also mildly hit Sir Geoffrey Howe, but we shall not talk about that election.
In the Autumn of 1986, the Chancellor, openly abandoned monetarism, in a speech at the Mansion House no less. The Financial Times had a headline,
"Monetarism is dead—official".
A £4.5 billion addition to the PSBR was inaugurated by Nigel Lawson for the simple reason of winning the next election. Keynesiansm had been rediscovered. It had been taken out of the cupboard and harnessed to the needs of the Government. Any faint parallels with the current election are, of course, entirely accidental. Every time an election comes about the Conservatives discover the virtues of Keynesiansm and the entirely sound logic of borrowing money. After the election fiscal prudence rules the roost. But the great thing about Nigel Lawson, the unassailable Chancellor and the hero of the Conservative Party conferences of 1987 and 1988, was that he did not stop after the election. He not only gave tax cuts in 1987, but also in 1988. That is an innovation in political democracy. We have had bribed electorates before an election, but to do so after an election is an entirely new development. Therefore, it is not so much that interest rates were cut in the wake of Black Monday that mattered. The seeds of the current crisis were sown in the Autumn of 1986. They were further fuelled in the Budget of 1987 and fuelled still further in the Budget of 1988, where the most horrendous bribe of double mortgages was given.
Let us remember another great Conservative story, which also happens every 20 years or so. It is the great belief that somehow the British economy is badly off because of restrictive practices; that we need freedom. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, when he was Chancellor, decided, with the help of my colleague and friend, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that the City was too bound down by restrictions. He decided that competition and credit controls were needed. Two years later the Bank of England had to have a lifeboat for the number of secondary mortgage companies which had profligately given credit. That was done by a fiscally responsible, financially prudent government. It happened again in 1986 and 1987. We were told that deregulation—the big bang—was the order of the day; that it was virtuous to have de-regulation. It is immoral, it is greed, but we shall not go into that. Freedom was the great thing. We were told that if we did not have de-regulation in the financial services industry we would be very backward compared with other countries. De-regulation was openly adopted by this Government. Now Mr. Lawson tells us, five years later, "Oh! I didn't quite realise that while I was Chancellor £150 billion worth of credit was released in

905
one year by equity withdrawal from the housing market". It was well known. At the time people said we should not have done it. The National Institute's Economic Review, a Keynesian journal, stated in March 1988—noble Lords can check it—that a reflationary budget for 1988 would be ill-advised. A Keynesian review had advised, "Do not inflate now". What happened? The economy was further fuelled.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I cannot resist a slight recurrence of the House of Commons practice of intervening occasionally. How does the noble Lord reconcile his blame of the then Tory Government for a £4 billion relaxation on tax grounds with his legitimate worry about the huge, much larger, much more immense effect of £150 billion, he says—I think wrongly, by a factor of two—increase in credit? Surely it was the credit release that influenced the later inflation. I am amazed that the noble Lord ignores the lags that always follow the cause of inflation, before inflation arrives, when he so frivolously blames Mrs. Thatcher's Government for the fourth quarter level of price rises, which was a consequence of the inheritance from a Labour Government.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. I would have liked to make similar remarks about the inflation rate of 1975, which is frequently mentioned by noble Lords opposite. They have talked about the lags and about OPEC. But fair is fair and this is politics. It is not just the £4 billion worth of tax cuts, plus the double mortgage scheme. We all have the knowledge that the housing market is a major distortion. Of course, all the great belief in market stops when it comes to housing market distortion. Despite knowing all that, the prudent Chancellor acted the way that he did. That is what invited inflation. Do not tell me that Finland is depressed. The knowledge of geography on the Benches opposite has gone up immensely lately. Inflation has been found in every country. All the problems of this country were created here by Conservative Chancellors who irresponsibly abandoned any financial discipline and caused the current crisis. This is a debt deflation crisis. Debts were encouraged by Chancellors of the party opposite. They have landed this country with a severe depression from which I fear it will take a long time to emerge. Unfortunately, it will be my party which once again will have to cure the country's ills, but I look forward very much to the challenge.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am very pleased to be following my noble friend Lord Desai. In fact, I had intended to use my few minutes to talk about the housing situation, not in terms of homelessness but the actual economic consequences of housing policy. I should like also to congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, on his maiden speech. The two speeches have given a good introduction to my speech.
There is a growing awareness of the impact of our housing system on the British economy. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, will recognise that.
906
Housing is the tail that wags the economic dog. The housing market led us into recession and it is my view that it will keep us in recession. That is not an incidental feature of our crazy drive into owner-occupation. It is the inevitable outcome of a housing policy which has put the dogma of ownership above a commitment to house all our citizens. That is the real problem. We have become a nation of price speculators. We now invest in housing and not in savings that can he used for productive investment. The present savings ratio has fallen from 9.7 per cent. in 1985 to 6.8 per cent. in 1991. Our savings ratio is very low in relation to our European neighbours who have continued to invest in areas of wealth creation. That phenomenon goes a long way to explain our balance of payments deficits. As noble Lords know, these deficits are getting larger and larger at a time when our trade should be in surplus.
Primarily as a result of de-regulation—that was mentioned by my noble friend who has since left the Chamber—we borrowed to buy housing. But we did not stop there. We borrowed against our increased housing wealth. Our houses were worth much more so we borrowed much more and then we spent. That is a basic fact.
In a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation it was estimated that in 1988 we borrowed and spent £16.4 billion in equity withdrawal from housing. That contrasts with less than £1 billion a decade earlier. That is why the Chancellor has had to keep interest rates high. He had to control borrowing and spending. For the past eight years our nominal short term interest rates have been continuously higher than those of France, Germany, the United States and Japan.
The price is being paid in terms of the erosion of investment in our manufacturing base, on which recovery depends. We are now paying a high price for this in terms of housing policy. In 1991 there were 75,000 repossessions and I am told that the figure is set to rise again this year despite the Government's attempt to paper over the cracks with their mortgage rescue packages. However, there are other side effects of our housing policy. Labour mobility is restricted. High rents and high construction costs as a result of speculation in land also feed through into wage inflation. My noble friend Lord Desai was right on that point.
How bad these effects of our housing policy will be depends entirely on the stage we are at in the economic cycle. What we have in the housing industry are booms and busts as in the economy as a whole. The housing industry at the moment is going through a period of bust. The destabilising effects of our housing system on the whole economy have been compounded by the reductions in public sector house building. At the start of the 1980s the public sector accounted for 40 per cent. of house building. By 1990, the share had fallen to 10 per cent. Public sector house building allowed building companies to plan effectively for a cost-effective output. However, at the present time the building industry needs a crystal ball to predict what it will be able to sell and at what price. We need that steady market of house building through the public

907
sector. But now we have the uncertain market and an inability to respond quickly. If the current uncertainty continues there is no way in which companies can equip themselves to respond to the need. What is more, the boom and bust cycle encourages short-term fluctuations in a market that needs stability.
The collapse of the private building programmes, the bankruptcies and the unemployment of the past year are the inevitable consequences of this housing system. It can only be avoided by insulating housing investment from the economic cycle. We must give serious thought to doing that. That would produce more stability in the industry and better value for money. If we wish to have a sensible economic policy the reform of housing finance must be a key factor.
With the gloss temporarily off the house ownership mania we have a short period in which, by careful planning and adopting the right policy, we may be able to change course. I hope that we shall do that. I have often spoken in your Lordships' House about the consequences of homelessness. The more I have learnt about housing and housing finance—I have learnt a good deal over the past 12 years—the more convinced I have become that getting housing policy right is not only socially just but economically essential.
My time is up and I shall not delay the House much longer. We can and should have a stimulus by providing new houses. A report of the Institute of Housing recently suggested that every £1 million invested in new houses or renovations creates 50 new jobs. It went on to say that if 100,000 new jobs can be created overall, something over £750 million would be gained by the Exchequer. I hope that everyone who is concerned about our economic situation will think about that.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, perhaps a big contribution could be made to the well-being of the economy if it could be taken out of the political arena. I do not think that it is within the ability of any single party fundamentally to solve the problems. Since the last war every government, when faced with having to adopt painful, difficult or unpopular measures, have had to decide whether to do what is economically right, which looked like political suicide, or what is politically right, and then hope for the best on the other side. This weakness does not apply to Germany or Japan. That is one of the fundamental differences in their performance.
Dictatorship has been discredited, as we have seen in the East, but democracy has not yet quite proved its competence to deal with its problems. Our debate should be not so much about "Who has done it?" but "What is to be done?". The diagnosis, whether we are in good circumstances and everything is lovely or whether we are in a trough, is not so difficult. Forty years ago, just after the war, we were the number four industrial power. Now we are number 26, just above Greece and below Spain. We have gas, we have oil, we have coal and we have unrivalled know-how. We have a wonderful banking system in the City. The Germans
908
have no gas, no oil and no coal. The same is true of the Japanese. Their surpluses are bigger than our deficits. Do we need any more analysis in that regard?
After the war we were in the front row of the industrial arena. Now we are in the stalls—not, it is to be hoped, stalled—but where are we heading? An important component in the economy is labour. Ford in Britain manufactures 11 cars per man year. Rover manufactures eight cars per man year. Nissan—and this is the difference between Japanese management and British management—manufactures 26 cars per man year; and in the new Derbyshire plant of Toyota it is planned to produce 52 cars per man year. Yet the Nissan managing director is on record as saying that, having introduced its methods (which have been accepted by the carefully recruited people), the company finds that the British labour force is every bit as good and even better than the Japanese labour force in the core factories in Japan.
Therefore, is the decline that we are suffering inevitable or is it self-inflicted; and, finally, is it reversible? Let us look at the other component involved, which is capital. German banks invest while our banks lend. The difference in that involvement is that German industry and German managers can plan long term, while here we have to plan in the short term, depending on the City's opinion almost every morning. Yet we have some of the best know-how and innovation of any industrial nation. But, unfortunately, it is being exploited by the Americans, partly by the Germans and by the Japanese.
In Germany money is invested, money is made and wealth created in production. But here it is more a matter of buying and selling shares; in other words, paper transactions. If noble Lords will permit me, I shall briefly recall a joke. Two crofters were lamenting their financial problems in the pub. The publican revealed that he made 50p profit on every pounds-worth of Whisky. Suddenly Jock said to Mac, "I have the answer. We will go home and find the deed to the croft. We will pledge it and buy two big cases of whisky and take them home. I'll sell you a tot and you can sell me a tot and by the time we have finished we will have made a fortune". That is how the British economy works so far as concerns wealth creation.
In my opinion, the situation is as serious as the war, despite the fact that there is no gore and no blood. It needs the same approach and the same support that the War Cabinet received. For all our sakes, I hope that some day we shall get an economic Churchill and a wise, co-operating, economic Attlee.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank made an impressive and practised speech during the course of the debate. He raised many important issues, some of which I should like to return to. The purpose of the debate, introduced with his usual vigour by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has been,
"to call attention to the state of the economy and its social consequences".
The time has come to try to draw some conclusions. Unfortunately, there is little doubt about the state of

909
the economy. As many noble Lords have said on both sides of the House, Britain is now going through the longest running recession since the war. Output has fallen, investment has fallen and the trade balance has worsened. As the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, accepted in his carefully considered speech, the recession in Britain started before other countries began experiencing economic difficulties and was not identified soon enough. Now that other countries are also in recession, the situation in Britain has been exacerbated. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, reminded us, it is perfectly true that inflation has been brought down and there has been some reduction in interest rates. But the impact of those measures has not been near enough to offset the recession.
The social consequences of the parlous state of the economy are clear. There has been high and rising unemployment. There is a high level of personal indebtedness, leading to much human suffering and anguish. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and by my noble friend Lord Cobbold. There is a high and continuing level of repossessions, leading to an increase in the already unacceptable number of people without proper homes. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, referred to that fact.
All political parties are committed to bringing the recession to an end and to alleviating the social problems which it has created. The question is how to do that effectively and in such a way as to avoid leading to a further recession in due course. Trade cycles of some sort are no doubt inevitable. But Britain has suffered from a series of deeper recessions than other developed countries in recent years—an issue referred to by my noble friend Lord Rodgers. That has undoubtedly weakened the economic and social fabric of the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, specifically mentioned the latter.
One way of trying to end the recession is to take measures to stimulate consumer spending. It is argued that such measures would in turn stimulate production and thus work through the economy. But, in my opinion, that reasoning is fallacious, despite the Australian example quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his, as usual, stimulating speech. The recently published trade figures for January have shown that even in a period of deep and continuing recession imports remain at a high level, while exports have unfortunately diminished. That point was specifically referred to by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and by other speakers. It is, therefore, clear that much import substitution is still continuing. A resurgence of consumer demand would almost certainly have the effect of increasing the import bill and worsening the current account balance. Thus, before a major stimulus is given to consumption, there should be a stimulus to investment in industry and the supporting infrastructure.
Possibly the major economic problem besetting Britain is the inadequacy of industrial capacity. The problem has been masked to some degree in recent years by increases in productivity. Increased productivity is obviously welcome. The gap between British and German productivity, for example, has been substantially reduced. But a recent survey has shown
910
that the main remaining differences in industrial policy between the two countries is the consistently greater level of investment in people, in research and in plant in Germany than in Britain. Increasing productivity on a diminishing base will not provide the answer to Britain's economic problem.
Thus measures to increase industrial capacity have become a priority. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, emphasised the need to encourage industrial investment. Now is the time for a whole range of measures to be taken. They include increasing capital allowance, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, cutting the uniform business rate and, above all, providing special help to small businesses that have suffered worst in the recession. There should also be a further stimulus to training, and research and development. There is a risk that in periods of recession business expenditure on these items is cut back. The Industrial Society, in a recently published report, has provided evidence that substantial retrenchment on training is already taking place. That view was confirmed by my noble friend Lord Rodgers in regard to the architectural profession. There is also evidence of a cutback in R&D. These trends must be reversed urgently.
Measures to stimulate industrial activity should be accompanied by measures in the infrastructure. Some attention is already being paid to that. In particular, in view of the dire straits of the construction industry, to which many noble Lords have referred, it is urgent that more of the accumulated capital receipts from council house sales should be released. That is not only economically but also socially desirable. A proportion of these resources should be devoted to improving the declining standard of much of the existing housing stock. Transport is another area requiring urgent attention. While measures have been taken to increase investment in public transport, everybody agrees that much more needs to be done. In particular, the railways should be made free to borrow from private sources in order to top up what is made available to them from public sources.
The country is not only facing a major political choice in the forthcoming election. It is also facing a choice in economic and social policies which can determine prospects for many years to come. The vital issue is to ensure that we come out of the present recession in a way which is sustainable and does not contain within it the seeds of the next recession.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I see that we are underruning on our time and I am happy to use some of that time to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, on his powerful maiden speech. I worked with him in politics over 30 years ago and am aware of his skills and of the robustness that he has demonstrated today. He reported that one in three architecture students have no professional prospects; they have qualifications without employment. The same bleak future faces so many of our children.
We are discussing a most curious as well as a painful recession or slump—because it really is a slump and we might as well call a spade a spade. It is

911
curious because for long after the statistics showed that it had arrived, with growing unemployment, bankruptcies and housing repossessions, the Prime Minister denied its existence. Then when he finally admitted its presence as Chancellor in November 1990 he announced its immediate departure. He categorically forecast that it would be the briefest and shallowest downturn on record, that it would end in the first half of 1991 and that the economy would then rebound at a miraculous annual rate of 4.3 per cent. Remember that? Well, how wrong can you be? The slump is sadly still with us and is getting worse according to the latest industrial trends survey from the Confederation of British Industry.
As has been said, the economy has been in decline now for six quarters. It is the worst decline since the war. The fall in output last year was the steepest since 1931. The Treasury has helpfully briefed the press saying that it should not exaggerate and that in some ways this recession is not as steep as the Thatcher recession of the early 1980s. That is some comfort! There is still time—because this recession is lengthening and deepening and there is no statistical evidence for the Government's present optimism. Already the below-average growth rate that we have had since 1979 is estimated to have cost the nation £50 billion in lost additional resources, as my noble friend Lord Jay argued.
The Government have recently tried to put the blame on the world recession. I am afraid that that will not stand up to scrutiny. The recession started earliest in Britain because of the policy failures of up to six years ago when the Government deregulated the building societies in 1986. I stress that that was before the Stock Market crash. Monetary numbers were already going wrong that early. The Government then tracked the deutschmark at the wrong time and then slashed direct taxes around the time of the 1987 election, as my noble friend Lord Desai demonstrated so wittily. Thus the Government unleashed a consumer credit and housing boom, the damaging consequences of which still hurt millions of unemployed people, mortgagees, bankrupts and those dispossessed of their homes, to whom my noble friend Lord Pitt referred.
That was economic mismanagement, home-grown, British-made. It was made in No. 11 Downing Street when—let us not forget—the present Prime Minister was resident there. Certainly the world recession has made it more difficult to recover now, but the causes lie in British economic mismanagement. The recession is worst in Britain. That is especially the case in relation to unemployment, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy so incontestably proved. Eight of the 10 regions in Europe with the fastest rising unemployment are in Britain, led by the South East, the South West and East Anglia.
So what is the future outlook? How are the Government proposing to get out of this box? City forecasts are for growth of only 1 per cent. in 1992–93 and the Government have left themselves with few policy options to end the slump. Consumer spending is flat, constrained by personal debt. Corporate
912
spending is flat, constrained by company debt. The banks are in no position to encourage lending, and interest rates—probably the best way to launch a recovery—are constrained by a weak sterling in the exchange rate mechanism. The ammunition for public spending was expended last autumn. There is no honest scope for cutting taxes with a public sector borrowing requirement that is rocketing towards £25 billion next year.
So what is proposed? Apparently what is proposed is tax cuts, financed by ever-more borrowing and a higher PSBR. As my noble friend Lord Peston stated, there is of course a case for running a public deficit at the depths of a recession. We on this side have always supported that, often under criticism from the puritans of the Chicago school. But that depends on two things: the timing and the purpose.
On the timing, if the economy is about to recover, as the Government naturally claim, this is the wrong time. It should have happened earlier. If, however, this is the right time—in the depths of the recession when we need that boost—the Government have been misleading us when they have claimed that recovery is just around the corner.
But the purpose is the most important factor and, I believe, represents the largest political difference between the two sides of the House. It is obviously sensible to run a reasonable deficit in a recession for purposes of capital investment, for the social infrastructure, to encourage individual investment and for welfare to help the victims of the recession. But borrowing simply to finance direct tax cuts ahead of an election is, at best, deeply cynical, as several Conservative Members of Parliament and City commentators have honestly and courageously stated, even using the word "fraud" in one case, which I am sure that we on this side would never use. Such tax cuts would not help those most in need of help in the slump—the unemployed and the homeless. It is worth pointing out that direct tax cuts are not even the most efficient way to kick-start the economy since some of the benefits would be saved, not spent, especially by the better-off, who would be the greatest beneficiaries.
The Government's somersault over the PSBR is breathtaking, especially in the light of past Conservative criticism of Labour's borrowing proposals, often described as immoral. It is only three years since John Major, then Chancellor, said:
"In future years, our strategy will be based on a zero public sector borrowing requirement".
His Chancellor now faces a PSBR of £25 billion, and is considering tax cuts to make it worse. Mr. Major added the next day in March 1988 that,
"it is unwise economically, and wrong socially"—
for Governments—
"to spend more than they are prepared to raise honestly in taxation".
In the Daily Telegraph on 21st February this year, just days ago, he suggests that a PSBR of £30 billion—5 per cent. of national income—is OK. What a somersault as the election approaches.
Big tax cuts now against a background of a PSBR deficit of £25 billion mean that we will have to pay for them later. Will the Government once again, if they win the election, massively increase VAT as after the

