Sitting of 11 May 1992

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

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
Ordered,
That Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Ken Eastham, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Fergus Montgomery, Sir Michael Neubert, Mr. Ray Powell and Sir Giles Shaw be members of the Committee of Selection.
That the members of the Committee of Selection nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.— [Mr.Lightbown.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    InterCity
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from people in Wales regarding InterCity services to and from Holyhead.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): May I, on behalf of all hon. Members present, welcome you, Madam Speaker, to the Chair for your first Question Time? May I say also how delighted we are that it is a Welsh Question Time? We hope that our voices will be as sweet to you as yours is to us.
    Eighteen representations have been received since revised services were introduced last September.
    Dr. Marek: May I echo what the Minister said about you, Madam Speaker? That is as far as it goes. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that he has no mandate whatsoever in Wales where 50 per cent. of people voted Labour, yet he will continue with a colonial Government, introducing poisoned Tory policies which nobody wants.
    The Minister should not start privatising the north Wales line to Holyhead; instead will he seek to build it up and to persuade British Rail to introduce a third high-speed train—HST—so that we in north Wales will have five direct services between Holyhead and Euston, which was the case until about a year ago?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: On the mandate, I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is only one state in Britain—the British state. We are the Government of that state.
    I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the privatisation proposals for British Rail, despite the fact that he is one of Jimmy Knapp's henchmen in the House, because they will surely give opportunities to private operators to extend the rail service. Sir Bob Reid,
    356
    the chairman of British Rail, has promised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider carefully the possibility of introducing a third high-speed train.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today is a sad day for anyone from north Wales or the north-west planning to travel by sleeper? Last year, we lost the sleeper service for Liverpool and Holyhead, and this morning I came down on the last sleeper service from Preston. Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the chairman of British Rail and ask him to think again or, perhaps, introduce a private sleeper service to serve those destinations?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Alas, the sleeper service that used to operate on the Holyhead to Euston line was not at all well patronised, but I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that the Saturday-night, Sunday-morning boat-train service will be reintroduced under the new timetable, starting this week. I can also tell my hon. Friend that the early-morning business service from Holyhead has been elevated to Pullman status. That is very good news.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister agree that, although we are a British state, Wales is a nation and that that nation deserves a Parliament of its own? Does he recognise the great concern in north Wales about the continuation of InterCity services following privatisation, if it is pulled through? Can he say whether his representations with Sir Bob Reid will bear fruit? Are we to have further InterCity services from Holyhead to Euston when the new timetable comes into operation in September?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Wales would lose out badly in more ways than one if it were to have a Parliament of its own.
    The matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are for British Rail. Although we can make representations to the chairman, as my right hon. Friend has done, the final decisions must be for British Rail. Privatisation will offer fresh opportunities and should therefore cause not concern but rejoicing in Wales.
    Mr. Murphy: Whatever the Minister of State's views on a mandate, does he agree that at least 70 per cent. of the Welsh people voted against the privatisation of British Rail? Does he accept that they voted in that way because privatisation will be a threat to our valley and rural lines? What role will he and the Welsh Office play in safeguarding the best interests of British Rail users in the Principality?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The Government are, of course, pledged to support many of the rail services already in receipt of subsidy. The point about privatisation is that it is an oppportunity, not a threat. For example, there is an opportunity in Holyhead to renew the freight service that was abandoned by British Rail and an opportunity for franchises for passenger services. Wales should welcome the privatisation of British Rail.

    Local Government
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the reorganisation of local government in Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): May I warmly endorse my right hon. Friend's welcome to you, Madam Speaker, in the Chair for Welsh Question Time?
    I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement that I made in the House on 3 March. The proposals that I outlined then are now the subject of consultation.
    Mr. Davies: Could the Secretary of State be less coy, as the Queen's speech mentioned no legislation on the reorganisation of local government? Does the Secretary of State intend in this Session to legislate on the proposals that he has just put forward?
    Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman should refer to the statement that I made to the House. He will see that the next step is the publication of a White Paper later this year, and legislation will then follow. [Hon. Members: "When?"] As soon as possible. Obviously, in the meantime, there must be continuing consultations with local authority associations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can persuade his party to come forward with some positive proposals in reaction to my statement.
    Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members in England will be carefully watching his decision-making and that they fully endorse his belief that unitary local authorities are the best? We shall be watching particularly the effect on education in our areas.
    Mr. Hunt: Yes. I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to point out once again that the impetus behind unitary authorities for Wales has come from the local authority associations, which presented a united front in seeking unitary status. That has not been the case in England, which gives Wales an unprecedented opportunity to lead the way in local government reform.
    Mr. Barry Jones: We welcome you to the the Chair, Madam Speaker. The House has not been noted in the past for equal opportunities, and a great example has been set.
    Will county elections take place next year? Councils are now utterly in the dark. Has not the Secretary of State had difficulties, having lost the battle with the Secretary of State for the Environment? We need separate Welsh legislation, and we should not be dependent on England. The Secretary of State is entitled to tell us today that he is not linked to an English timetable. Does he understand that we believe that years of uncertainty now lie ahead and, due to his action, local authorities are in chaos?
    Mr. Hunt: Unfortunately, most of what the hon. Gentleman says is based on a series of misunderstandings and misrepresentations. To set the record straight, Wales is on course for separate Welsh legislation preceded by a White Paper. The timetable dates that I outlined before the general election still stand. We are well on course to achieve new unitary authorities in shadow form in 1994, which should be fully operational by 1995.
    In the past few days representations have been made to me by some of the county authorities, representatives of which I shall meet later this afternoon. They have said that the county elections should be postponed. That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but I shall listen carefully to the representations made to me and convey them to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held during recent weeks with representatives of local government and others concerning his future structure of government in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: I met the Assembly of Welsh Counties on 29 April. I shall meet representatives of all local authorities in Wales later today.
    Mr. Wigley: When civil servants from the Welsh Office recently visited Belfast to discuss with the Northern Ireland Office civil servants the work of executive organisations in Northern Ireland, such as the Housing Executive and others, was it with a view to centralise services currently undertaken by local government in Wales? Is the Secretary of State aware of the strong feeling in Northern Ireland that as so many of the responsibilities are carried out by the executive organisations, those bodies must be subject to democratic oversight—a factor which is equally applicable to Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: I seek to draw no parallels with Northern Ireland. The Conservative Government's position on devolution was set out clearly during the general election campaign. We do not believe that a separate Welsh assembly would benefit Wales; would mean the setting up of another bureaucratic structure that would come between the people and the Government. Our local government reforms seek to take government closer to the people.
    Mr. Rowe: Since I come from part of the United Kingdom where we have to go back at least five elections to find a single Labour Member, I am glad that my right hon. Friend denies the claptrap about mandates. The cost of every reorganisation of local government since the war has been far greater than estimated in White Papers. Will my right hon. Friend make absolutely certain that, whether in Wales itself or throughout the United Kingdom via the knock-on effect, costs are truly worked out before the reforms are undertaken?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have placed in the Library a copy of the consultants' report on the potential reform of local government in Wales which shows that the reform proposed will be cost neutral. I warmly endorse my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State on retaining his post in the Cabinet, albeit after a little wobble. He should not be seduced by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) as he does have a problem since neither the Secretary of State nor the Conservative party has a mandate from the people of Wales. I hope that he will pay due regard to that factor when piloting the legislation through the House. Is he aware that there is a considerable measure of agreement that there should be change in local government and on the nature of the new local authorities? Will he assure us that when he is in consultation, he will listen carefully to what local authorities and hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies have to say? If he is prepared to do so, he will find that the legislation proceeds through the House more easily.
    Mr. Hunt: I readily respond to the hon. Gentleman's comments, although I disregard his first two sentences which I felt were almost ritual. I warmly endorse his last

    359
    remarks: I feel that there is a consensus on which we can build. I shall meet the local authority associations in just over an hour. I am ready to meet Opposition Members as and when they are ready to come to see me, which I hope will be as soon as possible.
    Mr. Sweeney: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Vale of Glamorgan will be one of the new unitary authorities, largely based on present boundaries?
    Mr. Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his magnificent victory in the Vale of Glamorgan—we are delighted to see him here.
    In my statement on 3 March I made it clear that the Vale of Glamorgan will be one of the 23 new unitary authorities, but I also said that I was open to further consultation on the boundaries. I look forward to hearing any representations that my hon. Friend may want to make to me on that subject.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Secretary of State recognise the inconsistency in his coming to the Dispatch Box to say that he is willing to listen and, at the same time, refusing to listen to what the people of Wales said to him at the general election? Does he recognise that what is needed in the government of Wales is not more quangos but the strengthening of democracy? Will he follow the example of the Labour party, which consulted and listened, and whose policy on this issue commanded support and created consensus in Wales—and won overwhelming support there, as the Secretary of State and his colleagues should recognise? Will he take heed of the consensus that we have created in Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: I believe that the only real inconsistency is to be found between the words that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman and those that we heard a few moments ago from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). I hope that the Labour party will be willing to discuss the new unitary authorities—the form that they should take, the way in which their internal management should be organised and the best way in which the services can be delivered—because I believe that there is a consensus. There is no great difference of opinion on the way in which unitary authorities should be introduced. There is a great deal of dissension about the boundaries, but there is an area of agreement about the broad range of local authority functions.
    The hon. Gentleman may say that his proposals command widespread support, yet when they were first introduced they were strongly opposed and they were changed as a result—[Interruption.] Yes, they were changed a short time ago. I hope that when Opposition Members have had the opportunity to consider the proposals further, the hon. Gentleman will come to see me with his hon. Friends, just as I hope that the leaders of Plaid Cymru and of the Liberal Democrats will, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends. There is an opportunity here for Wales to lead the way in the reform of local government in the United Kingdom.

    Neighbourhood Hospitals
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he proposes to encourage the building of neighbourhood hospitals.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): It is the work of the health authorities to plan health care facilities, but I give my support to neighbourhood hospitals, for I see them bringing care closer to the people.
    Mr. Morgan: I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your first Welsh Question Time and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), who represents the neighbourhood constituency to mine, on his appointment. If he applies his mind I am sure that he will be able to outshine his predecessor in the role.
    Does the Minister accept, from the evidence that we have in Cardiff and in Barry, that there will be a delay of at least a year in the construction of the new neighbourhood hospitals that were supposed to follow on from the demolition of the former St. David's hospital and of the Barry neighbourhood hospital? On top of that there are horrifying reports of the forthcoming closure at Llandough hospital of the children's cancer ward and other wards. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when it comes to defending the NHS the Tories are nothing more than a bunch of frauds?
    Mr. Jones: I must thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, which he phrased in a way that was typically kind of him.
    I understand from South Glamorgan health authority that the neighbourhood hospitals for St. David's and the Neale Kent hospital in Barry are meant to be proceeded with at the earliest opportunity. There is already provision in the all-Wales capital building programme, and in my new responsibilities I look forward to consulting South Glamorgan health authority about exactly that.
    I am also aware of the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers about Llandough hospital and others in South Glamorgan, and I have caused them to be investigated. I have been told that the proposals quoted in the press have not even been discussed with senior management in the health authority, let alone with the health authority itself. By contrast, I suggest that South Glamorgan health authority has an excellent record. In the past year it has increased its number of in-patients by 12 per cent., of day patients by 12 per cent. and of out-patients by 17 per cent. The hon. Gentleman might care to note that and to join me in congratulating the excellent staff in South Glamorgan who are achieving these results.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend confirm that record numbers of patients are being treated by the national health service in Wales and that the service there is receiving record funding? Does not this reflect credit on the health service and on the Welsh Office?
    Mr. Jones: I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend is quite right. The health service in Wales has a record of excellent achievement and there has been a staggering increase of 227 per cent. in the number of day patients being treated since the Government came to power. My hon. Friend is also right about expenditure. New money this year amounts to £9 per week for every man, woman and child in Wales. That is an excellent record.

    High-tech Jobs
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new initiatives he intends to introduce to safeguard high-tech jobs in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: Through initiatives such as IT Wales and Imperial Park, we shall do our best to ensure that Wales continues to maintained its impressive record of attracting high-technology jobs.
    Mr. Flynn: Has the Secretary of State not noticed that the Wales high-tech industry is dying from the head down? On Friday, I watched a £1 million instrument being dumped into a skip at the INMOS—International Metal Oxide Semiconductors—works. That instrument was in production five weeks ago. The managing director has told me that the only reason for the precious 400 high-tech jobs producing the miracle transputer being exported to France and Italy is that the Government have failed to reach a partnership investment deal with the company. When will the people of Wales be able to compete for high-tech jobs like the people of France and Italy? When will he do something to protect the transputer, which is British-made and British-invented but which will be produced in future in France and Italy?
    Mr. Hunt: Discussions are continuing with INMOS and I hope that they will reach a successful conclusion. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's general point, I hope that he will visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) and other constituencies throughout Wales to see the number of high-tech and other jobs, such as those provided by British Airways and General Electric, that are coming to Wales. Those jobs are due to our positive partnership with all the relevant authorities which have come together to attract a high level of inward investment. Since IT Wales started nine months ago, there have been 10 new projects with 2,000 new and safeguarded jobs. That is an excellent record and the hon. Gentleman should not seek to decry it.
    Mr. Richards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Pilkington Communications in my constituency has an outstanding record in this field?
    Mr. Hunt: I am glad to have this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and congratulate him on his impressive victory. He is right to highlight the achievements of Pilkington Communications in winning the Queen's award for technology. I also congratulate Peboc of Ynys Mon on its Queen's award for technology. The House should take pride in these achievements.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Why does the Gracious Speech make no reference whatever to unemployment? I remind the Minister that 125,000 people in Wales are out of work. There are many high-tech mining jobs in north and south Wales, but the Government plan to privatise the industry means that jobs will come under severe pressure.
    Mr. Hunt: I am pleased to be able to announce 10 new industrial projects which are forecast to create more than 460 new jobs involving investment of more than £18 million. That means that during the past week, I have been able to announce 1,000 new jobs for Wales in businesses ranging from automotive components to food processing.
    362
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay attention to such good news and stop trying to perpetuate the general election campaign in which he so miserably failed.

    Dredging
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to meet officials of the Crown Estates to discuss the granting of dredging licences off the south Wales coast.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State urgently call a meeting with the Crown Estate Commissioners, because the Swansea bay study group set up by local authorities has commissioned research that shows that, over the past 20 years, the sandbanks off my constituency and those in other parts of Swansea bay have lost more than 80 million tonnes of sand. Those sandbanks are now lower and are contributing to the severe loss of sand and coastal erosion along the south Wales coast. The Crown Estate Commissioners have refused to meet local authorities and I urge the Secretary of State to intervene as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Jones: I am aware of reports suggesting that there has been significant erosion over the past 40 or 50 years. Welsh Office officials are in touch with the Crown Estate Commissioners regarding an examination of those reports. In turn, it might be worth mentioning that the Crown Estate Commissioners have had bathometric surveys carried out of the Nash bank, on which there has been dredging since 1988. Those surveys show very little change in sand levels.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the Minister recognise that there is real anxiety in south Wales about the results of erosion, because the effects of dredging are uncertain? Given this uncertainty, will the Welsh Office commission its own report, to allay the deep anxieties that are felt in the coastal areas? Dredging could undermine sea walls and affect substantially the sand levels along the coastlines.
    Mr. Jones: The present procedure for considering dredging involves a Government view and it requires that a formal environmental statement be submitted in support of any dredging wherever there is any possibility of significant damage to the marine or coastal environment. All such dredging applications will be considered in that way. Furthermore, that procedure will be reviewed as we continue to seek improvements.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the current unemployment rate for (a) Ynys Môn, (b) Gwynedd and (c) Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Unemployment rates for the Ynys Mon constituency are not available. At March 1992, the unadjusted unemployment rate in Gwynedd stood at 10.9 per cent. The figure for Wales was 9·7 per cent.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister will be aware that Ynys Mon has suffered considerable job losses in recent months—for example, those at Anglesea Aluminium, Sealink Stena and the Wylfa power station—and the closures of the

    363
    Budenberg factory at Amlwch and of the United Meat Packers plant at Gaerwen. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government are doing everything possible to create jobs in Ynys Mon and Gwynedd and that Gwynedd can expect its fair share of inward investment in the coming months?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am sure that he will welcome our announcement today that a major company, Golden Food Products, is expanding at Llangefni in his constituency, creating 38 new jobs. Furthermore, it is planning to spend £3·5 million over a three-year period in expanding that operation. As to the situation generally, I have great faith in the fact that Ynys Mon is a development area and that the Welsh Development Agency, the training and enterprise council and the urban renewal programme are being activated in that area.

    Bus Deregulation
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his bus deregulation policy and the effects it is having on Tredegar.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The Government's policy has ensured free and fair competition in a deregulated bus industry. Traffic congestion in Tredegar followed the closure of the bus station owned by the former National Welsh Omnibus Co. The problem has been alleviated by the local highway authority which is responsible for such matters.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Minister accept that when bus privatisation was introduced it was accompanied by the promise that there would be a cheaper, more efficient and cleaner service? In Tredegar, however, the bus company has gone into receivership. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that has resulted in an inferior service and that there are major safety problems, especially for senior citizens? Buses continue to park in a busy shopping complex. Will the Minister show his commitment to the valley, and especially to Tredegar, by visiting the community to try to resolve the problem of the shopping centre, which has gone into receivership as well? Tredegar, which was once a proud town, is now a sad place to visit.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: May I give a special welcome to the hon. Gentleman, who is not unknown to us as a Member of the European Parliament? He stands in the shadow of a great oak—his predecessor, Michael Foot. I am well aware of the situation in Tredegar, which has suffered from traffic congestion as a result of subsidence. I understand that Blaenau Gwent borough council has commissioned a report, which we shall consider. Traffic management is a matter for the local highway authority —in this instance, Gwent, which has taken steps to alleviate the problem. The former National Welsh Omnibus Co. was placed in receivership and the decision to close the local bus station was one entirely for the receiver.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unemployment figures for Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: I welcome my hon. Friend after his tremendous achievement at Brecon and Radnor. I give him the statistic that in March this year seasonally adjusted unemployment in Wales fell to 122,500.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why he was able to make the historic announcement that unemployment in Wales on a seasonally adjusted basis had fallen for the first time to the national level was the return of confidence that was brought about by record inward investment to Wales? I invite my right hon. Friend to congratulate my constituents on the inward investment that their part of Wales has attracted. It was announced last week in Ystradgynlais that Lucas SEI and Sumitomo would be creating 500 jobs.
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend that that was a very welcome announcement. The joint venture between Lucas SEI and Sumitomo is to be welcomed warmly. That announcement, the announcement by Original Bradford Soapworks of Rhode island on the creation of a major investment project in Alyn and Deeside—I was able personally to welcome the United States managing director on Friday—and today's announcement means, as I have stressed, that more than 1,000 new jobs are forecast for Wales. That will come on top of the previous record levels of inward investment. This is a record of which everyone in Wales has a right to be proud. We are very much top of the premier league for inward investment, and we intend to stay there.
    Dr. Howells: Although everyone welcomes the announcement of new jobs, does the Secretary of State agree that much has to be improved in the way in which we carry out training and retraining in Wales? Does he understand that the Auditor-General's recently published report on the abysmal performance of an unnamed training and enterprise council in Wales is a signal that we must apply ourselves to the training and retraining of the long-term unemployed, as well as merely servicing high-tech employers in south Wales? What will the right hon. Gentleman do about the long-term unemployed in south Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that perhaps the greatest challenge facing Wales in the 1990s is to ensure that high skills are available to supply new investors with the level of skilled technology that they will need. I have great confidence in the TECs in Wales which formed the first network of such councils to be set up in the United Kingdom. I believe that the councils are rising to the challenge, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say we must concentrate on policies that will ensure the level of skilled labour for which employers will look in the 1990s.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of employment in Wales in (a) 1979 and (b) 1992.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The civilian work force in employment in Wales for March 1979 was 1,140,000. The figure for the latest available date, December 1991, was 1,147,000.
    Mr. Coombs: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position on the Front Bench and I wish him well. I wish to point out to the House the improvement in the level of employment in the Principality over those 13 years, which

    365
    is very much to be welcomed. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the latest Welsh survey of industrial development trends shows that there is a new growth of confidence in the Principality—clearly, as a result of the Government's policies? Does not that trend seem fit to continue as we come out of the recession generally across the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He is absolutely right in the general thrust of his question. There is exactly the right combination in Wales —falling unemployment, falling inflation, falling interest rates and, significantly, a reducing pay differential against United Kingdom pay rates. That suggests confidence in the Welsh work force and the Welsh economy. As my hon. Friend says, I am sure that Wales will lead the United Kingdom out of recession.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General what new initiatives he is planning to take in relation to the work of the Serious Fraud Office.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Under its new director, it remains the objective of the Serious Fraud Office to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its work in investigating and prosecuting serious and complex fraud.
    Mr. Skinner: When will the Attorney-General or the fraud squad do something about investigating Olympia and York, the Canary wharf developers? Is it not a scandal that that company owes !12 billion and is in hock to the banks, yet the banks—just as with Maxwell—are lending it money to keep it afloat? Is it not despicable that the Government, through the President of the Board of Trade and Government Departments, are bailing out that company? Is it not time that instead of handing a lifeline to that squalid venture, the Government sent in the fraud squad to investigate?
    The Attorney-General: Before people throw fraud allegations around lightly, they should have some evidence. Not every business that goes into liquidation or has financial problems is fraudulent. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, he should take it to the police.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that there is a serious risk in fraud cases because the large ones go to the Serious Fraud Office and the smaller ones to local police fraud divisions, leaving a growing gap of cases involving sums of between £1 million and £3 million that no one seems keen to investigate or that no one has the resources to investigate? Should not adequate funds be made available to prosecuting authorities to investigate all cases of fraud?
    The Attorney-General: In addition to the 60 or so cases on the caseload of the Serious Fraud Office, a substantial number are being professionally and skilfully investigated by the fraud investigation group of the Crown prosecution service, and I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to them.

    Pension Funds
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss criminal proceedings against companies alleged to have misappropriated pension funds.
    The Attorney-General: I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions frequently, but she is not currently prosecuting any such companies. The Serious Fraud Office is investigating or prosecuting a number of cases concerning pension funds.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not extraordinary that no prosecutions have so far occurred relating to the way in which so many pensioners in the Maxwell companies have been swindled out of their pension rights and entitlements? That is quite unacceptable—[Interruption.] I do not need any lectures from Tory Members on that subject.
    Will the Attorney-General give an assurance that there will be no cover-up of what occurred in the Maxwell companies? Pensioners of those companies want justice and they are determined that there will be justice and that their pension rights will be restored.
    The Attorney-General: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the allegations in the Maxwell case and the general matters arising out of it are being carefully and professionally investigated by a special team with particular funding. It would be wrong for me to go beyond that.
    Mr. Harris: I heartily endorse everything said by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Those of us with constituents who were swindled out of their pension rights in that appalling case know of the anguish that they have suffered. Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the Queen's counsel who represented one of the Maxwell brothers before the Social Security Select Committee of which I was a member said that his client should not have to answer questions because he was on the threshold of being charged? I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that that was on 13 January.
    The Attorney-General: The seriousness of the issues are well understood by all right hon. and hon. Members, and that is why it is particularly important that they should be expertly, professionally and carefully investigated. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that that is exactly what is happening.
    Mr. John Morris: I congratulate the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General on their appointment. It is within the recollection of right hon. and hon. Members that counsel told the Social Security Select Committee that charges would be brought in the near future. What is the current view of the Serious Fraud Office? Was that Queen's counsel right, or was he not?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that the QC in question was the counsel for the defence, with no authority to speak one way or the other for the prosecution. I repeat that the matter is being carefully, expeditiously and skilfully investigated. It would be wrong for me to say more at this stage.