913
1979 election or make slashing cuts in public services and social benefits? With the City forecasting gilt issues of £30 billion next year, tax cuts would ensure years more of high interest rates.
Our conclusion must be that now the glitter and hype of the economic miracle have peeled away—as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, so bitingly described it—we see a discouraging picture and a dismal inheritance for any new government. Productivity has improved. Inflation has improved, and that is good; but there is no long-term security in the present lower inflation. Once the economy revives, with our diminished manufacturing capacity inflation will revive. I enjoyed, as usual, the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, to the trade-offs between inflation and unemployment. I enjoyed it partly because he admitted, almost brazenly, that the Government began in 1979, whereas the Minister's figures almost always begin in 1981. However, on not riding two horses at the same time, I should tell the noble Lord that one of my previous employers in Downing Street always used to say, "If you cannot ride two horses at the same time, you shouldn't be in the circus".
But what a price to pay for reducing inflation—with a crippled economy and all the social damage that has resulted, as was explained in several distinguished speeches which have left me nothing to say on that point. My noble friend Lady Hollis made a comprehensive sweep of the social landscape; my noble friend Lady Hilton was authoritative on law and order; my noble friend Lord John-Mackie was equally authoritative on agriculture; my noble friend Lord Rea spoke about increasing inequalities; and the interesting link with the developing world was powerfully put by my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Hatch.
Consequently, the social and economic problems in our society remain uncured and in many ways worse. Long-term structural unemployment is worse; our manufacturing base is diminished; investment is too low; our transport infrastructure is collapsing; and, above all, our education system, upon which the country's future depends, is demoralised and deprived of adequate resources.
Next week's Budget, if the Government can agree upon it, will most likely be irrelevant to those economic and social fundamentals. Any tax cuts threaten to be as ephemeral and as rash as a shot of heroin in the arm of the electorate, with the Government hoping that the euphoric delusion and escape from reality will last until the election is over. Well, as Mr. Major himself has said, future generations will be left to pick up the bill. The Government are divided, dithering and uncertain. They are uncertain about what to do in the Budget and even about when to face the electorate. But there is no uncertainty about where the responsibility lies for our sad economic and social problems: it lies with the Government, and we are certain about the electorate's imminent decision. It is time for a change.
7.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I was most interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, wants to return to the circus. I wonder whether it is as a tightrope walker, a juggler or perhaps even one of the clowns. I join all other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, on his maiden speech. I admire his ability to choose a subject as uncontroversial as the state of the economy when as director general of the RIBA he could have spoken on much more controversial matters such as the current state of architecture and the standards of modern architects. I admire his discretion.
The debate has covered many subjects. I am sure that noble Lords will understand if I say at the outset that I cannot respond to most of the points. I do not believe that anyone will expect me to deal at great length with matters relating to agriculture, important though they are in the context of the entire economy. Similarly, I do not intend to cover OPEC, Canada, Australia, overseas aid, environmental problems or even drug abuse, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I should, however, like to remind the noble Lord that drug abuse is not merely a question related to levels of income; it exists at all income levels. To try to attribute the problem to low standards of living is going a bit too far.
Lord Rea: My Lords, that was not the point about drug abuse that I was making. It was to show that it has the most severe economic effects and affects crime. The people who are the main drug abusers in this country are the unemployed and the disadvantaged.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that. All I am saying is that it is not a subject into which I can go in any great detail on an occasion such as this. It is a problem in all sections of society. There was considerable speculation by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and others about the Government's plans. They will be announced in the forthcoming Budget. Noble Lords will understand that those are not matters upon which it would be right for me to respond. Noble Lords will have to wait until my right honourable friend makes his Budget Statement next week. Even the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will accept that he could not expect a statement on those matters from me.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was somewhat surprised that there had been no mention of the various social consequences to which the Motion refers. I intend to concentrate more on that topic. My noble friend Lord Brabazon dealt largely with the Government's economic policy. Perhaps noble Lords will bear with me, but I intend to concentrate upon social aspects.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made a passionate speech about the income levels of many of the less well off in society. She was of course wrong on a number of key points. For example, it is not true that the poorest 10 per cent. of the population have seen no

915
improvement in their incomes. I shall quote from a report on low incomes by the Social Services Select Committee in another place:
"Real disposable incomes grew by more than 30 per cent. between 1979 and 1988, with increases in real incomes being seen at all levels of income scale".
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, claimed that the incomes of the poorest 20 per cent. had fallen over that period. I refute that. If the noble Lord looks at the households below average income figures that the Government have produced, he will find that every decile has seen increases in real disposable income.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Had he completed the quotation from the report of the Select Committee on Social Security chaired by Frank Field in another place, he would have told the House that the increase, after housing costs, to the lowest 10 per cent. was under 2 per cent. compared with an average of 35 per cent. As a result of a recalculation of the Government's figures which misled the other place, I am sure unintentionally, at an earlier stage, it was clear that there had been no increase in real wealth for the bottom 10 per cent.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is simply not the case. For every group, for every quintile or decile there has been an increase in real disposable income. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, went on to complain about cuts in benefit. This is at a time when we have seen growth in social security expenditure of 40 per cent. over the past 11 years. They mentioned cuts allegedly in the income of pensioners at a time when we have seen the income of pensioners grow by over a third in real terms, since 1979. We have seen the average real income of pensioners grow by 3 per cent. per year.
I shall not give way to the noble Baroness. We have seen the incomes of pensioners grow on average by 3 per cent. a year over the past 10 or 12 years. Under the last Labour Government, it grew by 3 per cent. in the entire period of Labour Government, that is 0.6 per cent. per year. We have seen it grow by more than that in every year.
The noble Baroness says, "because of SERPS". The income of pensioners from savings under the last Labour Government fell. The income of pensioners from savings under this Government more than doubled. The same is true of the income of pensioners from occupational pensions. I could go on. At the same time, we have seen that the less well off pensioner has not lost out. We have seen increases above the rate of inflation in rates of income support premiums paid to pensioners.
I do not accept that there has been a failure of the wealth of the nation to trickle down. I do not accept that, as the noble Baroness argued, we have seen a growth in the number of those in poverty. I totally reject the noble Baroness's computation of poverty. Neither this Government nor any previous government have acknowledged her or any other definition of poverty.
To argue that the gap between the top 20 per cent. and the bottom 20 per cent. is greater than it was 100
916
years ago is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. To compare the bottom 20 per cent. in the income scale today with the bottom 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 60 or 70 per cent. of the population 100 years ago is simply not on. We are not comparing like with like. As I said before, we have seen the income of every section of the community grow.
To take one example of growth in social security expenditure, we have seen expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled grow by of the order of 100 to 140 per cent. In today's prices it has gone from £5 billion in 1979 to an expenditure of around £12 billion today. No doubt the noble Baroness and others will argue that the levels have not gone up, there are just more recipients. I quite accept the argument that there are more recipients of benefits for the long-term sick and disabled. But even the noble Baroness would not argue that it was a Tory Government who made those people disabled. What we have done is seen more benefits for the disabled reach more people.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene as the noble Lord mentioned me. Will he read the Government's family expenditure survey reports of 1988 and 1989, look at the figures and see whether my figures were correct? If they were, perhaps he will make an apology; and, if they were wrong, will he refute them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I imagined that the noble Lord based his figures on the survey figures. However, I must caution him about the possibly incautious use of statistics. The fact that the figures use money values confirms that they are not taken from the households below average income series of statistics from which I quoted. That is the agreed, sound basis on which the Government measure income changes over time. This series, recognised by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and the Select Committee on Social Security, is used because it is not prey to the errors which can arise if a single comparison between different individual years' figures is made. An allowance has to be made, for example, for changes in the composition of households over time and the HBAI series showed that the poorest 10 per cent. of households saw real increases in incomes between 1979 and 1987. The social security Select Committee's own figures confirm this trend for the years from 1979 to 1988. I am afraid that I cannot take the noble Lord beyond those figures because the figures end in 1988.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, seemed to argue that it was poverty or relative deprivation that caused crime. She particularly blamed the riots in North Tyneside on low incomes and poverty. I have to say that I do not accept that argument. I can see that the theory that a growth in unemployment is accompanied by people helping themselves or feeling released from the constraints of normal society may seem to make sense. However, it is not borne out by careful analysis. It is also—and this is a much repeated truism for which I make no apology—an insult to the majority of the unemployed and less well off to say that the mere state they are in will drive them to crime. To argue that the state of the economy pushes people into—
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I said clearly that the causes of crime were multi-factorial and in no way did I traduce the majority of people who are unemployed. I argued carefully that it was a variety of factors, one of which might be the atmosphere of materialism created by the Government. It was not just unemployment by any means that created crime.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this is a time-limited debate and I do not intend to take any more interventions. I noted what the noble Baroness said. I intend to speak for 25 minutes and I shall sit down at the end of that time to allow the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to wind up.
I accept, as the noble Baroness does, that there is no single cause of crime. There are many factors which may increase the likelihood of someone choosing to offend, including behaviour and values of parents. It is the existence of aggravating factors that makes it possible to pursue various kinds of preventive measures. But this does not mean that they are excuses for lawlessness or hooliganism. Low incomes or unemployment do not cause crime, and we should be wary of offering up justifications for those who are only too ready to enlist them in the denial of their own responsibility and culpability.
In passing, I also wish to say to the noble Baroness that I reject her allegations that changes to the benefit regime for 16 to 17 year-olds encouraged crime. We offer three options: school, training or work. What we do not offer is the option to go on to benefit with the certain exceptions that exist for those in the vulnerable groups. We do not offer the option to go on to benefit at an early age and for people to absorb themselves into a culture of benefit dependency. It is that option that noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite have recommended. It is that option that I suggest is far more likely to lead to a life of crime.
Turning briefly to some of the health issues that have been raised, perhaps I may say in passing that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, made the point that he would like to distinguish between the Government's spending on capital and income. I ought to say a little about capital expenditure in the health service. Over the past 12 or 13 years we have seen over 500 major hospital building schemes started or completed. Under the last Labour Government, capital spending in the National Health Service fell by 29 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, complains about the growing gap in health provision. I would like to make one or two brief comments.
Lord Rea: Not health provision, health.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke purely about health rather than health provision. I should like to make two points purely about health. First, the noble Lord said that by certain changes in lifestyle, we could see an increase in life expectancy of two years. May I tell him that during the last years of Conservative Government we have seen a growth in life expectancy of exactly that—two years, since 1979? That is a considerable increase.
918
I think the noble Lord then went on to allege that the least well off, that is those on income support, were probably unable to afford an adequate diet and that dietary aspects were one of the most important parts of health. That argument again does not hold. I would accept that an adequate diet is important to health, but there is no evidence that one cannot maintain an adequate diet on income support levels. There is no evidence that massive increases in benefit levels would merely lead to better expenditure on food.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I did not mention diet once.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord also made a rather interesting comparison between the United Kingdom and Japan showing the effect of relative deprivation on health in contrast to the effects of the overall level of prosperity. I suspect there must be something missing from this story. One cannot suggest that we could improve the health of the least well off simply by reducing the incomes of the better off. As the noble Lord himself will know, we prefer rather less occult methods of pursuing greater prosperity and efficiency in health provision.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, attacked this Government—on various occasions we had argued quite rightly in favour of certain proposals—on the grounds that our proposals might have had deleterious effects on employment and levels of unemployment. I stick by that. I accept that the current level of unemployment is regrettable. But one should also stress two things: we have the second highest level of employment within the European Community. I believe my noble friend Lord Wade said that. To then move on to the Opposition's rather ludicrous and absurd policy of bringing in a national minimum wage would do massive damage to the economy. Up to 2 million jobs could be destroyed by the second stage—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I believe the Minister is actually going to give way. Will the Minister not answer my point that this figure of 2 million is 24 times the reasonable estimate of everyone else? Why do the Government keep making these figures up?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have not the first idea who everybody else is. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, points to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Therefore I take it the noble Lord is who is meant by everybody else. I take her point. Up to 2 million jobs could be destroyed by the second stage of the minimum wage if pay differentials were fully restored. Most studies of employment effect agreed there would be considerable job losses. I would include among those studies even a study by the Fabian Society—the noble Lord might know a little about that society—entitled Making a Minimum Wage Work which concedes that up to 880,000 job losses have been estimated.
I shall now say a few words about the ERM. That has caused some anxiety to both my noble friend Lord Joseph and to the noble Lord, Lord Jay. We joined the ERM in October 1990 when we judged the time was

919
right. Some claim that we joined at too high a rate. In fact we joined at around the long run average. Since then, our inflation rate has fallen to below the EC average and within a whisker of Germany's. Interest rate reductions have been made possible by a steadfast commitment to maintaining sterling within its ERM bands. Far from stimulating the domestic economy, devaluation might make interest rate rises necessary as the markets encountered doubt again about our anti-inflation commitment. The Government will do nothing to undermine our ERM position or our anti-inflation stance.
In conclusion, I hope I may pull together just three strands of what has been said today. First, we are in a position to weather the social effects of the current economic position only because this Government have laid firm foundations by controlling public expenditure and maintaining downward pressure on inflation—my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter underlined that policy was important—and by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public sector services during a period of sustained economic growth. These foundations lie both in the public sector and in the increased capacity of individuals to take responsibility for providing for their own futures.
The second point is that despite the implication conveyed to some degree in the Motion of this debate, we are not as a government being compelled by the economy to forgo investment in future, nor are we unable to make provision for those who are affected by the recession. Thirdly, it is most important to recognise that we have put in place the necessary conditions not only for economic recovery but also for continuing flexibility and dynamism in the economy in years to come.
The last year has been a trying one for many families and businesses. Unemployment and business failure cause difficulties whenever they occur, but they are perhaps even harder to weather when the economy in general is sluggish. No one would seek to deny that the problems associated with recession are serious. But the problems which attend runaway inflation are more serious still and the disproportionate costs which inflation imposes on the less well off should be universally acknowledged. Obviously they are not acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others.
It has been clear for some time that recovery has been delayed for longer than was hoped at the time of the Autumn Statement. But it is equally clear that conditions for recovery are in place, as my noble friend Lord Boardman said. Low inflation and lower interest rates; rising real earnings and improving financial positions among the personal and corporate sectors all create the basis for a renewal of consumer confidence and a subsequent upturn in demand.
The Government and the majority of independent forecasters expect growth to become established in the course of 1992. Because it will be grounded in low inflation, that growth will be sustainable. This is good news for everyone, for growth on those terms is the only reliable foundation for properly considered social provision. Growth alone might furnish funds in any
920
given year; but unless it is sustained beyond that, the programmes it finances are doomed to be both short term and short termist—the bad British disease identified by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
We may differ to some degree about the ways and means to ensure a healthy economy and a healthy society, but I feel we can agree, in the final analysis, that it is the confidence of the individual human being and his commitment to and enthusiastic investment in the future which sustain these goals in the long term. I believe we have done much to ensure that those necessary conditions will continue to flourish.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I must of course congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, on his excellent maiden speech. However, I found all the speeches most interesting. Indeed I am tempted by the quite fascinating contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to start the debate all over again but I hasten to add that I shall refrain from doing so. I sincerely believe there are many sides to these economic and social questions and little is known for certain. Therefore we may agree to differ, but honourably so. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

British Waterways Bill [H.L.]
8.19 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading.
In the Preamble:
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. A1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("where") insert ("it would not be reasonably practicable for ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make one or two opening remarks in respect of the 19 amendments which are down in my name. In order to save the time of the House it may be helpful if I say that to the best of my knowledge and belief all of the amendments are agreed amendments. Therefore I hope that the House will not consider it discourteous if I introduce them with the minimum of preamble, with the exception of Amendment No. 19L which needs considerable explanation.
In moving Amendment No. A1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. A2, 5A, 5F and 5L. At present the Bill turns entirely on the convenience of the British Waterways Board. The purpose of the amendments is to strengthen the conditions under which the board can enter on to land for the purpose of carrying out maintenance works to canals. It puts the onus on the board to prove that it is not practicable for the works to be carried out in any other way. I believe that the noble Earl is willing to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord has spoken also to Amendment No. 5F, although I shall

921
call that amendment in due course when we come to it, perhaps I should point out at this stage that if Amendment No. 5F is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 5G.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure under what rules we are working in this consideration of the Bill because I have not before encountered consideration after Third Reading. I was going to say that it would be enormously helpful if we had a copy of the grouping of amendments but we now have one. I am most grateful.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I rise to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, said. As the sponsor of the Bill, I confirm that the group of amendments is acceptable.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord. I know that he has struggled hard for a long time to achieve these improvements to the Bill. They represent a marked improvement. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for accepting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. A2:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("cannot conveniently") and insert ("to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Interpretation]
[Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 3A.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2 line 40, leave out from ("1961") to end of line 41.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3A, 4, 5, 5B, 5E, 5H, 6 to 11, 12, 20, 20A, 21 and 21A.
As recently as Monday the agreement of the British Waterways Board was finally secured to the exclusion of the four big lochs on the Caledonian Canal. As they represent more than half of the operational waterways in Scotland the position regarding my amendments—which I have had down for some time—has changed markedly. The situation is very much improved. For having secured that alteration I am very much indebted to my noble friends Lord Gray of Contin and Lord Elton. I should also like to give a special mention to Mr. Forbes Rennie, a lawyer from the Highland Regional Council. All have expressed their gratitude to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, without whom it would have been very difficult to make this progress.
I should also like particularly to thank Mr. Rennie, who has consistently pleaded the case of the Highland Regional Council and the people of the North in a forceful and eloquent manner since he came on the scene on 9th January this year. I know that my noble friend Lord Gray, who has another appointment and is unable to be present tonight, would like me to add his thanks to Mr. Rennie and to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe.
I should like to add one more and very deserving thank you to Mr. Keith, the Clerk who deals with Private Bills in this House. He has achieved the impossible. He has worked very long hours on the Bill, often at short notice. He has shown great courtesy and efficiency. I am sure that other noble Lords are also indebted to him.
I am sorry that the groupings list did not reach the Front Bench on the other side of the House. It was produced at the last minute, with the help of Mr. Keith and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. We should have tried to provide noble Lords opposite with a copy earlier.
By securing the removal of Loch Lochy, Loch Oich, Loch Ness and Loch Dochfour from the Bill a large number of problems have been solved. However, that has rather pulled my feet from under me so far as regards the removal from the Bill of the rest of Scotland, where I fear this nasty little Bill will create problems and probably litigation. The progress made by the inclusion of Amendment No. 21A is, however, a major step forward. Perhaps, on reflection, the British Waterways Board will realise that it would be well advised to revert to the first draft of the Bill which it produced in November 1990 in which Scotland was not included.
In going through the Bill noble Lords may have noticed how many times the various legal bodies —lands tribunals, magistrates, sheriffs, sheriffs principal, High Courts, county courts and so on—are mentioned. So far as I can see the Bill may well involve a great deal of litigation. That is one of the reasons why I should be very happy to see Scotland removed from the Bill. Even if it applies to England we would be well advised not to have the measure in Scotland.
Mr. Coyne, the British Waterways Board manager for Scotland, at a very well attended meeting at Spean Bridge this winter, said that the Bill would have very little effect in Scotland. Now, with over half the Scottish waterways removed, why not remove the rest? That would mean that a number of further drafting amendments would be required, even after what we do tonight, to remove Scotland from the Bill—and probably avoid much ambiguity and litigation as well. That, with any luck, should be achieved with little or no loss to the British Waterways Board.
The British Waterways Board has based its case for retaining Scotland in the Bill on the argument that Scotland would be deprived of the safety provisions in the Bill. However, I wonder whether the British Waterways Board is the responsible body for operating the safety provisions. There is already a Health and Safety Executive for that purpose. Over the 170 years of the operation of the canal I cannot find any instance which would have been prevented by the provisions of the Bill. Indeed, if the British Waterways Board is to be given licensing powers for boats and jetties and an accident occurs in relation to something which has been licensed by the board, would the board accept liability for that accident?
I would go further and say that the British Waterways Board is not a satisfactory body to operate safety precautions. I shall give one instance. There is a public right of access over Loch Laggan. There used

923
to be safety netting alongside the walkway. When the locks were repainted in 1985 the netting was removed and has never been replaced. A man who was walking over the locks one stormy night slipped, went under the railing and was very nearly drowned. To my mind it was totally irresponsible not to replace the netting (if they had to remove it at all) after they had repainted the locks. I shall give the noble Lord another instance. British Waterways Board's lock lifting barge was sunk not once but twice in recent years through the inefficiency of that board. I understand that the last salvage operation cost over £17,000. There are other instances, one of which is leaking canal banks.
Also there are now a number of power boats riding around, sometimes with skiers behind them. I have seen them riding the bow wave of pleasure boats on the canal. It appears that no action has been taken to stop that practice. That is a far more dangerous practice than those for which safety precautions feature in the Bill.
The 1804 Act which set up the canal gave rights to the landowners to erect wharves and use pleasure boats. Why should the current British Waterways Board seek to remove those rights when it only has rights of navigation? Written into the terms setting up the canal, British Waterways Board has the right to remove anything which blocks the navigation. I cannot see why an attempt is being made now to introduce further action.
Perhaps I may now move on and deal with another issue. British Waterways Board has no fishing rights whatsoever in the Caledonian Canal as those rights were specifically reserved by the 1804 Act which established the canal. The Act stated that the rights of landowners to the fishery were preserved. At a meeting on 9th January it was pointed out to Mr. Duffy, the solicitor and secretary to the British Waterways Board, and to Mr. Coyne, the regional manager for Scotland, that the fishing in the Caledonian canal was nothing to do with them and that the salmon fisheries were managed by fishery boards. That apparently was news to the canal managers, who had never heard of fishery boards. The Ness District Fishery Board took up the matter with Group Captain Proudlock, who is the secretary of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards. In reply to the Secretary, in a letter of 30th January, Mr. Coyne stated:
"The Bill is designed to limit unexercised rights of salmon fishing ‖ This is an issue in parts of England".
It is not a problem in Scotland. The only problem that is likely to arise is if the Bill is passed and gives rights to the British Waterways Board to meddle in fishing matters which currently are nothing to do with it. The British Waterways Board not only has no fishing rights in the canal but is specifically instructed not to interfere with migratory fish. It only received power to construct a navigation and to maintain the tributaries of the waterway. That is an instruction with which I am afraid it has singularly failed to comply. Those tributaries have not been touched, though the pitching has collapsed, for some time.
The British Waterways Board is specifically instructed not to interfere with migratory fish, yet it
924
constantly drops the level in the River Oich and the River Ness by diverting water down the canal. Again that is in contravention of the regulations. One really does not want to have more regulations in Scotland. It is clear that the Bill was designed for England. Other problems may occur and some clauses in the Bill may remove adjacent proprietors' rights and interfere with the work of the fishery boards.
The Royal Yachting Association has expressed a wish to see the Crinan as well as the Caledonian Canal removed from the Bill. I believe that everybody else in Scotland would be happy with that. The British Waterways Board would certainly improve its tarnished image were it to make the magnanimous gesture of removing from its scope the whole of Scotland. That will have to wait for the passage of the Bill in another place. I do not feel that this is the moment to divide your Lordships' House on this issue. I put down those points largely as markers for further discussion. I should like to thank my noble friend for accepting the amendments, which he did after considerable pressure. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I do not think that it is for me, as the former chairman of the Select Committee, to take any side at all on the debate at this particular point. However, I should like to express a little mild regret that the objection to the inclusion of Scotland was not raised in the form of a petition against the Bill. That would have been the proper course. The committee would then have heard evidence on the subject and reported its conclusions to your Lordships.
The disadvantage of the question being raised now is that your Lordships are being asked to decide an extremely important matter without having any evidence whatever on it. The whole point of the Select Committee procedure in the case of a Private Bill is that evidence is taken by the committee and is available to noble Lords. By taking the point now and not by way of a petition, the mover of the amendment deprives your Lordships of evidence which they ought to have had.
I have heard it said that the Bill was not adequately publicised in Scotland. In fact there were notices in the Glasgow Herald of November 1990, the Scotsman of December 1990 and the Edinburgh Gazette of November 1990. Copies of the Bill were deposited in the Scottish Office in London in December 1990.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to raise one or two points. I feel that it is the duty of this House to pass the Bill. Before we go any further, I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Burton when he replies to the amendment not to to press it because Amendment No. 3A in the name of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who I understand is one of the promoters of the Bill, is probably the more important of the two amendments.
In this group of amendments I should particularly like to speak to Amendment No. 12 which refers to Clause 11 and Amendment No. 21 which refers to Clause 37. I must point out that I think that the British

925
Waterways Acts of 1971 (Chapter XVIII) and 1983 (Chapter II)do not extend to Scotland. Therefore, Clause 11 which deals with houseboat certificates with its Schedule 1, Clause 12 (certificates and licences) with Schedule 2, Clause 13 (amendment to Section 13 of the 1971 Act), subsection (2) of Clause 20 (penalties and enforcements), Clause 31 (amendment to Section 12 of the 1983 Act) and Clause 32 notices could apply to Scotland. But as a matter of fact I do not think that they could he enforced in Scotland.
I only learned about this Bill very recently but I feel that the promoters need carefully to bear in mind that point. When the Bill goes to another place a number of amendments will need to be introduced to make the Bill rather more satisfactory.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting him—I wish no impertinence—but if I correctly understand my noble friend Lord Burton, he will not press the amendments and the alternatives proposed by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe are likely to get into the Bill. In that case, the points that my noble friend now makes are somewhat academic and could perhaps be left to a more appropriate stage of the Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I have only a few more remarks anyway. I want to be as brief as possible. The only other point raised by my noble friend Lord Burton which I think is worth mentioning and which has been of concern to me for a number of years is the remainder of the old Forth and Clyde Canal which goes through a district in Glasgow called Bowling. It is always a tragedy to me that every year two or three children, and a number of animals, drown in that canal. The locks are falling to pieces; the sides are collapsing. It is a disgrace. I realise that it would cost a vast fortune to improve them. However, that is one of the tragedies that exists. It is worth taking a few moments to mention the position in your Lordships' House.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I speak to the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Burton and those standing in my name on the Marshalled list. I speak also to two important amendments, Amendments Nos. 20A and 21A which stand jointly in the name of my noble friend Lord Gray and myself. Perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the House. I may speak a little longer on this amendment than on any other amendment, because there are important matters that I wish to put before your Lordships.
The first is a general point. Although the highlands and lowland waterways are remote from the main canal network in Britain, they are nonetheless a vital part of British Waterways' whole canal system. The lovely Caledonian and Crinan canals—the two highland waterways—are particularly important. None of us seeks to argue with that. They represent vital short cuts for vessels that otherwise would have to make long detours; around the northern parts of Scotland in the case of the Caledonian canal and around the Mull of Kintyre in the case of the Crinan canal.
926
The board attaches great importance to those waterways. It also attaches great importance to the criticisms that have been voiced by two of my noble friends. However, it regards those waterways, as in the case of the two lowland canals, as an integral part of the nation's waterway system. That also applies to the lowland canals. The further powers which British Waterways seeks in the Bill are thus entirely relevant to Scotland and are just as important north of the Border as they will be in England and Wales. The need for the maintenance of the canals in water is the same throughout the country. Emergencies can equally arise on the man-made section of the highland canals as they can on the lowland canals and on waterways elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The powers of entry that the board seeks by the Bill are thus vital in the interests of securing the safety of those on and alongside the canals in Scotland. I believe —1 have a small house in Scotland—that Scottish safety is just as important as English or Welsh safety.
My noble friend Lord Burton referred to the special characteristics of the four natural lochs on the Caledonian Canal: Loch Lochy, Loch Oich, Loch Ness, and Loch Dochfour, which I understand lies below my noble friend's house. Thanks to his generosity and hospitality—I appreciate what he said about myself—discussions took place there recently between representatives of the board and of the Highland Regional Council under the auspices of the Caledonian Canal Action Group comprising those with local interests, including my noble friend Lord Burton.
Echoing a little what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said, I believe that it is an awful pity that those concerns and anxieties which have been expressed by my noble friends and others about the inclusion of Scotland and the Scottish canals in the Bill were not presented in time so that they could have been carefully considered by a very experienced Select Committee under the experienced noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. However, that is all in the past.
Recently a great deal of discussion and consultation has taken place between the interested parties. My noble friends Lord Burton, Lord Gray, Lord Elton and Lord Kinnoull have played a significant part in that, as have the Highland Regional Council and the British Waterways Board. The British Waterways Board remains firmly of the view, as I do, that the canalised sections of the Caledonian Canal and other Scottish canals should remain within the provisions of the Bill for the reasons on which I have already touched; namely, that it would be wrong if the safety considerations which underlie the Bill were not to apply to the Scottish canals as they do to the Welsh and English canals.
However, the Caledonian canal is very special indeed, sui generis, in that a large part of it—as my noble friend Lord Burton said, the largest part—flows through four large areas of open water; namely, the four lochs. That special characteristic of the Caledonian canal is duly recognised, I hope, in Amendments Nos. 20A and 21A to Clause 37 which stand in the joint names of my noble friend Lord Gray

927
of Contin and myself. Those amendments accordingly disapply the provisions of the Bill from the four lochs to which I have referred. The amendments flow from the board's recognition, following the intense consultations of which I have spoken and which included the Scottish Office, that those natural areas of water and the uses to which they have customarily been put place them in a special category.
So much for the two major amendments which take out the four lochs from the provisions. Trespassing again, I fear, on your Lordships' indulgence perhaps I may mention the five technical amendments we are discussing. They are Amendments Nos. 3A, 5, 5B, 5E and 5H. In addition to correcting an error in a reference to sections of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, they draw on Scottish law for appropriate definitions for the purposes of the application of Part II of the Bill for Scotland.
A typical example of the technical amendment which was found necessary is that a definition of "road" for the purposes of Scottish law is needed because the English word "highway" is unknown in Scottish legislation. It is curious that in England a road is a highway. I believe that the Scots are quite right to call a spade a spade and a road a road. That is what we propose to do in the Bill by these amendments, among others.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Balfour said on the legal point. He had given me some notice of it beforehand. Not being a lawyer I speak very much to correction. I agree that the British Waterways Act 1971 as originally passed did not apply to Scotland. However, subsequently Part III dealing with houseboats, and much of Part IV which contains special provision applicable to pleasureboats and houseboats, was applied to Scotland by Section 9(4) of the British Waterways Act 1975. That is the position as I understand it but I stand to be corrected by the experts. It would have been nice if the Select Committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, could have looked into such matters. However, that is by the way.
I turn to salmon fishing. The provision does not apply to the four lochs because they are excluded. When the Bill goes to another place the question of salmon rights could well receive further attention. That at least is my feeling.
I am glad that after intensive consultation those concerned reached agreement on the exclusion of the four big lochs from the Bill. I believe that the canalised portions of the Scottish canal system should remain firmly within the provisions of the Bill, as my amendments would allow. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendments and that your Lordships will agree to my amendments, which represent fairly considerable concessions.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on the hard work that he undertook in the committee. I express gratitude to him as far as it went. A number of points have now been raised which should have been dealt
928
with by his committee. I am afraid that the matters did not come to the surface as regards Scotland until November last year.
The Edinburgh Gazette is rather dry reading and I am afraid that it may have been missed. I cannot speak for the Scottish Office but I know that the Highland region received from the British Waterways Board only a draft of Part II of the Bill. Its representatives told me that they replied to the British Waterways Board but received no response. Again, that is a matter in the past.
The amendment will not be pressed because it is consequential to Amendment No. 21. My noble friend Lord Balfour was correct in some of the points that he raised about the Bill not applying to Scotland. As usual, he has looked into the Bill's details most carefully. Clearly that matter will have to be looked at in the future, although not tonight. In moving the amendment I mentioned that further drafting amendments are necessary before the Bill is satisfactory in Scotland. It may well be that those matters can be added. Indeed, the Scottish Office has some amendments that it wishes to table. I know that they have been lodged with the British Waterways Board and it is a pity that they have not been put forward this evening. My noble friend Lord Balfour was also correct about the safety of the Forth and Clyde canal. Indeed, his arguments added strength to mine; that perhaps the British Waterways Board is not the best body to look after safety on those canals.
I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. I was pleased that he said that the Scots are right to call a spade a spade. I am not sure of all the legal technicalities but I believe that these points needed tidying up. I understand that if it had not been for the lawyer for the the Highlands region drawing attention to some of the points, the Bill would not have applied to Scotland because the wrong phraseology is used. I am pleased to hear that he believes that the fishing rights should receive further attention in the other place. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe moved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("3(2) to (9) and 5") and insert ("9 (2) to (5) and 11").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert
(""owner" means—

(a) in relation to any land in England or Wales, a person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) who, whether in his own right or as trustee for any other person, is entitled to receive the rack-rent of the land or, where the land is not let at a rack-rent, would be entitled if it were so let; and

(b) in relation to any land in Scotland, the person (other than a hereditable creditor not in possession) for the time being entitled to receive, or who would, if the same were let, be entitled to receive, the rents of the land, and includes a trustee, factor, tutor or curator; and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Entry on to land in cases of emergency]:
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 3, line 40, leave out ("the operations cannot conveniently") and insert ("it would not be reasonably practicable for the operations to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe moved Amendment No. 5B:
Page 3, line 41, after ("highway") insert ("or, in Scotland, a road").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 5C:
Page 3, line 48, leave out ("completion of those operations") and insert ("entry on that land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5D, 5J and 5K. Amendment No. 5C brings forward the time lapse after which the board must notify the owner and occupier that it has entered the owner's or occupier's land for the purpose of carrying out emergency operations. There could be occasions when emergency operations are of considerable duration. Therefore, it seems right that there should be a relatively short time limit within which the owner and occupier must be notified.
Amendment No. 5D provides that notice must be given to the occupier of his right to claim payment for any inconvenience caused by the entry on to the land. That right is separate from any claim that the occupier may have in respect of any damage caused or other reasons there may be for compensation. If Amendment No. 5D is agreed to Amendment No. 5K is consequential and brings the Bill into line.
Amendment No. 5J provides for a form of counter notice, to be included with the notice sent to the owner and occupier, of the intention to enter the land for the purpose of carrying out maintenance work other than in an emergency. The inclusion of a form of counter notice with the original documentation will simplify and expedite the whole process to the benefit of both parties. It provides for a standard form of the counter notice which can be given under subsection 4(a) of Clause 5 of the Bill should crop readiness, soil conditions and so forth make access objectionable at the time of notice of entry. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 5D:
Page 4, line 3, after ("of) insert ("the occupier to claim payment for such entry and the right of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, in order that there is no doubt, should not the amendment make clear the fact that the words should be inserted after the second "of"? The word "of" is used twice.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, in principle the amendments to which the noble Lord has referred are perfectly acceptable. However, I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas about the word "of".
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, I have no objection to the change of wording, if that is agreeable to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe moved Amendment No. 5E:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert
("(3) In this and the following section "road" means any public or private road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Notice of entry, etc.]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as I have indicated, if Amendment No. 5F is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 5G.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 5F:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("the relevant operations cannot conveniently") and insert ("it would not he reasonably practicable for the operations to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe moved Amendment No. 5H:
Page 4, line 9, after ("highway") insert ("or, in Scotland, a road").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 5J:
Page 4, line 30, after("notice") insert ("including a form of counter-notice for use by the recipient pursuant to the following provisions of this section)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 5K:
Page 4, line 31, after ("claim") insert("payment for such entry together with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 5L:
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("the relevant operations cannot conveniently") and insert ("it would not he reasonably practicable for the operations to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if either Amendment No. 5M or Amendment No. 5N is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 5P.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 5M:
Page 5, line 1, leave out ("the relevant operations mentioned in the notice could conveniently") and insert ("it would be reasonably practicable for the operations mentioned in the notice to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5M is similar to Amendments Nos. A1 and A2 and Amendments Nos. 5A, 5F and 5L except that it refers specifically to matters relating to notice. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 5N to 11 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Further provisions as to entry]:
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 11A:
Page 6, line 36, at end insert
("(5) The Board when they have entered any land pursuant to this Part shall commence the relevant operations for the purposes of which entry was made as soon as is reasonably practicable and shall complete them with all reasonable dispatch.
(6) Nothing in this Part shall authorise the Board to enter any land for the purposes of in connection with the development of any land, being land not forming part of any