    Prosecution Appeals
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Attorney-General what representations have been made by the Crown prosecution service, to the Royal Commission on criminal justice, on prosecution appeals against perverse acquittals.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Crown prosecution service believes that genuinely perverse acquittals are rare. The full text of the service's evidence is in the Library.
    Mr. Brazier: I put it to my hon. and learned Friend that no single factor is more inclined to persuade normally law-abiding citizens to take the law into their own hands than the acquittal of someone in suspicious circumstances. The lesson of not only the riots in California but a growing number of instances in this country, including some in my constituency, is that we ought to reconsider instituting a prosecution procedure for reopening cases in suspicious mistrials that result in acquittal.
    The Solicitor-General: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for his submission to the Royal Commission on criminal justice. When it reports, no doubt it will make recommendations about that aspect that the House will want to consider.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Solicitor-General agree that one problem attaching to the Crown prosecution service in that regard is that it does not have enough staff? When will additional resources be allocated to the CPS, to enable it to undertake its work effectively?
    The Solicitor-General: Those of us who have spent our lifetimes in the courts know full well that the service does a first-rate job.
    Mr. Lawrence: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his appointment. Does he agree that the jury system, with all its faults, is still the best yet devised for the protection of the liberties of the individual accused? Does he agree also that an opinion on the perversity of verdicts is normally that of the losing party and that any attempt to reverse a jury's acquittal decision would represent substantial interference in the principle of the jury system and be thoroughly unwise?
    The Solicitor-General: Jury verdicts that individuals regard as oppressive are verdicts that other parties find entirely to their approval.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the enforcement of Sunday trading legislation; and if he will make a statement on progress towards resolving issues in regard to the case before the European Court.
    The Attorney-General: Two important questions are currently before the courts in relation to Sunday trading —first, the question relating to cross-undertakings in damages, on which the judgment of the House of Lords is expected shortly; and, secondly, the issue as to the compatibility of the Shops Act 1950 and Community law, which is to be heard by the European Court of Justice on 2 June this year. Meanwhile, local authorities can still issue
    368
    summonses or, indeed, seek injunctions, and I—like my predecessor—keep the question whether the public interest requires me to take action to enforce the law under review.
    Mr. Owen Jones: In view of the Prime Minister's stated aim to make the laws on Sunday trading workable, will the Government now give due support to local authorities, such as mine in Cardiff, which are trying to enforce the law? It is not a simple matter of taking out an injunction, as the Attorney-General suggested. Will the Government consider the substance of the Bill relating to the issue that has been presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), and also consider including it in their programme?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the substantive law, and the reform of that law, are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. It is nevertheless worth reminding the House and local authorities—in case they do not remember—that there is absolutely nothing to stop them from continuing to issue summonses when they think that the law is being broken. The cases to which I have referred will come before the courts comparatively soon; once they have been decided, if the law is upheld, the summonses can be carried through to whatever result the court considers appropriate.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Commonwealth of Independent States
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet representatives of the United Nations to discuss aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The next opportunity to discuss this issue in an international forum will be at the Lisbon conference on assistance to the former Soviet Union on 23 and 24 May. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker will represent the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bennett: May I commiserate with the Minister, who has had to come to the House as a messenger? Can he tell us when we shall see a proper Minister for Overseas Development at the Dispatch Box?
    What conditions for the floating of the rouble will be suggested at the conference? We keep reading in the press that it is to be floated, yet no one seems to have explained specifically how that will be implemented so that there is no run on the rouble.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman need not express sympathy that is not wanted. There are ample precedents for senior Ministers to serve from the House of Lords. If the hon. Gentleman would like a reminder, let him consider the examples of Lords Longford. Shackleton, Caradon, Chalfont, Crowther Hunt, Goronwy-Roberts and Donaldson. It may be suggested that that was a long time ago; that is because it is so many years since we had a Labour Government.
    Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific question. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House wants to hear the Minister's response to the question.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the lead on this issue in securing an early result and in gaining agreement to the principle of a stabilisation fund for the rouble. Macroeconomics are, of course, a matter to be take up by the appropriate international institution—in this case, the International Monetary Fund.
    Mr. Lester: Does my hon. Friend agree that our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker has served this country, and overseas development, very well indeed? We are very relieved that she is still able to carry out that function without being subjected to the pressures of this place: that can only benefit overseas development.
    The major problem in the former Soviet Union is the question of the development of the private sector. We have been running a know-how fund for a considerable time now. How are we getting on with developing the private sector, particularly in the Russian economy?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As the Prime Minister said, the job of Minister for Overseas Development is a very important job that needs an experienced and first-rate Minister. The reappointment of my right hon. and noble Friend after the last election was welcomed by the aid community in the United Kingdom. As for my hon. Friend's specific point, there are already encouraging signs that private initiative in the Soviet Union is responding to new opportunities. Tens of thousands of new private farms and allotments have already emerged this year. It is vital that Russia should succeed in order that the republic as a whole succeeds.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister understand that it is one thing to have the Minister for Overseas Development in the other place but that it is quite another for any reduction to be made in the time available for questions on overseas aid? The House will not tolerate that, bearing in mind the enormous problems that now confront our globe. If anything, we demand an increase in time so that questions on all these matters can be put in this House, where they properly belong.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Within a week of the Queen's Speech I am before this House to answer Overseas Development questions in the usual way. I cannot see any point in the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend will be aware that Bulgaria is adjacent to the Commonwealth of Independent States. Is he further aware that there is an outstanding invitation to the Foreign Secretary to visit that country? Will he convey—
    Madam Speaker: Order. As this is a general question, the hon. Gentleman should restrict himself to general, not specific, questions.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I understand that, Madam Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware that the United Nations element has been nothing like as successful as our own know-how fund, with the creation of seven libraries in Bulgaria?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As you pointed out, Madam Speaker, this question does not relate to specific countries. However, I can confirm that the how-fund has been an
    370
    immense success and that this year it has channelled three times as much aid money to the countries for which it finds support as it did in 1990.
    Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I take points of order later, as my predecessor did.
    Mr. Bennett: With the greatest respect, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must hear the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Bennett: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Madam Speaker: That was perfectly in order. If I am allowed to hear, we can make progress.

    Mozambique
    Dr. Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds and resources have been allocated to aid famine and drought relief in Mozambique.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: So far this year we have provided 15,000 tonnes of food aid for Mozambique and Mozambican refugees and a substantial part of the £5 million of additional food aid announced by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 29 April will also go to Mozambique.
    Dr. Howells: Three million people in Mozambique are exposed to famine because of this dreadful drought, and perhaps 7 million people in the countries that border Mozambique. The famine agencies say that they cannot get supplies through to rebel-held areas and that if there is not a ceasefire in this terrible civil war, millions of people will die. Does the Minister agree that we should have a direct answer from the Minister for Overseas Development and that if we do not have a direct answer from her soon, as opposed to messages from the other place, we shall have no confidence in what the Government are doing to relieve that famine?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that from now on every Opposition question will not be about my right hon. and noble Friend's position in the other place, because there are serious aid matters to discuss. Mozambique is one of the countries worst affected by drought. We have been responsible for providing substantial aid to Mozambique —about £9 million worth of it as a result of the current emergency. My right hon. and noble Friend's participation in this important area of concern was shown last week in Brussels when she pushed hard for enhanced European Community provision for Mozambique, about which we expect an announcement shortly.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What progress has been made in repairing the power lines to the major Kabora Bassa dam, which was destroyed by the rebels? If those power lines were repaired, Mozambique could export power to many of the southern African states, thus earning much revenue and helping it to build its own economy and those of other southern African states.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid that I am unable to answer my hon. Friend's point. In addition to the emergency aid, the balance of payments aid the bilateral aid that we give each year, we are continuing our substantial capital aid programme and our substantial technical co-operation programme. I shall write to my hon. Friend about the detailed points that she made.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Would the Minister care to tell us why the United Kingdom is apparently blocking an EC proposal that each EC country should substantially increase overseas aid to the target of 0–7 per cent. of the gross national product by the year 2000, or will he tell me that he cannot answer that question either and that he must ask his right hon. and noble Friend in another place? I hope that he will give a proper answer to that question.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that the question relates to Mozambique.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) owes my right hon. noble Friend and the House an apology. She should be ashamed of herself. She is entitled to feel strongly about aid issues, but she has clothed her feelings in personalised insults against my right hon. and noble Friend, and for that she has—
    Mrs. Clwyd rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —the disrespect of this side of the House.

Welsh Questions
3.30 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As this is the first opportunity that 1 have had, may I congratulate you on your appointment?
My point of order is on a subject that is important to Wales. We had Welsh questions today. Of the 26 that were tabled, we dealt with 11. Will you use your influence to allow more time for Welsh questions so that Wales's 32 Opposition Members may have more opportunity to ask their questions, to have them answered and to ask supplementaries? Although my question was numbered 13, it was not called. I know that this is a British Parliament, but other Members are more involved in Welsh questions than they were some years ago.
Madam Speaker: That is a matter very much for the usual channels, but the one way to speed up all questions is for pertinent speedy questions to be asked and for speedy answers to be given. We should then get rapidly through the Order Paper.

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    FOURTH DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6 May]
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
    Question again proposed.

Privatisation
Madam Speaker: Before the debate begins, I should inform the House that many hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore, I shall impose a 10-minute limit between 7 pm and 9 pm. I hope that hon. Members who speak before 7 pm will place a voluntary restriction on their speeches.
3.33 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): Like the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), this is my first opportunity to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your historic victory. I do so most warmly. Legend says that it was a member of my family who was the first to be dragged to your Chair. He had some excuse since the black death prevailed at the time. It would have taken the combined forces of a great many hon. Members to keep you, Madam Speaker, away from the Chair, which you will decorate for many more years than my ancestor did.
I welcome the theme that has been agreed with the Opposition for today's debate on the Loyal Address. Privatisation, nationalisation and denationalisation go to the heart of the differences between us and the Opposition about how government should be conducted.
1 shall seek to persuade the House of three propositions. The first is that the theory of politics and government which had nationalisation at its heart is dead in Britain and around the world. It was a theory with high ideals, but it failed. Secondly, I shall attempt to show that the remaining privatisation measures that the Government will introduce fit into a much wider vision of the relationship between the citizen and the state which provides the link between a wide range of the policies outlined in the Gracious Speech and which will dominate the work of this Session and the Sessions in years to come.
Thirdly, I shall argue that the death of the old, socialist approach to government—here and abroad—and its replacement by the new ideas adopted in this country by the Conservatives represents a political sea change, the significance of which is not yet fully understood by the Opposition parties or by those who write about politics from the old perspective.
I shall deal first with the rise and fall of the idea of nationalisation. It mirrors and parallels the rise and fall in the previous century of socialism itself. Its purpose was clear: its proponents were idealistic, but their policy failed

375
and had very damaging consequences for industry and for citizens and Government alike. A century ago, the belief was that if democratic Governments took control of industry and commerce—either all of it or what the Opposition used to call "its commanding heights"—we should all benefit from sharing the control—
Mr. David Winnick rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: It is nice to see so many hon. Members wishing to join in. I cannot resist the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
Mr. Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how taking over bankrupt railways and bankrupt mines was a failure of socialism? In fact, it was the failure of capitalism that required Labour Governments to take them over.
Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, I shall explain exactly that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for listening with such attention. As the hon. Gentleman says, the belief was that we should all benefit if industries that were, in many cases, declining or in bad shape were taken over and subject to democratic control by this House. It was believed that all the workers would gain from better pay and conditions, and the state would use its power of taxation and its power of privileged borrowing to invest for the future. They were the ideals. They were honourable ideals, and no one should doubt that, but they were objectives that have been shown by events to have failed. I argue today that their failure did immeasurable damage not only to the industries involved but to the state itself in the process.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does not my right hon. Friend think that we should be telling the House and the country that under the previous Labour Government, when companies were nationalised, they were inefficient and the taxpayers had to shovel billions of pounds down the drain year in and year out, but that today the same companies—after privatisation—are contributors to the Treasury and that they are efficient?
Mr. Waldegrave: That is one of the powerful arguments which my hon. Friend is right to deploy, and I shall also deploy it.
Democratic control did not lead to the planning of industries for everyone's benefit. What happened was that the centralisation of huge concentrations of industrial power in Whitehall led all too often to the capture of Whitehall by the very vested interests that the policy was meant to control. Departments became prisoners of the huge industrial interests that used Government power to try to preserve themselves, too often regardless of the needs of the consumer. Instead of the state investing for the future, revenues earned by the private sector—as my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said—were used for ever more expensive attemptes to prop up yesterday's industries. Civil servants and politicians—
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: Two hon. Members are volunteering and I shall give way to them in a moment.
376
Civil servants and politicians were cast in roles for which they were unsuited, trying to replace the infinitely complex judgments of the markets and to second-guess industrial managers. I give way to the hon. Member on the right.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Hughes: I am on the right; my hon. Friend is on my left. To follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument to its conclusion, will he give an absolutely specific pledge today that the people who are apparently in such a precarious financial position with Canary wharf will receive no help or benefit of any kind from the state to bail them out?
Mr. Waldegrave: I shall not comment on the specific case. My argument is not that there should not in certain cases be partnership between industry and Government —there should—but that the enterprise of bringing into the corridors of power the most old-fashioned parts of our centralised industrial structure was catastrophic for the industries and for Whitehall.
Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: No. The judgment of Solomon is too great, and I must refuse both hon. Gentlemen now.
Often the industries inevitably became caught up in macro-economic policy decisions, often to the detriment of sensible investment. I have heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) eloquently argue that. It was inevitable that they should, if they were part of the state. They were used as levers to try to steer the economy. The most catastrophic example of that was the great capital spending massacre of 1976–77 forced on the Labour Government by the International Monetary Fund.
Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: With respect, I shall proceed.
Far from the workers benefiting, industrial relations were worse than in the private economy, as both Lord Callaghan and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) have good reason to remember. What is more, the lack of individual shareholders concentrated power rather than dispersed it.
At the end of this whole doomed detour all that resulted was that the state was seen by the citizen as the incompetent owner of huge, often inefficient, out-of-date industries and as the protector of powerful producer interests, rather than as the champion of the citizen.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has been patient, and I give way.
Mr. Winnick: Is it not the case that before 1979 Conservative Governments accepted that basic industries and utilities should be in public ownership and that there was no dispute over that? Indeed, on occasions, a Conservative Government extended public ownership. Therefore, is it not the case that, although Mrs. Thatcher departed, for reasons we know and understand, in the coup of nearly two years ago, to a large extent her policies remain?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman does not recognise the extent of the change in political ideas that has taken place, including among many in his party. There were, indeed, some Conservatives who accepted some of the programme of that socialist century. I think it was His Majesty King George V who said, "We are all socialists now". None of us is a socialist now, including many on the Labour Benches.
Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that surely it was the extension into international manufacturing industries, such as steel and aerospace, that began to show the peculiar problems that nationalisation brought and the way in which Whitehall could kill our place in world markets?
Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. Nationalisation was pleasurable for politicians here and for civil servants.
If I may detain the House briefly with an anecdote, my first job as a junior civil servant was to observe the workings of a committee of civil servants which was settling once and for all what the steel production of the country should be. Was it to be 100 million tonnes, 120 million or 180 million? What an extraordinary thing to be doing. The fact that inevitably those decisions were wrong led to investment that ruined people's lives because they were misled into thinking that this House or Whitehall could preserve jobs that did not exist in the market.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: I must proceed a little, but I will always debate with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: If it were not for the principle of public ownership, would there be a nuclear industry in this country today?
Mr. Waldegrave: Some believe that that industry above all has suffered and perhaps been given an extra-privileged position by its closeness to state decision taking over the years. The hon. Gentleman has been a brave defender of that industry, and he is right to be because it will be needed again. The nuclear industry has not benefited from that closeness.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: But would it be here?
Mr. Waldegrave: The answer is clearly yes. Other countries, such as the United States, have a nuclear industry in the private sector. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that I very much doubt that the original research would have been done without Government support. That is a different matter.
Democracy itself was established in full only at the beginning of this century, with the ideal of its being the protector and representative of the ordinary citizen. Democracy was no sooner fully established than it was distorted by a single idea—the disastrous attempt to make the state the production manager over a massive range of goods and services. If a single idea mirrored and paralleled the rise of the Labour party in Britain, it was the idea of a massive bureaucratic, managerial state. If there is a single idea which explains the collapse of the Labour party, it is that.
The central initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's Government is to return Government to their
378
proper role, and part of that task is to return the remaining nationalised industries to their proper place, which is the marketplace.
Ms. Mildred Gordon rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: I will proceed as I have given way generously.
There is no question about the benefits already achieved for citizens and customers. For example, since privatisation, British Telecom's prices have fallen by 27 per cent. in real terms. British Gas has cut its domestic prices and standing charges by 13 per cent. and 23 per cent., and the regulator is seeking more. British Steel now takes less than five hours to produce a tonne of liquid steel compared with 13 hours in 1979–80. The water industry will invest £28,000 million before the turn of the century, ending the dereliction of many years. It was, along with the health service, the worst victim of all of Labour's catastrophic cuts of 1976–77.
Partly as a result of our policies, there has been a huge increase—to about 10 million people—in the number of shareholders, including hundreds of thousands of employees in former nationalised industries. That process has done far more, in reality, to spread and disperse power among our citizens. It has reversed the old process of the concentration of power, which was inherent in the old nationalised industry structure.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to the Minister for graciously giving way. Does he agree that those shareholders who are workers and ex-workers in British Rail Engineering Ltd., BREL, should have the right to buy more shares in the company, or should they be forced, as they will be, to divest themselves of their existing shares?
Mr. Waldegrave: I do not know about that specific case. I shall ask the Minister most directly concerned what the answer is. However, that is exactly the kind of interventionist decision which should not be taken even by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or even with the wisdom of the hon. Lady. It is that delight in detailed intervention from which denationalisation protects those very industries. There is no doubt whatever that separating industry from the managerial attentions of politicians is good for both.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is a real socialist—not what one might call a red-rose socialist —and he does not hide his light under a bushel. With respect to him, he is a perfect example of what industry does not need. Let his famous letter to the chairman of British Rail speak for itself. On each of its six extraordinary unproof-read pages there is a list of detailed instructions written in the language of an 18th century squire of a rather reactionary type addressing his workers. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East neglected one thing only—to get himself elected to the manor house before sending his instructions to the tenantry. That letter, with its list of detailed, interventionist ideas, seems to be the best and most eloquent argument that could be made for denationalisation.
Mr. John Prescott: If the Secretary of State reads the instructions given to British Rail every three years under the corporate plan, he will find that exactly the same language is used by Tory Secretaries of State to the chairman of British Rail.
Mr. Waldegrave: I have the letter in front of me, and it would be entertaining to read it all to the House because on every page the words "I will instruct" and "I will require" appear a dozen times. That is exactly the role which the hon. Gentleman or future Secretaries of State should not hold—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is why we shall denationalise those great industries.
No one now doubts the benefits to industry of being free of that brand of amateur management, but the benefits to Whitehall and the House are real. All that resulted from such cackhanded amateur management was that the state earned the enmity of ordinary people, who learned the hard way that the man from Whitehall does not know best. Some examples this afternoon show that even this Parliament must have often appeared to the people to be more concerned with protecting the status quo of nationalised industries than with the goods and services provided to consumers.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: No; I have given way enough.
That clearer role for Government and industry will be demonstrated in the further steps that we shall take on privatisation in this Session, as described in the Gracious Speech, and in future Sessions. Coal will be returned to the private sector. Proper and powerful regulation to protect the environment and the safety of workers does not now require state ownership of those industries. Regulatory frameworks already exist and the Government are fully committed to their effectiveness and independence. The privatisation of other state-owned industries, such as local authority bus companies, will follow.
Mr. Robert Adley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: I shall give way to my hon. Friend if he wishes to speak about British Rail, as any hon. Member should. We intend to bring competition and private capital into the network by franchising. A new rail regulator will ensure that all companies have fair access to the track and that agreed standards are met.
Mr. Adley: As ever, we are enjoying my right hon. Friend's philosophical appraisal of the political situation. I hope that he is saying that the Conservative party is now pragmatic, whereas we fear that many Opposition Members are dogmatic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be a role for the state somewhere? We do not want Wessex fighting Mercia in privatised armies. We believe that it is right, for example, that we should have a national curriculum. Does he agree that the job of the Government should be to find the right place to put the line, and not automatically assume that the state has no role to play in either the major industries or the services which the nation expects to be provided for it?
Mr. Waldegrave: The state has an absolutely crucial role to play—that of regulator, legislator and creator of the framework. I beg my hon. Friend to believe, on the evidence of the decade, that the state as industrial manager is not at its best for the state or for industry. Virtually no one now thinks, in Britain or abroad, except in the British Labour party, that Government or citizen is well served by a Government trying to be the provider of goods and services. Nationalisation is dead.
380
My second proposition is that a new and clear theory of government is now coming forward to replace nationalisation. Government should, where necessary, be the regulator of industry and the representative of the citizen.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Is what is included in the Queen's Speech properly described as the privatisation of the railway system?
Mr. Waldegrave: What is described in the Queen's Speech is the same as what is described clearly in our election manifesto—access to the network by franchising to private capital. The hon. Gentleman may not have found time during the election campaign to read our manifesto. If what we aim to do leads to privatisation, so much the better. But the hon. Gentleman should wait for the Bill.
Where necessary, Government should be the regulator of industry and the representative of the citizen. Where possible, they should set a framework for competition to deliver real and effective power to the consumer. Where there is monopoly—publicly or privately owned—regulation on behalf of the consumer must be tough. The arm's-length relationship with privatised industries, even —or perhaps especially—when they are monopolies, makes that far easier. In the new world, citizen or consumer becomes king again, as he does in Whitehall, where the old insider track for the producer giants is ended.
Where the function is a service, properly provided in a modern state by a Government—for example, health or welfare—the Government should organise themselves to represent, above all, the interests of the user. In those spheres, Government will be directly answerable for the standards of services provided, and for their cost. We, as Ministers, should be remorseless in our pressure on the organisations that we set up to deliver services to the standards that the citizen as user wants, and with the maximum cost efficiency that the citizen as taxpayer demands. By far the best way of doing so is to make clear and explicit contracts on behalf of the user with those whom we pay to provide the services. It is that customer-contractor, provider-purchaser, split that lies at the heart of the new doctrine of how Government, central and local, should provide services.
Into the agreements that Government make on behalf of the citizen should go, quite explicitly, the standards agreed on his behalf, with clear procedures for measuring and publicising whether they have been met. The user must be told openly what the standards are, and given usable information on performance so that he can judge whether they have been met. The provider must be told of the consequences if he fails, including the possible loss of his contract as provider.
Ms. Abbott: If the Minister argues that privatisation is so good and nationalisation is so bad, why is it that, whenever the public is polled on the possibility of the privatisation of British Rail, the public is overwhelmingly against it?
Mr. Waldegrave: If what the hon. Lady says is true, it may be because the public have been led to believe by the Labour party that privatisation would lead to inferior services. To take the examples that I have given, once those policies are carried through, they become popular, not only with employees but with the country at large.
Ms. Abbott rose—
Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman have just had the opportunity to put that argument to the country, and it did not meet with much faith.
Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: No—we have had enough interventions from Labour Members.
The provider must be told of the consequences if he fails, including the possible loss of his contract as provider. If the service is not good enough, other providers must be found. Providers owned by the state should have no special privileges if service is not adequate.
That is the set of policies that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has called his citizens charter, each part of which fits with the rest. Standards are being set for the public service; regulators are delivering cuts in prices on behalf of consumers; on behalf of patients, health authorities and general practitioners are demanding better service in hospitals; independent inspectors of, for example, schools are publicly reporting on the standards; the purchaser-provider split is building a constant dialogue on quality control into public services. In every aspect, the Government are returning to their proper, historic role as champion of the individual against the special interest, not acting as the representative of the special interest.
These themes are interconnected. There should be an open and clear setting of standards, which the citizen as customer, client or consumer can expect, with clear publication of the results of the monitoring. That must be done by the organisations themselves. For example, British Rail is today starting its track record initiative, and is publishing information on punctuality and reliability at about 100 Network SouthEast stations.
There should be far more openness in 'general, from Whitehall down to the local school. In the next few days, we shall be publishing for the first time the membership of Cabinet Committees, and the document on guidance to Ministers. In our, unwritten, constitution, such procedural rules are important—as they are to the House.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister clarify what is being proposed? He will know that I represent commuters on the Fenchurch Street line, which has been woefully neglected by British Rail for many years. The people in Southend want to know whether the proposal is for a private firm to run the railway line, with British Rail still being responsible for investment, or for the private firm to have some involvement in the investment programme?
Mr. Waldegrave: The details of bids must wait until the Bill is passed, but the principle of the matter is set out clearly in our party's manifesto, with which my hon. Friend will be as familiar as I am. It is clear that private companies—a number of them are queuing up—will be given access to bid for the provision of services, and if they bid to provide services to Southend there will doubtless be an increase in competition which will bring about an improvement in service for my hon. Friend's constituents.
The regulator, British Rail, will be accountalbe for the performance of the franchiser—not a difficult concept for
382
even Opposition Members to understand. The underlying principle of clear standards and open accountability, with the provider being removable if he does not provide them, lies at the heart of the dispersal of power which goes with the policy. One of the best writers on British Government once wrote of Whitehall as being like a village where little was open or explicit. That has been true of too much of the way in which we have done things in Britain, and change is overdue. Government is too big a part of national life to be conducted like that, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister means to change things.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman must let me continue; I have already given way to him once.
These are the ideas which my right hon. Friend said would lie at the heart of decision taking in the Government, and the groundwork has been well laid by Francis Maude, to whom I pay a warm tribute. I hope that he will soon be returned to the House.
My third and final point has been confirmed in the House today. These policies offer an immensely powerful and logically consistent programme. They bring choice, ownership, accountability, openness, efficiency and effectiveness together as the weapons that the Government will deploy to see that the power of the citizen becomes a reality. They deal with the real issues of the 1990s and beyond. I may be wrong—although nothing said by Opposition Members has given me cause to think that I am —but I do not believe that the Labour party has yet begun to grapple with the fact that the doctrine of the state at the heart of its political programme has collapsed, leaving a vacuum. The very fact that most Opposition Members sit here as unashamed representatives not only of their constituents but of those most antique of producer lobbies, British trade unions, confirms that more eloquently than any words could. I refer in particular to some of the public sector unions whose party-political advertisements appeared at the time of the election—notably those of NALGO and the Inland Revenue Staff Federation. Many of their members, I suspect, are fed up with being used as political cannon fodder in this way.
It is not just a matter of whether the block vote is delivered to Mr. Brian Smith or Mr. John Gould. Every sponsored Opposition Member represents the old power structure and the politics of the past. From my party's point of view, long may that last—long may the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East flourish like the green bay tree, as he shows every sign of doing. For while he and his colleagues continue to fight and lose the battles of the 1890s, we shall be fighting and winning the battles of the 1990s.
4.2 pm
Mr. John Prescott: May I express my congratulations to you, Madam Speaker, and my warm feeling towards your appointment to your new job? We have worked together on a number of delegations and it gave me a moment of great pride and genuine pleasure when I learnt that you had been elected Speaker by the House.
We have just heard a speech that was supposed to be, in the words of the Secretary of State, powerful and logical, but I am bound to say that that was not evident