931
inland waterway or of any works such as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of the definition of relevant operations in section 3 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11A is to ensure that once the board has gained entry onto the land it carries out its works with efficiency and speed. It further provides that those powers of entry are clearly for maintenance purposes only and cannot be used in respect of development projects, leisure activities or other works not connected with the maintenance of the waterways.
Amendment No. 11B, which is grouped with this amendment, spells out the method of assessment to be used in agreeing payments for entry onto the land and any compensation which may also become payable. It provides also that a dispute about payment or compensation shall not prevent the board from carrying out its work while the negotiations in regard to any payments are unresolved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 11B:
After clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Payment for entry
(1) The Board shall pay to the occupier of any land upon which entry is made in accordance with this Part a sum in respect of such entry which shall be assessed in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2) The sum payable under subsection (1) above shall be such sum as would have been paid if the occupier had entered into an agreement with the Board granting to them rights to enter the land for such period and for such purposes as entry has been made in accordance with this Part and (where entry is made pursuant to a notice of entry)
on such conditions as are specified in any counter-notice and accepted by the Board or imposed by a court on any appeal against a counter-notice.
(3) Part II of the Land Compensation Act 1961, so far as material, shall apply to the assessment of the sum payable under subsection (1) above as though the rights deemed by subsection (2) above to be granted to the Board had been acquired by them compulsorily and in assessing that sum regard shall be had to the degree of inconvenience caused to the occupier by the entry.
(4) Nothing in this section shall require the Board to defer or suspend entry on land or the carrying out of relevant operations while any dispute as to the sum payable under subsection (I) above is determined.
(5) The rights of any person to a payment under subsection (1) above shall be without prejudice to the rights of that or any other person to recover compensation under section 9 (Compensation) of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 11C:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Waterborne maintenance.
For the purposes of discharging their duty under section 105 of the Act of 1968 (maintenance of the Board's waterways), the Board shall make such provision for the maintenance of water borne equipment and other facilities as is necessary to carry out all waterway maintenance works from the waterways themselves except where it is not safe or reasonable practicable to do so.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that a lot of hard bargaining has taken place and that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, have all worked extremely hard in the role of honest brokers to achieve
932
agreement on several issues. I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for alarming him at the lack of warning which I gave him about my amendments. That arises from my lack of experience of your Lordships' House and the continuing discussions which I was having with the board's solicitor.
On the question of waterborne maintenance, everyone whom I know and everyone to whom I have spoken who knows the canals well because their working lives are spent on and by the canals is of the same opinion; namely, that for a variety of reasons, none of them romantic or sentimental, it is vital that British Waterways does not abandon waterborne maintenance.
To tell the truth, little enough routine maintenance of any description is carried out on many sections of the canal system. Due to a combination of inadequate dredging and failure to set about repairing defects in locks in a logical way there is frequently unnecessary water loss. Therefore, boats tend to run aground and find it difficult to moor with both ends close to the side of the canal. That is contrary to what canals are all about. There should be enough water in a canal to enable a boat to pass along it.
We see that inadequate water maintenance and management in many regions. I do not have time to enumerate or describe in detail the many accounts of canal users who have spoken to me. However, they know what they are talking about and there are many complaints on this aspect. It is clear from my own observations that many parts of the canal are simply not accessible from land because the topography makes it impossible. What will happen? Will British Waterways not dredge those sections? If a canal presents such difficulties, will the entire stretch of canal not have to be travelled by dredging boats in any event? The fact that boats travel slowly on canals does not mean that a great deal of time is wasted in maintaining them from the water.
It is common knowledge among those who work the canal boats that there is a value in dredging boats passing along the canal because quite often, when the canal boat users ring up British Waterways and say that the canal needs dredging because there is not enough water, British Waterways simply chooses not to believe them. Therefore, the action of the dredging boat going along the canal has a diagnostic value because it actually profiles the canal to some extent. Obviously, if the canal badly needs dredging the boat will come to grief.
It has always been the custom with canals to plan ahead with the maintenance programme for the next year or the year after. In this way routine maintenance tasks can be planned well ahead. Canals do not silt up very fast so one can tell what the next series of tasks will be. These tasks are mainly dredging and bank protection and such defects can usually be easily spotted. One can manage it so that the boats do a series of tasks along a defined stretch of waterway in one season so that they are not dodging between different waterways. That system is quite efficient.
Of course there will be emergencies and other occasions when maintenance from land is necessary. That is provided for elsewhere in the Bill. But in most

933
cases it is cheaper, easier and simpler to maintain the canals from the water. British Waterways seems to forget that it is running a transport system. The waterway itself is a track which is the one that should be used unless it is impossible to do so. When the distinguished canal author and former member of the British Waterways Board, Mr. Charles Hadfield, was asked what he thought of the idea of land-based maintenance, he was appalled. He asked: "How do you maintain a bridge in the middle of a field with no road to it or a canal in a town centre with buildings crowding alongside or the inside of a tunnel and no room to deploy plant?" He said that the cheapest and most efficient way has always been to maintain the canal from the water. The use of the waterway for maintenance is also an encouragement to British Waterways to keep the canals open. The whole system depends on moving boats. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not suppose that the noble Lord intends to press this amendment. I hope that something of the kind is regarded with a friendly eye in another place. There may be those who do not have great confidence in some canal users and those who may not have absolute confidence in the management of the canals by the board. Nothing could inspire more confidence than the sight of the board itself being a principal user of the canals.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I preface any remarks with the usual disclaimer that anything I say from this Dispatch Box represents a personal view as it is not our practice to express a party view on a Private Bill. Nevertheless, I want to express my strong support for this amendment. When the matter was considered at Second Reading last year I indicated my four major areas of concern: first, residential boats; secondly, environmental obligations; thirdly, access; and, fourthly, disposals, with its implications both for the integrity of the waterways and for the continued public obligations of the British Waterways Board.
I believe that this amendment raises in a very acute form the issue of the integrity of the waterways, that of the network and in particular the integrity of the residual waterways which were the subject of an instruction to the Committee by my noble friend Lady White. It is a matter of record—certainly it has been represented as such in representations to the Committee—that there is a different standard for the minimum dredged depth of a canal according to whether the dredging is by land or by water. I understand that the minimum dredged depth for a water dredged canal is 1,220 millimetres, but for land-based dredging it is only 1,050 millimetres. That is a very considerable difference. It affects the continued viability of the residuary part of the waterway network and therefore affects the whole of the integrity of the network. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, seeks to put extra but reasonable obligations on the British Waterways Board to pursue water-based dredging and therefore a greater depth wherever possible. I hope very much that the promoters of the Bill will find it possible to accept this amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I also support this amendment. It strengthens the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. I hope that it will not be necessary for the noble Lord, Lord McNair, to press the matter as I hope that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will accept the amendment because I believe it is a very good one. The British Waterways Board scrapped its lock-lifting barge fairly recently. The board used to use it on the Caledonian canal and had been doing so for 170 years. The board now tries to carry out repairs to any lock gate, which can weigh up to 25 tonnes, by land-based cranes. Not surprisingly, a crane of that size is liable to do considerable damage in approaching the locks. It really ought to be done from the water, as has been done over the past 170 years. There is no reason why that should not continue and there is no reason why the British Waterways Board should damage neighbouring property when it is quite unnecessary.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, when we discussed this Bill at Second Reading, which I recall with some surprise is almost a year ago, I asked the same questions which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has now raised. I wondered why it was necessary for the Bill to require great powers to carry out the maintenance from the land side when in fact the traditional and sensible way of dealing with canal maintenance is from the water. I asked whether it was possible that, here and there, the British Waterways Board required to carry out the maintenance repairs from the land side because its maintenance over the years had been inadequate and the waterways were insufficient for carrying out maintenance work of the ordinary kind from the water. Nobody ever answered that question but I dare say it was considered. No doubt it was a slightly unfair question.
I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord McNair, although I hope he will not press the matter tonight. However, when this Bill goes to the other place they should make it part of their consideration that maintenance should be carried out from the water whenever possible and should only be carried out from the land when it is unduly difficult for it to be carried out in the old-fashioned and well-tried way, from the water. I support the amendment.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I feel it necessary to offer your Lordships a word of caution about this amendment, because I feel some doubt as to whether it is really appropriate. The expressed purpose of the amendment as it is worded is not to compel the board to carry out maintenance work from the water instead of from the bank. That subject is already covered by Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill as amended. Under those clauses the board cannot go on to other people's land to carry out maintenance of a waterway unless it would not be reasonably practicable to carry out the work from the water. The board is bound, if practicable, to work from the water or from the towpath if it owns the towpath.
Amendment No. 11C, as it is worded, seeks to require the board to maintain its waterborne maintenance equipment and facilities in good repair. The amendment provides that:

935
"the Board shall make such provision for the maintenance of … equipment and … facilities as is necessary",
and so on.
The clause is directed solely to the maintenance of equipment and of facilities. It seems to me a little out of place to require the board to keep its equipment and other facilities in repair. In any event, the amendment does not spell out what equipment or facilities the board is bound to possess.
I can see endless possibilities of dispute with the amendment as it is worded. What is the equipment which ought to be owned by a canal undertaker? The real answer is that the board has a statutory duty to maintain commercial and cruising waterways. It must inevitably perform that duty from the waterway itself, or its own land, unless it has the right to go on to other people's land under Clauses 5 or 6. How it performs that duty and what equipment is needed should, in my respectful opinion, be left to the board to decide.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, having listened to the speeches which have been made on this amendment your Lordships would be wise to adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and drop this amendment for tonight. The promoters of the Bill will have heard enough from the discussions which have taken place tonight regarding the wishes of your Lordships. As there are some difficulties to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has very correctly and helpfully drawn our attention, it would be wiser to leave the matter for the moment and to let further discussions continue. It can then be dealt with properly in another place.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene and repeat the usual statement of the Government's general neutrality towards Private Bills. It must be for the House to determine whether the promoters of the Bill are justified in resisting the amendment.
That said, the Government's general view of such matters is that the board must be free to decide how it is to carry out its statutory responsibility to maintain navigation on its waterways. There may well be cases where waterborne maintenance is the most efficient and effective way of fulfilling that duty. But there may well also be others where maintenance from operations on land is more practicable and suitable arrangements can be made with local land owners. We feel that the board ought to be free to decide how to carry out its statutory responsibility.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I wish only to echo the cautionary words of the last three speakers. At the same time I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for his introductory remarks which I greatly appreciated.
This has been a useful amendment. I only wish that this question had been raised earlier and could have had the detailed scrutiny which the Select Committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, could have given it. It has been good that this question has been aired and ventilated. I add my voice to those who have urged that the noble Lord should withdraw his
936
amendment. This is certainly something which could be looked at and should be looked at in more detail in another place.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment. I am also grateful to all those who have added words of caution. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his careful analysis of where we may have gone wrong in wording the amendment.
I should like the noble and learned Lord to come back on one question. He seemed to assume that the requirement on the board was that it should do the maintenance itself. As I understand the wording, "make such provision" means that they could ensure that a contractor or whatever could carry out this work. Does he agree with me that this possibility exists within the wording of the amendment as it stands?
Lord Brightman: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I had read "themselves" as applicable to waterways and not to the board. The point did occur to me that it was ambiguous as to which it was intended to relate to. I thought it related to waterways but perhaps I was wrong. That again is a matter of wording which could be cleared up at a later time.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am most grateful for that further elucidation. The point of the amendment is to reinforce what we have achieved in Clauses 4 and 5 with the requirement that the board should use waterborne maintenance wherever reasonably practicable. This is not something that will disappear. It is something about which a lot of the users feel strongly from the point of view that the more waterborne maintenance that is done, the better the maintenance will be done and the more usable the waterways will remain. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Compensation]:
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 11D:
Page 6, line 46, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11E. They bring the matter of settling disputes into line after the inclusion of the payment in the provision for payment for entry and clarify the method by which this shall be carried out. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I should like to ask a question on this amendment. I am afraid that I have not had an opportunity of taking legal advice. What is the tribunal to which the noble Lord refers in his amendment? I wonder whether this again is a piece of English phraseology as opposed to Scottish phraseology.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, it is the Lands Tribunal.
Lord Burton: My Lords, in Scotland it is the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, so there is a slight variation. It would mean another amendment.

937
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 11E:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Disputes as to payments etc.)
Any dispute as to a person's entitlement to—

(a) a payment under section (Payment for entry) of this Act; or

(b) compensation in pursuance of section 9 (Compensation of this Act or as to the amount of the payment or compensation

shall be determined by the tribunal, and the specified provisions (which relate to the conduct of certain proceedings before the tribunal and costs) shall with necessary modifications apply in relation to the determination by the tribunal of such a dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [General terms of houseboat certificates]:
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Prohibition or control of mooring]:
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe moved Amendment No. 12A:
Page 11, line 35, at end insert
("(3) The Board shall not exercise the powers of this section to prohibit or regulate mooring other than so far as may be reasonably necessary for the purposes of—

(a) securing safety; or

(b) preventing congestion; or

(c) ensuring that vessels do not remain at short stay moorings after the expiry of the period for which they are permitted to be there.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment is proposed in order to satisfy concerns that the powers to be conferred by the Clause could in theory be used to put down what I might call the equivalent of the double yellow lines on roads along the Grand Union Canal between London and Birmingham, for example, or elsewhere. That is not the intention of the clause and that would be made clear by the amendment to Clause 16. It is designed to enable the board to regulate mooring at places where it causes navigational hazards or creates problems of congestion where moorings should be rationed on a time-limited basis.
Hogging moorings and depriving others of the pleasure of short stops at popular visitor sites is resented, and justly so, by the majority of boaters. In contrast, casual mooring in and out of the way of beauty spots will be completely unaffected by the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again speaking personally I think that the noble Earl is moving a considerable way towards meeting the objections which have been raised to the Bill by residential boat owners. Indeed, as he indicated in his speech on Second Reading, the board is conscious of those concerns. I am not qualified to judge whether the amendments which have now been tabled meet all of them. But I suggest to your Lordships that in order to expedite business we might agree among ourselves that these matters, which are essentially local matters, could well he dealt with by another place where constituency representatives have a particular interest which they are fully able and entitled to express.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Provisions as to private moorings]:
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe moved Amendment No. 12B:
Page 12, line 14, after ("mooring)") insert ("and conditions attached to a consent granted under section 19 (Control of moorings, etc.)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the pedigree of these three amendments—namely, Amendments Nos. 12B, 12C and 12D—is as follows. They were proposed to the board by representatives of several of the board's user groups, bodies such as the Royal Yachting Association, the Inland Waterways Association, the British Marine Industries Federation and the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators on Inland Waterways.
The amendments are designed to extend the protection given in the clause to the owners of private moorings who may otherwise be affected by their regulation—again in the interests of navigational safety. I understand that with the amendments incorporated in it—that is, if they are adopted—the clause would be agreeable, at least in principle, to those user groups to which I referred. I beg to move.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I have not intervened thus far during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House due to being unavoidably absent on previous occasions. However, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Earl for bringing forward the amendments which to a great extent meet some of the concerns of the boating interests that he mentioned. I believe that there may be one or two points which are not quite understood. But I am sure that further discussion can take care of them and that they can perhaps be cleared up in another place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe moved Amendment No. 12C:
Page 12, line 15, leave out from ("but") to the end of line 18 and insert ("in exercising the said powers the Board shall have due regard to the desirability of refraining from interference with private rights and established mooring practices and shall not prevent the mooring of any vessel which could lawfully have been moored but for the exercise of such powers.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe moved Amendment No. 12D:
Page 12, line 20, at end insert
("(3) In this section "private rights of mooring" include any rights conferred by the Board or enjoyed as an incident of an interest in land.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [General environmental and recreational duties]:
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 12E:
Page 13, line 37, after ("functions") insert
("and, in particular, their primary function of maintaining waterways for navigational use by the public").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, apart from the question of Scotland, this topic has taken the most bargaining and discussion. I table the amendment now simply to reinforce the concern that is felt about the question of equal primacy for navigation and conservation. In assessing the relative importance of

939
conservation and navigation, we must remember that the ecological balance of the canal and adjoining land arises from an artificial creation, dating back only about 200 years, and that ecological balance arises from the fact that the canal system was created for navigation. If we give conservation, to which I personally give a very high priority, equal primacy with navigation and if navigation loses out in some measure to conservation, the maintenance schedule of the canal will go by default. The canal will dry out and the artificial but important ecological balance of the canal system will be destroyed.
What I seek to do in this amendment is to ensure both the future of navigation and the future of the present ecology of the canal system. If navigation goes, the ecology will also. I beg to move.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I feel that I have a duty to speak against this amendment because it is incorrect to describe the board's primary function as,
"maintaining waterways for navigational use by the public".
That is so in the case of a commercial waterway but not for a cruising waterway or for a remainder waterway. Under Section 104 of the Transport Act 1968, cruising waterways are,
"to be principally available for cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes".
Under Section 107, a remainder waterway is either to be retained, developed, eliminated or disposed of. So one cannot say that the primary function of the board is to maintain all "waterways for navigational use". Therefore, one cannot accurately refer to the navigational use of waterways as the primary function of the board. As I read the statutes, that is correct only in the case of commercial waterways. There will be exactly the same arguments to be made when we reach Amendment No. 17.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, speaking again in a personal capacity, I am glad that I waited to speak until the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, had intervened. He is of course correct about the wording of the amendment. However, I remind the House that Clause 21, to which this is an amendment, is about the general and environmental duties of the British Waterways Board. The noble and learned Lord has again brought out the concern that I expressed on Second Reading, which has not been adequately answered either in Committee or in these debates, about the environmental inadequacies of the Transport Act 1968. As I said then, I am a great admirer of the 1968 Act, but although it was not behind its time then in environmental terms, it is behind the environmental concerns that are properly expressed in 1992.
What is sad is that inadequate effort has been made in your Lordships' House to bring the Transport Act 1968 up to date as regards waterways in environmental terms. The amendment is necessary to draw attention to that fact. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is not adequate for its purpose, but it is important that we should signal now to another place that the environmental duties, as
940
expressed in Clause 21, are not adequate and that they should be applied to the cruising and the remainder waterways as firmly as to the navigational waterways.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I add my support to what I believe to be behind the thrust of the amendment, although, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, it is fundamentally flawed. I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, that this is a matter best left to another place.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. The flow of water from tributaries is also an important matter. I am thinking again of Scotland and the flow of streams into the waterways, fish ladders and such things. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, spoke against the amendment. He was right to have done so. There is something in the words "maintaining waterways". Small streams which run into the main canals, things such as a fish ladder which may lead from them, small streams which permit fish to get up to the spawning grounds and waters which are alongside the edge of a waterway deserve to be protected carefully. That is a point that might be taken up when the Bill goes to another place.
Baroness White: My Lords, I fully understand the objection raised by the noble and learned Lord to the wording of the amendment when it includes the word "primary" because one can argue about whether the function is the primary one. I should have thought that it was, but one can see that the legal mind does not move that way. Nevertheless, there is something of importance in the general thrust of the amendment. I have seen the grouping of the amendments only since we started the discussion, and I do not understand why the amendments to Clause 21 are not grouped together so that we can discuss the whole issue.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has any intention of moving Amendment No. 15. I cannot imagine why he ever put it down, but no doubt all will be revealed in due course. The suggestion that the circumstances embodied in Clause 21 should be deleted is difficult to understand. I do not want to pursue the matter because we clearly cannot accept the amendment as it stands.
I had hoped to say something about Clause 21(2) (d) and to express my gratitude to our Select Committee for including a recommendation in response, partly at least, to the Instruction that I was able to introduce in the House for its deliberations; namely, that it should be part of the duty of the British Waterways Board to protect for future use as cruising waterways or as areas appropriate for other public recreational use the remainder waterways which may have some potential for such use. I am extremely grateful to the Select Committee for having accepted that view. I hope that the British Waterways Board has taken full note of it. We all know that a number of canals in the country are not at present in full use because they have not been fully restored; they have certain areas which prevent the through passage of

941
boats. Even though it would not be impossible to improve them and clear the hindrances, often the resources are not available.
I do not wish to continue the discussion, but I believe we owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for having suggested that we should think in these terms, even though from the legal view the amendment is not entirely satisfactory.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, since Clause 21 has the full support of the Government, it may be convenient if I set out our views on Amendment No. 12E tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNair.
Clause 21(1) (a) cannot override the existing statutory responsibility that the British Waterways Board has to maintain navigation. That is the most important point. In managing its estate, the British Waterways Board has to take into account a wide variety of canal users' wishes, not only boaters but also anglers, walkers, conservationists and many others. It is for the British Waterways Board to achieve a suitable balance between these interests at local level, bearing in mind the wide range of its statutory duties. It is important that these cannot override the existing responsibility to maintain navigation.
Clause 21 carries out a recommendation made by the Select Committee on the Environment in another place. It has been amended to follow a direction made by your Lordships' House on Second Reading and to meet concerns about the protection of towpaths. I believe that the House should accept the clause in this form and, for the reasons I have given, resist the amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for bringing the searchlight of his legal experience to bear on the amendment. I shall not press it, but the point that I made has not been made elsewhere about the inter-relationship of the artificial but wonderful ecology of the canal system and navigation. It is something which I hope will be looked at again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 13, line 44, after ("architectural") insert ("engineering").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is perhaps the most modest amendment which could be made since it adds only one word to the Bill. Admittedly, in Amendment No. 14 I add the same word in another part of the Bill, so my desire is to increase it by only two words. It would be difficult to be more modest than that.
Modest though the two amendments may be, they are extremely important. The promoters have adopted the standard usage in a number of other public Bills that have passed through the House relating to the duties to take certain conservation measures. Clause 21(1) (b) states that the board should:
"have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest".
I ask that the word "engineering" be added so that the Bill refers to:
"buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest".
I say that because, if anything, the waterways system is an engineering system. There is no doubt that it has a certain amount of archaeological interest in the sense of industrial archaeology. It has a modest amount of architectural interest here and there. However, it has an overwhelming amount of engineering interest. The objects—I prefer the word "artefacts", but objects will do —that are to be preserved in the waterways system are more likely to be engineering objects than any other kind.
I do not wish to go into this argument in any detail as I ran over the ground on Second Reading some while ago. I shall merely draw your Lordships' attention to one example. In Bristol there is a swing bridge at the entrance to the docks. I suppose it is of historical interest in the sense that it is rather old. It might conceivably be of architectural interest in the sense that it is a structure. Aesthetically, however, it is an eyesore. It is a dreadful little bridge. It is, however, listed because the machinery by which the swing bridge is operated is thought to be important from the engineering point of view. It has been listed on the grounds of engineering interest although so far no one has been prepared to admit that.
If it is right to preserve a structure of that kind on the grounds of engineering interest, it is right to state that, at long last, on the face of legislation. As Ministers know, I have tried to persuade them to take that step on a number of public Bills over recent years. I am happy to think, rather than say, that the promoters of the Bill look upon my amendment with some kindness. If I am right, I congratulate them for they are breaking new ground. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will be unsuccessful in removing Clause 21 from the Bill as I would hate to improve that clause in my modest way and then have the noble Lord delete it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I believe it would help the debate which may follow if he could kindly tell the House which kind of objects, of the objects he is speaking of, would be affected which are not already covered by the term "archaeology", because industrial archaeology covers machinery. I imagine his concern is already met in the Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, that is the whole core of my objection. The term "industrial archaeology" is used as a means of avoiding the word "engineering". The term "industrial archaeology" is not archaeology at all: it is engineering history. Engineering history has been called industrial archaeology because it is usually carried out by people from the other side of the great divide in our culture. The word "engineering" will not harm the Bill in any way. The term will make clear what is required of the Bill. It will improve our culture enormously. I am rather sad that the noble Lord interrupted me as he has made me speak at greater length than I had intended. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord's amendment. He moved it in his usual modest fashion. It is an important amendment but I am rather concerned about the matter to which my noble friend Lord Elton referred. I hope the noble Lord can help the House because we are, after all, inserting words in a Bill and it is important that there should be no confusion about what is meant.
I wonder what the word "engineering" means. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject but I understand that there is civil engineering—which involves buildings, bridges and roads—mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemical engineering, aeronautical engineering and even military engineering. Can the noble Lord help the House and relieve our confusion by telling us exactly what he means and how that would stand out in any way from what is presently contained in the Bill, namely that it is necessary for the board:
"to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest".
In what way does he wish to add to that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives a clear definition of engineering which is wider than the particular branches of engineering to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred. It is the:
"application of science to the control and use of power, esp. by use of machines".
I should have thought that that was a perfectly adequate definition which supports my noble friend's amendment.
My noble friend is too modest. He has not reminded the House that he has ensured that the word "engineering" has already been inserted in other legislation, notably in the Environmental Protection Act. That is a very good precedent for including the word now.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, perhaps I may add that I think that the noble Lord also has in mind the Anderton lift, for example, in Cheshire, which is the first example of its kind on waterways. I believe that the lift is unserviceable at present but it ought to be retained as a monument because such lifts are very popular all over Europe, although they are great big modern things today. However, that was the original which gave them their birth.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, this is not a new line on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, who has tried to include the wording in various Bills. Perhaps I may add a word of caution. The unqualified use of the word "engineering" might also apply the duties to current British Waterways Board engineering plant, which might be an unreasonable restriction on its day-to-day operations. I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Elton.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, perhaps I may comment briefly. I have heard what my noble friend Lord Astor said. I should like to reflect upon the matter. Speaking for the British Waterways Board, I should be perfectly
944
happy for your Lordships to accept the amendment. However, the House may prefer to let it pass for the time being and let the other place consider the matter.
I have a bias. If I know any canal well it is the Kennet and Avon Canal and I know the marvellous early 19th century and late 18th century engineering of that canal. One of the earliest pump stations is very close to where I live. I should rather like to see such items given special protection.
Baroness White: My Lords, those of us who are familiar with the history of some of the canals will also support my noble friend. The Anderton lift is a very good example and there are others which one could bring to mind although I do not wish to delay the House. Architecture can be contemporary. Therefore one need not be worried about engineering on the grounds that it is contemporary while other items are not. My noble friend is entitled to suggest that we make this change. If the other place wishes to knock it out, that is up to them.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I was hoping for a smooth glide towards happiness and I am rather taken aback. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who was once for a short, happy period of his life, my Member of Parliament—although I did not vote for him, partly because I was a Member of this House at the time —raised questions which I did not take further because I had mentioned those matters at Second Reading some time ago. Some of the items that I had in mind which are engineering and nothing else—unless we accept the industrial/archaeological flummery—are the sorts of things mentioned here, such as sluice gates, lock gates or a tunnel. There is nothing architectural about them. They are wholly, totally and completely engineering. It is high time that we recognised the engineering dimension to such things, which is every bit as important as the architectural dimension.
Anything that is said about engineering being covered by history or archaeology is also true of architecture. Yet it is accepted that there is an architectural dimension which is slightly removed from history and archaeology. In exactly the same way there is an engineering dimension—not well understood in this House—which is removed from history and archaeology.
I am grateful for the comments which have been made, even those which did not wholly support me although they leant a little way in my direction. I am especially encouraged by the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 14, line 8, after ("architectural") insert ("engineering").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 14A:
Page 14, line 20, after ("Board") insert ("other than any such facilities as are so available prior to the coming into force of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this may seem to be a nit-picking amendment. Although later in the

945
debate I shall be very critical of some aspects of British Waterways Board's activities and operation, I realise that it feels that it is between a rock and a hard place —as our transatlantic cousins say—in a financial sense.
Having lived near a canal and having walked for pleasure many times along it, I should regard it as mean in the extreme were there to be a turnstile with a slot machine into which I had to put money before I could indulge in that small pleasure. I know that there is a continuing debate about how much and by what means British Waterways should charge for the use of the canal. In fact there are some very interesting proposals in the December 1991 edition of the Inland Waterways Association's magazine and I hope that the board studies them closely.
The purpose of the amendment is to signal a further aspect of the Bill which I hope will be looked at closely in another place. The canals are arteries which spread out from our big cities. Walkers should be encouraged to explore the canals. They might become boaters or anglers. If they are confronted with a money-in-the-slot turnstile when they venture on to the canal, I feel that it is unlikely that they will pursue those possibilities. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I understand the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord McNair. However, I believe that the amendment proposed may be a little restrictive. Perhaps I may give an example. As I understand it, British Waterways Board at present proposes to resurface at considerable expense a car park at Tring reservoir off the Grand Union canal in Northamptonshire. At present the car park is an awful mess. It is muddy, rusty and waterlogged. I am not certain how far that proposal has advanced. I use it as an example. However, if British Waterways Board has gone to considerable expense to resurface such a facility, for which it does not charge at present, it might be perfectly sensible for it to levy a small charge when the area has been improved. As worded, the amendment is a little restrictive, although I entirely agree with its aim. I suggest that the noble Lord should not press the amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for being somewhat encouraging. Does that mean that when or if British Waterways Board repairs a towpath it could then charge people for walking along that towpath?
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I used the car park as an analogy. The argument would not apply to a towpath on which I would wish to see the greatest possible freedom of movement.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am grateful for that. When the Bill reaches another place, could we have a provision which clarifies the situation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that subsection (4) states that,
"Nothing in this section shall require recreational facilities".
It specifically refers to "recreational facilities".
We believe that those who benefit from British Waterways Board's recreational facilities should contribute, if necessary, to the costs of such provision.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does that include people who walk on the towpath?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that a towpath is a recreational facility. It is totally different.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I consider myself to be indulging in recreation when I walk along the towpath.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we might be indulging in recreation in speaking tonight. It does not make the House of Lords a recreational facility.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I do not believe that the British Waterways Board is considering charging for speaking in the House of Lords. However, we have pursued the point far enough. I should like further discussion on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burton Lord Burton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 15:
Leave out Clause 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, to the relief of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, perhaps I may say that I shall not press the amendment. However, when we met on 27th January I gave a number of reasons why the clause required strengthening. I had hoped that, having had its attention drawn to the matter, the Department of the Environment might have put some teeth into the clause. It is absolutely vital that some teeth are put into it. At present there is nothing to enforce the British Waterways Board to carry out any of the excellent duties in the clause.
Perhaps I may give two reasons for such amendment. Eighty per cent. of all the boats using the Caledonian canal discharge crude sewage into the waterway. When one is fishing just below a lock on the river it is not nice to find crude sewage floating past. There are no facilities on the canal for emptying bilges. I have seen boats discharge on a number of occasions. I believe that it is against the law but what are people on boats expected to do if there are no facilities for emptying bilges?
The canal authorities have known about the position for a long time. There was a committee which met at Inverness with the canal authorities. The matter was impressed upon them then but nothing has been done. I believe that some teeth ought to be put into the Bill. However, unless any other noble Lord wishes to speak I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Provisions as to disposal of subsidiaries, etc.]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 15, line 21, at end insert:
("(4A) In managing or developing any property acquired under subsection (2)(b) of this section it shall be the duty of the person acquiring it—

(i) to have regard to the considerations as to conservation set out in section 21(1)(a) of this Act; and

(ii) to fulfil the duties set out in subsections (1)(b) and (c) and subsections (2) and (3) of that section.

(4B) Any person acquiring property referred to in subsection (2)(b) of this section from a person subject to the provisions of that subsection shall be subject to those provisions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, chides me for tabling the amendment at such a late stage I can only apologise for being guilty. At a late stage it was brought to my attention that there was a significant gap in the provisions of the Bill protecting the environment. When I beheld the number of those besieging the promoters with amendments at this stage, I felt that no harm could be done by introducing this amendment too.
Your Lordships have discussed Clause 21, and in particular subsection (1) (a) to which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has elegantly and persuasively added a strengthening element. The elements in Clause 21(1) serve to impose upon the British Waterways Board a duty to protect various interests, all of them environmental, which would be extinguished were it to sell on any of its property. The purpose of the amendment which I ask your Lordships to add to the Bill is to apply those constraints to subsequent purchasers so that the environmental protection is not weakened by the sale of property to developers or to those who neglect the environmental interests. I beg to move.
Lord McNair Lord McNair had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 16, Amendment No. 17:
At end insert
("(4C) Nothing in this section shall prejudicially affect the powers and obligations of the Board to their primary duties to maintenance and navigation persuant to section 105 of the Transport Act 1968.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment strengthens Amendment No. 16 in respect of the navigational aspects of the canal in question. Therefore, any sale of property or goods shall not have a detrimental affect on the canal as a waterway because the canals were built solely for the purpose of navigation. I believe that the wording of Amendment No. 16 has been modelled on the Water Act 1978. That Act deals only with waterways which are not constructed primarily for navigation. I do not intend to press the amendment but I wish to signal the anxiety of many people that navigation may suffer.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have declared my sympathy for the object of keeping canals navigable.
948
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has explained the inappropriateness of using what is in effect a descriptive passage to make a prescriptive statement about the duty of the authority in this case. I see that the noble Lord has again made the duty primary and, therefore, the amendment is probably defective in that respect. I should be content if my amendment were not amended if that is what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe wishes.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I have discussed this matter with the British Waterways Board, which is content with my noble friend's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise for being absent during the debate. I welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. I am not qualified to say whether it goes far enough to deal with all the possibilities of misuse of land after disposal. Again, I flag that as a matter which must be given careful consideration in another place. However, it is a step in the right direction on one of my major anxieties about the Bill when it was first introduced. I am delighted that the noble Earl is prepared to accept the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if noble Lords accept the amendment, we shall ask the British Waterways Board to consider with us whether further amendments are required in another place because the amendment may have implications which should be given careful consideration; in particular, the extent of duties placed on private citizens, whether there would be a workable means of enforcement and whether the amendment will have the exact effect intended.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. In the time available I could not devise a means of enforcement.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, before my noble friend continues, I should point out to the House that the noble Lord has not withdrawn the amendment to the amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I did not move my amendment to Amendment No. 16.
Lord Elton: My Lords, although there is no means in the amendment of attracting powers of compulsion which the Government or the courts might have towards the British Waterways Board before the sale of a property for a lapse in observance of duties which the amendment imposes on a purchaser of the property, it is clear that it places a right at common law for those aggrieved by a failure to observe that duty; for example, neighbours or others with an interest. In any event, the fact that the requirements are on the face of the statute will make the position plain to planning authorities which must give permission to some of the activities which the amendments seek to discourage.
On Question, Amendment No. 16 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Extinguishment of certain rights]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 19A:
Page 15, line 46, at beginning insert ("As from the day appointed by resolution of the Board in relation to any inland waterway ("the appointed day") but").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 19A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19B, 19C, 19J, 19K and 19L.
The main amendment in the group is Amendment No. 19L. It may be helpful at the outset to say what this amendment is not intended to do. It is not intended to prevent the British Waterways Board from acquiring and extinguishing those rights which may exist but which for one reason or another are not in current usage.
Clause 25(3) and (4) already protects the rights of those who have continued to exercise them on a regular basis. The problem of rights which people may have which have not been continuously used is that the British Waterways Board does not know who those people are and was apparently unwilling to find out. It is far easier to have a clause in a parliamentary Bill which sweeps them all away without the knowledge of most of the people concerned and without any compensational right of hearing.
The Country Landowners' Association, the Scottish Landowners' Federation, the National Farmers Union, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and others did not believe that that was acceptable. It cannot be right in principle for there to be expropriation of those rights without any notice whatever to the individuals concerned. Further, it cannot be right in principle for the expropriation of those rights without compensation. Standing Order 13, which applies to Private Bills, clearly states that promoters of a Bill have an obligation to serve notice on those whose rights are to be acquired.
We are not trying to prevent the board from achieving its purpose. We are asking it to take a little longer about it and to make sure that it does not unilaterally remove genuine existing rights without notice or the knowledge of the people concerned and that, where appropriate, compensation is paid. As I have already said, the amendment does not attack the principle of Clause 25, but merely ensures that the persons affected by it will be treated equitably. The registration process will be advertised by newspaper circulation in England, Wales and Scotland and by the service of notices on local authorities which include parish councils.
I must emphasise that the registration of a claimed right would not determine its validity. Registration ensures that the British Waterways Board will have certainty as to who claims what rights, and anyone who fails to register would have lost the opportunity to establish those rights. After registration the British Waterways Board would at any time be able to extinguish the rights registered where the board agrees that they are valid six months after the service of a notice. It would be obliged to compensate for the extinguishment of registered rights and any dispute on the amount of compensation will be determined by the Lands Tribunal.
There has been very considerable discussion on the vexed subject of the extinguishment of rights. I originally tabled an amendment that the board should
950
allow a period of three years during which those owners or occupiers could register a claim to retain a right which they believed to be theirs. Representations were made to me that three years was too long and that dealing with the whole area of the British Waterways Board could involve an unnecessary bureaucracy. The present amendment is therefore tabled, with the agreement of the British Waterways Board, to limit the period of registration to one year and the notice of extinguishment to a further period of six months. It is also proposed that the extinguishment should be dealt with canal by canal by individual notice of intent. That will enable better information of the board's intention and a better opportunity for various owners' and occupiers' organisations to alert their members to what is happening.
The registration of a claim does not signify that a right exists. That would be a matter for negotiation between the claimant and the board. It also provides for the payment of compensation by the board where an agreed right is to be extinguished. I believe that to be an admirable compromise worked out after long discussions between the parties concerned and I commend it to the House.
Before moving the amendment formally I would like to pay tribute to the long hours of discussion and negotiation in which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has participated and in particular to the part which he has played in bringing so many agreed amendments before your Lordships' House. I thank the noble Earl for his unfailing courtesy during these discussions. I hope we reach a situation in which we send an improved Bill to another place. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, Clause 25 of the Bill was an area of intense discussion before the Select Committee. It might be helpful to your Lordships if I summarise very briefly the effect of that clause as it now stands and then say a brief word about the amendment which I support. The object of Clause 25 is to extinguish riparian rights which are thought to be obsolete but whose theoretical existence may hamper British Waterways in its management of the canal system. The clause affects only rights created by a local Act more than 90 years ago in favour of riparian owners.
Put shortly, three types of rights are involved: first, the right to construct works adjacent to an inland waterway, for example, roads, mooring places and bridges; secondly, the right to drain water into or extract it from a waterway; and, thirdly, fishing and boating rights. Such ancient rights are, however, preserved by the Bill in four cases. The first is works in existence when the new Act is passed; secondly, rights to drain or extract water exercised before the new Act is passed; thirdly, fishing rights beneficially vested in someone when the Act is passed as distinct from fishing rights outstanding in some long-forgotten personal representatives; and, fourthly, rights which were originally created in favour of named persons or specifically identified land. What the proposed amendment does is to create a fifth exception; namely, rights which would otherwise be extinguished but have