383
from the speech itself. If it represented the cutting edge of Majorism, that does not say much for its cutting power—
Mr. Waldegrave: It has won the argument so far.
Mr. Prescott: Nevertheless, here in this House the arguments must still be deployed. Today the right hon. Gentleman attempted to put his arguments for why he believes that privatisation is an important part of the Queen's Speech.
The Queen's Speech, however, does not propose the full-blooded privatisation of British Rail, since many involved in the practicalities have seen that British Rail cannot be fully privatised without major consequences for the consumers and passengers whom the right hon. Gentleman says he wants to defend.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech today has received considerable publicity in the newspapers—I believe that he has been described by the Prime Minister as the Minister for little people. I hope that he goes from strength to strength, but I suspect that he will not be a very powerful Minister for the little people. He has been described as the new superstar in the Government, but from the descriptions in the newspapers I could not make up my mind whether he was the new superstar or the Minister for paper clips. In his speech he seemed to fall somewhere between the two.
I welcome this opportunity to debate privatisation. There are major philosophical differences between Labour and the Conservatives and this is the forum in which to re-emphasise and debate them. The Minister has at least attempted to do that. In a debate on privatisation, especially of coal, one would have expected the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State for Transport to deploy the arguments.
The Minister might not have got himself into such difficulties if he had known the detail surrounding his job. Some of the questions put to him about transport are generally known to most hon. Members and would have been familiar to the new Secretary of State for Transport —the eighth or ninth in the past 13 years. I have made my protest clear. The Secretary of State for Transport should be here because the debate is largely about the privatisation of transport and especially of British Rail and British Coal.
The Minister put his case too strongly when he said that the nationalisation of public utilities and public industries should be avoided by all Governments. The nationalisation that came immediately to mind, and properly so, was the Tory Government's intervention to save Rolls-Royce. There was not a dissenting voice in the House when that happened and there was certainly no vote against it because people knew that only the Government could save that company. It was subsequently privatised, but I do not think that anyone doubted that the state had to intervene to save Rolls-Royce—an important high-technology company. It was right to take it into public ownership but wrong to pass it back to the private sector. However, that is a matter of political judgment.
The Minister set out what he thought were the judgments to be applied. They were whether the theory of nationalisation had failed and whether it was important to have a link with the citizen. We accept that there is a need for such a link, but public ownership does not deny the opportunity to defend the citizen's rights or to ensure that
384
public utilities provide good quality gas, electricity and water. Those issues have been at the heart of the privatisation debate. I am not convinced, nor are many consumers who now, as it were, languish under the privatised sector public utilities, that those objectives have been met in as good a way as they were in the public sector. There are facts to justify that view.
I shall confine myself to the issue in the Gracious Speech, which is largely about privatisation. The Minister's arguments for the privatisation of coal and transport are perhaps a little different from those that he would have advanced for gas and electricity. Coal and transport are not easy to privatise for a number of substantial reasons. The industries have common factors that must be taken into account. They are both strategic and, in the national interest, there must be proper utilisation of our coal resources, which are considerable, in a national energy policy.
In order to deal with problems of congestion and the environment there must be an effective rail system. That has been discovered in Europe. People must be encouraged to use their cars less and public transport more, because we cannot build our way out of a 140 per cent. growth in the use of the motor car in the next 25 years. Sufficient roads cannot be built to meet such an increase in demand. Public sector industries are important and buses, trains and aeroplanes have a major part to play in reducing the massive costs of congestion and environmental damage. That is the challenge for those industries and the Government must have a view about how those industries will develop. Whether they are publicly or privately owned can be debated, but Government must have a role.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is as much interested in whether the coal industry can get a coal contract with the national power generating companies, particularly if he wants to sell the industry off. Without a proper contract for coal, the industry is not saleable, as must be evident to everyone. That means that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may have to impose, or at least influence, a contract for coal at a price higher than the dump price at which coal is sold on the international market at present. The Government have to have a judgment and a position. Whether publicly or privately owned, the Government must have a role in the running of the industry.
Neither of these industries can be left to market forces, which cannot alone solve the problem. There must be assistance, through a financial or regulatory framework in which the Government are involved. Both industries would be in a worse position if the market were left to create the solutions. Both are efficient in comparison with their European counterparts. It may be argued that the coal produced in British coalfields costs more than gas in fuel equivalents, but it is still the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe, and nobody argues about that.
Whatever the arguments about the rail industry, productively it is far better than in most of the European systems and it costs a lot less to finance, although I would argue that it needs more money. Given the state resources to these industries, both are more efficient than their European counterparts. Furthermore, both of them have suffered, under both Labour and Tory Governments, from the stupid Treasury rules that we apply to public-sector industries. I protested when Labour Governments used them, and I continue to protest today, under a Tory Government. Anybody looking at the role of Treasury

385
funding and Treasury rules for our public-sector industries knows only too well that they disadvantage the public sector.
One of the first things that happens when public utilities are privatised is that they are allowed access to private capital, which means that they can borrow money often at a cheaper rate, and to equity financing—methods that are denied to industries in the public sector which have to use public loans, which have high interest rates. That is one of the reasons why so much capital debt is written off for these public industries. Both Governments have done that. We have been unfair in preventing public-sector industries from borrowing privately, using leasing arrangements. That has added to the financial difficulties of these industries.
There is thus a strong argument for changing the Treasury rules, just as there is for doing something about pricing policies. I know of no Government who have not been tempted—here we may have the point that the Minister wished to make—perhaps because of a prices and incomes policy, to influence the prices of those industries. Even this Government continue to influence prices because that has political and economic consequences.
Even if these industries were privatised, they would still require Government support. Privatisation requires the writing off of billions of pounds in accumulated debt because of the process of Treasury financing, and the paying of millions of pounds to agencies and banks to facilitate such a process. The real value of the assets is not reflected in the selling price because the price is well below the asset values of companies when they are sold on the market.
Therefore, I would judge the process of privatisation against what we have in the public sector and by whether the consumer is better off as a result. That is the challenge posed to us by the Minister, and I shall answer it.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman spoke about philosophical differences. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that he would like to exclude the dividend to private shareholders. Would the hon. Gentleman be happy to serve under a leader committed to such a policy?
Mr. Prescott: I am sorry but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his question. I was distracted.
Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Member for Dagenham said that he would like to exclude the dividends that are paid to private shareholders. Would the hon. Gentleman be happy to serve under a leader of the Labour party who was committed to such a daft policy?
Mr. Prescott: I do not recognise the question that the hon. Gentleman poses. He may well have the opportunity tomorrow to put his question to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) when we continue to debate the Gracious Speech.
The Government do not justify privatisation on the basis of intervening on behalf of the little citizen. Instead, they want to get their grubby hands on moneys that become available as a result of selling assets. That is the only reason for intervention and privatisation. The Government are interested not least in reducing the public sector borrowing requirement in pursuing their monetary
386
policy. When the borrowing requirements of privatised industries come within the private sector, the same reasons are deployed for the need to invest, but they do not come within the PSBR. Irrespective of whether the investment, public or private, is beneficial to the economy, including the consequential effects of it, the Treasury rules prevent such investment taking place if the industry is in the public sector.
A considerable amount of evidence—it is produced during Select Committee hearings and elsewhere—is available to the Secretary of State to enable him to compare the public utilities such as gas, electricity, telephones, water, the railways and the mines with their counterparts in the rest of Europe. The privatisation of gas, electricity and British Telecom followed the public ownership of those utilities. Tory and Labour Governments brought them into the public sector because their capital requirements were vast. These utilities were built up by Labour and Tory Governments for the good reason that their massive capital requirements meant that the state had to be involved. Secondly, industries that would be strategic to any economy required security and stability. It was through state involvement that we developed these major industries, making a major contribution to our economy.
By adopting that approach, we secured a better investment programme for the industries than their counterparts in the rest of Europe. There was better investment and research and development in this country. There was greater innovation and cheaper prices here than elsewhere in Europe. The scale of our research and development was far ahead of any European counterpart.
Let us consider energy production, especially in terms of the gas and electricity industries in the private sector, in America. The American industries are worried that they will not be able to secure sufficient resources to enable them to invest on the scale that is required, to generate the gas and electricity that is required and meet their capital requirements. That is part of the argument of the public utilities. They want stability. In fact, they do not have competition. There was, however, competition between the electricity grids in New York and those in other American states. There was more concern about the provision of electricity in the various states than about preventing the black-out that occurred in New York. That led to an argument that was based on competition and whether a competitive advantage could be achieved, not on whether there was a national obligation to maintain stability in the provision of electricity. That was what competition produced in America. In this country, we produced stability in a system of which we should have been proud instead of proceeding to break it up.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the water industry, for example, submitted the sort of investment that it required, it found that it took bottom place in the list of public sector requirements? Since the industry has been privatised, its investment has rocketed.
Mr. Prescott: I was trying to make that point. Basically, the Treasury would not allow the water industry to borrow on the private market. That was the position of all the public utilities. That does not happen in America or in the rest of Europe, because industries there are allowed to raise money in different ways. There is no reason why the

387
public sector here could not have done what the private sector is doing. It was not prevented from doing so by legislation that was enacted by the House. It was stopped by Treasury rules as defined by the Treasury and civil servants, who decided that the public sector industries would not raise moneys in the private market. We can have a big argument about this, and I tried to initiate one on 11 July during a debate on British Rail and its financing requirements. I shall not advance again the arguments that I deployed on that occasion. I merely say that the private sector can borrow for investment while we prevent the public sector from doing so. There is no justification for that.
The public sector has a good record. If anyone doubts that, I ask him to compare the publicly-owned telephone system in Britain, which is in my constituency, which is part of Hull, with the privatised British Telecom. The publicly-owned system's prices are cheaper and there is proportionally greater investment and research and development. Some older people are provided with a free telephone because it is felt that it is necessary that they should have one. That system, which is run by a local authority, is far superior to the private telephone system, with all its Mercury competition.
I do not accept that the public sector cannot produce a better service. It can do so. It can, of course, have a lousy management and do it lousy. There are good private companies and bad private companies, and there is good and bad in the public sector. Management's function is to control, and ownership is not the issue. There can be good management in public companies and good management in private companies. It is not simply an issue of ownership. The reason for the Government's drive for privatisation is the loot from the sales. More than £60 billion has been raised by selling assets. It is just a quick buck because the Government gave up the right to the yearly profits and income from such industries as gas, electricity and water. Those profits were available and were often taken by the Treasury.
The Government's argument is one of less interference. They say that the consumer will be better off through greater investment in research and development. Their ideological view is that it is better to have a private rather than a public monopoly. Their first objective of loot was achieved. They got their £60 billion plus, but what about the taxpayer? It cost £18 billion simply to write off debt in those industries. The Government undervalued the amounts of money in those industries by £4 billion—that is the amounts that the stock market recorded as their value after the sale of shares on the first day. The taxpayer lost a great deal of money.
The bankers and the other Government agents were given £1·5 billion for the privilege of selling the assets. I notice that £1·3 million was paid by one agent to the Tory party. I suppose that a 10 per cent. kick-back was the arrangement. Of course, some of the Secretaries of State who privatised those industries then joined their boards. They have done very well out of it. Privatisation is to do with kick-backs, greed and sleaze in the Tory party.
Privatisation was also good for the salaries of the chairmen of those industries. The Secretary of State said that he was protecting the little people—the consumers. I shall come to the effect on them in a moment. It was certainly beneficial for bankers, agents and Secretaries of State, none of whom could be described as the little people. The salaries of those little people who are the chairmen of
388
those industries have risen by between 30 and 75 per cent. The salary of the chairman of British Telecom rose from £84,000 to £536,000. He made changes and put thousands of people on the dole. That affected the rate of return on profits—of which, of course, the chairman gets a share.
In what is the consumer most interested? It is prices. The Secretary of State picked out one narrow price example that has occurred only during the past 12 months. The truth is that prices in those industries have increased considerably above the rate of inflation. There has been an 11 per cent. rise in electricity prices, 94 per cent. in water charges, 4 per cent. in telephone charges and 25 per cent. in gas prices. Those are considerable real increases above inflation.
Investment in those industries has begun to fall. In British Telecom it has fallen by 18 per cent. in real terms. Investment in research and development in the gas industry has fallen by 16 per cent. Thousands and thousands of people in those industries have been made redundant. That is the Government's record on prices, investment, research and development and jobs.
One measure of the effect on the little people is the number of complaints, which have increased considerably. In 1990, there were almost 200,000 complaints against the public utilities. Polls show that between 30 and 50 per cent. of people are dissatisfied with the public utilities since privatisation. Those indices do not show satisfaction among the little people whom the Secretary of State says he is here to defend. Privatisation was done in their name, but it has not been beneficial to them.
Sir Thomas Arnold: The hon. Gentleman says that ownership is not the only issue, and I accept that. Is he in favour of retaining clause IV of the Labour party's constitution?
Mr. Prescott: I was arguing that there is a good case for public ownership, which is embodied in Labour's clause IV —which I am happy to accept—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not see why that should be so staggering. Do the Government, in declining to privatise British Rail, accept that argument? If they do not believe in clause IV, why does not the Bill privatise British Rail? That just makes a nonsense of their argument. Some industries do better remaining in public ownership than in private ownership.
The Chancellor of the Duchy said that the regulators would be tough with privatised industries. That will be good when it happens, but it has not happened yet. Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will not leave matters to market forces? Is he saying that a regulator should intervene instead of Parliament, so that privatised industries do not exploit their monopoly? I do not know where regulators fit into Labour's clause IV, but it is about intervention, controls, and judgment in the community as to the price mechanism and investment levels. That is as at home in America as it is here. Public utilities are in a sense private monopolies. They exploit their position, and they are bound to do so.
Mr. David Sumberg: Has not the hon. Gentleman forgotten one group of little people? I refer to the hundreds of thousands of small shareholders who bought into those public utilities. They want to keep their shares. There are now more shareholders than trade unionists in this country. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say to those shareholders—most of whom voted Conservative at the general election?
Mr. Prescott: Fifty per cent. of the original small shareholders sold their holdings within the first 12 months to make a quick buck. Today, concentrated capital in the City's big financial institutions controls our utilities, and they have little accountability. The hon. Gentleman should be more concerned about the hundreds of thousands of people who cannot afford to pay for heating because energy prices have considerably increased. The number of disconnections has also increased. No one is concerned to help those people. The little people are more concerned about how they can afford energy and heat than about buying shares. When it comes to it, that is the difference between us.
In case the House thinks that I am exaggerating the profits that are being made, and just to show that I am an intellectual, 1 refer to an article in today's issue of The Times business section. If the Chancellor of the Duchy had read it, he would not have said some of the things that he did.
The article reports that a storm threatens over the likely surge in power profits. It states that the 12 electricity distribution companies expect to report a profits rise of more than 40 per cent. in their first full year since privatisation. That is a phenomenal figure—higher than expected. The article adds:
"Manweb's profits before tax should soar to £95 million last year, an increase of 77 per cent. on 1990–91."
It is predicted that the industry's profits will rise another 13 per cent. by June next year. That is the scale of the profits made under privatisation and why shares have been oversubscribed. People know that there is a good killing to be made—but who pays for it but the little people? What will the Chancellor of the Duchy do about them and all those massive profits?
Mr. Waldegrave: Would the hon. Gentleman be happier if the rumour was that the profits of those industries were going down? Is that what he is saying?
Mr. Prescott: No, but a 77 per cent. increase is phenomenal in any terms, and is not justifiable under the circumstances. That supports our argument about public utilities. When they are converted from public to private monopolies, there is little accountability. Those utilities then exist to look after not the little people but their shareholders. That is precisely what is being said by their chairmen. The millions of people who have no shares in those utilities have to pay the price, to produce that level of profit. The right hon. Gentleman should be concerned about a 77 per cent. increase in profits. My information is right up to date.
Then we come to the coal industry. What worries me is this: given that the electricity industry can make so much money, what will it do next? Encouraged by the Government to introduce competition, the industry will now argue for generation by means of gas rather than coal. The implication of that is starkly clear—the electricity industry will not want to order coal.
Such a development will have a major effect on coal privatisation. I believe that the contract is to be negotiated in the autumn. If bodies that are making excessive profits begin to turn to gas generation, that is bound to have a significant impact on energy policy. It will certainly affect the coal industry. Already, pits have closed on a massive scale; the number has now fallen under the Tories from 200 to 50, and the latest report suggests that, if the contract is not secured, there will be 15 or fewer pits left.
390
The companies concerned have been encouraged to turn to "more attractive" generation—in other words, cheaper generation. That means either generation by means of imported coal or gas generation, and it has major implications for the economy and the use of energy. We are importing a good deal of coal, and we have a considerable trade deficit. That will now increase. Redundancies will be another problem: because 200,000 redundant miners have been presented with no alternative jobs in the mining areas, their redundancy has cost nearly £1 billion in unemployment pay—and, given the high unemployment levels that have existed under the present Government, the amount has already been increasing considerably.
Whole communities will be wiped out. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be indifferent to the development of a proper energy policy; the Government cannot stand aside from matters such as the use of gas, imported coal and our own deep-mined coal. Presumably the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, so that he can fulfil the policy to privatise the mines, will ask the right hon. Gentleman to persuade the generators to buy the extra-cost deeper-mined coal. Will the right hon. Gentleman now direct them towards the more expensive fuel option? I do not think for a moment that the Government will stand aside from the issue. They want the money from the sale—although the industry will problably be sold at a giveaway price—and they must be involved in the coal contract.
It will not stop there, however. Many industries are dependent on coal. My area contains a firm, Fenners, which makes webs and belts. Firms that have been major contributors to the Tory party are suddenly beginning to realise that running down the coal industry affects manufacturing capacity. That is another important aspect of public utilities: they have been a major source of the development of manufacturing capacity in this country, thus affecting orders and investment. Sometimes we have paid more for British manufactured goods than we would pay for imports. That does not worry the private sector, but it is crucial to the development of our economy and manufacturing industry.
A connected issue is transport. The Government say that they will sell off the freight sector. A profitable part of that sector is rail freight, and 80 per cent. of its profits come from moving coal around the country. Once the pits are closed, that profitable part will no longer be profitable. At least it is profitable now, and the money made by rail freight can be invested in the rail system. I do not know why Conservative Members are laughing; the link between industrial investment and transport policies is a serious matter. It is clear that rail freight is dependent on coal.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The hon. Gentleman seemed to be arguing that we should keep the current level of coal mining going so that we could keep the trains going on the railways.
Mr. Prescott: The Community has spent millions of pounds in investing in coal port areas. The hon. Gentleman should know that, as he was once my opponent in Kingston upon Hull, East—he was defeated then. I am merely saying that, before they sell off the rail freight industry, the Government should consider the goods that the trains are carrying. Trains carry coal; now the number of mines providing the demand is to be reduced. If things

391
are allowed to continue as they are now, the privatisation of rail will follow—or, at least, certain parts will he sold off.
It has been called cherry picking and selling off the profitable parts of the rail system. It has been suggested that Virgin might offer a two-tier service. One Minister referred to it as cheap and cheerful. British Rail would still control investment in track and signalling. No private sector body would want to carry out that important and expensive task. All that the private sector wants to do is to lease trains and run them on the track. The private sector would be provided with advantages in that way.
I do not set my face against the involvement of private capital. British Rail has attracted private capital on the freight side for some years. That is irrelevant, however, when one considers the inadequate funding of British Rail. Between £3 billion and £4 billion has been taken out of its coffers and that has caused it real problems. It has had a major effect on manning, investment in safety measures, track investment and quality and reliability of service. So much money has been taken away from British Rail that it is now the poorest funded railway system in Europe. The quality of the system has consequently suffered.
I have argued the case for private capital. Publicly-owned companies in Europe borrow privately. I am prepared to see British Rail have a debt equity base so that it can borrow privately. That is not an ideological problem for us. Any publicly-owned facility can do that. However, one has to look at the Government's record on private capital. They introduced the concept of private capital for the channel tunnel, which has had more than its fair share of problems. The Government also said that private finance must be found for the channel tunnel rail link. They stated that no public money should be involved. Now we do not know when the rail link will be operational. It will probably not be completed until the next century. While the European economy steams ahead, we still do not know where the rail link is going to be. That is scandalous.
As for the Paddington to Heathrow link. British Rail expected to be able to invest 20 per cent., but it cannot find even that amount of money. London, a major capital city, does not have a proper railway infrastructure to connect it to Heathrow. The west coast main line is desperately needed but it is inadequately financed. It needs £1 billion, but the Government have not stated clearly where that money will come from.
As for docklands, the jewel in the Tory party's crown, the Jubilee line is not London Transport's priority. That was shown clearly in the Government's report. However, because Olympia and York offered £400 million towards a £1·7 billion project, the Government rushed in and said that there would he a combination of public and private investment. Last month, however, they failed to meet the first month's £40 million contribution. There is a financial crisis, bordering on bankruptcy. Now we hear that the Government intend to reschedule the debts and to move in and take a few floors of office space for the Departments of Transport, Environment and Trade and Industry. What makes me smile is that all the civil servants who are to be moved to docklands will have to travel by means of the docklands light railway, which is our most over-utilised rail system. The Treasury set the standards for the completion of that railway, with the result that it has become totally ineffective. It keeps on breaking down and now, I believe, has been sold for £1 to a company that has
392
no experience of transport. I understand that the first thing that the company did was to ring up London Transport and say, "How do you operate it?" If that is an example of how Tories talk to City people and use private capital, God help us. Of course there is a role for Government.
The Queen's Speech, which proposes a few private coaches being tacked on to the Edinburgh train, the selling of a few stations and the addition of a Virgin train, is irrelevant to the problems of British Rail. Is the argument that private sector management is better than public sector management? The Secretary of State chastised me for the language in the direction. The same language was used by the previous three Secretaries of State in instructions to British Rail. I make no apology. I instructed British Rail to produce a safety plan showing where the money would come from to improve safety on British Rail. After the terrible tragedies on our railways. I wish that the Secretary of State would issue such an instruction.
The remit to rail management was given by this Government. The Government told British Rail, "You must make InterCity profitable." It has done that. By Treasury definitions, it is the only profitable rail line in Europe. The Government said: "Bring in private capital", which it has done on its freight and wagon fleet. The Government told it to improve productivity, which it has done considerably.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Prescott: I shall in a second.
The Government told BR to reduce the PSO—the subsidy given by Government, which reduced in real terms, at 1990–91 prices, from £1,280 in 1983 to £520 in 1988–89. It achieved that, but then the Government sacked the chairman, poor Mr. Reid mark I, who achieved the objectives that they had set. BR achieved every objective that the Secretary of State set. There was nothing about quality of service or reliability, yet the Government blamed management. The Secretary of State may say that politicians should not be involved, but they gave management those objectives and failed to provide the resources to meet them.
The real issue is resources. In 1980, Peter Parker. the then chairman of British Rail, produced a plan and said. "We need so many resources that it cannot all come from the taxpayer; it must come from the private sector as well." They were refused the right to borrow from the private sector.
The Government have appointed a new chairman, Mr. Reid mark II, who told them that BR needs £1 billion a year. The Government have not said where the money will come from, and the rumours coming from the Treasury of public sector cuts promise little for the major investment that our rail industry needs.
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am sure that the House would like to know that Sir Robert Reid, the first chairman of British Rail, was not sacked. British Rail is investing £1·5 billion this year.
Mr. Prescott: I withdraw that: he was not sacked, but he left a disappointed man. He felt that he had been made the scapegoat for an industrial dispute, despite achieving all the objectives within the tight financial framework set by the Government.

393
The Minister mentioned BR's investment this year. What is it likely to be next year? In "Future Rail: The Next Decade" British Rail's chairman—whom the Government appointed and who has business experience with a powerful private company. Shell—says that he needs £1 billion a year for the next 10 years. I could understand the Government arguing against that if they had produced their own financial framework, but they have not done so. Therefore, instead of cleverly jumping up here, will the Minister tell us what British Rail's investment resources will be over the next five years?
Mr. Freeman: I will tell the hon. Gentleman in October.
Mr. Prescott: He has not answered. No wonder the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster opened the debate instead of the Secretary of State for Transport.
The reality is more financial constraints. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke of the passengers charter making the consumer king. He was concerned about the little man and about making the consumer king. The passengers charter did not set tougher targets for reliability but made it clear that no extra money would be made available. Old trains are less reliable than new trains. Passengers who use the Southend line or Kent routes know that it is no good talking about achieving the passengers charter without decent rolling stock or reliability.
The Government did their old trick, which they use for the unemployment statistics: they fiddled the figures. In 1986, they defined a late train as being five minutes late, and 23 per cent. were more than five minutes late. In 1987 they redefined it as 10 minutes and 13 per cent. were late, which they claimed to be an improvement. They have now defined lateness as one hour, before which passengers cannot claim compensation. They then exempted those passengers who lived in metropolitan transport authority areas—it therefore would not apply to millions of people, and then limited it again to people with season tickets in the Southern region. That is all useless hype, nothing to do with the problem.
Let me make an offer to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the spirit of goodwill in which he presented the debate today. As I said on 11 July 1991, this country would be better served if we took a bit of the ideology out of running our rail system. Is he prepared to do that and to recognise that British Rail is the sole authority and should not be separated? Its needs for investment in signalling and rolling stock can be met by public or private finance. We must change the Treasury rules. Let us agree on a 10-year rolling programme of investment for British Rail—and it needs that certainty. Let us agree that rail has a major part to play if we are to do anything about congestion and our environment. Let us agree on those quality objectives and allocate the finance necessary to achieve them. Let us agree also on fair criteria for investment in road and rail, instead of it being loaded against the rail system.
If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accepts and implements those practical measures, he will do more for the little people of this country than all the ideological nonsense he spoke. Let us improve our rail system; it would not be particularly socialist to do so. It is commonly done in Europe, so it is necessary that we have a good
394
transport system that meets the needs of people and industry in this country to enable Britain to take part in the European economy, which we are bound to do. That is the least that we can do and it would be a major step forward. I hope that he will pass on that message to the Secretary of State for Transport, who should have attended this debate instead of him.
4.46 pm
Mr. Michael Alison: Much the most interesting point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was his sharp attack on the effect of the Treasury hand on public expenditure under the present Conservative Government and earlier Labour Governments, along with his claim that the quality of management in public and private industries was on a par. But he cannot have it both ways. Public sector and nationalised industries cannot get rid of the cold hand of the Treasury. To imagine that there is an alternative to avoiding Treasury supervision—a Treasury tranche of management—is simply self-deception.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not focus sharply enough on the proper role of the Treasury, which, after all, is the accountant in the operation. How can a nationalised or publicly owned industry be managed in a way that maximises management at management level at a plant and still allows a hand for the Treasury? The answer is that there will always be a dualistic form of management, and hence blurred objectives and conflicts between the management of a plant and of the operation itself, and the managerial oversight of the Treasury. It simply cannot work both ways: the Treasury cannot be managerially involved, and at the same time leave sound management to the plant or local managers. The hon. Gentleman, in his interestingly philosophical speech, thought that there was a middle way—a scheme by which the Treasury remained, but with its influence much reduced by allowing a public corporation to have access to the equity market.
The hon. Gentleman then launched a violent attack as a result of one of his occasional readings of The Times on the notion of massive profits. If he dislikes profits and thinks that they are much too high in a particular industry but at the same time believes that the only alternative to Treasury oversight is to have an equity dimension in the publicly owned industry, why is he so negative about profits? There is an inherent ideological conflict in his approach. He wants to get rid of the Treasury oversight because the Treasury is the accountant in the operation and he wants to get rid of profits because they are against the socialist instinct—he would almost go so far as to say that losses are better.
What is he left with? He is left with a wholly producer-oriented corporation which is answerable neither to the Treasury nor to the shareholders because profits are not important. It is interesting that that is almost exactly what happened in the electricity generating industry in the early days. Many people would argue that the way in which the electricity generating industry developed in this country—with very large power generation sets and great unreliability in design and operation—was entirely due to the fact that the engineers and people interested exclusively in the production side of power generation managed to persuade everyone that they had to have huge boilers and huge generating sets. In the