951
been duly registered. These rights, which may be registered, will mostly be rights originally created in favour of riparian landowners generally without specifically naming the landowner or designating the land. So riparian owners will be protected if, put briefly, the rights have been exercised, or were created in favour of named persons or land, or, in the case of fishing rights, are beneficially owned when the Act is passed, or are registered.
I should now like to speak briefly about Amendments Nos. 19D and 19H in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNair. I see no virtue in excluding from the clause navigable cuts, wharves, quays and landing places. These will be saved from extinguishment if they are in existence or if the right was granted in favour of a named person or named land, or if registered. There are precedents with this type of extinguishment: the British Railways Act 1968, extinguishing rights in the site of abandoned railway lines and the commons Act extinguishing common rights if not registered. I suggest to your Lordships that it would be right to accept the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, but not, I respectfully suggest, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNair.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I should like briefly to say that I hope this amendment will be accepted; it is certainly an improvement. However, I have one anxiety; that to get rights registered the applicant could get involved in considerable expense. The British Waterways Board is likely to object to a registration if there is any doubt whatever. Merely to get one's right recorded, whether or not it is intended to use it at the present time, could involve one in substantial expenditure.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I should like to make clear that the board has given a great deal of consideration to this issue since it was very carefully examined by the Select Committee headed by the noble and learned Lord. The board has authorised me to make absolutely clear that it accepts that compensation should be paid to those who can establish a proper entitlement to these rights in cases where the board may wish to extinguish them.
This amendment is on agreed lines and has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. I am grateful for the terms in which he moved it with the full support of the board. The British Waterways Board has settled the procedure for the registration of rights by those who wish to claim or exercise them with the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners' Association.
I understand that the period of one year which the procedure will allow for that purpose is considered by those concerned to be fair and reasonable. The board's ability to deal with those rights which it feels ought to be extinguished, on a canal by canal basis or otherwise, in tranches, will be to the advantage of all concerned. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, with the way in which he has pursued this matter with persistence but with great politeness.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to correct, with great respect, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burton. Under subsection (14) on page 11 of the Bill your Lordships will see that registration,
"of a claim to exercise a right under a provision to which this section applies shall not be evidence that the claim has any validity; and nothing in subsections (6) to (13) above shall prevent the Board from challenging in any way whatsoever the validity of any such claim".
Therefore the board can let a supposed right go on to the register without any qualms whatever.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that information.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the implication of that is very worrying because the noble and learned Lord referred to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, which are not, as I understand it, grouped with these amendments but which have now been debated. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, is seeking to exclude certain types of waterside activity. It was suggested by the noble and learned Lord in his first intervention that he need not worry about doing that because they could be registered. What the noble and learned Lord is now telling the House is that registration does not mean very much because, although it has no power to prevent registration, the board has powers to contest the validity of the claim in any way. I do not see how the two fit together.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I do not know whether I am confused or not, but I had understood that Amendments Nos. 19D to 19H had not yet been moved. The purpose of my rising on this particular point was that it seemed to me that there was no need to exclude from Clause 25 wharves, quays, landing places and navigable cuts because they can go on the register. If they are on the register, the claimant has the right to establish their validity. The effect of registration is not to confer validity but to give a right to claim validity. If one is not on the register, one does not have the right to claim validity. It is exactly comparable, as I understand it, with the position under the commons Act.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention. The period of one year is believed to be perfectly adequate because it is felt that anyone who has not bothered to register within one year either does not have very much to register or will not do so in any case. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his help with this amendment. I commend it to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendments Nos. 19B and 19C:
Page 15, line 46, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(14)").
Page 15, line 49, leave out ("any inland") and insert ("that").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 19D:
Page 16, line 1, leave out ("tramroads or navigable cuts") and insert ("or tramroads").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 19E to 19H and Amendment No. 19M. Before doing so, I think there is a wealth of possibilities, mostly for the legal profession, in the words that the noble and learned Lord used when he said that someone registering a right had the right to establish that right. I happen to know that British Waterways will challenge any right that it so chooses —I guess that it will he most of them—and that anyone registering a right will be confronted with a legal battle. The contest is not about whether the right remains but about compensation for the loss of the right. While some wealthy landowners might relish a little light legal skirmishing, it could be a very serious matter for some of the small businesses—the independent service providers—with which I have discussed this matter.
It may be helpful if at this stage I briefly review the history of the rights the board intends to extinguish. The original Acts for the construction of the canals gave owners of the land adjoining the new canal the right to construct wharves and mooring places, and so on, which could be used without payment to the canal company. That was to encourage the use of the canal and excluded tolls—or, in today's terms, licence fees —which the company could, and which the British Waterways Board now does, charge. I believe that all those rights are still alive and extant today. Many boatyards on these old sites are still using the rights which save them from paying British Waterways a great deal of money and makes their businesses, perhaps, a little more profitable—although many of those businesses are not particularly profitable—and their sites correspondingly more valuable.
The British Marine Industries Federation believes, but cannot be sure without going to court, that new marinas built today could also own those rights. British Waterways naturally says that they cannot and charges marinas a fee, which might be illegal. The strongest evidence is that the rights exist and are valuable. I think that that is borne out by the vigour with which British Waterways has tried to extinguish them. I want things to be left as they are, pending resolution of this issue. That is why I should like all references to boatyard type facilities removed from the Bill.
It was during a meeting yesterday that the board's solicitor, Mr. Duffy, stated that any rights that were registered would immediately be challenged. I find the board's attitude morally reprehensible and would greatly prefer to see Clause 25 deleted, at least until the legal situation has been properly tested.
I should point out that the concessions made by the board to date on the matter are, in the case of many small businesses which cannot afford further legal entanglements than many of them already have with British Waterways, largely illusory. However, I shall not press the matter to a Division. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord is, as I think he is, speaking to the clause generally, I believe that he has raised matters which
954
give rise to a great deal of anxiety. What he says about the stated intention of the British Waterways Board to oppose any applications of a certain type makes me repeat my worry at what the noble and learned Lord said when speaking to the previous group of amendments.
If all this means is the power to establish a claim and it implies no restriction whatever on the power of the board to oppose that claim or challenge its validity, then it could be an illusory power. It could be that those who feel that they have a claim would be deterred from making that claim because they fear that if they seek to pursue a claim the British Waterways Board, with its greater financial resources and legal representation, would be able to cause them very substantial costs.
I wonder whether we have, as yet, got to the bottom of the matter. I also wonder whether the very widespread power to extinguish ancient rights which is implied in the clause has been adequately examined. I read the committee's report with great care and great respect but did not find myself in agreement with the conclusion. I do not think that this is a matter that should go forward into legislation in this form.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am glad to support Amendments Nos. 19D and 19H which were moved by the noble Lord, Lord McNair. These are the preferred amendments of the boating authorities, but in view of what my noble and learned friend has said I think that those authorities would like to have another look at this question. Perhaps in discussions with the promoters we can see whether these amendments could be meshed in in some way with the ones tabled by my noble friend Lord Cornwallis to which we have just agreed. Another place could perhaps better deal with this matter.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, spoke also to Amendment No. 19M as well as to those in this group. Amendment No. 19M goes rather further than the other amendments because it removes Clause 25 entirely and for that reason I support him. I say that for the following reasons. In drafting legislation it is customary to draw up a Bill with certain clear and defensible purposes and then to throw in a bombshell, which is normally described as "miscellaneous", although not in this case.
As I understand it, the main thrust of the Bill is to allow the British Waterways Board to enter land for the purposes of repair and maintenance. Those are the general, defensible and admirable powers that the board seeks. Although we have sought to end those powers on the perimeter, we have accepted the generality of the board's right to seek powers to do such things. However, in Clause 25 we find that, in addition to doing sensible things such as looking after the canal or the waterways and keeping them in decent maintenance and repair, rights that people have had conferred upon them by Parliament - by this House and by another place - are to be taken away. Sometimes people have had those rights for a long time - I dare say that some date back as far the first canal legislation in the 18th century. I do not see that

955
it is proper to utilise a Bill of this nature, which deals with maintenance and repair and other sensible things, to take away people's rights. In that respect, I support the noble Lord, Lord McNair, especially in Amendment No. 19M.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howie, talks with great emotion about the taking away of people's rights, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is concerned about the extinguishment of rights that belong to individuals, but he seems to have forgotten that we are talking about rights which have not been exercised for over 90 years and which were not created for the benefit of any specific land or person. When one bears that in mind, it may well be found that the emotion that has been expressed is not apposite to this amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, could elucidate a little further on this. I understood him to say that there would be no question of objecting to the registration and that the only time an objection would arise would be when one wanted to implement whatever it happened to be. Therefore, the British Waterways Board would not challenge an actual registration. I am not sure whether that is correct.
The other point raised was in relation to the extinguishment of ancient rights. Circumstances change. I understand that a marked change has arisen where a piece of land has become available for development. It is worth a substantial sum of money, but to reach it one has to cross a canal. To do that one would have to exercise a right to build a bridge. Until now no one has wanted to build a bridge. A worry exists but, on the other hand, the problem may be overcome with registration, provided that each and every registration is not challenged.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I do not know whether I can help the noble Lord. Under subsection (10) on page 10 of the Marshalled List the board registers any claim to exercise a right. That is what goes on the register; but it goes onto the register on the basis that, if and when the person registering wishes to enforce that right, he will have to ascertain whether the board accepts it. The board may accept the right, in which case it can be exercised. The board is entitled to challenge the validity of the right. To avoid unnecessary litigation, I should have thought that it was right for the amendment to be in the form of registering the claim to the right because then everything is in the open. If the time comes for the right to be registered, then it can be agreed between the board and the claimant that the right is valid; or, alternatively, if the board thinks the claim is a bad one it is entitled to challenge it. That is the system. It is the system, so far as I can remember, which works under the commons legislation, and at the moment I see no objection to it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord would wish the record to say, "when the time comes for the right to be exercised" rather than "for the right to be registered".
Lord Brightman: My Lords, the validity of the right can be tested when the right comes to be exercised. I expect that it can be settled earlier. I do not know, because there are no procedural regulations about it. But it is right to say that the validity of the right will fall to be decided, at latest, when it comes to be exercised.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we must come to a conclusion fairly soon. I wish only to add my penn'orth to the conversation and say, first, that the amendments which we know will be accepted are a considerable advance on the position in which we were earlier. That should be recognised with gratitude. I should like to say now—I forgot to say it in connection with my amendment—how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for his conduct of this matter. I also thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for smoothing the way for a great many amendments.
One is supposed to declare an interest, and I have a vestigial interest, being lord of a manor along the edge of which a canal flows. It may be presumed that I may have some as yet unextinguished rights. I have no idea what they are. It seems to me that the safeguards are addressed largely to people in my position. I regard myself as satisfied with where we are now. I hope that the advances made will not be prejudiced by trying to achieve these amendments rather than those that will be accepted.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, accused me of emotion, which is most unusual. I think that he said that we were dealing with rights, some of which had not been exercised for 90 years. I did not see that in the Bill but he may well be right. Is he trying to tell us that the board will not extinguish any rights which have been used with the past 90 years? If he is not telling us that, there was little point in what he said.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I am certainly not trying to tell the House that. I am saying that the board has negotiated with interested people over the past few weeks and has reached an accommodation on registration. Rights will be extinguished if they have not been exercised for over 90 years, as I mentioned earlier, and if they were—
Lord Elton: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, it is late at night and we are not at Committee stage, we are in proceedings after Third Reading. It is customary that each of us should speak only once. I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord, but perhaps he may feel he has done enough.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I was directly asked what my views were.
Lord Howie of Troon: It was my fault!
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: In that case, I shall not reply except to say that the rights are not extinguished; the right to register is there because of the negotiations which have taken place.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I have not yet spoken on this series of amendments, so perhaps I may make three points briefly. First, I wish to associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Elton said. A considerable advance has been made since the matter was considered in the Select Committee. We owe that in large part to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis.
Secondly, I was concerned to hear what was said about the attitude of the board. I believe it has been misstated. Yes, the board will have the right to challenge a right when it has been registered, but there is no question of automatic challenge. It would wish to investigate it but there is no question of automatically challenging each and every right that has been registered. I speak with the authority of the board on that.
Thirdly, I feel strongly that we are in deep legal water here. Accepting that advance has been made, that does not mean that the matter could not be looked at further in another place. I believe that that could well be the right course to pursue.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I shall not detain the House much longer; we have already been speaking on the amendments for 18 minutes. I have to say, however, that the noble Earl has unwittingly illustrated one of the major problems which has been apparent since before the Bill appeared. It is the problem that independent service providers have had in their dealings with the British Waterways Board. The board is quite able and likely to say one thing to the noble Earl and another face to face with its customers. That may seem contentious but it has been asserted to me by so many different people in so many different ways that I am sure it is true.
We are not talking here about people who happen to be lord of a manor and who suddenly pop up and say, "In 1800 I had a right to do this or that". The British Waterways Board is not bothered with those rights. What it is bothered with is people who have worked hard for 20 or 30 years to develop a modest business. Part of the value and profit of the business is based on the fact that they do not have to pay large sums to the board.
The board is in a difficult financial situation. It has been told, "Do whatever you can to reduce the government grant". This is one of the things it is doing or attempting to do to reduce its dependence on the Treasury. It wants to be able to charge people for the rights they now have. I shall not press the amendments, but I am glad that we have had this debate and that the comments I have just made are on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19E to 19H not moved.]
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 19J:
Page 16, line 13, leave out ("any") and insert ("that").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 19K:
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("on the date of the passing of this Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 19L:
Page 16, line 42, at end insert
("(6) Nothing in subsection (2) above shall affect any right under any provision to which this section applies relating to an inland waterway in respect of which any resolution has been passed under subsection (1) above, if a claim with respect to that right has been registered under subsection (10) below on an application made in accordance with subsection (11) below within a period of one year beginning with the day appointed as the appointed day in relation to that waterway.
(7) The Board shall maintain at their principal place of business for the time being a register for the purposes of registering under subsection (10) below any claim to exercise a right such as is referred to in subsection (6) above, and that register shall be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable times.
(8) As soon as reasonably practicable after they pass any resolution under subsection (1) above the Board shall—

(a) publish the required notice in the London Gazette (if the waterway is situated in England or Wales) or in the Edinburgh Gazette (if the waterway is situated in Scotland) and, in addition, in at least one newspaper circulated in the area where the waterway is situated, and

(b) serve a copy of the required notice together with a copy of this section on every local authority in whose area any portion of the inland waterway specified in the resolution is situated

(9) In subsection (8) above—

(a) the required notice is a notice which—

(i) identifies the inland waterway specified in the resolution passed under subsection (2) above;

(ii) states that the Board is required by subsection (7) above to maintain a register of any claim in relation to that waterway in respect of which an application has been made in accordance with subsection (11) below;

(iii) names the place where the register can be inspected by the public at all reasonable times; and

(iv) sets out a concise summary of the provisions of this section; and

(b) "local authority" means, in England and Wales, the council of a county, district, London borough, parish or community and, in Scotland, a regional council, an islands council and a district council.