395
end, those proved to be extremely costly and rather inefficient and took us along a path quite different from, for example, that of the German electricity generators which opted for small units on a dispersed municipal basis. That is the result of a producer-oriented operation which is the logical conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's approach. He does not like the Treasury or profits and his approach leads to an operation that is excessively producer oriented, which is not in the interests of the consumer or the small man in the long run.
The hon. Gentleman is the shadow Secretary of State for Transport and part of his speech dealt with the prospects for the coal industry. I wish to pick up one point that he made in that respect. He believes that the coal industry would be very much in the doldrums if it were privatised. He outlined a very disturbing but, I believe, inherently pessimistic view of the number of pits that would remain if we privatised the industry. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in thinking that the number of pits will drop to as few as 15. That was one of the possibilities considered in the Rothschild report, but I believe that it is wildly pessimistic.
Internationally traded coal prices are likely to rise in the next few years—that is certainly the view of the Select Committee on Energy—making imports much more expensive. If the power generators place themselves too unreservedly in the hands of foreign coal importers, they are asking to be taken for a ride in terms of prices. If we think that we can merely switch to foreign coal and ignore our home coal producers, there is no doubt that the price of internationally traded coal will rocket. We would be a captive market and importers would clearly increase the price of their coal. Therefore, the threat of massive foreign imports is really no more than a red herring.
The scope for foreign coal will, I believe, be about 10 million or 20 million tonnes a year and no more. Anyone who believes that it will be higher underestimates the disincentive to British power generators of being dependent on the volatility of foreign coal prices, the volatility of the price of substitutes such as heavy fuel oil and the uncertainty of the movement of sterling. There is still a considerable incentive for power generators to buy at home.
Furthermore, we should not underestimate the so-called "location" advantage for British coal which—as we are told in the Select Committee's report—averages about £7 a tonne. It raises the delivered cost of landed foreign coal to about £39 a tonne compared to the British home cost price of about £40 a tonne. The addition of the cost of moving foreign coal from a port to a power station means a substantial premium on the attractiveness of British coal because the location advantage enables us to deliver coal to power stations very much more cheaply than might be thought at first in competition with foreign importers.
Paradoxically, the hon. Gentleman's point about the transportation of coal by rail is an important factor because, curiously enough, the more expensive it is to move coal around the country—we hardly know whether we should want to make it cheaper or more expensive—the more disadvantageous it is to foreign importers because it must automatically increase substantially the price per tonne to move the imported coal from, for example, Hull to Drax. The more expensive it is to move it, the more advantageous it is to British Coal. The ironic question is whether we want expensive coal trains putting a huge extra
396
cost on foreign coal landed in Hull and moved to east or west Yorkshire or whether we want to make it as cheap as possible—
Mr. Prescott: What about gas?
Mr. Alison: I shall deal with gas in a moment. Alternative fuels are not necessarily a long-term safe bet for power generators. Gas may not be as attractive as some people thought. Professor Littlechild, the Director General of Electricity Supply, could rule, for example, that gas station operators were not allowed to pass on to the consumer the full costs of gas power generation, which is now more expensive than coal power generation, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. Gas power generation is becoming more costly. Coal is at present more competitive and if the Director General of Electricity Supply rules that gas power generating operators cannot pass on the full cost of gas but must match the price advantage that coal offers, so they are not allowed to charge more than could be obtained by coal production, gas will cease to be as attractive an option. That is where the regulator may have an important role to play.
Whatever the real prospects for the level of demand for home-produced coal, I am convinced that privatisation itself will not cause redundancies in the coalfields in the next five years for the obvious reason that the privatisation Bill for British Coal cannot be on the statute book before March next year. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, the present coal contract must be replaced by next March. A new coal contract must be in place by then and that means that the level of demand for British coal in the next five years is bound to be set before the necessary privatisation legislation is passed. It will take at least a parliamentary year and I have no doubt—the hon. Gentleman was right to suspect this—that Ministers will take an active interest in the current negotiations between the electricity generators and British Coal about the contract to replace the present five-year contract.
Whatever deal emerges, it is certain that if privatisation proves to be at all viable, it will be so only if there are five-year contracts in place. The pattern will then have been set in advance of privatisation. If privatisation proceeds, it means, by definition, that there will he excellent prospects for British coal. I believe that uncertainties about the imports of foreign coal and about gas will mean that British power generators will look with some sympathy at the need to give British Coal reasonable five-year contracts with a reasonable level of demand, which will give the coal and the electricity generating industries some stability. Whatever happens will be decided before the coal privatisation Bill is passed, so one cannot argue that privatisation will cause redundancies. There have been redundancies in the coal industry for many years. Whatever else privatisation does, it will not cause redundancies, because if there is a privatisation Bill, it will be on the back of a five-year contract renewed after March next year.
I should like to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister one other point simply because miners and managers in the Selby coalfield brought it to my attention directly and vividly in the course of canvassing during the election campaign. Selby coalfield is one of the best and most important coalfields in the country. It is now the subject of enormous quantities of capital investment. It

397
has a great deal of modern equipment and some of the best and most efficient productivity records that the industry has ever known.
The main anxiety about privatisation that was expressed to me lies in the direction of mine safety. Miners and managers have told me that it is all very well to have the Health and Safety Executive framework in place broadly to oversee the day-to-day features and problems of safety in the mines. They are genuinely worried about a specific type of situation, such as the one we had, ironically, in the middle of the general election. A faulty roof in an underground shaft caved in. There were some injuries, but not serious ones. There could have been serious loss of life.
Miners and managers are worried about what will happen when the underground engineers and underground managers look at the condition of the roof of an underground shaft. In the old days when management was in place under the existing British Coal structure, it might have decided immediately to close the shaft, take it out of commission and over a reasonably long period to set about reinforcing, repairing or safeguarding the roof. Under a privatised industry with management geared to making profits, there might not be the incentive to adopt immediately a fail-safe approach and to take the shaft out of operation. Instead, management might be tempted to push ahead and use the shaft for a couple more days. In such a situation, the idea of profit might seem to be decisive and might undermine the critical importance of mining safety. The HSE, which would remain in place under the new arrangements, would not he involved in the intimate day-to-day judgment of what was necessary.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can reassure us about that. I do not believe that the pursuit of profit in private industry leads to the neglect of fundamental issues, such as safety and the well-being of the work force. It certainly has not had that effect in the oil industry. Moreover, we have had many terrible accidents in publicly owned industries.
On a philosophical note, the maximisation of profit has never been a rational, overriding business objective. If the maximisation of profit is made the only rational business objective, it often leads to the collapse of a company. If everything is piled into maximising profits, a range of other matters are neglected and, in the end, the public withdraw their support. Survival is the only rational business objective and it requires the subordination of profit making to consumer satisfaction, safety, the environment, the public image of the company and so on. I do not believe that profit will lead to the neglect of safety in the mines, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will be alert to the problem and can reassure us when the time comes.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: My right hon. Friend's point is well made and is based on anxieties expressed to him on the doorstep only recently. In support of his argument, may I suggest that day-to-day management decisions on safety are made in the airline industry in much the same way as in the coal mining industry and that the record of the airline industry is good?
Mr. Alison: I am fully in sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments. He reinforces my point. It is false and
398
unconvincing to say that a business run privately for profit will, by definition, neglect fundamental questions of consumer and producer safety and well-being. If that were the case, private industry would long since have been disallowed by public opinion.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are strict legal controls on the airline industry and that all those operating aircraft must register their involvement and stick to specific, tough safety laws? Does that make the difference? Does he agree that that should be clear in aviation?
Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. It could be argued that the same applies under HSE requirements to mining. There are the same rigorous, detailed restrictions, limitations and requirements. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and I have been talking about something that is a little more marginal and subtle: the momentary decision by an aircraft operator whether to undertake one more flight or to take the aircraft immediately out of commission if, for example, there is a tiny seepage of oil from a component. No amount of words and regulations will ever cover such a decision. The same situation arises in the coal mining industry. The HSE provides a framework of rules, but often it is up to the judgment of the manager on the spot whether something should be taken out of commission on the grounds of safety.
My constituents have expressed anxiety to me about that and I hope that Ministers will bear it in mind when they consider the privatisation Bill.
5.6 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) because he has illustrated one of the difficulties. Those of us who believe that safety should be paramount in any major industry know that, whatever he says, the question of profit will come almost inevitably between the operators and their desire to please their shareholders.
I am astonished that the Government should even now include within the Queen's Speech references to privatization, as if somehow the average consumer does not appreciate what privatisation means in practical day-to-day results in his own home. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made an extremely telling and forceful case when he listed the effects, so far, of privatisation.
I make no apology for emphasising that my constituents know clearly why we do not want rail privatisation in any form. They have seen the effect of Government policies on existing industries. It is vital to point out that the privatisation of industries that already lack investment does not lead to a marvellous influx of a great pot of gold that will somehow provide better services. It inevitably leads to a series of short-term judgments. Management begins by deciding, irrespective of the industry concerned, that there is overmanning. If there must be one entry in the manual of privatisation for conservative management, it is, "Your industry is overmanned".
Let me explain what I mean. British Rail Engineering Ltd. was a large and effective supplier of rolling stock to the railway industry. It is true that its customer was largely British Rail, but it was capable of selling anywhere in the

399
world and did so. It needed more vigour in its management structures to expand its markets thoughout the world. Yet, because of the Government's narrow-minded and unimaginative commitment to dogma, BREL had to be sold to the private sector.
We were told that privatisation would transform BREL and make it much more efficient, and that everyone would benefit in a country where the railways manifestly needed new rolling stock. What happened was rather different. A management buy-out was proposed to the work force and it was largely engineered by people who were in management. Their intentions may have been quite reasonable; they may have wanted to preserve the manufacturing unit and they may have believed that they had the expertise to do that. The reality was that, largely, those who wanted to invest in BREL did not understand the manufacture of railway rolling stock and were not particularly interested in the maintenance of the manufacturing unit.
In the intervening period, we have seen a classic example of what privatisation means. We have had a large number of redundancies, including redundancies among those skilled workers who are desperately needed to maintain the high quality of our product. The remaining services have been concentrated in a small geographical area, leaving large tracts of available land, which, no doubt, will soon be sold off at very profitable rates by the existing management.
A number of interesting financial calculations have also been made, which have directly affected the work force—not just those who remain with BREL but those who have lost their jobs at the factory. We were first told that the shares of the workers were so important and useful that they were worth a large amount. Indeed, a finance director came in and managed to do a deal which meant that for £100,000 he was able to buy the equivalent of £1 million worth of shares. In less than a year, those shares which were worth £10 each to the work force suddenly became worth £1.
At the annual general meeting, the chairman was asked about the value of the shares. He said that it was based on an independent assessment and was not one that the board itself had reached. That was a perfectly reasonable response, but the difficulty was that he went on to add that the board had subsequently discovered that those who made the assessment were accountants who had a contract with the firm that was seeking to buy large numbers of shares. That firm was ASEA Brown Boveri.
Many people would argue that in an industry concerned with the manufacture of rolling stock, it is better if engineers who know about manufacturing move in. We would agree with that. However, we would not agree with the change that meant that many of the work force were told at the annual general meeting, in my constituency, less than two weeks ago, "Oh, yes. It suited us to have you involved in buying shares when the management wanted them for a buy-out. It suited us to use you as part of the propaganda exercise and to say that we wanted individual working men and women to have shares and to be involved in their own industry. Unfortunately, ASEA Brown Boveri, which is coming in, will want to buy all your shares. If, by mischance, you do not want to sell them, we are sorry, but we have the powers within the existing terms to force you to sell the shares back to the new management." Even if one believed all the rubbish
400
that the Conservatives talk about the little person having an involvement in privatisation, where is that magnificent arrangement now?
What has happened is simple. First, the employees were told that they should buy shares for a management buy-out. Secondly, many lost their jobs and saw the factory run right down. It no longer produces the rolling stock which is desperately needed by British Rail—and which all passengers know will be needed increasingly in the coming five years. The work force have finally been told, many having lost the privilege of working for British Rail, "We are sorry, but those who have shares will have to sell them back to the new company because that is how it will operate".
That is the reality of privatisation. It does not mean anything for the small, individual shareholders. It means that those who have economic muscle will survive and those who do not will be pushed out.
The position is even worse because we were told exclusively in the well-known socialist newspaper The Times that the chairman of British Rail had gone to the new Secretary of State and asked him for support in building new rolling stock. The chairman said he needed new investment in the south-east and in other regions and services. He said that there was clear evidence that the railway system needed new engines, carriages and services for the all-important customer. We were told that the chairman of British Rail had spelt out exactly what that meant in terms of economic investment and we were also told that it was made clear to him that the large amounts of money would not be forthcoming from a Conservative Government.
The Select Committee on Transport has taken evidence from British Rail, BREL and numerous other sources in the City on the total lack of interest in the railways felt by those who want to invest large amounts of money. Money has not been forthcoming for British Rail to build private links except in small, easily defined areas. Although private investment has been made by some freight carriers, it is not nearly enough to provide the high-quality service that is essential if we are to have any link between the channel tunnel and the north-west. One of our greatest manufacturing areas is to be deprived of a high-speed link and of trade in the movement of freight because the Government are not prepared to invest in new services.
Over and above that, we have been told that the railways will be much more efficient if a track authority is responsible for the railways and individual entrepreneurs organise services. Are we suggesting that firms such as Stagecoach, the manager of private coaches and buses, which is hardly able to run a service in one town, could run a service responsibly and efficiently outside its own area? Will firms such as Virgin, which is very good at publicity, be able to run a railway system when it believes that it is just a question of latching the odd coach on to the back of a British Rail Edinburgh express? Such firms will not make any difference to the customer and they are in for a shock. Are we suggesting that those people, who do not want to take on the responsibility for running a railway, will somehow or other produce an enormous new age of transport efficiency? If we are, we are not only kidding ourselves but trying to kid the people of this country.
The transport system of Britain requires large sums of investment. The taxpayer and the passenger know that. It is only the Government, who will sell off anything rather than provide a proper service for those who need it, who

401
refuse to acknowledge the reality of today's transport problems. It is a disgrace that the Government are talking in such utterly shallow and irresponsible terms. Every other western European country provides a high-quality railway system, which is subsidised by the taxpayer, because it understands the link between the movement of freight, the movement of people and the development of its economy. Why is it that such a simple lesson is beyond the bird brains in the Conservative Government?
5.18 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Having been present at the debate on foreign affairs on Friday without being called, I hope that I shall be permitted to be slightly international in my approach to privatisation.
Having been in this House representing another seat, to say that this is my maiden speech would be stretching the definition of virtue. However, I would not like the moment to pass without recognising the tremendous contribution that my predecessor, Sir William Clark, made to the government of this country. Like me, he formerly represented a Nottingham seat and made a significant contribution to economic thinking for more than two decades. His support for the policies of low taxation and restrained public expenditure, coupled with privatisation, had a strong following in the country and the constituency of Croydon, South, which I am proud to represent.
Privatisation has always been popular in a constituency like Croydon, because it works. Indeed, the only criterion on which privatisation can be successfully defended is whether it works and produces an efficient service. In my experience, it always stimulates the organisation concerned, and that produces a better service.
Privatisation in British Rail is bound to be welcomed in principle in a constituency like mine because, after all, it has nine commuter stations. The greatest concern in an area where Network SouthEast has such a strong influence in the transport of our constituents is that it should be an efficient service, and it is always a lively topic. However, if people like Richard Branson are making bids for the "Rolls-Royce" routes to northern England and Scotland, Network SouthEast is unlikely to be flooded with applicants. To try to run Network SouthEast on profitable and economic lines is unlikely to make economic sense.
Of far more concern to us in Croydon, South is the citizens charter. I was fascinated to read that the charter proposes to set standards, including for the first time individual standards for the 15 groups of routes in Network SouthEast. It goes on to set out percentage reliability criteria and I was riveted to see that the south London line hopes to achieve 97 per cent. reliability and that the Sussex coast line, which goes through my constituency, hopes to achieve 99 per cent. reliability. I must confess that it will come as a surprise to many of my constituents if British Rail achieves such targets.
The commercial heartland of Croydon is diversified and energetic. While it is quick to reject regressive economic policies, it gives a warm welcome to the fast-approaching establishment of a single market in trade, goods and services at the end of this year. Sole traders, small business men and directors of public companies can all see the advantages of a genuine market, which is one and a half times the size of the United States and three times the size
402
of Japan. While we hold the Presidency, our priority must be to ensure that its full implementation is achieved and to remove the frustration of physical and technical barriers to trade. I welcome the commitment to that in the Gracious Speech.
The burning question now is, where do Britain and its partners in Europe go from here? There can be no doubt that the exchange rate mechanism has distinct advantages for business. I recently visited a successful promoter of television programmes throughout Europe, which makes substantial invisible earnings for this country. It always welcomes proposals from companies in countries in the ERM as it knows that the stability in exchange rates provides a basis on which it can do business and make a profit. Proposals from companies in non-ERM countries are received more coolly. Although we can all see the force of argument of those who say that we should come out of the exchange rate mechanism, I venture to suggest that those are the voices of people with little hands-on pragmatic experience of business and industry.
Mercifully, we do not yet have to make the decision about whether to adopt a single currency. Much as the separate economies of Europe may try to converge, despite the tensions and cross currents that flow throughout Europe today, I doubt whether it can be achieved— certainly not within the proposed timetable for monetary union.
Despite my support for the Government's position, I am not a federalist and could not support a united states of Europe. Nothing antagonises the British people more than proposals from Brussels to ban smoking in public places or dictating who is eligible to play in an English football team. I have more faith in Steve Coppell, the manager of Crystal Palace, than in Jacques Delors on that issue. Today Europe must look far beyond the visions of Brussels bureaucracy. Here, privatisation has a role as we successfully export it overseas.
This year is the 125th anniversary of the first appearance of Karl Marx's "Das Kapital", which laid the foundations of theoretical socialism. It contained the impossible promise of an idealistic world, without capital, and opposed to free market economies. Inevitably, it was a dream that ended in failure.
Now, the biggest challenge to the west politically, ethically and morally is the region of central and eastern Europe, stretching as far as the Chinese border. People in those regions must be given hope and I welcome the proposals in the Gracious Speech to give aid to them. We must not let the situation come about in which they begin to yearn for the old days of communism, feeling that they were better off then than in the harsh reality of the present.
Perhaps the best thing that we can do for them is to show how effective privatisation can be. The political imperative is that they see the opportunities that exist in western Europe and for us to set examples that demonstrate the effectiveness of the market economy. Let us give them the aid to transfer their capacity for producing tanks into peacetime production capability. They cannot do that on their own because their will has been progressively eaten away by communism and the difficulty that they face now is a lack of cash. There is concern on both sides of the House that aid to that part of the world is water on sand. But from my commercial experience in the past five years, I know that there are

403
abundant supplies of natural gas and oil that can help finance the provision of an industrial base on which to build.
We in the west have had the good fortune to be born on this side of the old iron curtain and we can thank our lucky stars for it. The military threat that united all peace-loving people no longer threatens us. Instead, we are overwhelmed by the picture of misery and helplessness. The aftermath of the cold war has been as devastating and complete as any war fought by conventional means.
I believe that an equally dangerous and divisive threat is the possible alienation of the United States of America, as we focus all our attention on Europe. It would be a grave mistake if we let that happen. If ever we need an example of the success of privatisation, we need look only at the power of the United States' economy, where nationalised industry is virtually an unknown concept. In the exchange between the Front Benches, it was well illustrated how the nuclear industry in the United States can survive without Government intervention or capital.
We started this century as a dominant world power, with the United States as a non-servile, dependent nation. It was Theodore Roosevelt who, at the beginning of this century, acknowledged the British Government as an ally sympathetic to the United States over Cuba. As a result of that close friendship, he supported the allies in the first world war against Germany, but by the end of the second world war the tables had turned after the United States bailed us out a second time. They were now the dominant party.
Since then, the United States' contribution towards world peace and stability in Europe has been immense—the Marshall plan after the war; the instigation of the Bretton Woods monetary agreements, which gave us the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund; and the establishment of the United Nations and NATO. Above all else, it was their relentless opposition to the advancement of communism and the misery that it brought that marked out the United States as the superpower of the world. Yet, when they needed advice and support, they always turned to the United Kingdom and our special relationship is alive and well and must not be jeopardised.
In the formal sense, the relationship is the exchange of intelligence, and the establishment and maintenance of a nuclear deterrent. From my time in the Royal Navy I know how inextricably linked the two navies are, with the exchange of information and personnel being commonplace. The Falklands and Gulf wars illustrated what little support we could expect from the rest of Europe when the going got tough. Informally, strong cultural, diplomatic and corporate links, not to mention a common language, bind the two nations together. It is one of the closest political alliances in international politics.
We must not throw that good will away because we are unable to reform the common agricultural policy, which is such a stumbling block to the successful and essential conclusion of the talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Believe you me, there are plenty of people in Washington who would use that as an excuse to pull out of Europe.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation could be wrecked by the Community's resistance to cuts in farm subsidies. I am afraid that some countries in the European Community would not he sad if that happened It is
404
bizarre that we should jeopardise that special relationship in preference to a policy whereby more than 50 per cent. of the European budget is spent on agricultural subsidies.
When the Prime Minister last met President Bush he gave him a cricket bat. I am not sure what President Mitterrand or Chancellor Kohl would have done with a cricket bat, but at least President Bush knew that it was for hitting a ball. The United States can sometimes be an infuriating ally, but I admire its effort, energy and "can do" attitude. We must not throw away that relationship when the sirens of Europe beckon. The United States will remember its friends.
5.33 pm
Mr. Nick Harvey: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in the debate on privatisation. As the Liberal Democrats' transport spokesman, I view with interest the somewhat predictable measures on the privatisation of British Rail proposed in the Gracious Speech. As the Member for Devon, North, I know that my constituents are concerned about the future of the Exeter to Barnstaple line—with which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a Devonshire Member, will be familiar—under any future regime that might operate on the railways.
I am glad that the Government are forsaking for the moment the wholesale privatisation of British Rail in favour of access to the network. However, the Liberal Democrats share the worries of the Community of European Railways, of which British Rail is a member, on open access and privatisation. It states that competition to drive down costs and make railways viable is the way forward. But if the Government continue to refuse to give all modes of transport the same treatment, British Rail will operate at a disadvantage. I wonder whether some of the private companies that it is envisaged might bid to operate the rail network will look forward to paying in full the infrastructure costs, as British Rail has to. Their competitors in the air and on the roads pay only part of the costs of airport and road facilities.
It is a strange twist of fate that the Government's plans for British Rail's future are being proposed now, at the end of a full and comprehensive, sweeping reorganisation of British railways known as "Organising for Quality". It is popularly known in British Rail's executive circles by the abbreviation "O for Q"—not an abbreviation to be used in a hurry.
The privatisation of British railways is not in the public interest now. We need a Government with the foresight to see the business, environmental and human consequences of their actions. We need sustainable investment in the railways, as in other public transport sectors. If British Rail is to compete with private companies, it needs the tools to do so.
We have heard today from the Secretary of State that the private sector will have capital investment in the railways through franchising, but it is clear that British Rail needs access to borrowing and leasing, as the SNCF has in France. We look forward to the Government introducing a White Paper in the summer, perhaps when they have worked out the answers to questions such as that posed by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
We also look forward to seeing the Government's proposals for the future of the railways, a subject dear to

405
the heart of my predecessor. One of his proud achievements was to introduce in 1981 private Member's legislation on the reopening of old railway lines. He, like everyone in north Devon, will be disappointed that that legislation did not lead to the reopening of the Torrington loop or the railway lines to Ilfracombe and Lynton, both of which are beautiful. I pay tribute to the hard work undertaken by my predecessor on behalf of north Devon, and on promoting the cause of alternative energy. He went about his business in an energetic and unique way, and his memorable comments will be missed.
In his maiden speech my predecessor paid generous tribute to his predecessor, a distinguised member of the Liberal party, and I shall do likewise. Many right hon. and hon. Members will remember him as cutting a dashing style and being a formidable performer. I cannot aspire to match his panache, but I hope to fight for the area the same tenacity. In his maiden speech in 1959 he spoke in shocked terms of the 9.3 per cent. unemployment rate in the town of Ilfracombe, and argued for the district to have development area status. Today, the unemployment rate in Ilfracombe is 22 per cent., and at times youth unemployment is as high as 50 per cent. Once again, the community of Ilfracombe is fighting to obtain development area status.
Within months of Mr. Thorpe's speech, the Conservative Government granted that status—if only we could look forward to that again. Such status served the area well from 1959 to 1984, since when no significant new employer has moved into the area. My constituents have high hopes of regaining assisted area status for the district, and of seeing the building of a downstream bridge over the Taw river in Barnstaple—a vital piece of local infrastructure if the town is not to grind to a halt and deprive businesses to the north of Barnstaple and the holiday industry of important income.
My constituents had hoped that more might be done about the state of the beaches around the north Devon coast. The south-west has a small population, but it has responsibility for many miles of coastline. When South West Water was being prepared for privatisation, it was given a green dowry to help to plump it up for the process. It now needs green alimony or, perhaps, green child maintenance to ensure that it can continue to bear the heavy burden.
In a few months' time, the Landkey primary school in my constituency will be celebrating the 30th anniversary of the acquisition of the site for a new school. Unfortunately, the existing school has a leaking roof, damp exercise books and open drainage for its outside facilities. I am 30, and the site was acquired in the year that I was born. When I was shown around the school by the chairman of governors, he pointed out the very rail where, as an infant, he used to swing. We hope that, in their education proposals, the Government will ensure that local education authorities have the resources to put right that problem, and many others.
The hopes and needs of north Devon are manifold. Like many other new Members, I was struck by the weight of my mailbag, which was phenomenal. This week, I went to the Post Room to ask for my mail. Nothing arrived for some time, while many right hon. and hon. Members received their mail. For a brief moment, I allowed myself
406
the hope that perhaps my mail had dried up. A plump thud came from above and I was handed a bigger bundle of mail than anyone.
No doubt I shall become used to the strange ways of the House. One of the most surprising things that happened to me was when a party of school children from my constituency visited the House soon after I was elected. One of them had brought as a gift a bottle of champagne. It was not allowed through the security device, but was handed straight to me by the policeman, with the reassuring words, "You had better hold that—it might be a bomb." It had occurred to me that the security arrangements here might be thorough, but I had not thought that suspect devices would be given to Members for safekeeping.
I also managed to get lost in my early days here. Having entered the labyrinth of corridors, I noticed that the carpets had changed from green to red. I had promoted myself, somewhat prematurely, to another place. Unkind cynics might say that when one loses one's way around the Corridors of this place, it could be time to move on there. But I hope to have the honour of representing the people of north Devon for many years before any such thing should happen.
5.39 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: May I take this opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, of congratulating you on being in the Chair? I wish you well in your new office.
I am privileged to represent the constituency of Bury St. Edmunds and to follow in a line of distinguished parliamentarians. I should like to pay a special tribute to my predecessor, Sir Eldon Griffiths, who entered this House in a by-election in 1964. He was a remarkably successful constituency Member, a Minister and an expert in international affairs. He will be sorely missed by many, both in the constituency and in this House.
The constituency that I represent is probably the only area within a 100-mile radius of London that still feels essentially rural. Bury St. Edmunds itself is a successful, beautiful and largely unspoilt Georgian town. The origins of the town's name lie in the Saxon martyr King Edmund of East Anglia who was killed by invading Danes in 869. A particularly rich and powerful abbey was established there after the Norman conquest, and it was in that very abbey that the barons met to plan the Magna Carta. Bury, therefore, is known as the cradle of the law.
This love of freedom and of liberty remains strong even today in west Suffolk.
Many people will think of Suffolk in terms of our glorious wool churches, but many will rightly think of Newmarket, which I am also proud to represent. It is the horse racing capital of the world, a glittering jewel in our county's crown. The horse literally dominates the town, although, sad to say, the industry today has special difficulties and much needs to be done to help it to survive and prosper. The British bloodstock industry is the finest in the world and a significant employer in my constituency.
Yesterday, in our cathedral of St. Edmundsbury, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the arrival of the Americans during the second world war. Thousands of them were based in Suffolk and many of them married locally. There are still signs of their former presence all over the constituency, but their presence today is still a

407
critical part of the lifeblood of west Suffolk. There are two large United States air force bases, at Mildenhall and Lakenheath, which employ thousands of people and contribute about 140 million to the local economy.
The bases are popular with local people; their role, past and present, in defending freedom and democracy is well understood. In Sir Eldon's maiden speech 28 years ago he said:
"In the Anglo-American alliance we must … have enough British power to deter an attack on our island and to ensure that we are not subjected to international blackmail."—[Official Report, 16 June 1964; Vol. 696, c. 1156.]
Fortunately, that threat is now much less likely, given the end of the cold war, but, as we have repeatedly seen, Anglo-American friendship has been very important, latterly in the Falklands, Kuwait, and Libya.
In my constituency there is a great range of diverse activity in addition to the important agriculture sector. Some in metropolitan circles may just take the view that those of us who live in Suffolk spend our days gazing fixedly at endless acres of cereals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our corner of England has been one of the fastest growing and most dynamic in the country. That has almost entirely coincided with the great success that Conservative Governments have had in transforming our country in the 1980s.
We have also benefited from the economic tilt eastwards as our trade with Europe has increased. Freight passes through and is manufactured in my constituency and goes to the port of Felixstowe. What once happened in our ports—it threatened Governments and created havoc with our currency—now seems to have taken place on another planet; jobs for life seem light ages away. Privatisation has brought new methods, new investment and success.
Survey after survey shows that as we continue to come out of the recession west Suffolk will grow and prosper. Central to that prosperity are good communications. Private participation has been brought in to speed up the substantial road improvements in our county, and there is more to be done. Mildenhall and Brandon need bypasses.
The growth of population has come about in part because people have moved to Suffolk with the intention of commuting to London. Unfortunately, some of them have had to give up the unequal struggle because of the poor performance of British Rail. The Norwich to London line through Suffolk is characterised by erratic timekeeping. I have frequently experienced this myself, and it is not for lack of investment. It is due to the poor management that is so tragically characteristic of nationalised industries.
On Easter Saturday some of my constituents were travelling on a diesel train between Cambridge and Ipswich. At Bury St. Edmunds station the engine started smoking. Undeterred, the train continued its journey, and a few minutes later the engine exploded and a piston from the engine entered the passengers' compartment, causing injuries. What ensued would have been farcical had it not been so serious. I shall not dwell on it except to say that when my constituents set off on an Easter Saturday to visit their relatives in Clacton they should not be made to feel as if they have landed in the midst of a Scud missile attack, albeit in rural Suffolk!
Leaves, snow, fires on the track—we are all used to these; and doors that do not open when the temperature drops we have read about. It is highly regrettable,
408
however, that, four weeks after the event I have described. I have yet to obtain any information about the safety and operating procedures to be followed when a train engine malfunctions.
British Rail needs private input. It clearly needs to serve both passengers and its workers better.
Before I conclude, I want to say a few words about a constituency that I fought as a parliamentary candidate and for which I have the greatest affection—Ashton-under-Lyne. It is represented here by a right hon. Member of great experience and distinction, but, with full respect to him, I would also express the hope that one day it will return a Conservative Member to this House.
I am the third Member of Parliament for Bury St. Edmunds to rejoice under the curious surname of Spring. The first two appeared to survive the difficult politics of the 17th century with considerable ingenuity, if not with obvious convictions.
Incidentally, I am sorry not to have congratulated earlier the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Harvey) on his excellent speech. We look forward to hearing many more such excellent speeches from him in future.
On the subject of convictions, my constituents need have no fears. I look forward to representing their interests and their needs in this House for many years to come, and to doing so always as a member of the party in government, with ever-growing numbers of colleagues joining me here.
5.48 pm
Mr. William Etherington: I realise that the first thing that I have to do in my maiden speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to address you properly and to congratulate you on your new post. I wish you every success and fulfilment in it.
I have been waiting since 14 December to make this speech and it could not have come at a more appropriate time than in a debate on nationalization—on the end of a nationalised coal industry and rail industry. I am proud to represent the constituency of Sunderland, North, which has a wonderful record of parliamentary support dating back to the 1640s, when the people of Sunderland ensured that coal was sent to London to support the parliamentary cause, after the citizens of Newcastle and South Shields put a blockade on coal to ensure that the Parliamentarians were not successful. At one time 40 good Wearside ships were tied up by the blockade of the Tynesiders, but in the end we were successful and the seamen joined the parliamentary forces and were able to drive the Royalist forces out of the north-east—and so on to victory. Everyone should be as proud of that as I am.
In 1832, Sunderland was granted two MPs and the records from then until 1945 show some strange combinations. Sunderland returned primarily Liberals until the turn of the century. At odd times a Conservative sneaked in when the Whigs and the more radical element in the Liberal party could not agree and put up too many candidates. Perhaps that is a lesson for modern times. It was not until 1906 that the Labour party, of which I am proud to be a member, took a Sunderland seat. The going from then was not easy. There were failures and we did not have two Labour Members until 1950. That was sad because many other parts of the country did rather better. There were only two Conservative Members representing

409
Sunderland from 1900 to 1906, from 1922 to 1929 and from 1931 to 1935. Our record since then has made up for that.
I intend to make the most of my maiden speech because I understand that in future speeches I am likely to be heckled, but that is par for the course with me. After the Representation of the People Act 1948, the two constituencies of Sunderland, South and Sunderland, North were formed. I am delighted to say that since then Labour has always won the North seat. The tremendous response by the people of Sunderland to the Labour party is demonstrated by the fact that Fred Willey, whom some older Members may have known, was successful in no fewer than 11 general elections spanning 38 years. That is a tremendous record. Sadly, I did not meet him because, although I was born and lived in the constituency, I did not live there at that time.
My predecessor, Bob Clay, unexpectedly retired late last year, thus giving me the chance to attain my ambition of getting here, albeit rather late in life. He is now doing his best to revive shipbuilding on the River Wear, an industry which, sadly, has almost gone. I should not need to remind the House that during the war the Sunderland shipyards produced 25 per cent. of the replacement capacity when we were losing ships in that terrible time. The shipbuilding record on the Wear was second to none and it is sad to see it in such a poor state. When trade takes up again, hopefully after 1995, perhaps there will be a revival.
Bob Clay will never be forgotten for his work in the constituency to try to keep the shipyards open or for his tremendous work in trying to help the nuclear test veterans, a worthy cause if ever there was one. I shall try to continue in the same vein in representing my people.
I should like to pay tribute to one or two other former Members, one of whom was George Hudson, "the railway king," an MP for Sunderland for many years. He would have been interested in today's debate. George Hudson had one or two financial problems which shows that there is nothing new on the stock exchange. He found it necessary to leave the country for a short time and was in Spain and France for almost two years trying to sort out his businesses there. He did not do too well in Britain but managed a little better abroad. While he was away, a general election was called unexpectedly. There was much opposition to George Hudson because it was said that he had not been to Parliament or to the constituency for more than two years. However, the Sunderland people are rather forgiving because when he promised to mend his ways they duly re-elected him. Unfortunately, due to his pressing business problems which he never seemed to resolve, he had to give up, although he was voted out in the meantime.
Another person worthy of note is Samuel Storey, a Liberal who started a newspaper empire. He was unusual because he got to Parliament in 1880 at a by-election at which he was unopposed. That sort of thing happening today takes some imagining. I certainly do not remember it in my lifetime. He won three general elections between 1885 and 1895 and was returned again in 1910. He changed his colours to become an Independent Tariff Reform candidate but had to give up after 10 months because of bad health. His grandson, who became Lord Buckton, was Conservative Member for the town from
410
1931 to 1945, contining a worthy tradition which exists to this day because the family still lives in the town and is still involved in the newspaper industry.
My favourite is Thomas Summerbell, the first Labour MP from 1906 to 1910. He was a great worker for the town. He helped to set up the town council and continued the radical tradition which has always existed in Sunderland, with one or two short exceptions. He carried out tremendous work for Labour on the town council. Tragically—and there is much tragedy in politics—a few days after his defeat in 1910 he attended a town council meeting and died from an attack of apoplexy. It seems that fate stalks in pairs, because Thomas Summerbell's agent, Thomas Dale, was killed in 1916 in a zeppelin attack, and that set back Labour's prospects.
The Labour MP from 1929 to 1931 was Dr. Marion Philips. There are not many women in Parliament now, but there were even fewer then, so her election was something of a landmark. Dennis Pritt became one of the greatest socialist lawyers in history after his unsuccessful attempt to enter Parliament.
I shall now turn to the more contentious issue of denationalisation. I like to use the old-fashioned word rather than the new term of privatisation. The Government wax lyrical about free enterprise and competition. I am not so sure about free enterprise because I worked in it for a short time. I found nationalised industry much better organised and we were much better treated, although we had to work just as hard. I see the sense in competition, but where is it? Water, gas, telephone services and electricity have been denationalised. I have only one water supply in my house and I cannot decide whether to turn on Northumbrian water or Thames water. Therefore, there is no competition.
I do not have gas because my village is not that far advanced. I have electricity but only one supply; and in terms of the telephone, least said, soonest mended. Conservative Members speak about the benefits of private enterprise and competition. Where is the competition? Industries that were great national assets and public monopolies have become private monopolies. The only competition I have seen is the scramble for shares and the scramble among directors and chief executives to see who can get the highest salary. The competition among those who work in those industries is to see who does not get made redundant.
Workers' conditions have worsened and prices have increased. The whole thing has been a complete charade, and I am worried that the coal industry and British Rail will go the same way. Do hon. Members forget that coal and the railways had to be taken over by the Government in two world wars because in private hands they were inefficient? Has anyone forgotten the ramshackle state of the coal industry when it was taken over in 1947? Why has everyone forgotten that between 1923 and 1947 only the Southern region, as it is now, paid ordinary shareholders any dividends? But the Government propose a return to that system. For years, the Tory party led us to believe that privatisation had to be good and nationalisation had to be bad. It was difficult for those who were too young to remember to argue against that, but now we see the alternative, and it is much worse than the service to which we were accustomed.
I worked in the coal industry for 21 years—I doubt that many hon. Members can say that—and for nine years before coming here I represented workers in that industry.

411
What worries me about privatisation of the coal industry is the appalling safety record that the privatised industry had before 1947. There was carnage and there were terrible injuries. Between 1947 and 1979, that gradually improved. Sadly, since then, it has deteriorated again. There is no denying that: the figures come from the Health and Safety Executive, not from the National Union of Mineworkers or the Labour party. They come from a Government body and they tell the story.
Wearmouth colliery is the largest employer in my constituency and two months ago, in a tragic accident, two men were killed and two others were made paraplegic. One of the men killed and the two men who were made paraplegic were my constituents. I have been to see the two who are still alive and the widow of the one who died, and what concerns them most is that Government spokesmen could not wait to get on the television, not to express sorrow, but to say that the record of coal industry safety was improving—a claim that can be proved to be untrue.
I make a plea to those on the Government Benches: do not denationalise the coal industry. Like my colleagues, I know what that will do. I am afraid that the Government do not. I am worried because, at the same time as talking about denationalisation, the Government are working with the Health and Safety Executive to dilute legislation on safety in mines. In 1830, my townsmen, led by Dr. Clanny and others, were involved in the first Sunderland committee, which started the long haul towards good safety in the mines. They were responsible for getting the first Acts dealing with safety in the mines passed. Only France had such legislation before Britain. Between then and 1979, there was continual improvement in regulation of the mining industry. At the very time when the Government are talking about denationalisation, they are also talking about dilution of legislation and regulations. That is a recipe for disaster. I ask members of the Government, as decent reasonable human beings, to reconsider.
6.2 pm
Mr. James Hill: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I add my congratulations to the many that you must have received over the past few days? We have a worthy Deputy Speaker and I congratulate you now as I would congratulate you in person.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) made an impassioned speech, on which I congratulate him. His intensity and directness, and the challenging tone of his speech, made me feel that, when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) retires, he will have left a worthy successor.
Mr. Skinner: That is because I taught him.
Mr. Hill: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North may be a pupil of the hon. Member for Bolsover—
Mr. Skinner: One of them.
Mr. Hill: We must nevertheless be grateful that we are getting fresh blood—perhaps not quite as fresh as we would like—on the Labour Benches, although we are hearing some of the old stories.
There is no longer any doubt. No plea can be made. The Government have made up their mind on privatisation of parts of British Rail. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned the Southern region. That is a
412
prosperous region and should, in no time, be looking to the Government and the marketplace for finance for investment in new track, rolling stock and other equipment. We have had a difficult time because some of the new rolling stock was incredibly badly designed. There were many cases of people being trapped—some inside a carriage and some outside—while in some carriages there was a danger that they might fall out. This went on for some time.
Then, last year, we heard about the terrible hazard of leaves on the track. Not just thick snow but the mildest of winters seem to he able to put vast sections of our network out of play. Southern region would be the ideal region with which to begin a privatisation programme. The private investor wouild invest in Southern region. Passenger services could be run not only with private investment but on the basis of franchises.
British Rail's standards of punctuality leave much to be desired. I know that the passengers charter says that there will be compensation for late arrival, or even late departure, but it will take a tremendous bureaucracy to check on that and thousands of commuters will be making claims practically every other day. As has been said, it will be difficult to organise all of British Rail. The Government will not be able to franchise some sections of track, but those sections cannot be ignored either. For community value reasons alone, some of these out-of-the-way, non-profit-making sections on the periphery of the railway system will still be the Government's responsibility.
Therefore, the plan is to sell off parts of British Rail. For example, the freight and parcels operation could be sold. Once again, as in the case of every other public industry that has been sold off to the private sector, we shall have to have an overseer on the lines of Oftel. There will have to be a group that ensures the highest standards in, for example, punctuality, efficiency and safety.
Whenever an industry is privatised, it is claimed that safety standards will fall, but that has not happened in many parts of our vast privatisation programme—in British Airways, for a start. The British Transport Docks Board was privatised, becoming Associated British Ports. Many of these industries had an appalling safety record, but profitability includes profits of all kinds. In Southampton, we have the example of Associated British Ports, which, as everyone knows, controls 19 other ports besides Southampton. It has made tremendous progress and can justifiably say that it has put new heart into the city of Southampton. It has built private dwellings and offices and is building a container port, thereby attracting more cross-channel services, and more and more cruise ships are calling in. Since the demise of the national dock labour scheme, it is able to compete with practically every other port in the area, not only in the United Kingdom, but on the continent.
That privatisation and others such as those of British Airways and the National Freight Consortium show that one does not have merely to believe; one can see the results of privatisation. The problem is that those who will not see will never see. They will go to their graves muttering that privatisation will never work.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: The hon. Gentleman is talking about seeing. Perhaps he will tell us before he resumes his place where he sees competition in the gas, water and electricity industries, and in British Telecom, in Southampton.
Mr. Hill: British Telecom is certainly involved in competition. There is franchising, and other firms are installing telephone boxes in the street in competition with British Telecom. The process is gradual. The nation must have the confidence to take on former well-established public industries. In many instances, that requires a colossal amount of collateral. It is true that British Telecom has many rivals.
British Gas has Ofgas to control its price structure, and we have all seen how effective that control has been over the past few weeks. The same is true of practically every other denationalised industry. For example, an extremely effective body is overseeing water charges. For the first time, the water industry is making contributions to the National Rivers Authority to ensure that our rivers become unpolluted. The sea shores of the United Kingdom will become less polluted. In Southampton, the former Southern water board used to stockpile sewage during the hot summer months and then dump it in the middle of the Solent. I shall not go into the question of which Government did or did not pay to maintain water sewage and normal renewal pipelines, for example, but we have reached the stage when a desperate problem is being tackled. The NRA should be congratulated. It must be recognised that pollution can be dealt with only from within the industry, which manufactures its own profits and uses them to renew pipes, for example.
I wonder whether the debate will reach a sensible conclusion. We are dealing with one of the most political issues that have ever come before us, apart from council housing. The issue is such that the view of practically every Member is set in cement, as it were, when we come to consider it. I am certainly set on the issue of privatisation, and I am aware that other hon. Members will face an extremely difficult problem.
I have not talked about the coal industry because we do not have any coal mines in the south of England of which I know. I shall leave it to more worthy Members to tell the Government in Committee exactly why the coal mining industry should not be privatised. I recognise that following almost any privatisation there is an examination of the number of people who are working in the industry, and there is some over-staffing in practically every industry of which we can think.
When there is a change from public to private control, people are made redundant. That has happened in Southampton, where many dockers were made redundant. Fortunately, they received an extremely handsome golden handshake. It is perhaps curious that 450 of them took their redundancy payments and formed their own stevedoring company. I am pleased to say that that has made 450 capitalists. They are extremely happy to work through the day and night and have a tremendous reputation in the port of Southampton. I see the reaction of those on the Opposition Front Bench. If members of the shadow Cabinet do not believe me, I invite them to talk to the men concerned. A tremendous effort is being made in Southampton to make the private sector work extremely well, and I shall be pleased to see that extended to the Southern region of British Rail.
6.15 pm
Mr. John Heppell: It is with great pleasure that my first words in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker Morris, are to congratulate you on your
414
appointment and new position. I suspect that, like most new Members, I look upon the making of my maiden speech as something of an ordeal. The ordeal has been made much less daunting by the many hon. Members who are now in the Chamber. Perhaps that is a reflection on my personal popularity.
I understand that it is traditional to pay tribute to one's predecessor, and I am happy to do so. Michael Knowles became the Member for Nottingham, East in 1983 and surprised everyone, including himself. In 1987, he surprised himself again by holding the seat. I am relieved to say that I was able to spare Michael a third surprise. Last weekend, I read, for the first time, his maiden speech, which was made in 1983. That speech alone is enough for Michael to deserve tribute. It must have required great courage to make a maiden speech in defence of local government. It made him no friends in the Government of the day and it flew in the face of party dogma. I would have been proud to make that speech, and I shall refer to it later.
I pay tribute also to Bill Whitlock, whose old constituency of Nottingham, North forms most of the area which I now represent. I thank him for his hard work in the constituency and for his personal help.
I understand that someone who is making a maiden speech is given a great deal of leeway, and I do not propose to abuse that tradition. I shall confine myself to three main concerns. First, I am an ex-railwayman, a member of a rail union, a supporter and advocate of public transport and a user of public transport, so the House will not be surprised to learn that my first concern is the privatisation of British Rail, in whatever form. At the entrance to the Chamber there is a statue of Winston Churchill. I am told that as Conservative Members enter the Chamber they touch Winston Churchill's foot so that some of his talent and skill might rub off on them. It is ironic that a party that so reveres that man and the work that he did should now try to undo some of that work.
It was Winston Churchill who put country before politics and nationalised the railways. He did so not in the name of party dogma but for the public interest. How sad and tragic it will be to see dogma triumph over common sense.
If common sense is applied, what will privatisation mean to the railways? Will it improve efficiency? I think not. Will it improve effectiveness? I think not. Will it make trains run on time? I think not. Will it make the travelling public—the passenger—better off? I think not. Nye Bevan said, in effect, that we do not need a crystal ball to see what the Tories are going to do. It is all there in the record books. We do not need a crystal ball to tell us what privatisation will do. That is all in the record books too. Public monopolies are now private monopolies and underpriced shares have cost the country billions of pounds. Higher profits have been followed by job losses. Investment in research and development have been slashed. The price of privatisation is a worse service.
Who benefits from privatisation? Is the consumer a beneficiary'? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told us today that the consumer does benefit. Is that true? No matter what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says, water charges have risen above inflation while water company profits have continued to rise. The benefits are enjoyed by the shareholders. Gas prices have risen above inflation, yet the profits of British Gas continue to rise. The benefits go to the shareholders. Telephone charges have risen above inflation, yet the profits of British Telecom

415
continue to rise. The benefits go to the shareholders. Electricity prices, despite the drop in the price of coal, have risen above inflation, yet the profits of regional electricity companies continue to rise. The benefits go to the shareholders.
The picture is clear—it was heightened yesterday by remarks by the Archbishop of Canterbury—and it is that the consumer is suffering at the expense of the shareholder. What price the citizens charter now? There is nothing in privatisation for the consumer, but there is plenty in it for the managers and shareholders.
My second concern is just as important, but more frightening. Last weekend the Conservatives celebrated—and presumably are still celebrating—the local election results. 'They have a right to celebrate because they achieved a good result. However, we must not forget that they are still only second in local government—the Labour party is still number one. Nevertheless, the Conservative party made significant advances, almost as good as the advances made by the Labour party in the general election. It deserves its right to celebrate and I would not want to pour cold water over that.
I have a worry, however, that concerns not just the Labour party but all who support democracy at both local and parliamentary level. It was evident to me, as I am sure it was to other hon. Members, that there was apathy during the local elections. The turnout was dreadfully low. That shows a picture of despair. A large number of people throughout the country are beginning to believe that their votes mean nothing and that they can change nothing. That is dangerous for us all.
We need only to look at the recent events in America, where traditionally there are low turnouts in elections, to see the dangers that that presents. The riots in Los Angeles did not result from one jury giving a ludicrous verdict; they did not result from a few policemen showing evident brutality to somone in their custody; they were not simply race riots—they happened because America has long accepted an underclass. In a land of plenty, there are those who have nothing. There are those who have no stake in the American dream, those who are homeless, those who are unemployed, those who exist by begging, by benefits and by worse, and those without hope who have lost. their faith in the ballot box. That was the reason for the Los Angeles riots and we should not complacently believe that that could not happen here.
It was in my constituency that William Booth launched his crusade against poverty in the early 19th century, yet still in my constituency there are 8,500 unemployed, families living in poverty and people living on the streets. As a nation, that is something that we cannot—and, I hope, will not—tolerate.
Michael Knowles, when referring during his maiden speech in 1983 to the injustice of the rate support grant, said that he did not believe that there was an imminent danger of the people of Nottingham burning down the castle as the Luddites did in protest at the indignities and injustices of their time. I am happy to tell the House that that is still the case. However, we cannot be complacent about the social problems that we must overcome if we expect that to remain the case. Poverty must be tackled by Members on both sides of the House.
My third concern is that if we are to ensure that people feel that they have a part to play, if we are to improve the environment for our citizens and if we are to help people
416
to recognise that they have a voice, we cannot do it from the House. It must be done in the community, nearer the people. The best vehicle to deliver that is local government.
In my short time as a Member of Parliament I have been amazed by the antipathy and antagonism that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, display towards local government. That is also, I believe, a threat to democracy and to our way of life. My predecessor saw it in exactly the same way. He spoke of despair in local government, of a feeling of already having been judged guilty, of the Government tightening the noose and of the end of 1,000 years of local government. All my experience shows me that he was right then, and he is right now. Why cannot we, at a national level, trust the people? Why do we interfere with the very democracy that we profess to support?
In my constituency, Nottingham city council has raised £42 million from the sale of council houses. Why is it not allowed to spend that money to help the homeless, if that is what it has democratically decided to do? Why cannot Nottingham county council use its money—I stress that it is its own money—to build new classrooms for a school that is overcrowded, if that is what it has democratically decided to do? Why cannot we trust the men and women, from all parties, who give so much in public service, whose careers suffer and who do not enjoy the salary of a Member of Parliament? They often live on a pittance as their reward for their commitment and concern. Why cannot we let them get on with the decisions that are properly local decisions, and stop interfering? They are accountable to the people in the same way that we are accountable to the people. Why is not that enough?
I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has said—there are only two ways in which councils should be accountable, at the polling station and at the police station. There is no justification for any other controls. We need to free local government, to free the country and to free the people from central control. It is not just the Scots and the Welsh who want devolution—every council chamber in the country is shouting for that independence.
Part of my role in the House will be to do all that I can to protect local government, of whatever political persuasion, from the excesses of central Government, again of whatever political persuasion. If I can be successful in that task alone, the time that I spend in the House will not be in vain.
6.28 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: There are so many congratulations to be offered that it is difficult to know where to begin, but I shall do so by congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). Among a number of hon. Members making their maiden speeches today, he showed tremendous fluency. We appreciated his speech, and in particular his generous tribute to his predecessor Michael Knowles. I say that with some feeling because Michael was a close friend of mine. From the hon. Gentleman's accent, I guess that he, too, came as a stranger to Nottingham. Michael Knowles served Nottingham, East very well during his time in the House, and we thank the hon.