(10) The Board shall, on an application made in accordance with subsection (II) below, register any claim to exercise a right such as is referred to in subsection (7) above.
(11) An application for registration under subsection (10) above of a claim to exercise such a right—

(a) may be made to the Board by any person claiming to be entitled to exercise the right; and

(b) shall specify the right to be registered and the name and address of the applicant;

and the provisions of section 17 of the Act of 1983 shall apply to any such application as they apply to any notice authorised to be served under the Act.
(12) The Board may at any time in the case of a right in respect of which a claim has been registered under subsection (10) above serve on the person who registered the claim or on any person whom they, after reasonable enquiry, know or believe to be his successor in title a written notice—

(a) stating that the right will be extinguished by virtue of this subsection on a date specified in the notice (being a date no earlier than six months after the date of the notice), and

(b) explaining the effect of subsection (13) below; and thereupon the right shall be extinguished on the date specified in the notice but the Board may only extinguish under this subsection a right which would, but for subsection (6) above, have been extinguished by virtue of subsection (2) above.

959
(13) Where a right is extinguished under subsection (12) above, the Board shall pay compensation to any person entitled to exercise the right if a claim in respect of that right has been duly registered under subsection (10) above (whether by him or by any predecessor in title); and, in default of agreement, the amount of any such compensation shall be determined by the tribunal.
(14) The registration under subsection (10) above of a claim to exercise a right under a provision to which this section applies shall not be evidence that the claim has any validity; and nothing in subsections (6) to (13) above shall prevent the Board from challenging in any way whatsoever the validity of any such claim.
(15) For the purposes of this section "inland waterway" includes a part of an inland waterway.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19M not moved.]
Clause 26 [Power to appropriate parts of docks]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Application to Scotland]:
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe moved Amendment No. 20A:
Page 18, line 44, at beginning insert ("(1) Subject to subsection (2) below,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Earl Jellicoe Earl Jellicoe moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 18, line 44, at end insert
("(2) Nothing in this Act shall apply to Loch Lochy, Loch Oich, Loch Ness or Loch Dochfour, the boundaries of which are shown edged in red on the plan marked "The Scottish Lochs", of which five copies have been signed on behalf of the Board by Richard Jeremy Duffy, the Solicitor and Secretary to the Board, and on behalf of the Highland Regional Council by Ronald Harley Stevenson, the Chief Executive of the said Council, and deposited respectively in—

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

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

(c) the Department of the Environment;

(d) the principal office of the Board; and

(e) the office of the Chief Executive of the Highland Regional Council.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.54 p.m.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
The Bill has had a long and rather arduous journey through your Lordships' House. I must confess that that journey has been far longer and more arduous than I thought when in an unguarded moment I agreed to take the Bill on board. It had its Second Reading a year ago. The Select Committee sessions were long and intensive. There were over 600 pages of evidence and submissions. Following our rather bizarre Third Reading, there has been a great deal of intensive consultation leading to some important amendments being drawn up.
I shall not go over the ground traversed this evening at any length but I wish to comment on three areas. First, I wish to comment on the recognition—that was due in large part to the persuasive abilities of my noble friend Lord Burton —of the special position of the four locks along the Caledonian Canal. I believe the amendments on that matter are an important series of amendments and I wish once again to acknowledge
960
the contribution of all concerned. I acknowledge the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, by the Highland Regional Council, which has put itself to a great deal of trouble and effort and, if I may say so sotto voce, by the British Waterways Board. All those parties have made a contribution to at least the partial solution of what I might term the Burton question.
Further, there is the important amendment which we have just been discussing on the extinguishment of rights. I do not think I need add to what has been said on that. Last but by no means least there have been the amendments concerned with entry. They bear the signature of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis.
On the question of entry I should like to make the following brief comments, and I do so with the authority of the, board. Except in emergencies the board will always try to negotiate rights of entry by private treaty before it exercises those powers for the purposes of undertaking repairs and maintenance on the waterways. I am glad to add that it has been agreed with the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners' Association that a period of 28 days should be allowed for that purpose. Thereafter, if the parties have not agreed terms the formal procedures under the provisions of the Bill may then be followed. The board is determined —and I have heard the criticisms which have been made—to cultivate the best of possible terms with its neighbours and regards that arrangement as an example of the proper regulation between neighbours of their affairs.
For those reasons all the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, to Part II of the Bill have the support of the board, which, in addition, has prepared a model code of practice for the exercise of its powers of entry on land. That code of practice addresses itself to the detail of what will happen in the exercise of those powers when conferred by Parliament so that farmers, landowners and others will know what to expect of the board and how their interests will be protected.
In conclusion, I should like to thank warmly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, all the members of his Select Committee and all those who have taken part in these debates and in our less public consultations. In that context, I have very much in mind my noble friends Lord Kinnoull and Lord Elton and the noble Baroness, Lady White. By the same token it would be wrong of me not to express my gratitude to all the many interested organisations, not least the BWB, which have played so constructive a part in our rather last minute but I believe useful and intensive process of consultation.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I do not think that I have ever before sat through such a lengthy and unusual discussion in your Lordships' House. On the whole it reflects credit on the House of Lords, although it is a matter to which I think the Chairman of Committees might pay some attention, particularly in relation to the failure to deal with some of the important issues at an earlier stage. That is why your Lordships can be pleased with the way we have dealt with the Bill.

961
Nonetheless there are a number of questions which have not been fully answered. Much depends on the way in which the British Waterways Board conducts its activities, particularly in relation to the amendments which have just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord McNair. I have studied the Bill closely to see whether it would be possible to lay an obligation on the British Waterways Board always to behave in an acceptable fashion. Indeed, the Government have said that nationalised industries should behave in the same way as a private citizen. However, I know of cases in which they have not.
I should like to refer to one example which has come to my attention, namely that of an individual who entered into negotiations with the British Waterways Board to acquire a property to develop as a boatyard. He happens to be a trained engineer and fully qualified to do so. He reached agreement with the board but he was gazumped. I wrote to the chairman of the British Waterways Board, who replied very courteously and made clear that it was his duty to obtain the maximum amount of money possible and therefore he could not refuse the opportunity of a better return. Indeed, he was willing to put the matter out to auction. I think that that is unacceptable. Furthermore, in Scotland it would not be legal because in Scotland an agreement which has been reached but which is not the subject of a contract may still be binding. In the case I mentioned there was no contract. Therefore the individual had all the expense. He raised the money for the purchase and is now being charged for undoing the work that he had already done. I can only say that I find that unacceptable behaviour.
I do not doubt that the British Waterways Board felt that it was its duty to do what it did and that it should not turn down the opportunity of getting good money. It may even have consulted the Government about it. But I believe that it is undesirable and I should have thought that most noble Lords, seeing gazumping in that way, would say if an individual had done it that he was not a gentleman.
There was an occasion when somebody offered me more money for a small bit of land, but I had already accepted an offer. It did not occur to me not to stand by my agreement. I am sure that that applies to all your Lordships. I believe that it is undesirable that the British Waterways Board can do so and get away with it.
It may be a matter of amending the law generally but it is relevant to some of the issues that we have been discussing quite recently, especially the points of the noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord McNair. I expect that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, did not realise what he was taking on when he accepted this responsibility. I should like to congratulate him on steering it through. I believe that it is a matter to which some attention should be paid by the British Waterways Board.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I return to the point at which I started in March last year, when I described the attitude of the British Waterways Board as somewhat cavalier. We come now to this stage of
962
the Bill—as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said —in a most bizarre way, which I hope will not be repeated on other occasions.
I put the blame quite firmly not at the feet of our procedures but at the feet of the British Waterways Board. I have watched and taken part in a number of discussions since March last year. I have been very upset, to say the least, at the grudging manner in which officials of that board have dealt with the many objections and points put to them. There is little doubt that some of the objectors have come a little late into the game and, as I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said earlier, it might have been better had some of the points been the subject of petition. Petitioners can petition without incurring the expense of counsel. They can just stand in front of the committee and make their points, to which the committee is bound to give full and proper consideration.
That does not mean to say that I do not have admiration for the noble and learned Lord's chairmanship and conduct of the committee, which has done a splendid job. The report, which is now increasingly being used as a vehicle to advise your Lordships, still leaves some matters undone. Over the past few days I have watched the British Waterways Board back down in the face of much opposition to its proposals from my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, and others. It is quite reprehensible that the board should wait until that time to give way and that we are here at this hour in a most extraordinary piece of procedure, the like of which I cannot remember in many years in your Lordships' House. I blame it upon the board.
I have one other small point to raise; namely, the question of appeals. At Second Reading, in presenting the Bill to your Lordships, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe drew attention to the question of a moratorium for five years in the case of resident houseboat owners. It is the subject of paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Select Committee's report. If your Lordships consider those paragraphs you will see that there had to be a good deal of weaselling at the end of which the board accepted that there should be some arbitration panel.
When my noble friend Lord Jellicoe wound up at Second Reading, he gave me an assurance in response to my comment in that debate about an appeals procedure. That assurance is in Hansard. It is late; I shall not quote it. I know that my noble friend will accept that it is in the report of his winding up speech in March last year. But nothing has been done by way of an appeals procedure. At the end of the moratorium there is nothing whatever. There is no provision for a residential houseboat owner to appeal. I believe that that denies the outwardness, the openness, of the board's actions. I am bitterly disappointed.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Jellicoe that thanks are due to many people. I wish to associate myself with those thanks. However, as to the generosity of the board, it is a thin gruel that it has produced for us to sup tonight.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would be impertinent of me—I have done no work on the Bill —to intervene again on the merits of any aspect of it. I am conscious that my intervention has been only at Second Reading and tonight, and that a great deal of work by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the committee and many other noble Lords, including notably the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has contributed to consideration of the Bill.
I rise on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, only to say that on this occasion we have stretched Private Bill procedure to the very limit of its validity. I question whether it is possible for a Bill with so many controversial matters to go through Private Bill procedure. It must lead us to think again and to reinforce the doubts that have already been expressed about Private Bill procedure in Parliament. I cannot believe that it is in the interests of Parliament that we should go through this amount of work and end up with a Bill that still requires substantial further consideration in another place.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I must declare an interest in the matter. I am Vice President of the Inland Waterways Association. It is, I suppose, the largest group of people who use the inland waterways for recreation purposes. I have cruised them extensively, although at this time my boat is based in Europe.
I wish to congratulate, as others have done, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and his committee on its work. It has been a Herculean task. The committee was most fortunate to have someone of the nature and temperament of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in the chair. The whole waterways business has benefited much from his leadership and the committee's work.
The Inland Waterways Association was advised not to petition the House in the hope that the Bill would be changed to its satisfaction in this Chamber. The association is a leading organisation in this field. It was formed by the late Robert Aickman in 1946 to promote the retention, restoration and use of the inland waterways of England and Wales.
Members of your Lordships' House were sufficiently convinced of the undesirable nature of the Bill, as drafted, to meet representatives of British Waterways about it. They were convinced that users would suffer. They believed that if the British Waterways Board was not prepared to get the main outstanding issues right in this House, it did not deserve to achieve the Bill.
I am pleased to say that the board was prepared to move its stance on a number of issues. I congratulate those noble Lords who were involved and the representatives of British Waterways for the way forward that they have indicated. They have saved the rest of us a great deal of work today.
I must pay a heartfelt tribute to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe on behalf of all the people who use the waterways for pleasure. He has worked incredibly hard not only during the past few days but for weeks to achieve a reasonable situation. That has not been easy for him. We owe him a great debt of gratitude
964
and we shall always remember what he has done. My noble friend has brought us to a reasonable situation so that we can get on.
The association has always said that it agreed some parts of the Bill to be necessary in order for the board to manage its system properly, in particular the new power that it is seeking to give immediate access to waterside land in cases of emergency. The association fully understands the need for the power and supports the granting of the power to British Waterways. Nevertheless, the association is greatly concerned that the Bill does not give enough prominence to navigation, which is very much its business. In its view, the waterways in the board's care are fundamentally man-made features created for the purpose of navigation. Their beauty, wildlife, archaeological interest and recreational value are dependent on their management in a broadly traditional way, with navigation as an essential element. One should point out that this is the only form of transport whose use positively improves the track. The deep water maintenance boats of British Waterways, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, do by their very use greatly improve the waterways. In fact, all movement of boats on waterways do positive good and not harm; that is, unless people are idiotic enough to drive them too fast. and I hope that if they do they will be dealt with accordingly.
In a number of areas the powers which would be conferred by the Bill are still excessive for their reasonable purposes and are sometimes inappropriate to the problem. They do not provide for consultation and appeal where such provisions are clearly necessary for the prevention of unreasonable interference with the liberty of the individual. The association, therefore, will be petitioning in another place to give elected representatives an opportunity to put these matters right.
There is widespread and deep anxiety among Inland Waterways Association members that, despite the real improvements in many aspects of their work in recent years, the board is currently excessively concerned with increasing revenue and reducing expenditure. That misdirection of effort is currently seen in reduced maintenance of remainder waterways —as your Lordships have heard, they are those which were so desecrated in the 1968 Act—in attempts to sell waterways under restoration, in excessive increases in some fees and charges, and in disproportionate use of time by middle management in seeking new and often inappropriate sources of revenue.
It is widely feared that the Bill in its present form will reinforce those undesirable trends. In particular, British Waterways has recently announced auctions of property in Humberside and in the South East.
The association is anxious that, despite protestations to the contrary from the board, parts of the waterway heritage have been sold off; for example, lock cottages and other historical waterway buildings. That process will continue unless steps are taken.
Owing to the pressure of time, it will obviously be more appropriate for those steps to be taken in

965
another place later this year in a new Parliament. Of course this Bill can carry over into a new Parliament because for this purpose dissolutions do not matter.
In addition, some buildings which are not of great interest are being sold for a quick monetary return at a time when the property market is heavily depressed. If the British Waterways Board is so starved of funds that it cannot keep those properties and obtain a continuing rent from them, it should at least wait until there is a chance of achieving a better market price. There are some indications that British Waterways may become more open. If that is so, that is to the good. I cannot emphasise too strongly that if it had consulted the Inland Waterways Association and other waterway interests before promoting the Bill, it would have had an opportunity to amend it to everyone's satisfaction before it was published, thus saving the taxpayer a great deal of money. Your Lordships will know well that it always pays to roll the pitch.
On the whole there have been good relations since the dissolution of the British Transport Commission. When the Minister of Transport, Mr. Ernest Marples, decided to create the British Waterways Board in 1962 the work was carried out by the Government and those of us who were trying to get things done throughout the late 1950s. It fell to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, then Mrs. Barbara Castle, Minister of Transport, to put the arrangements in legislative order. An entirely new atmosphere came into being.
The British Waterways Board was created under its chairman, Sir John Horton, who had the task of taking over a thoroughly run-down organisation. Our confidence in him and his ability to raise the low morale at the time was thoroughly justified. Before he retired we saw the board much as we see it today. I should not like to think that, after such a long period of good, a substantial error may be made today. I speak with 30 years' experience of our inland waterways system.
I am sure that when the Bill reaches another place there will be those who make the final adjustments to put it right, as I am sure the board will do itself, given time to consider what I have said and, indeed, what others have said better than I could this evening.
As the House knows, I do not very often take up its time, but as this has always been my subject I felt it right to join in the debate this evening. I see that the Chief Opposition Whip does not altogether agree with me but I cannot help that.
We must remember that our waterways are a great national park which take up no room at all. They are a great asset to the country which people are enjoying in ever larger numbers. Those who know anything about canals will know that what was done in the 1960s has been of enormous benefit to the users of our system.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I promise to be brief. I thank your Lordships for the kind words spoken about the work of the committee.
966
As regards consolidation, there is an urgent need to consolidate the various Acts of Parliament which define the rights and duties of the British Waterways Board. As the committee said in its report, legislation concerning British Waterways has developed piecemeal over the past three decades resulting in a confusing web of provisions. There was a total of seven Acts of Parliament passed between 1954 and 1983 which govern the activities of the board, often in minute detail. Now there will be eight. That is not a satisfactory situation.
Waterway users are not people who have ready access to lawyers. There were 19 petitions against the Bill and not one of the petitioners who ultimately appeared before us was represented by a solicitor or counsel. If this Bill is to receive the approval of Parliament it should be on the clear understanding that the next Bill which comes, promoted by the British Waterways Board, will be consolidated to put together a multitude of enactments in some readable form.
As regards public relations, there is no doubt at all in my opinion that relations between the board and its customers, the river and canal users, are not universally good. That was clearly evident to the committee in the course of its hearings. I do not seek to attribute blame. What is needed is some central department to which waterway users can take their complaints if they cannot get satisfaction locally. There will be some need for finance but in my opinion it will be money well spent. That is dealt with in paragraph 54 of our report.
I wonder whether this saga should be looked at by those who are concerned with the business of this House. Is it right that your Lordships should be inflicted with some 47 possibly hostile amendments at this stage in the passage of the Bill? Ought not protestors to petition in the usual way so that your Lordships have the benefit of the Select Committee's opinion reached after evidence has been received and probed?
I should like to pay tribute to the great assistance given to the committee by the 14 petitioners who ultimately appeared before us. The hearings were a sterling effort on the part of the petitioners who in many cases took great trouble to back up their oral evidence with printed and illustrated texts. Although we did not always accept their representations, at least we were fully enabled to appreciate their points of view. I should also like to pay tribute to the assistance given to us by the committee's clerk who had the difficult, almost impossible, task of distilling a readable report out of a mass of detail. I believe that the Bill is as good as we can expect. I hope that it will have a fair wind in another place.
Baroness White: My Lords, in the circumstances I am not going to read out the speech that I have prepared. But there is one question which I wish to ask the Government Front Bench which arises from the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We have had great difficulty over the Bill processes in this particular example. As a House are we to have the opportunity to discuss the cognate Bill

967
which I believe has just completed its passage today in the other place? I believe it is the Transport and Works Bill. It purports to change the whole balance of a Private Member's Bill and the other ways of dealing with the kind of problem we have been discussing today. Is that Bill coming to this House and, if so, when?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall also be brief. I have played a very small part on this Bill. As I live many scores of miles from the manor that I mentioned earlier, my only interest is in the procedure which the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness have drawn to our attention. The fact is that the Bill came to Third Reading in a state which meant that there were sufficient of your Lordships who felt that it should not pass and put it in peril. The choice had then to be taken either magnanimously to try to put it right or petulantly to reject it. In the circumstances I believe that noble Lords were right to do as they did. With the noble and learned Lord and most other noble Lords, I believe that some means should be found of sweeping objections into committee and not allowing them to surface later. On this occasion the only comfort is that we are not the revising House and therefore the imperfections which are bound to result from this hasty procedure can be remedied.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I dealt in some detail with certain aspects of the Bill so I shall not go into those again. I begin by saying that my overall impression of the board's behaviour both during the passage of this Bill and in other respects is that it is not worthy of the custodian of such a large part of our national heritage. In his evidence to the Select Committee the board's chairman, Mr. David Ingman, made some significant remarks. He was,
"surprised by the potential that lies in the waterways".
Again, he said:
"and if I were to capture a sentence it would be to develop it into one of the most valuable environmental assets in the UK".
The word that startles me is "into". Surely the canal network is already a great environmental asset. In his next answer all is made very clear. One of his aims is to provide,
"an attractive setting for living and working".
In other words, a view of the canal, not a view from the canal. That is the crux of the matter.
I am sure that underlying the controversy and the bad relations which this Bill has caused and which existed before the Bill came into being is the clash of cultures between the board's top management, many of whom have been imported from industry, and those who own small businesses which provide services to those who own boats or want to hire them. Very few of these independent service providers have what many "proper business people" would consider a successful business. They probably have a small return on capital but an extremely satisfying lifestyle. That is what they want. The board's policy appears to downgrade the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council and consult individual user groups, a
968
technique otherwise known as divide and rule, as practised by a certain Roman emperor whose name I cannot remember.
During one such consultation two representatives of the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators visited Mr. Ingman at British Waterways' Little Venice office. I am told that he said to them that he was glad of an opportunity to consult and that he would start by explaining what he meant by consultation, which was that he talked and they listened. He proceeded to lecture his hapless audience of two people for more than an hour with the aid of a flip chart. This arrogance is found in countless contacts which British Waterways Board has with service providers. I have pages and pages detailing appalling abuse of power. In one case British Waterways tried to prevent the owner of a boatyard from obtaining planning permission to extend the kitchen of a pub he owned on the same site unless the owner repaired the canal wall on the opposite side of the canal, which he did not own and which was nothing to do with him.
Several reports concern the commercial manager of the north west region. One in particular concerns a company called Wixall Marine. There was a meeting at which four people were present. They have all sworn affidavits about the fact that the meeting took place and about what was decided at the meeting, apparently amicably. British Waterways Board denied that the meeting ever took place. That is very strange.
The process of downgrading IWAAC is not entirely separated from the fact that the board has already removed from that body one of its most vociferous critics. This person was referred to by the chairman of the IWA in these terms:
"That they chose to prosecute"—
for a protest withholding of dues—
"someone whose love and respect for the waterways is legendary is hardly likely to endear British Waterways to its customers".
I feel that a new position must be created of an ombudsman for the waterways. I also feel that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which suggested in its last report on the waterways that another report should be prepared—the last one was 1988—should have another look. Perhaps it is also time for the Environment Select Committee of the House of Commons to do the same. What I would really like to see is a Royal Commission on the inland waterways. There is obviously great scope for improvement in British Waterways' maintenance activities and I feel sure that opening up these activities to competitive tendering would make the most of available resources.
On that there are two specific points which I should like to raise. First—this is based on information I received today—when comparing costs with outside contractors I understand that British Waterways chooses to ignore its own labour costs, thus making any quotations it receives from outside contractors appear uncompetitive. Secondly, I understand that British Waterways engaged someone specifically to develop its competitive tendering activities. However, I also believe that this person is no longer with British Waterways. I am not sure why, but I hope that it will move in that direction. It is quite apparent that many

969
unsavoury things are going on. We need to find out exactly what they are before the service providers and the board can proceed in a spirit of constructive co-operation, which is what everyone would want.
There is a further issue regarding maintenance which concerns the disposal of waste. This is a neutral point but it is a nettle which must be grasped in order for maintenance to be carried out properly. British Waterways recently sold its Bull's Bridge maintenance depot to Tesco and then found that it needed another one but had not allowed sufficient funds for its creation. That is very strange and lacking in foresight. The problem is that tipping licences are now required for tipping dredging spoil. Tipping a largely clay sludge on the towpath, as the board's solicitor suggested to me the other day as the solution, is unlikely to endear British Waterways to walkers, boaters or anglers.
That brings me to one final point. British Waterways states that it should be able to capitalise its assets. Does it always try to get the best price for a property? This point has been raised before in our debate but I should like to be sure that, for example, property is not disposed of at a discount to board employees or anything of that kind.
I should like to endorse most of the congratulations and thanks expressed by other speakers and to apologise to the noble Earl if my comments have upset him. I assure him that there was nothing personal there.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene again but I shall do so only briefly. It is quite clear that a number of areas of concern still remain. I can only hope that these will be given due and careful consideration in another place. I should like to place on record my thanks to the noble Earl and to the board for the considerable movement they have made towards meeting the concerns of the boating authorities. As a result, the Bill has certainly been improved. Having said that, I am bound to say that the way in which the Bill has been handled—I bear no disrespect to the noble Earl in person—has to some extent, I fear, dented the trust previously placed in the board by the boating fraternity. That must be a matter for regret.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. I should also like to draw attention to the report of the House of Commons Environment Select Committee of July 1989 on the British Waterways Board. It stated:
"To proceed by agreement where sensitive local issues are involved is clearly the most desirable course and we recommend that the board should do so wherever possible".
I think that all those present must agree that that has not been complied with. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, referred to a meeting that it was alleged did not take place. I am pleased to say that the meeting we had in Spean Bridge which was widely attended was tape recorded. An allegation was thrown at us later on that a statement had not been made. We were able to produce the tape to show that it had been made.
There is enormous dissatisfaction with the management of the board. That has been unanimous from all those who have spoken tonight. The report of
970
the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, made an interesting point about having a central body for public relations. We used to have a committee which met in Inverness. It was obviously a long way away from board headquarters. All the people interested —local authority members, the owners of fishing boats and so on—could attend. We found that this was most useful. The chairman came from London and he was able to take straight back to the British Waterways Board what the committee had recommended. However, this has now been done away with. I do not know why. Perhaps it was not to the liking of the board that we should have a roundabout method like that.
Finally, perhaps I may make one suggestion for a way forward out of a part of this dilemma. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission reported on the board in 1987 and recommended that another report should be published in five years' time. That time falls due this spring. I have asked my noble friend the Minister kindly to let me know whether it is the intention that the commission makes a further report. She has told me that it is the intention to have one this summer. It produced some very good recommendations in its last report. Therefore, if we can have a further report on the board that may produce a way forward on this occasion.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, a few points were raised to which I think I should respond. The noble Baroness, Lady White, asked me about various policies with regard to future Bills. I cannot answer that this evening. But I shall draw the point she made to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, mentioned the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State must take into account the general fitness for serving on public bodies of people appointed to the council. I believe—
Lord McNair: My Lords, I trust that the noble Viscount will allow me to intervene. I have had sight of a letter in which it is alleged that a member of the legal department, or whatever it is called, of the board has said that it was out to prosecute the person because—
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I must point out to the noble Lord that he is out of order; indeed, he has already spoken once. Perhaps I may finish my point. I believe that the person to whom he was referring was a director of a company which was convicted of failure to pay the British Waterways Board licence fees. The Government cannot condone deliberate failure to pay charges that are legally due.
Many noble Lords this evening have mentioned the customer relations with the British Waterways Board. The Government are anxious that there should be good relationships between the board and the users of waterways—not only boaters but anglers, walkers, canoeists, nature watchers and all others. That is in accordance with the principles of the Citizen's

971
Charter. We hope that there will be good relationships between everyone. In conclusion, I trust that the Bill will now be able to proceed to another place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no desire to delay the House. But before the Minister sits down will he comment on the specific point that the Private Bill procedure is being stretched to or even beyond its limit if such major issues of public policy are introduced in Private Bills? That is what I want the Government to respond to.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can only say, as I said earlier, that I shall bring the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I think that it may be agreeable if at this comparatively late hour I were to confine my concluding narration to the following few words: I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
11.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans The Lord Bishop of St. Albans rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, it is with some temerity at this hour that I beg to move this Motion. As its short title suggests, the Measure contains provisions on a wide range of matters which are subject to the ecclesiastical law of the Church of England. Most of them are not controversial or even particularly exciting but they will be extremely useful in their own fields. I do not want to detain your Lordships by attempting to deal with them all. However, I feel that I owe it to the House to mention just a few of them. The provisions deal with such things as parochial registers and records of importance to historians and genealogists. They deal with the rights and responsibilities of the rector or vicar of a parish to look after and care for the funerals of his own parishioners if requested, even if the cemetery or crematorium lies outside the parish boundaries. The intention behind two of the clauses is to save unnecessary paperwork and thus unnecessary expense.
Clause 6 helps the Church of England to forge closer links with churches abroad. I am sure that at a time when all the Churches are trying to move towards greater unity, your Lordships will be pleased to hear that a good deal of effort is going into the work of improving relations with other Christian Churches in Europe as well as in this country.
I must say something to your Lordships' House about three clauses - Clauses 14 to 16 - relating to the appointment of deacons to various posts, which gave rise to a certain amount of concern among some members of the Synod and to some members of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I begin, however, by stressing that, although these clauses are controversial, there is nothing in the Synod's constitution or standing orders to prevent them forming part of the Measure or to make it in any way improper to include them. In practice, of course, the word "deacon" means "woman deacon", but I shall return to that in a moment.
The background to the provisions lies in Section 10 of the Act of Uniformity 1662, which is one of only two sections of that Act that are still in force. It does not relate to the Book of Common Prayer, but provides, in effect, that the holders of certain types of office in the Church must have been ordained as priests.
The first of the three clauses is Clause 14, which provides that, in spite of anything in Section 10 of the 1662 Act, deacons may be appointed as rural deans. The clause says it is
"for the avoidance of doubt",
and that is precisely what its purpose is. Some ecclesiastical lawyers take the view that it is already lawful to appoint deacons to the posts of rural or urban or area dean—as it is often called these days —and that Section 10 of the 1662 Act contains nothing to prevent it. Some experienced deacons have, in fact, been appointed as rural deans on that basis. On the other hand, some lawyers take a different view, and because of that apparent ambiguity it seemed desirable to clarify the legal position.
The office of rural dean is a responsible one, but the rural dean's role is essentially pastoral, and does not involve supervision or oversight of priests in the rural deanery or carrying out essentially priestly functions. According to Canon Law, the rural dean's main task is to report various matters to the bishop, such as illness or distress among the clergy, and there seems no real reason why this should not be done by an experienced deacon. While in the vast majority of cases, the clergy of a deanery will continue to prefer a beneficed incumbent to fulfil that role, it is not unknown for them to ask for a retired priest to take on this responsibility, especially when they are all hard-pressed with their own parish work. Where there are few retired clergy, as in my own diocese, I am frequently asked—because I always consult their wishes before making an appointment—if they can nominate a woman deacon from among their number. My answer has to be, "I don't know". With the help of Clause 14, I shall be able to say "Yes, it is perfectly permissible, if that is your wish."
Next comes Clause 15, which makes it possible to appoint a deacon who has been ordained for at least six years as a residentiary canon of a cathedral. This, too, represents a change in the law and, of course, the position of a residentiary canon is a senior one, but mature and experienced deacons are already able to and do hold senior posts in their dioceses, for example as Director of Ordinands, as Director of Education or

973
as Director of Social Responsibility. However, posts of that kind are quite often linked to cathedral canonries, partly for financial reasons and partly because it is desirable that these senior people in the diocese should have a spiritual home in the life of the mother church of the diocese, and where that happens at present deacons are excluded from the posts in question, which means that the best available person cannot necessarily be appointed.
So Clause 15 would open the way to the appointment of deacons both to residentiary canonries and to diocesan posts linked with them, and it would also ensure that, where it is thought desirable to appoint a deacon but the cathedral's constitution and statutes mirror the existing law, the cathedral will not need to go through the lengthy process of having its constitution and statutes amended. Nevertheless, the clause makes clear that deacons who are residentiary canons will not be entitled or required to perform exclusively priestly functions, such as celebrating the Holy Communion, and for that reason there can be no question of there being more than an occasional residentiary canon of a particular cathedral staff being a deacon as then there would not be sufficient staff of the cathedral to fulfil the basic sacramental duties at that place of worship.
Finally, Clause 16 deals with non-residentiary canons. The office of a non-residentiary canon is primarily an honorary one, and is normally intended to give some recognition to a clergyman who has played a significant part in the life of the Church in the diocese, so that will allow deacons who have had an effective ministry there for some time to be considered suitable persons to appoint. Most ecclesiastical lawyers consider that the 1662 Act does nothing to prevent a deacon holding that office, and several deacons have in fact been appointed as non-residentiary canons of various cathedrals where the statutes appear to allow it. However, the object of the clause is to set at rest the few doubts about the legal position which have been expressed, and to ensure, as in the case of residentiary canons, that where a cathedral's constitution and statutes stipulate that the non-residentiary canons must be priests—as against clerks in holy orders, which would allow deacons—the cathedral will not need to go through the wearisome process of getting them altered. Once again, the clause makes it absolutely clear that non-residentiary canons who are deacons would not be entitled or required to perform exclusively priestly functions.
Although the position may change in the future, it is well known that at present most male deacons regard their office as something of a stepping-stone to the priesthood. Because of that, the real relevance of the three clauses I have outlined is to women deacons. Some members of the Ecclesiastical Committee were concerned that the clauses appeared to be an attempt to edge towards the ordination of women to the priesthood by the back door, but I should like to assure your Lordships that that is not the case. The offices covered by the three clauses do not in themselves involve carrying out exclusively priestly functions, and their supporters in the Synod included some people who were opposed to the ordination of
974
women to the priesthood, but who thought it important to allow mature and experienced women clergy to progress to posts of responsibility in the Church which they could properly hold as deacons, rather than being left to feel that the only way forward for them in their ministry was to be ordained as priests.
It may seem somewhat surprising to some of your Lordships that a deacon would be able to hold those responsible posts but could not he an ordinary vicar or rector. To that I would say that the office of rector or vicar of a parish is one of the most honourable and important in the Church, because it involves the care of the souls of the parishioners entrusted to him by the Bishop at his institution and is the cornerstone of the parochial system which is such an essential feature of the Church of England. The three posts which are the concern of this Measure do not involve the presidency of a Eucharistic community, and therefore do not infringe upon what are at present exclusively priestly and therefore, under the present law of the Church, exclusively male responsibilities.
In conclusion, this Measure was debated at length and in detail by the Synod, passed by substantial majorities in all three of the Synod's houses, and contains a large number of provisions which will be for the benefit of the Church of England and those whom the Church serves. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Miscellaneouds Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent—(The Lord Bishop of St. Albans.)
11.50 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will agree to this measure. The Ecclesiastical Committee looked at it carefully. A number of the doubts came from a confusion on the concept of orders—the orders of deacon, priest and bishop—with the idea of appointments. They are different matters; there are all kinds of historical hangovers about how they should be separated. For example, we have archdeacons who are primarily deacons because they are primarily people who are appointed to serve. It is valid and ecumenically correct that the Pope of Rome can be elected if he is only a deacon. He will have to pass through the orders of priesthood and bishop before he takes the throne; but a deacon is a single and highly respected order. To give deacons responsibilities is not in any way to pre-judge the whole question of the ordination of women. I think that the Ecclesiastical Committee appreciated that finally, wholeheartedly and unanimously.
Having said all that, I must close this Ash Wednesday by saying that I celebrated Communion at a church in Southwark this morning which was being looked after in the interregnum by a lady deacon, about 40 years old. She was the daughter of a bishop who has sat in your Lordships' House recently, and I think the granddaughter of another bishop who has also sat in your Lordships' House. I thought it was

975
remarkably silly that she had to import me from quite a long way to perform a function which she, who had all the responsibility for the parish, was not able to perform herself. However, that is irrelevant to the issue which does not concern that matter. I heartily commend the measure to your Lordships.
11.52 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, those who follow these matters will find it strange that the measure is not being dealt with from these Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. As noble Lords will appreciate, he takes a keen interest in these affairs, and I am sorry that owing to a mix up between the Government Whips' Office and the Opposition Whips' Office on the timing of the matter, he is unable to be here this evening. He apologises, but it is through no fault of his that he is not with us. He asked me to say that he wishes the measure well and has no adverse comment to make about it.
I believe that the House is well served by the Ecclesiastical Committee which we know represents all sides of both Houses and guides us in our attitude towards the special relationship that we have with the Church of England. The House has been well served this evening by the care and lucidity of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St. Albans. I listened and fully understood not only what he said but also the grounds upon which controversy could arise from what he said, despite the care that he took. I know that the Synod will be dealing with a subject of a major character in this matter later this year. There may be greater controversy as to what is in the mind of the Church of England and the Synod when the House is apprised of the matter.
Meanwhile, from these Benches, we appreciate very much the work done on behalf of all of us by the Ecclesiastical Committee, in particular by the Synod and its representatives here this evening. We wish the measure well.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, there is little for me to add. I wish to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the support he gave me today and for the work that he
976
and the members of the Ecclesiastical Committee carried out in scrutinising the measure in the way it should be properly scrutinised and eventually giving it their warm support.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his kind words. I am glad to think that my speech was at least clear to some Members of the House. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for the message he delivered from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, which is much appreciated. I feel indebted to those Members of your Lordships' House who are present for their noble presence, as they have stayed up so late. If this is not a Lenten penance on Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, which deserves every kind of reward on earth and in Heaven, I do not know what is. It will be an act of kindness on the part of noble Lords to pass this Measure. I conclude, as I moved this Motion, by wishing your Lordships a very good Lent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

River Humber (Upper Pyewipe Outfall) Bill [H.L.]
Queen's consent signified; Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
Midland Metro Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with an amendment.
Midland Metro (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before midnight.

  BRITISH TECHNOLOGY GROUP
  BRITISH TECHNOLOGY GROUP
  HONG KONG: GOVERNOR'S REPORT
  HONG KONG: GOVERNOR'S REPORT
  FAMILY LAW: REFORM
  FAMILY LAW: REFORM
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: BRITISH FISHING VESSELS
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: BRITISH FISHING VESSELS
  POLISH CITIZENS: UK VISAS
  POLISH CITIZENS: UK VISAS
  LONDONDERRY INCIDENT, 30th JANUARY, 1972: OFFICIAL RECORDS
  LONDONDERRY INCIDENT, 30th JANUARY, 1972: OFFICIAL RECORDS