417
Gentleman for his acknowledgement of that. We trust that he will also have a successful time in this House, and we look forward to listening to him again.
I pay tribute to others who made their maiden speeches this afternoon, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring). It was nice to hear a maiden speech from a Member of Parliament from East Anglia, and especially my hon. Friend's excellent contribution. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). It is very good to see him back on these Benches.
I gained the impression from the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that he was not so much contributing to a debate as electioneering for the Labour party post that he seeks. That impression was heightened by the absence of any of his opponents to lend support to his speech. The greatest cheers came when the hon. Gentleman was recycling out-of-date socialist concepts. They did not receive many votes in the general election, and the hon. Gentleman ought to keep a sense of proportion.
My own approach is one of caution, because I do not believe that privatisation was one of the principal reasons for the re-election of a Conservative Government—though I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) that those who became shareholders from privatisations weighed that in mind before casting their votes.
Had I been ordering priorities in 1979, at the start of a Conservative Government, I doubt that I would have placed privatisation at the top of them; but I have warmed to privatisation as a consequence of my observations of the industries affected and of my conversations with those who work in them.
It is important to free public sector companies from Treasury control so that they are at liberty to obtain resources in other ways. Privatisation has also boosted management, provided incentives to employees, and demonstrated degrees of increased competition.
We are beginning to establish a regulatory system to protect public and consumer interest. We are still on a learning curve in our use of different methods, and in awarding different powers to various regulators, but we now have evidence that they are cracking the whip quite hard. I welcome therefore the references in the Gracious Speech to moves towards the privatisation of coal and the railways. Although I was born in a south Yorkshire mining village, I shall not say anything on the subject of coal—not least because many other hon. Members want to contribute to this debate. I will confine my remarks to the railways.
I suppose that we might all consider ourselves experts on the railway system, because we travel either occasionally or regularly on different parts of the network. We could probably all claim that we have, at various times, suffered at the hands of British Rail. Any rail company will inevitably have its bad days, but sometimes the public suspects that British Rail has more bad days than it should. We all take an active interest in improving the system for our sakes and those of our constituents, whose letters about the inadequacies of British Rail account for a fair proportion of our postbags. Politicians get the blame for whatever happens.
418
It is not good enough to do nothing about the present arrangements. It is right that we should ease the grip of Treasury control, which would give the railways a chance to obtain revenue from other sources. The Treasury has been too closely involved in the railways' detailed work.
I draw the attention of the House to type 321 rolling stock, which is among some of the newest on British Rail. My constituents were pleased when I was able to tell them that the Cambridge line was at last to be provided with new rolling stock for the first time in living memory. Unfortunately, my efforts ceased when the principle of new rolling stock was accepted, and I did not go on to take any detailed interest in its design.
When the new trains arrived, they were a serious let-down. They were clearly influenced by Treasury concepts, and designed to accommodate as many passengers as possible. I believe that "pack 'em in and pack 'em tight" is the principle upon which the Treasury works. It produced the most ghastly rolling stock, and it is a great shame that that was the determining factor. The sooner that it gets away from that approach to running a railway, the better.
When I am told by Ministers that I should not get carried away with the idea that officials become too involved in such detailed considerations, it has all the believability that flies are not attracted to rotten meat. I have no doubt that the sticky hands of officials are all too evident on the plans affecting almost every detail of improvements to our rail system—and that must stop.
In general, I do not believe that British Rail's management is as good as it should be, and it must be improved. It has been proved time and again in the public sector that, if managers' plans are countermanded by officials and politicians, they will despair and move into the private sector. Managers, if they are worthy of the title, want to be the real bosses.
British Rail also has a communications problem. The public are frustrated that its management has failed to get through to the operatives the importance of conveying passenger information and that it is better to explain why a train was late. All kinds of modern communication techniques are available, yet they are not regularly and reliably used. That also is a management fault. Employee morale could also be improved. If British Rail employees are given an opportunity to invest in the network, they will bring greater commitment to it.
What should be our objectives? We must want greater investment, improved efficiency, better reliability, and greater comfort. Should not comfort come into it when determining the type of trains that run on the system? Why should passengers have to rub knees with those sitting opposite them? They may or may not find that an enjoyable experience, but it ought to be possible to design carriages that do not make that necessary.
How can those objectives be achieved? Perhaps the simplest concept is a track authority separate from those responsible for running services on the track. That concept is easy to understand, but it leaves great questions to be answered.
Mr. Adley: Everyone knows the questions, but no one has the answers.
Mr. Haselhurst: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is more expert in these matters than I am. However, the superstructure of the track

419
authority should not impose too great a burden of cost on those who operate the system—and it is easy to see that it might do so.
We must also ask how it would ever be possible to finance new track. Many hon. Members want rail track to be opened up: I am one, in that I want more track to be provided to enable a service to Stansted airport to run without conflicting with the needs of my constituents who are regular commuters on the line. I also want to know how we are to put more money into the system. It may be possible through the franchising of stations, or through the sale of of land, to enrich the sources of money for a track authority. We shall need to pursue such questions.
Mr. Adley: Would not the Government be wise to recognise that the railways are part of the nation's transport infrastructure and not just another industry? Having recognised that, should they not look less to the privatised industries that have emerged in the past few years than to the lessons that could be learnt from other countries—especially our European competitors—which have tried to find answers to the questions that my hon. Friend and the rest of us are posing and to which none of us has found the answers?
Mr. Haselhurst: Indeed, we shall have to ask a great many questions. Although I consider it right to move in this direction, I agree that we do not have all the answers yet and that we must find as much evidence as possible from as many different places as possible. I do not think, however, that we should begin by being defeatist.
Obviously, it is possible to improve access to the system. We already have such access through freight: Foster Yeoman, for example, is already running its own wagons on the British Rail system. It is more difficult, however, to see how open access can apply in the case of passenger traffic—not impossible, but more difficult. There is restricted scope for head-to-head competition; there are not many routes in the country where there are alternatives. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) laughs, but there is certainly more than one way to go to Scotland, and it is possible to envisage competition between the east-coast and west-coast routes. Similarly, there are two ways of going to Cambridge, and competition is possible there. Unfortunately, there are not two ways of getting to Birmingham now, as there used to be. The possibilities are very restricted, and a different sort of competition is possible only where different services on, say, InterCity routes could be run by different companies.
I am prepared to contemplate that, because I think that it might lead to a ratcheting-up of standards as new ideas are introduced to the running of our railway system. Great care will have to be exercised, however, with the interchangeability of tickets and the integration of the timetable. Perhaps the most sensible method is to franchise routes as a whole, or to franchise present sectors of British Rail as a whole. It might be possible, for instance, to franchise the west Anglian line, the Great Northern line and the Great Eastern line so that they are run according to certain standards. That might improve the reliability and quality of those lines. I think that the idea is worth pursuing, and I shall watch with great interest as the Government's plans unfold.
Let me return to my starting point. There must be a better way of running our railways. The Government are right to be uncomfortable with the status quo; certainly,
420
many of our constituents are uncomfortable with it. I therefore view the Gracious Speech and its new approach with an open and welcoming mind, and I believe that a good deal of gratitude can be earned if we manage to get things right during the current Parliament.
6.43 pm
Ms. Helen Jackson: I congratulate you on your new position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for calling me.
I speak with some humility in this, my first maiden speech—indeed, my only maiden speech. That is not just because of the traditions of the House; it is also because, as the new Member of Parliament for Sheffield, Hillsborough, I am very much aware that my predecessor spent many years in the House, made a magnificent contribution to its debates and will be a hard act to follow.
I first knew Martin Flannery and his wife Blanche in 1973, when I went to live in the part of Sheffield in which I live now—my present constituency, which, as the constituency of Penistone, was represented then by Jack Mendelson. After his death, it was represented by Allen McKay.
One of the things on which Jack Mendelson and his colleague Martin Flannery worked tirelessly in 1973 was the exposure of the iniquitous military coup in Chile—financed by the CIA—which caused the death of Salvador Allende, then leader of the Government, and led to the death, imprisonment and torture of many thousands of Chileans. I worked with my predecessors then to open the way for students, trade unionists and many other brave men and women from Chile to find a refuge in this country. I know that Martin Flannery, like me, is very concerned about the reference in the Queen's Speech to the reintroduction of the Asylum Bill; that will make it much more difficult for people who have suffered torture to find refuge here.
I suppose, however, that Martin Flannery's main concern was education. He brought to the enormous amount of political work that he did in the House a deep practical knowledge, arising from his own experience as a head teacher and his understanding of the profession of teaching children. When I was canvassing during the recent general election, I found that virtually one person in every street in one area of Sheffield had either been taught by Martin Flannery or been to school with one of his relatives. His deep practical knowledge of education was invaluable, and I am sure that the House will wish to join me in congratulating him on the honour conferred on him by the National Union of Teachers, which made him an honorary member at Easter.
Martin Flannery was deeply troubled by the damage done by the Conservative party to the morale of schools and colleges over the past 13 years. I read with great concern the weasel words "extend choice and diversity" in the Queen's Speech. What does that mean in education? How many parents whose children passed the 11-plus—in those bad old days of the 11—plus and meritocracy—chose, because they had the choice, to send their children to secondary modern schools? How many parents of children who did not pass the 11-plus, and who therefore did not have the choice—unless they had the money to opt out of the public system and send their children to private schools —were able to do the same?

421
Extending choice for the rich and fortunate in public services always reduces the standards for the many. We shall need to return to those arguments later in our debate on the Queen's Speech.
Let me now turn to the subject of today's debate. If privatisation is an ugly word in terms of education, deregulation is an even uglier word in terms of south Yorkshire's transport system. One of the best things about the area of Sheffield in which I live, when our children were growing up there, was the cheapness of public transport. In their half-term holidays, if they wanted to go for a swim in Rotherham, visit the market in Chapeltown or go to the shops at Hillsborough corner, it cost them 2p. To me, that represents real choice and diversity.
The results of deregulation are now clear to everyone living in south Yorkshire—and, indeed, are accepted universally, with one or two exceptions; there are still a few backwoods Tories around. The fares went up; the number of passengers went down; the number of private car users went up; the buses became older and dirtier; there was no overall planning. It is impossible to obtain a timetable for south Yorkshire buses any more. Ridiculous congestion is caused by competition for routes in the centre of Sheffield. Thousands of jobs have been lost and the very good training centre run by the bus company has been closed. There is no one to complain to when things go wrong; one is just shunted from one place to another.
If that experience of how to dismantle a good public transport system is transferred to the railways, there will be disaster. Under this Government, trains and rolling stock are old and dirty. Are they going to get older? Are we going to go back to the days of steam? Since 1979, under this Government, fares have risen 30 per cent. more than inflation. Fares in London are more expensive than in any other capital city. Financial planning, co-ordination and looking to the future have already suffered while British Rail has been preparing for privatisation by breaking up the system into different elements. Manufacturing jobs have suffered as a result of under-investment. By 1991 we had spent less capital on the rail infrastracture than any other EC country, apart from Greece and Ireland.
Perhaps we should ask whether that really matters. Of course it matters. It matters for a range of reasons, but fundamentally because of the number of private cars and lorries on the roads. We are told in "Road Facts 1992" that by the year 2000 car traffic will increase by 36 per cent. and lorry traffic by 27 per cent. Something must be done about that. One fifth of all carbon dioxide pollution in Britain is caused by road transport. The only way to address that problem is sharply to increase investment in public transport, both on the roads and on the railways. If we are to create a healthy future both for ourselves and for our children we must slow down the use of private transport. I support wholeheartedly the measures that were so forcefully put before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
I shall be raising other issues on behalf of my constituents. In my constituency there are 200 ex-employees of Newton Chambers Engineering. When that firm went into liquidation the financiers got hold of it. It was sold, and then sold again. Eventually the pension money of ex-employees ended up in the hands of those
422
who administered the Maxwell pension funds. They now have to wait month by month to see whether their cheque comes through.
I shall also be raising health issues, in particular health and safety standards in the steel industry on behalf of the many people who work at Stocksbridge Engineering Steels. I shall press for the acceptance of lung disease as a recognised normal industrial hazard within the steel industry. I shall raise issues concerning community care. An increasing number of elderly people in my constituency do not enjoy the necessary day and community care services that would enable them to end their lives with dignity, instead of being subjected to exploitation by some of the most obscene forms of privatisation—the mushrooming number of private homes for the elderly.
I regret the fact that the Queen's Speech offers little hope to my constituents that their aspirations to jobs, prosperity and a better quality of life will be realised in the near future.
6.54 pm
Mrs. Angela Knight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to make my maiden speech.
I congratulate the new hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms. Jackson). We have known each other for a number of years. We served together on Sheffield city council and we live only a few miles apart. I was particularly interested, therefore, to hear her most informative speech and the points that she made about Sheffield. I must confess, however, that I was not aware that her constituents are interested in Chile.
It is a privilege to be a Member of the House and, in the established tradition, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Peter Rost. He represented Erewash and the former Derbyshire, South-East constituency for 20 years. He was highly respected throughout the area for all the work that he undertook on behalf of his constituents. He was a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in this place and a founder member of the Select Committee on Energy. It was there that his particular interest lay. All those who knew him will, I am sure, agree that he was one of the most knowledgeable Members of Parliament on energy matters. Now that he has retired, that interest and expertise will not be lost.
I now have the honour of representing the Erewash constituency. It is a diverse area in Derbyshire. It contains beautiful countryside and villages and also the principal towns of Ilkeston and Long Eaton. It has lower than average unemployment and a high proportion of the work force is employed in manufacturing industry. Textiles and light engineering are two of the principal industries in that area. Textiles, including lace, are an important part of the local economy. There is a widely held but incorrect belief that lace is, somehow, a cottage industry that employs a few people working by hand in back rooms. The truth is very different. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer visited a modern, computerised lace mill in my constituency during the general election. I am grateful to him for his visit to Birkins, as are those who work there. One machine in that factory produces 70 miles of lace a week. There are 80 machines in that lace mill alone. It is a vibrant and automated industry that has been able to invest substantially in new equipment and plant throughout the 1980s. It now looks forward with confidence to the future.

423
Lace is both a tradition and a necessity. Many women wear a hit of lace close to their heart, most of the time. That fashion is unlikely to change. It is also a good export for this country. However, despite good investment and productivity, the trade restrictions of other countries can present trading difficulties for companies in my constituency. I look forward to the speedy conclusion of the talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade, as set out in the Gracious Speech.
Light engineering is one of the other principal industries in the area. I worked for 15 years in the engineering industry. I saw the decline in investment during the 1970s and took part in the revival in investment in manufacturing throughout the 1980s. However, I am still saddened to hear some politicians talking down British industry. The reality of the last 13 years is that investment has increased, that exports have grown and that productivity has immensely improved. Just before the election, a survey was undertaken of businesses in the east midlands. That survey, published last week, shows that over three quarters of Derbyshire businesses could see that recovery was coming strongly. With the outcome of the general election now known, confidence has improved further. The privatisation programme has been fundamental to the transformation of the performance of British industry.
Nationalised industry was a byword for inefficiency and low productivity. Nationalised companies lost taxpayers money and competed with other demands on the public purse for capital investment. Management did not have the freedom to manage. It ultimately had to meet political requirements. It could not therefore make the business decisions that were necessary, and there was no incentive for enterprise. Those of us who worked in industry knew it because we saw it. Following privatisation, those former loss-leaders of industry have become profitable companies. They pay taxes into the Exchequer rather than take money from it.
In the few days that I have been a Member, I have heard Opposition Members say that all that should be done is to keep as much industry as possible nationalised and change the rules so that they can have access to additional private finance by one route or another. Indeed, I heard that this afternoon. Their proposals for nationalised industry borrowing would still affect public expenditure plans and therefore would be limited by political constraints rather than by business requirements. The freedom to manage would be lost, yet that freedom has brought success to privatised companies.
The massive investment that is now being made in the water industry to improve purity of water is resulting in extensive new pipework being laid by the water companies. Many of those pipes are made in my constituency. Stanton Ironworks is in Erewash. It is now a large, viable privatised ironworks that had formally been languishing in the public sector. It is a principal supplier to the water industry, which now has the ability for massive investment. None of this was possible when both were nationalised concerns.
I look forward to the other improvements that will flow from the programme for industry outlined in the Gracious Speech. Through Erewash runs the midland main line railway. Connected to that line, and lying within my constituency and that of the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), is a large and under-used railway siding, which would be an excellent rail head for the channel tunnel. It would
424
generate more employment for the area and increase local prosperity. I look forward to it being developed as a road-rail freight haulage centre. It will bring opportunity for my constituents and for the east midlands, but that opportunity will come only with the proposals for the liberalisation of British Rail and freight that have been outlined.
There is a wider aspect of the public ownership debate. From the five years that I have spent in local government, I can tell the House that I am a passionate believer in local government. But just as I am a passionate supporter of it, I equally passionately dislike seeing local government run badly. The introduction of competitive tendering has been essential in ensuring that local government seeks ways of administering the services of the area more effectively, at a lower cost and at a benefit to those who live there. One of the pluses of competitive tendering has been the highlighting of inefficiency and waste, so long hidden in a fog of bureaucracy.
As a councillor in opposition on Sheffield city council, I saw the expression "local democracy" used as an excuse to grasp as much control as possible for the town hall and then to do what a group of councillors wanted rather than what the people needed. Too many times, I have witnessed a council flouting the desires of parents and schoolchildren even when there was no financial reason for doing so. That is not true local democracy, nor is it public accountability as it should be.
I know that there have been debates in past months in the House on the affairs of Derbyshire county council, and I suspect that there will be more. Erewash education is administered by Derbyshire county council. It is making budgetary decisions that are against the wishes of parents, governors and schools throughout the county. My constituents object, as they know that their children will be adversely affected, and unnecessarily so. Indeed, I believe that the Labour party was lucky that there were no county council elections last week. If there had been, Derbyshire could easily have done a Basildon.
I do not make the erroneous assumption that, because some local authorities ignore the wishes of the electorate, all of them do. But, undoubtedly, the Government's Education Acts have empowered school governing bodies to make decisions, after listening to parents' wishes, in a way that local authorities would find difficult. That has truly empowered the people.
The proposals in the Gracious Speech for further progress to allow parents choice, to give children greater opportunities and to continue to raise standards in education and allow more schools powers of control over their own affairs are particularly important to my constituents. Local councillors do not have to run everything. Councillors are elected not to run a rubbish collection business but to ensure that that service is provided. Equally, Members of Parliament are elected not to run a steel works, a telephone company or a water board but to ensure that industry has the right climate in which to operate and that those processes and procedures are regulated and that standards are set.
True public ownership is about individuals owning shares in companies, including those for which they work. They then have a real stake in their industrial future. In local government, public ownership is about parents being involved in the running of their schools, and schools having independence of action within the state system.

425
Under the citizens charter, every citizen is entitled to expect high standards of openness, information, choice and redress with the public services. I look forward to playing my part in the legislative programme that has been outlined in the Gracious Speech, as it will bring real benefits to my constituents.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The debate is now subject to the 10-minute rule. It may assist hon. Members if I point out that the colon between the hour and the minutes on the clocks will flash after nine and a half minutes have elapsed.
7.7 pm
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity of making my maiden speech.
There is real concern and anxiety in Ceredigion and Pembroke, North about the Government's intention to privatise parts of the rail services. There is some sense of relief that BR will retain control of the track—for the time being anyway—and that the intention to sell off InterCity or to create private regional companies has been shelved.
My constituency is served by two railway lines of much importance—to Fishguard, with its harbour and ferry service, and to Aberystwyth, a prestigious centre for higher education and research, which needs an efficient railway service. My constituents and I will be looking for guarantees that those services will be maintained—enhanced, rather. Indeed, I think that there is an opportunity for new track and new routes in whatever changes occur.
I am glad to read that the Government are committed to increasing the role of the railways in meeting the country's transport needs, but my constituents are looking for action, not words. There can be no avoiding the need for substantial public funds to provide a satisfactory railway infrastructure. It is difficult to understand how privatisation would facilitate the development of an integrated system of rail, road and telecommunications which is one of the crying needs of Wales and, indeed, of Britain as a whole.
Increased emphasis on rail transport is important not only for the economic prosperity of west Wales and, of course, of my constituency but for the benefit of the environment. It is a well-established fact that rail transport is infinitely less damaging to the environment than road transport. I am told that a train carrying only 100 passengers can achieve 250 passenger-miles per gallon equivalent compared with 30 passenger-miles per gallon equivalent achieved by a car carrying one person. A similar picture emerges if one considers freight transport. Clearly, that has significant implications in terms of the levels of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by the two forms of transport.
The very mention of the words "environment" or "CO2 emissions" cannot, I hope, fail to remind hon. Members of what has been called the most important meeting in the history of the world—the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to be held in Rio in a few weeks. The prospects of success at that conference should above all else be exercising all our minds at this time. Its
426
title reminds us that development and the environment must henceforth be inseparable concepts. We know of the crying need for economic development among the poor peoples of the world, but all development must henceforth be sustainable in terms of the natural systems that make life possible or, at the very least, tolerable on planet earth. At present, the signs are that the measures likely to be taken by that conference in Rio will fall far short of what is necessary to save our planet. I do not think that I am using overly dramatic language when I use words such as "to save our planet".
On climate change, the likely failure is in large part the result of the thoroughly irresponsible behaviour of the United States of America which, with 5 per cent. of the world's population, is responsible for 25 per cent. of the world's CO2 emissions. The United States were, at least until recently, predicting an increase of 40 per cent. in the use of coal in order to meet a 46 per cent. increase in electricity demand by the year 2010. It is the United States' objections which have blocked an international agreement to stabilise CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.
The terrible thing is, of course, that even an agreement to stabilise CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 would be woefully inadequate. Present levels are, in all probability, unsustainable and may very well be causing deadly damage now. Reference has already been made to conditions in Africa and there is a possibility of a link between the terrible drought in southern Africa and the phenomenon of global warming. Present levels of CO2 emissions may be causing deadly damage now and could possibly lead to catastrophic climate change.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has called for a reduction of 60 per cent. in global CO2 emissions. One can only hope that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment are aware of the deadly seriousness of the matters at issue and that, if necessary, they will go to Rio with a commitment to reduce unilaterally and significantly CO2 emissions in Britain. Of course, to meet such a commitment would require a strategy involving several elements. One of the those elements would be an integrated transport system and a shift of emphasis from road to rail transport.
I mention only one other element of such a strategy. As 36 per cent. of Britain's carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels for the generation of electricity, there is enormous scope and a crying need for an ambitious programme of conversion to non-polluting renewable sources such as wind, tide, wave and hydro. It so happens that my constituency and western Wales in general have enormous potential for such sources. I hope that hon. Members will know that with an economy facing a crisis resulting from serious difficulties in agriculture and the threatened run-down in defence establishments, west Wales requires a strategy for economic renewal. The development of such a strategy within the existing political framework lies, of course, with the Secretary of State for Wales, his fellow Ministers at the Welsh Office and the Welsh Office itself. That is where the responsibility lies. I believe that such a strategy must include substantial public investment not only in the infrastructural development, including the railway, but, to a significant extent, in roads.
There must be changes in energy policy on a British, European and global level. I am very disappointed that today's debate on energy and transport has not mentioned the global context in which they must operate. In view of

427
the fact that those changes must come, renewable energy generation could play a significant role in a development strategy for west Wales. However, my anxiety is that such renewable resources will be exploited—as has so often been the case in Wales where water and opencast coal mining are just two cases in point—for the financial benefit of powerful external forces but with minimal benefit for the communities in which the resources are found. I fear that that will happen again with renewables.
A development strategy for west Wales must ensure that renewable energy generation provides the maximum benefit for the area, which implies the retention of a substantial proportion of the profits so that they can circulate within the local economy. That would be best achieved at least partly by developing a degree of co-operative ownership, which is not quite the same as state ownership.
It is my conviction that the establishment of a democratic Parliament for Wales is the only satisfactory way to provide the right economic and social development for our country, and that is a point that I must emphasise. It is also a point with which my predecessor, Mr. Geraint Howells, who was regarded with great affection and respect in the House and in his constituency, would agree entirely. In the next few years, the Secretary of State for Wales and the British Government in general have the opportunity to prove me wrong.
7.27 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: First, let me congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and say what a pleasure it is not only for Conservative Members but for hon. Members of all parties to see you looking so cherubic in your post. We congratulate you and wish you a long and happy tenure of the Chair. It is good to see you there.
May I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). His party did incredibly well to win four seats in Wales although I do not know what the message is. I recall that following the Scotland and Wales Bill the referendum in Wales produced a stunningly large majority against any form of devolution, yet Plaid Cymru now has more seats than the Scottish National party. One day, no doubt, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will explain to the House where he thinks Wales is going.
May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on a spiffing speech. It was fluent and constructive and showed that she is politically and commercially experienced. It was a pleasure to hear and a privilege to be present. We do not have much time so I shall deal immediately with the Loyal Address.
It is the first time in more than 20 years that I have spoken on the Loyal Address and I am minded to do so because of the two sentences on page 3 of the Queen's Speech which state:
"My Government are committed to increasing the role of the railways in meeting the country's transport needs. Legislation will be introduced to enable the private sector to operate rail services."
The supposition is that sentence two will enact sentence one. That is not yet proven, but I certainly hope that that will be the case. Otherwise, we will all be in a great deal of trouble.
I do not doubt the Government's motives. I had considerable doubt about the transport policy of the Conservative Government under my former right hon.
428
Friend Margaret Thatcher. She was perceived, rightly, in many quarters as being hostile to the railways. That is not the case with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He was generous with his time with me before the general election. Therefore, I give him and his Government the benefit of the doubt, certainly about the motives expressed in the Queen's Speech. Few hon. Members would pretend that British Rail is perfect. In passing, I declare a commercial interest only in that it lets me know that some parts of the British Rail empire are urgently in need of surgery if they are to make the best use of the national assets at their disposal.
The railway is an essential component of the modern industrial state. One cannot judge a railway by normal commercial criteria. It is not a monopoly; it must compete with road transport where all the track costs are funded by the taxpayer. Moreover, the private motorist does not cost-in his own time. As I suggested in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), the Government should assess their plans for the future of our railways not by comparing the railways with other industries that have been privatised, but by the experience of our competitor countries, Germany, Japan, France and Switzerland, many of which have considered railway privatisation and found it wanting.
I turn straight to methods and that second sentence in the Queen's Speech. We must define the need. We must weld private sector discipline and management expertise on to the public service obligation of the railways. It would be ridiculous to create conditions under which British Rail would be disadvantaged in its access to funds vis-a-vis the private sector. This afternoon we have heard few comments about safety being paramount. Whatever happens there must be no question of any reduction in the high level of safety which has always been imposed by this House on the operators of railways, whether in the public or private sector.
There must be a continuing role for Her Majesty's Government in both rail investment and rail subsidies. Some of the methods not even considered in this country are applied by many of our international competitors. They have a determined policy to promote the role of rail travel. What thought is being given to utilising the tax system to encourage the use of rail freight? What time is being spent on examining incentives to use the railway, or disincentives to use the road? I hear little of that, yet in Germany, for example, that is a standard way of generating the utilisation of the state railway system.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) discussed the need to allow British Rail to borrow funds from the Treasury. The SNCF has been doing that from the French Treasury for years. The excuses or reasons not so to do from Treasury Ministers, however one looks at them, are almost beyond my comprehension. We need to invest more in our transport infrastructure. If the French railways can borrow money without a French Government guarantee, we should be able to do the same here.
People ask whether we need any legislation on the railways. We do. Shortly SNCF will want to run trains on British Rail tracks. If the Government were a little more frank, they would tell us that to enable SNCF to run trains on British Rail track through the channel tunnel there will need to be an amendment to primary legislation. If ever the

429
private sector manufacturers get round to producing the necessary rolling stock to enable channel tunnel trains to be run, we shall need to legislate.
This is not the time to examine the paving Bill in detail, but the Committee will need to consider clause 1(5) which states:
"The powers conferred by this section in relation to any proposal shall be exercisable whether or not Parliament has given any approval".
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply to this debate. Let me use a Scottish example to make a point about investment criteria. After 20 years in this place I managed to secure a debate on 23 March 1990 on railway investment criteria. It is little less than scandalous how investment in roads is given such priority by the Department of Transport in relation to investment criteria. Why did we not build a rail bridge across the Dornoch Firth when the road bridge was built? That is a classic illustration of failure to create a level playing field for British Rail.
Earlier in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) spoke about the Southend line and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) mentioned it today. That line has been starved of investment and has a rotten service. Compare the service on the Southend line with the service on the Chiltern line, which was recently extensively modernised with new track, new signals and new rolling stock. The customers are satisfied, revenue is up and passenger numbers are rising. Investment is essential.
My main question is: do the Government think that any forthcoming Bill will generate private-sector investment into our railways and, certainly, our commuter railways? Nobody in his right mind who runs a business will invest heavily in capital equipment, use it for four hours a day, five days a week and leave it idle for the rest of the week. That is no way to run a business, but that must be done if we are to enable commuters to get into and out of our major cities.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon will not hold his breath until Richard Branson comes along and provides a new railway service on the London-Tilbury-Southend line. That gentleman is very good at public relations, but his ambitions for the east-coast main line seem to be to piggyback on a major slice of public investment. In the past few years £500 million has gone into that line. To cherry pick a few of the juicier bits and pieces of the railway system does not help us to judge whether private operators will invest capital in our railways.
We have a complex rail system. [Interruption.] The lights are flashing and I must conclude. The BR timetable has 1,392 pages and costs £5.50. That is good value for money. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to suggest to his colleagues that before they risk tearing it up and destroying one of the best railway systems in the world, whatever its faults, they should read the timetable and see what is involved.
7.27 pm
Mr. Eric Clarke: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your elevated position, and I thank you for calling me to speak today.
430
As this is my maiden speech, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessors who formerly represented Midlothian in the House. Alex Eadie served here for 26 years. He was a Minister in the Labour Government, a Front-Bench spokesman and an able Back Bencher. I am sure that he earned the respect of Conservative colleagues as well as Labour colleagues and I hope that the House will join me in wishing him all the best in much deserved retirement.
In the past, three miners represented Midlothian: Jimmy Hill of Musselburgh prior to Alex Eadie, and David Pryde of Bonnyrigg prior to Jimmy Hill. They were all men of the people and active trade unionists in the National Union of Mineworkers.
I have the same background. I was a miner who worked underground for 26 years prior to the 12 years that I served as a trade union official. In addition, I have 16 years' experience in local government as a county councillor and regional councillor for Lothian.
I am proud to be a socialist and a trade unionist, especially as a member of the National Union of Mineworkers, an organisation brought about to protect miners and their families from the coal owners of the past, the bad legislation that came from this House and I might say the present bad legislation that may happen but I hope will not.
Victimisation of miners was rife in the past and we still have victimised miners in Midlothian and elsewhere who cannot get work in the industry. It was because of the trade union that we protected many of these innocent people and raised the much-needed standards of safety required in mining underground. It is a sad day when the Government propose to privatise the British coal industry. Mrs. Thatcher wanted us to return to Victorian values; the Prime Minister wants us to return to the dark ages of the coal owners.
At present, miners working in private mines are worse off than those working in British Coal mines. The accident rate per thousand shifts is three and a half times worse in private mines than in British Coal mines. The statistics are exactly the same as the accident rates in the United States of America. Private enterprise is not beneficial to miners as far as the accident rate is concerned. Miners in private mines have no "self rescuers", a small apparatus carried on the person of every miner underground which is used in a fire to protect them against smoke inhalation and could have saved many lives. They were introduced as a result of the disaster at Michael colliery in Fife, but private mines do not supply them to their work force. In most cases, private mines have no pithead baths and no work wear system as of right—the free issue of laundered overalls and underwear to men who work underground. The redundancy agreement for those in private mines is the basic minimum industrial agreement on the statute book and it is a pittance compared with that for people covered by the British Coal scheme.
Privatisation does not just affect miners and their families; it affects this country. The short-term profit motives of extracting coal, as against the long-term protection of all potentially workable coal measures within a colliery, is the priority of the private coal owners. We have had hundreds of examples throughout every coal field of short-sighted exploitation of such measures, spoiling and sterilising millions of tons of coal for ever.
I am pleased to see that the two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland are present. I am worried about the situation in Midlothian and what will

431
happen to Monktonhall colliery on privatisation. It is a colliery on "care and maintenance", so will it be included in the overall Scottish sell-off? Will Scotland's coal assets—pencast and deep-mined units—be sold as a package? If the Government really care about the future of the Scottish coal fields, I propose that they sell off the coal industry as a package in order to create wealth for the owners to develop the deep-mined coal measures and resuscitate Monktonhall and Frances collieries in Fife and provide much-needed employment in the areas. As someone who really cares for the coal industry and its people, 1 hope that common sense will prevail if privatisation takes place.
I have read with great interest the maiden speeches of my predecessors, which contained pleas to the Governments of the day for the protection of indigenous industries—for example, the Scottish shale oil industry, the paper-making industry and obviously the coal mining industry. There is no longer a shale oil industry in the Lothians because of the withdrawal of subsidies to the industry, causing many people to become unemployed in the past. There is only one paper-making mill left in Midlothian when there were many in the past and there is only one colliery, Monktonhall, which is on a "care and maintenance" basis. The deindustrialisation of Midlothian can be repeated throughout the whole of the United Kingdom and Government after Government, not the representatives of Midlothian, are to blame We, as a country, are left with the uncertainty of importing goods and materials which will result in mass unemployment throughout the country.
We must protect our indigenous industries, we must expand job opportunities based on high-tech industries and new ideas. We are internationally famous for discovering new ideas and processes, but we are woefully bad at manufacturing them. We need training for high skills and diversification from our defence industries and we need to retain and retrain a highly skilled work force, which is being made unemployed. The Government must intervene. We need help to encourage firms to diversify and we need money to be put into training establishments to bring about such a highly skilled work force.
I will continue to repeat, whenever the opportunity arises, that the people of Midlothian and elsewhere must be given the right to work and should have a standard of living equal to that of those living in any other area of the country. It is not for them the double standards of having a few who are rich and the vast majority who are poor.
7.35 pm
Mr. Mark Wolfson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), who spoke from his own hard experience and from the heart. I congratulate him on his speech and we all look forward to hearing more from him.
It is my particular pleasure to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your assumption to the famous office of Chairman of Ways and Means. We shared one part of the route to Westminster when we both stood, I after you, as, I regret to say, the unsuccessful candidates for the old Islington, North constituency—not a constituency known today for returning Conservative Members of Parliament. I congratulate you on your new office and I wish you well in it.
432
There have always been two key reasons for privatisation. The most important is that it removes the burden of financing investment programmes from the public sector to the private financial markets. The second reason is also of real significance. The management of privatised industries can no longer look to Government to bail them out of loss-making activities. That same management is no longer directly constrained or supported by Members when it makes changes of national significance such as the decision to close a plant or to run down production in response to the market force of customer demand.
Nationalised industries become very inflexible in responding to market demands—they were often discouraged from such flexibility by demands made in the House for the protection of constituents' jobs—and that did not help them to remain competitive in the world markets. I am thinking in particular of the steel industry of the past. Such inflexibility caused that industry great problems when it was forced to change its structure as a result of changing markets in world demand. Those problems have continued until today.
I remember when Sir Anthony Meyer, a former Member, spoke of his experience in his constituency when the Shotton steelworks were closed. He regretted the fact that he had opposed the proposal, made in an earlier Parliament, to run down those works because such a rundown would have been much easier had it occurred outside a recession rather than in the recession of the early 1980s. So, when we have deployed arguments here in what we have considered to be the best interests of our constituents, they may not always have been in the long-term interests of the industries. I have never seen a good reason why industries that can run themselves properly within the private sector should unnecessarily be owned by the state. They nearly always end up being a financial burden to the state as well.
Two thirds of the state-owned sector of industry has been privatised in the past 12 years and losses in it have been turned into profits. Nationalised industries were receiving subsidies of £2.5 billion in 1978–79, equivalent to more than one third of that year's health service budget. In comparison with the need to fund the health and education services, spending Exchequer money on industries that could support themselves is not a good use of public money.
Now that they are back in the private sector, those industries are making profits, and they contributed some £2 billion to the Exchequer in corporation tax last year. That revenue will continue, quite apart from the massive £42 billion raised from the capital receipts of privatisation. Those proceeds have enabled the Government not only to achieve record spending levels on health, education and —despite many of the arguments deployed today—on transport, but to repay substantial amounts of the accumulated national debt. We publicise that fact too little. It has significant bearing on how other countries view the health of our economy against the present higher public sector borrowing requirement planned for the medium term. A healthy pound is evidence of that positive regard in which the overall budgetary structure of Britain is presently regarded overseas.
Through privatisation, share ownership has spread dramatically throughout the population. Thirteen years ago, only one in 20 of the adult population owned shares, whereas today it is almost one in four. Most significantly,

433
that increased ownership is far more widely spread. Two thirds of share owners are now to be found outside the ranks of professionals and managers. I represent a constituency in the south-east of England and must point out that 60 per cent. of those shareholders live outside the south-east. The Labour party would do well to ponder that fact as it considers why its policies on renationalisation and its continuing commitment to clause IV may have affected the general election result.
Those are good reasons for privatisation but just as vital to this debate is the fact that the nationalised industries did not give a good standard of service and caused widespread dissatisfaction to customers. We can all remember the telephone installation that took weeks, the public phoneboxes that were filthy and seldom worked and the gas and electricity engineers who missed appointments and often had to make several calls to households before the job was done.
The contrast now is obvious and voters know it, even if the Opposition do not. Telephones are rapidly installed and consumers have a lot of choice in the type of installation that they prefer. It is now difficult to find a callbox that does not work and they are clean. Service calls by gas and electricity engineers are reliably organised on a morning or afternoon basis. Acting on its own initiative, East Midlands Electricity has introduced appointment times, rather than just stating that workers will come in the morning or the afternoon, and will pay compensation if appointments are not kept. That places the consumer in a dominant role, receiving a better service from the privatised industry.
The role of the regulator in privatised industries that are still monopolies is still absolutely key. I welcome the example of the gas industry regulator demonstrating that it will use its teeth, as we heard last week. The importance of the regulators cannot be underestimated in the fight against inflation, particularly in those industries where improved technology is making lower unit costs possible each year. I look to the regulators to take that into account when allowing the increases in charges by monopoly privatised industries. We expect them to deliver a better service to the customer at a lower cost.
The Government's approach towards the privatisaton of the railways is sensible and right. We are not going the whole hog immediately but approaching it steadily and cautiously. But the introduction of private capital into the operation of the railways will give passengers a better service and stimulate management, as it has in every other privatised industry, to put the customer first and to do a more effective job.
7.46 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I join others in welcoming you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your post this evening. With your interest in medical affairs, I am sure that you will be interested in the fact that, throughout this debate, no place has been given to the medical and social services side.
In the context of privatisation, I acknowledge that there is no intention to privatise the health service but, with the movement that is going on, there is great concern about the setting up of, for example, the Social Security Agency. I am not sure whether it is happening elsewhere, but there
434
seems to be a cosy relationship between the agency's main office in Belfast and British Telecom. When people phone up, they are told to hold on. They hold on and on, and are then told that they will be put through to another department. They are then told that their call will be returned, but it is not. People on social security benefit do not like wasting money. It may be a cosy relationship because of the restrictions on chatlines and to help British Telecom make more profits. I do not know, but I should like to think that the Social Security Agency would be more outgoing in looking after people's needs with greater efficiency, as it still comes under some scrutiny from the House.
I pay tribute to the maiden speeches that I have heard, particularly those of the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms. Jackson) and for Erewash (Mrs. Knight). The hon. Member for Erewash commented on competitive tendering. I should like to think that, although we in Northern Ireland may have different problems from others, there will be greater control over what is happening. I was interested to discover not so long ago a company that had been on the list for selective tendering had been removed. I had written earlier to the Department to draw attention to the fact that it was not doing its work properly and was employing people on the double. I had received a letter informing me that that was wrong, that the company was reputable and that it would take anybody who made such allegations to court. I promptly replied that I looked forward to that day. The company was removed from the list because 80 per cent. of the work force on one contract were already being employed by the Department of Social Services—on benefits. So that is a case of competitive tendering in which the very Department is unware of who is receiving the benefits, and a firm's work force are then in a position to undercut the local council or other firms in tendering for services.
If we are talking about privatisation, we must also consider the way that the privatisation is undertaken. I have no axe to grind: if privatisation would be good for the community, by all means privatise. But I pay tribute to the successful outcome of Harland and Wolff and Bombardier Short in maintaining two industries working in a part of the United Kingdom where there are grave reductions in industrial manpower.
I also pay tribute to hon. Members who have served in Northern Ireland. I have not always agreed with them—a privilege enjoyed by hon. Members—but they have worked for Northern Ireland. Although there are those who think that Northern Ireland is a dead water. I suggest that it is a promotional spot for the governor of Hong Kong, and the Foreign Secretary has discovered that he did not do too badly having been at the Northern Ireland Office. In the context of industrial development in Northern Ireland, I pay tribute to the present Minister for Trade, who worked tremendously hard to bring investment into the Province.
To return to social services in the context of privatisation, I never thought that the problem that some of us envisaged about the arm's length inspection units dealing with the statutory, voluntary and private sectors would be resolved as now seems to be the case: by the abolition of the statutory sector and its replacement by the private sector. I regret that the Department seemed to be putting pressure on social service units, both within the direct management of the Department in Northern Ireland and within local government responsibility, to close

435
homes, which meant the opening of more private homes. The time will come when, no matter who are in Government, they will have to introduce amending legislation because of the pressures on the public purse created by the escalating costs in the private sector.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has today been called the Minister for little people. We have heard about the charter of rights, and parental choice in education. My constituents know that that is a myth. The Department closes schools and reduces the size of rolls so that infants intending to go to primary school cannot be taken into the go to primary school cannot be taken into the school of their parents' choice in their local catchment area, but have to travel at least a mile to another school which is not necessarily the parents' or the child's choice. The child often has to go to a school outwith the community of his or her friends.
I welcomed the Prime Minister's statement on 6 May that consideration would be given to setting up a Northern Ireland Select Committee. It is good to know that fruitful talks on Northern Ireland are in progress. I underline again that the position of a Select Committee is not the responsibility of negotiating parties outside the House, but is the responsibility of the House. I urge the Government to introduce the necessary legislation to set up a Select Committee on Northern Ireland at the beginning of this Session so that we shall not have continued late scrutiny of some of the tragic mis-spending of the finances in Northern Ireland Departments.
I remind the usual channels of the understanding that the other Select Committees would be set up, not six months later, but immediately. I hope that, before the summer recess, those Select Committees will be set up. It is the responsibility of Back Benchers to scrutinise the affairs of Government Departments, and a Select Committee is the most efficient way of doing so. Perhaps that is one reason why some people are not in any urgent rush to see them set up. But as a Back Bencher, I plead that they should be set up speedily.
Last week, I wondered whether there was any significance in the fact that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) moved the motion on the Loyal Address in a debate in which the Prime Minister later revealed the name of "C". Did that signify the fact that we would no longer need moles and that there would be open government or was it mythology, with the Government giving the impression of being open, but still concealing?
In future, will the Government answer questions asked by Members, or will the Government respond that the relevant information is not collected centrally, and can be gathered only at disproportionate cost? If there is to be open government, surely hon. Members should be in a position to know what is happening in the community so that they can bring an informed opinion to the House.
I welcome the fact that there has been a movement to improve security. However, I regret that it was not a secret, now revealed. Many years ago, when speaking to a noted officer of the Army in Belfast, I illustrated an incident by saying, "MI5 has been at work." He said, "Not MI5." We have had evidence of a perfect Government answer that tells us nothing that we did not know already. However, we have found evidence of a link, with Government talk about a new movement dealing with Irish loyalists as well as Irish republicans. What does that mean—loyal to Dublin?
7.56 pm
Dr. Robert Spink: It is a tradition that I should be allowed a word about my predecessor. I have a hard act to follow, and I wish that I had £1 for every time that I have been told that. I follow someone whom this House holds in special affection; he was one of the most respected Members of Parliament of the post-war period. Sir Bernard Braine was first adopted for the seat that I now hold two years before I was born.
Sir Bernard carried with distinction and dignity the office of Father of the House, a position to which I do riot aspire. However, my aim is to follow in father's footsteps, though you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be delighted to hear that tonight I shall not be challenging Sir Bernard's once-held record for making the longest speech in the House. He did so to protect his constituents. Should circumstances arise when my constituents require protection, I trust that I would display all the determination and character, the tenacity and courage that never failed Sir Bernard during his 42 years as a Member of Parliament.
I thank the people of Castle Point for electing me; they are intelligent and discerning. We are a wonderful community, with excellent schools and increasingly superb hospitals. If only we had a railway line, everyone would want to live in Castle Point. That brings me to the Fenchurch Street line—the so-called misery line—and thenceforth to privatisation.
Between 1986 and 1992, 1,157 carriages have been delivered to nine lines, and 890 are now on order to six lines. But not one single carriage has been delivered or is on order for the misery line, which is why it is a misery line. It needs two things: investment, and sound management. Privatisation would indubitably secure good management, but could only partially help to solve the investment problem.
I am grateful for the £30 million that the Government made available to the line for new signalling, which was secured by my Essex colleagues last year, but there is a need, before privatisation, to make available investment for trains to replace the ones that are on the line now which are unsafe, unrealiable and downright unacceptable. I unequivocally welcome the railways legislation and I call for the misery line to be a pilot for service franchising. Care must be taken to ensure that British Rail does not exercise anti-competitive control over timetabling. We must have a tough regulatory body—with teeth.
To expand this theme, let me add that it is a fact that local councils try to do too much. They are there to provide essential services, not to interfere or to run businesses, farms estates or airports—yet that is what some do, at great, although well disguised, public cost. I therefore come now to two small but important areas of privatisation: first, county farms estates. Their original purpose has long since evaporated in the sands of time; they are an anachronism. I ask the Secretary of State to consider introducing legislation to divest local authorities of all but the most strategically important land holdings. Farms, like any other business, and like council housing, are mostly better privately owned and managed than throttled in the hands of bureaucrats and councillors. Divestment would release funds and provide more efficient services for the people whom the councils serve.
Regional airports are another small but significant target for privatisation. In 1969, the then Board of Trade

437
—now a revitalised title—disposed of some regional airports to local authorities. I ask the Secretary of State to privatise these assets, as a matter of urgency.
I welcome the fact that the Government have a coherent, integrated and achievable policy on privatisation generally. This will help the country through recovery, and to secure the success and prosperity in the 1990s that was enjoyed in the 1980s. In so far as privatisation is successful, and it is, it will help to secure national prosperity and thereby enable us better to care for the poor and the homeless.
I understand that it is traditional to say a word or two about oneself. I come from Keighley in west Yorkshire, a place where the weak die young and the strong envy them their fate. Like our honourable Speaker, I worked in the textile mills, as a mill boy, a labourer, so, like the distinguished lady, I have worked for my living and kept myself since leaving school, that is, until arriving in this House.
I do not wish to appear uncharitable, but I will take no lessons about the working class from those on the Opposition Benches and their friends, some of whom have never held down a real job in their lives. I was asked by one Opposition Member whether I was a real doctor. I had to answer, "No, I am just a mill boy made good, a time-served and subsequently educated engineer." That question shows how we as a nation value our various professions. Nevertheless, I advised the hon. Member, "If it's your varicose veins, you need not worry—I understand that David Owen is looking for a job."
I hope during my time in this House to take every opportunity to champion the manufacturing sector, and to champion education, which provides the ladder of opportunity on which ordinary folk may advance by their own efforts. I have taken my chances and it has been my good fortune of late to help manufacturing industry to become more vital and to thrive. I therefore well know that Britain must maintain a vibrant manufacturing sector. This is our added-value, our wealth generation backbone, the spine on which the softer service and professional sectors must develop and without which they could not thrive.
Like Jane in the jungle, the service industries are appealing and most valuable to us and to our economy, yet they remain ephemerally vulnerable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is there, dare I say it, like Tarzan was for Jane, and he will advance our manufacturing sector and thereby secure the economy as a whole. The opportunities are unfolding before our very eyes. Our interest rates, industrial relations and even our inflation rates are looking attractive internationally, as are our political stability and sound government—and the financial markets are responding accordingly. Our privatisation programme is aped around the world, to continue my somewhat dubious metaphor.
Like my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I will be busy. My constituency needs change to move smoothly towards the millenium. We need to create new jobs for Canvey and Benfleet, and perhaps an enterprise zone will be one of our considerations. We certainly need more further and higher education and training facilities—and a new railway line.
438
I wish finally to offer Opposition Members a little comfort at this time of no little confusion for them in their leadership contest. Four weeks ago they stood at the edge of a precipice, since when they have taken great strides forward. They should consider privatising their leadership selection process, bringing in a top-flight team of management consultants to advise them on the procedure, or even offering the job as a school project. That could hardly make their selection procedure any worse.
I end on a warm note, which I anticipate will unify the House. Perhaps this gracious and generous House will join me in hoping that we shall soon see Sir Bernard in a place not far from this Chamber in which he can continue to conduct his fight for human rights and against injustice across the world.
8.5 pm
Mr. Kevin Hughes: First, I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election to a new office and thank you for allowing me to catch your eye so that I can make my maiden speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on his maiden speech, although I reserve the right to disagree with a great deal of its content.
It is a great honour and privilege to be elected to this House by the good people of Doncaster, North. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Michael Welsh, who was first elected in 1979 for the then Don Valley constituency, which is now so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). Following the boundary changes in 1983 Mick was re-elected, for the then new seat of Doncaster, North. He served the people of my area well for the past 13 years. He is well known in the constituency and, as a kind and caring man, he has devoted most of his life to politics, having served not only in this House for 13 years but for many years on local authorities—first on Adwick urban district council and then, following the local government reorganisation in 1974, on Doncaster metropolitan borough council. I am sure that all hon. Members, especially his friends and colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, will join me in wishing Mick and his wife Brenda a deserved and long and happy retirement.
My constituency covers a fairly large area. The people are mostly very friendly and caring. The constituency is mainly based around mining communities, agriculture and small townships in which there is a strong tradition of community spirit and friendliness, and I am proud to be their representative.
The proposed improvements in agricultural marketing outlined in the Gracious Speech will, I am sure, be welcomed by those of my constituents—there are many —who live and work in the agricultural community. Like me, many of my constituents will be bitterly disappointed, however, that the Gracious Speech does not mention unemployment, a problem facing far too many of my constituents who have to live with the daily trauma of neither having a job nor the prospect of finding one. There will be deep resentment at the fact that the Government propose no measures of help for them.
My elderly and disabled constituents and their carers look forward to the introduction of community care. If it is to facilitate their needs—and their needs are many—it must be properly funded by the Government. Caring for the elderly and disabled at home is not and should not be

439
a cheap option. I urge the new Secretary of State for Health to resolve as soon as possible with the local authorities the problem of funding so that they can confidently introduce their plans for the implementation of community care in 1993.
There is deep resentment and bitterness among many of my constituents at the proposed privatisation of the coal mines. Many were jubilant when the coal industry was nationalised in 1947. Men who gave their lives to the industry will he deeply saddened and its privatisation will be a bitter blow. My constituency used to have six pits but now there are only two. Many thousands have lost their jobs in mining and in connected industries in the past few years and they fear that privatisation will wipe out mining in Doncaster.
The men and their families at the two remaining pits, Bentley and Hatfield, are concerned for their future. They do not want to lose the prospects of future employment in the industry for the sake of political dogma. Some of my constituents already face joining the ever-growing number of unemployed following the surprise announcement two weeks ago by British Coal on closing the Markham Main colliery in Armthorpe in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker).
The decision to close Markham Main was ruthless, vindictive and totally unnecessary. I sincerely hope that the new Minister will adopt a hands-on approach and will discuss the matter fully with the miners and their representatives who have worked in and for the mining industry for many years. I hope that he will treat them with the respect that they deserve and not rush headlong into an unnecessary mass closure and privatisation programme that will damage the livelihood of many of my constituents and their families. That would also sterilise one of the country's greatest assets, its massive coal reserves, and throw on the scrapheap our experienced and professional miners. It would be foolhardy and economic madness to close our mines and then import coal.
8.12 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant: I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on his able and confident contribution to the debate. I hope that we shall frequently hear him again. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on his eloquent, persuasive, forceful and humorous speech. I hope that he will be with us for as long as his predecessor.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) who spoke earlier, I cannot presume as a former Member to make a maiden speech, but I hope to be granted some indulgence and be allowed to make some relevant and illustrative points about my constituency. My constituents, who were ably represented by my talented predecessor Sir Philip Goodhart from 1957, would not otherwise benefit from the special praise granted to a maiden speech for more than 35 years and may well have to wait another 35 years. The House deserves some explanation for my silence over the past four years lest some hon. Members feel that I have been unduly lazy or, worse, at a loss for words.
The Government propose paving measures for two privatisations. The ultimate privatisation is that of British Coal, and I thoroughly and whole-heartedly support that proposal. I describe it as ultimate because that industry's nationalisation was the flag carrier for Labour's clause IV.
440
It was to pave the way and be the one on which the others were modelled. At the time and for many years after it seemed irreversible. Denationalising coal shows that the tide of post-war socialism has not just been turned but that the red sea has dried up altogether.
Coal privatisation is relatively straightforward and is the simpler of the two proposals. British Rail's privatisation poses a more difficult challenge, which is why the Government are right to approach it with some caution. Apart from other complexities, it causes most concern to ordinary people because they place a heavy everyday reliance on it. That is especially true for the people of Beckenham. My constituency boasts no fewer than 12 railway stations and there are 10 more within a short distance of its boundaries, although the constituency measures only four miles by two miles.
I would like to claim that the railways came to Beckenham because the good people there had such a good reputation that the railway companies were eager to serve them. Alas, that would not be true. People came to Beckenham because the private railways were already there and the small villages of that time were within easy striking distance of workplaces in the metropolis. Whether people would have moved to Beckenham if the rail service had been as it is today is a matter for conjecture. They would probably not have built their houses near the track if they had known that it would later be misused for channel tunnel international trains. Perhaps they would not have chosen to commute if the conditions and pressures had been as they now are under nationalisation. What better evidence can I present than the words of Sir Philip Goodhart who said in February last year:
"Normally the service from so many parts of my constituency to the centre of London is, to put it mildly, bad, but in the past five days it has too often been non-existent. It would be difficult to exaggerate the rage which so many commuters in my constituency feel about the way in which British Rail has tried to cope."—[Official Report, 12 February, 1991; Vol. 185, c. 793.]
Sir Philip was well known to many hon. Members for his charm, wit and enthusiasm. In his constituency he was respected for his wisdom and his work in representing the people and their concerns. Sir Philip was an expert on Committee procedure in this place and wrote a book about that and another about referenda. His interest in those subjects and his care for his constituents continued until his retirement and I owe him a debt of gratitude for his constant support.
Despite the tribulations, about 15,000 people commute each day from Beckenham, mostly by rail. Even if they are not British Rail commuters they cannot ignore BR's omnipresence. At least 5,000 people live close to the tracks or stations and almost double that number are within earshot. I am speaking about the leafy middle class suburbs of Beckenham, an area which has been able to resist the encroaching pressures of inner London and retain sufficient of its character and its past to justify those who refer to it as "the village". That is why it is considered so desirable an area for those who need to commute, even by BR.
Beckenham's choice of housing, shopping and other facilities is broad and excellent, but there is virtually no choice for the consumer because there is a monopoly supplier—a state monopoly, inflexible, unaccountable and unpersuadable. The tube system does not extend to the area—that should be corrected—and the roads are slow and choked and cannot handle the volume of traffic. The

441
Fees Office offered me air vouchers, but 14 miles from my constituency to central London does not make that an attractive option unless, of course, one owns a helicopter. I understand that one of my constituents has one. Privatisation offers the prospect of transforming the quality of transport for constituencies such as mine. It would not be an exaggeration to say that, if handled right, it would also transform people's everyday lives.
There is a mismatch between consumer expectation and the provider's service. Industry after industry has illustrated that private operation can overcome this obstacle which nationalisation created. A system of regulated franchising would provide the competition and accountability that fails to permeate the labyrinthine structures of a monopoly bureaucracy such as British Rail. The beauty of franchising is that it can introduce a form of competition, or of privatisation, even where there is a so-called natural monopoly. Making an operator bid for the franchise at once exercises a competitive pressure that a provider might otherwise escape, be he private or public. Requiring the franchisee to repeat the bid at regular intervals maintains and enhances that pressure.
Franchising does not just benefit the consumer by providing a form of competition, which itself enhances efficiency and maximises resource use, thus giving the customer better quality and prices. It also enables certain fixed standards of quality to be provided. Alongside the citizens charter is the franchise contract, with inbuilt requirements of service delivery—reliability, regularity and cleanliness, for example. Therefore, it brings three separate pressures to perform—competition, the contract and the charter.
These benefits will operate anywhere on Britain's rail system, but an additional element could operate in Beckenham and other areas that are similarly well-endowed with track—the possibility of direct competition.
One of the factors that makes Beckenham so attractive is its accessibility. It is possible to travel to London by rail by at least seven routes. Even British Rail identifies three different line systems—Kentlink, South London and Thameslink. In the far west, the constituency is dominated by the giant Crystal Palace tower, right on the boundary. Nearby are five rail stations, giving travellers a choice of five routes, some to the same and some to different London termini. In the middle of the constituency, five more stations offer three services and in the east three further stations offer two services. In every case, there is a choice, and therefore, in every case, there is the possibility of some, perhaps limited, competition.
Sometimes one route is quicker or more convenient than another, but often the difference is only marginal. The prospect of real competition exists, and if some of the different lines were run by different franchisees, that would become a reality. I hope that, as the franchise details are worked out, my right hon. Friend will try to avoid franchising whole sets of lines and will encourage the sort of competition that I have outlined.
Competition is a more effective way to bring back real accountability to ordinary people than any other system I know. With that will come enhanced standards, greater efficiency, better value for money. The beauty of this proposed privatisation is that it will retain the
442
commitment to huge public infrastructure investment, higher than for 30 years, and leave BR with a role, but at the same time introduce privatisation.
8.22 pm
Ms. Glenda Jackson: I thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I add my congratulations to those that have been offered by those who have spoken before me.
I pay tribute not only to my predecessor, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, but to his predecessor, Ben Whitaker, who represented my constituency and my party from 1966 to 1970. I mean to emulate his dedication, if not his length of stay in the House. I have never had the pleasure of meeting Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, but he served my constituency well for more than 20 years, and I know that my constituents would wish me to extend their thanks to him, and best wishes to Sir Geoffrey and Lady Finsberg for a long and happy retirement.
My constituency has long exercised a particular fascination for the creative spirit. Many of the greatest artists, writers, musicians and philosphers that not only this country has produced but that the world has ever seen have chosen to make their homes there. My constituency has been blessed with great natural beauties, the glorious expanse of Hampstead heath being but one. The Vale of Health was so named because it was rumoured that the springs that rose there contained mystical power—a rumour somewhat belied by its proximity to that other famous landmark, Highgate cemetery.
There is a popular myth regarding my constituency, one much loved by the press, of a leafy suburb populated solely by millionaires whose only drink is champagne and whose only conversational exchange could be deemed to be chatter. The facts make a rather different picture. The largest single group in my constituency consists of pensioners, and the largest group within that group consists of those on some form of social benefit. This month, 5,000 of my constituents are unemployed. In the borough of which my constituency is part, 1,000 families have no home of their own. The Royal Free hospital, much loved by my constituents, which was, against their wishes, made into a trust, has announced waiting lists for in-patients running at 2,500.
The Prime Minister has spoken of his wish to provide ladders of opportunity for our people. However, a ladder can be a dangerous place if it is not rooted on a solid foundation and leaning against an equally solid wall. If it is dangerous for the most able bodied among us, how much more dangerous is it for the very old and the very young, the frail and the disabled? My constituents welcome the idea of greater opportunities being provided, but the opportunities must be available to all our people and they must be based on the solid building blocks of education, training, health care free at the point of delivery and, perhaps most important of all, decent affordable housing.
What rung of the Prime Minister's ladder will be earmarked for one of my constituents who has been unemployed for five long years? On what rung will be my elderly constituent who has been paralysed from the waist down with her arms and hands crippled with arthritis, who has now been denied bathing facilities in her own home because it has been decreed that such a facility will be provided on medical, not social, grounds? What part of

443
that ladder has been earmarked for the young homeless who have no bed but the pavement, the doorway? What about the families who live for month after month in bed-and-breakfast accommodation?
Some in the private rented sector are suffering harassment and sometimes even violence at the hands of greedy, unscrupulous landlords. Surely the Government must acknowledge that it is time to release capital grants so that a programme of rebuild and repair can begin, and that more effort must be made to relieve the enormous burden that so many councils are having to carry, faced, particularly in London, with the continually rising tide of homelessness.
My constituents have always been concerned with the pursuit and obtaining of social justice, not only at home but abroad. My constituents are particularly concerned about the position of the third world. They ask why it is that in 1979 this country was the second largest donor nation of the G7 countries but that this year it is the second smallest. They acknowledge, as do I and my party, that aid alone cannot relieve the almost unbelievable burdens facing the people of the third world, but our country could do more than it is doing, and the aid that we supply could be more efficiently targeted on the poorest countries and the poorest groups within those countries. Our aid should be targeted on the basic requirements of health care— children are dying in their millions—and on providing clean water.
Another particular concern arising from the Gracious Speech, on which I believe that I shall be joining hands with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms. Jackson), is the Government's promise to reintroduce the Asylum Bill. Many of my constituents came to this country as refugees. They were fleeing the appalling political and religious oppression that existed both before and after the second world war. Within my constituency they found sanctuary, a great welcome and the possibility to create for themselves and their family a future. It would be a tragedy if our nation's reputation for always taking in those suffering from persecution should be lost.
It is a great privilege for any person to be called to the House as a Member. It is a particular privilege for me to represent the people of Hampstead and Highgate. I am grateful and deeply proud that I represent them.
8.30 pm
Mr. David Nicholson: It is a particular pleasure to be able to congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) on her excellent maiden speech. Of all the new Members, she arrived in the House as the one perhaps best known outside it. We look forward to the contribution that she will make to our proceedings. As one who for some years lived within about 100 yds of Highgate cemetery, may I say that we are especially grateful to the hon. Lady for the tribute that she paid to Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, whom we remember with affection.
I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the other three new occupants of the Chair who will be with us during this Parliament. I congratulate also the many other hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches during today's debate. I shall single out one by referring to my next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Devon,
444
North (Mr. Harvey). Again, we are grateful to him for the tribute that he paid to his predecessor, Tony Speller, whom we remember with affection.
Along with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his success against the indications of opinion polls and almost against the odds of winning a fourth term for the Conservative party in extremely difficult circumstances, including a recession, the backlog of the community charge and several other issues that had upset Conservative voters. Our victory was in large part a tribute to the high esteem for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which I believe extended to many thousands of those who nevertheless voted Liberal or Labour in the general election a month ago.
Another factor that helped to bring about that victory was great suspicion of the Labour party. The rather rambling speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) this afternoon will have confirmed electors in that suspicion. I recall the classical villain, I think it was, whose fate in Hades was to push a large stone to the top of a hill. When he had got it to the top, it used to roll down to the bottom. I think of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and perhaps the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) as those who push the stone to the top of the hill. As soon as they get it there, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East pops out and pushes it down to the bottom of the hill. I fear that that will be the state of the Labour party in the coming months and, perhaps, throughout this Parliament.
Turning to British Rail, I welcome the various comments by my hon. Friends that suggest that there must be better ways of running a railway. I listened with great interest, however, to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), and I echo many of his warnings. I begin a critique of British Rail by recalling a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), who in his maiden speech said "the engine started smoking". As an occasional smoker, I express regret that British Rail should now be trying to prevent even a minority of passengers from smoking. I hope that there will be opportunities to take up this matter in coming weeks.
Another small matter is my regret that the late-night train from Paddington was stopped some months ago from halting at Taunton. This has been an inconvenience to some of my constituents and a subject of correspondence in the local press.
An important matter for my constituency—it is typical of one of the weaknesses of British Rail—is the handling of freight. As a major environmental objective, we should be aiming to transfer as much freight as possible from road to rail, especially with the coming of the channel tunnel. I must report of Taunton Cider, an important employer in my —constituency.[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am aware that sometimes Members have occasion to speak one to another, but when I become aware of a ripple of conversation I think that it is too much.
Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Until recently, a firm called Tiger Rail was able to provide a freight service on three days a week to Taunton

445
Cider. I regret to say that that firm rapidly went bankrupt. I believe that British Rail has been helpful and now provides a service one day a week on Saturdays for freight. That service will run until August. That is satisfactory in the winter months, but I am told by Taunton Cider that it will not be satisfactory in the summer months, when stocks in many parts of the country are running low. It needs a freight service every day.
Before Tiger Rail took on this task, there was Speedlink. We know what happened to that. Taunton Cider and many other freight operators with British Rail have been messed around over the years by changes, transfers and withdrawals of service. At present, there is a possibility that a firm called Charter Rail will be able to provide the service that Taunton Cider needs, but this will require a different technical system and there will be more trailers to go with the wagons. I fear that this will once again cause frustration. I hope that the pressures of privatisation on some of BR's services will give a service to firms in my constituency and, I hope, to many others that look forward to using the channel tunnel that will be much better than that which they have had in recent years.
I move on to two other subjects that are slightly without the immediate scope of privatisation although they concern important public services which, I believe, will remain firmly within the public sector. I hope that they will be subject to progress under the citizens charter, for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has responsibility.
The first of the two subjects is law and order, and one that played a greater part in the recent election campaign than many of us would have wished. Unfortunately, I do not believe that we are making the progress in dealing with criminality that we would wish. Given certain reports in the weekend press, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to take care when making criticisms of and considering plans to reform the police. Part of the blame for our failure as a society effectively to combat crime lies with the machinery of justice, the Crown Prosecution Service and the consequences of certain well-intentioned legislation on police methods that the House has enacted in recent years.
We have greatly increased resources and manpower for the police service. Unfortunately, the numbers of criminals and crimes have increased still faster. I hope that there will be speedy implementation of the proposals that were made in the previous Parliament in respect of offences committed while defendants are on bail for which the Avon and Somerset constabulary pressed. I hope to return to the subject of the distribution of police resources. In Avon and Somerset there is a heavy concentration of police resources on Bristol because of its known level of criminality. I fear that therefore certain parts of my constituency, including rural areas, are not policed as effectively as we would wish.
My second point concerns an important public service that should have been debated more effectively during the recent general election—education. Again, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to beware of concentrating debate on institutional change. I would need to be convinced case by case of the advantages of grant-maintained status for schools in my constituency. The real issue in schools—and this will remain so whether or not there is grant-maintained status, especially with local management of
446
schools—is not whether the Secretary of State or Somerset education authority runs the schools, but what is taught, by what methods, and the quality and morale of teachers and the resources, books and equipment available.
In the limited time available to me, I have taken the opportunity to welcome the various measures promised in the Queen's Speech, but also to echo certain warnings. Our success in the recent general election should not blind us to the considerable concern and upset that we have caused in recent years among our supporters. We should be thankful that they rallied to our support on 9 April.
8.40 pm
Mr. Paddy Tipping: I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment.
Hon. Members will know of Sherwood forest, its myths and its legends. People from Nottinghamshire, especially from the tourist industry, try to persuade people that all the tales are undoubtedly true. In contrast, the constituency of Sherwood is a far newer creation, having been formed in 1983. Its first Member of Parliament was Andy Stewart, who at one time was a colleague of mine. I pay tribute to him. Throughout the constituency he is known as a nice man. Indeed, so often have I heard it said that he is a nice man—a very, very nice man—that I think the AA advertisement must have been inspired by him. Andy and his wife Louise have helped many people in the Sherwood constituency who want their thanks put on the record.
I wish also to mention my old friend Frank Haynes, who at one time represented part of the constituency. He, too, is highly regarded locally. Rumour has it that Frank is to become a boxing commentator. I assume that in these tough times the broadcasters are trying to save microfilm expenditure.
Both Frank and Andy took an interest in the coal industry. Sherwood remains the largest mining constituency in the country, with six collieries, a workshop and the group headquarters. In his maiden speech in November 1983, my predecessor, Andy Stewart, said:
"It is my view that our coal industry has a great future."—[Official Report, 15 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 748.]
To put it mildly, his views were over-optimistic. In 1980, about 40,000 people worked in the coal industry in Nottinghamshire; today the figure is about 12,000. In just over a decade, two out of three mining jobs in the county have gone. Unemployment has increased—in the two years to March 1992 it rose by 62 per cent. Bankruptcies are still increasing and are at an all-time high. In Nottinghamshire in March, 6,513 young people aged 16 to 19 were seeking permanent employment. At that time there were only 22 vacancies in the careers office, so almost 300 youngsters were chasing every job. That is a waste of hope, of talent and of imagination.
Worse is to come. The Government's firm intention to privatise the coal industry has caused alarm and despondency in north Nottinghamshire. By itself, the plan to privatise the coal industry is an empty and hollow prospect. The key issue now facing the industry is the negotiations with the generators PowerGen and National Power. Some 80 per cent. of Nottinghamshire's coal goes direct to power stations. It is the volume and the price of coal supplied to the generators that will decide the fate of the mining industry in Nottinghamshire.
For their part, the generators have made it clear that they want a small and short-life contract. This year, British

447
Coal is supplying 65 million tonnes to the generators, but there is speculation that the generators want a future contract with as little as 25 million tonnes over a contract period of only three years. If that were to happen, the coal industry both in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country would be decimated even further and there would be nothing left to privatise.
The Government should intervene quickly in the discussions between the generators and British Coal. The new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has a reputation for being an interventionist. Some 40 per cent. of PowerGen and National Power still remains in the public interest. As the largest shareholder, the Government should insist on the high-volume, long-term contracts. A contract of 55 million tonnes a year would still mean job losses in the industry. I note that the electricity companies are signing 15-year contracts for gas-generated electricity. Why cannot there be parity for the coal industry?
Miners in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country have made enormous productivity gains under public control. Why discard them now? We have the most efficient deep coal mining industry in Europe. Last year, six of the Nottinghamshire group's 15 pits produced more than I million tonnes of coal, all of them setting new productivity records. British Coal has made a substantial operating profit in Nottinghamshire this year. Some 17·2 million tonnes were produced, with 5·6 tonnes per man shift. There has been a 64 per cent. improvement in productivity since 1985 under public control.
In 1985, British Coal in Nottinghamshire sold coal at £42·60 per tonne. This year, the price is only £42·93 per tonne. Over the same period, electricity prices have risen by more than 45 per cent. Nottinghamshire coal is being produced at half the cost of that in Germany. No other industrial sector can match that record, yet the Government's policy is to close down the coal industry. It is no wonder that all over Europe people think the policy is crazy.
This morning, Nottinghamshire county council called for an early meeting with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss the future. Tomorrow, the North Nottinghamshire training and enterprise council, a private sector dominated body, will call for the halting of pit closures in the region because of the devastating effect on the local economy. On Wednesday, the new Energy Minister will visit the Nottinghamshire coalfield for the first time. He should listen carefully to the voices of local councils, the TEC, the private sector and the trade unions in the industry, which, without exception, are pledged to fight privatisation.
Present policies towards the coal industry will devastate it and the local communities that surround it. The Government and the Energy Minister will have few friends if they continue with those policies. On his visit, the Minister should take note of a few signposts. He could work towards a national energy policy, in which coal is given the same consideration as nuclear power. He could bring discussions on the new contract to a quick and satisfactory solution. He could keep the lid on the amount of gas-generated electricity produced. He should use the powers under the planning system to stop new gas-powered generators.
At a time of potential energy surplus, the Minister should stop opencasting. It is obscene. It tears up hedges, trees and acres of fields, even though there is plenty of coal
448
and other sources of fuel around. I implore the Government to listen to the voices of local people on this issue because they will not win environmental and planning support.
The Minister should keep open the discussions with our European partners about the plan for a European reference price on coal. He should ensure that commitments made on gas scrubbing equipment are honoured. He should make more resources available to assist economic regeneration in coalfield areas. He should build on the partnerships that exist there and bring new jobs, new investment and new prosperity to those areas.
Despite all the promises that have been made, the European RECHAR money has yet to be announced. The Department of the Environment's regional office has no idea of the transitional arrangement for the current financial year, or of how the £13 million earmarked for Nottinghamshire is to be unlocked. The Minister would do well to view those signposts on Wednesday.
The Minister will be surprised at the youth of Nottinghamshire miners, whose average age is 34. The miner's future and that of his family and community depends on the coal industry. The Government can take action to safeguard their futures. The Government should take careful note of the partnerships that exist in Nottinghamshire, and not be driven by the dogma behind some of the speeches that have been heard in the Chamber today.
8.50 pm
Mr. Barry Field: I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment and the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his maiden speech. I also thank him for his generous remarks about his predecessor, Mr. Andy Stewart. If the hon. Gentleman manages to gain his predecessor's reputation as a most agreeable and approachable Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman will do himself no harm.
I cannot follow the hon. Member for Sherwood in his remarks, because I believe that Nottingham's coalfields face a bright future under privatisation. They are among the most productive in the country. Many years ago, I visited a Nottinghamshire coal mine with my middle brother, and I was thoroughly impressed with its modern equipment and the productivity that it achieved.
No contribution of mine to the Loyal Address would be complete without mentioning the pleasure that is felt by all my constituents, of all parties and of none, at the appointment of my noble Friend Lord Mottistone as the Isle of Wight's new governor. The 1992 general election campaign will go into my family scrapbook as one of governorships.
In a unique constituency such as the Isle of Wight, there could be no greater claim to fame than that it is the only part of the United Kingdom to have a governor. Lord Mottistone's family have given distinguished service to the island for many years, and I know that his appointment is universally acclaimed.
The Isle of Wight's other unique claim is that it is the largest constituency to be represented in the House. I welcome the promise made in the Gracious Speech of legislation to speed up regular reviews of parliamentary boundaries. We hope that later in the lifetime of this Parliament, following the local government commissioner's review of the island's structure, the Isle of Wight

449
will have a unitary authority. It would be nonsensical to see a decrease in the number of councils and councillors, which currently total three and 100 respectively, and an increase in the number of its Members of Parliament, when they might not agree with one another. However, regular reviews in future will prove useful.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) was a Minister in the Ministry of Transport—and what a proud dad he must have been when his son so ably seconded the motion on the Loyal Address last Wednesday—he assisted me in furthering my efforts to bring about the privatisation of British Rail's assets on the Isle of Wight. I read with great interest this week that Richard Branson is holding discussions with Mr. Chris Green, British Rail's InterCity manager, because it was the same Mr. Green who set back our plans for the sale of BR's Isle of Wight assets.
The line in question runs from the end of Ryde pier to Shanklin, using 1940 ex-London Transport tube trains. Announcing that British Rail had no intention of selling its assets in the Isle of Wight, Mr. Green said that the island's railway line was
"a necessary and integral part of Network SouthEast."
With that quality of senior management running British Rail, one might imagine that it could not run a brothel in a garrison town—and that were it to do so, it would probably make a loss. If Mr. Chris Green were in charge, all the passengers would have to stand for the whole of their journey.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West and I were sad that we were unable to bring about progress on the sale of BR's assets, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport has been of great assistance in pursuing that objective.
A number of issues will come out of the privatisation of British Rail and its assets. Why is it that taxi drivers on the Isle of Wight must pay a considerable sum for the use of British Rail's station forecourts, when their London counterparts pay nothing at all? I asked the present British Rail chairman why it was necessary to use uniformed railwaymen to run left luggage offices. Surely it does not take highly trained railway personnel to run that facility and to guard passengers' suitcases.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is to wind up this debate, I cannot resist the opportunity to draw attention to the island's ferries. A Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry just before the general election concluded that the island's ferry crossings are the most expensive in the world—and there have been further price increases since that report was published. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said that the Director General of Fair Trading will review that matter in three years' time.
I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that the MMC identified a definite correlation between the quality and price of a service and increased competition. The existing ferry companies operate from the best harbours and routes. If further harbours and other facilities for ferries are to be established to allow greater competition, we must ensure that the Isle of Wight is included in the new assisted areas map when it is redrawn. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has promised me that the island's case will be carefully
450
considered. Only with that kind of finance can the island hope to establish the additional facilities that will provide increased competition across the Solent.
When I was young, the debate in our nation concerned whether one had been educated privately or publicly. I have long subscribed to the view that the chasm that goes to the core of the nation now divides the privately employed and the publicly employed. One of the sad features of the election debate was the accusation that we had not looked after public servants. The civil servants in my constituency, however, occupy some of the best office accommodation on the Isle of Wight: many employees in private industry and commerce would like similar accommodation.
I believe that one of the challenges that face my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is the requirement to ensure, through the citizens charter, much greater cross-fertilisation between the two sectors. I look forward to the day when I learn, by means of a parliamentary question in the House, that more than 50 per cent. of the First Division Association have industrial or commercial experience. The "teachers in industry" project has been one of the great success stories in education. Initially, academia was sceptical; but, as the word went around the staff rooms, teachers became increasingly enthusiastic about getting out and getting a taste of industry.
I hope that, in the future, our civil servants will regularly go off to work in industry, and will then return. I also hope that the private sector will come into the civil service and then go out again. Currently, pension arrangements and terms of engagement make that almost impossible. That, I think, is the real challenge that will face my right hon. Friend until the turn of the century.
On 9 April, my right hon. Friend attained a notable victory. To be pitchforked into that high office just 18 months before an election would have been an achievement in itself. The achievement of a fourth and historic victory was quite a mountain to climb, and to do that in contradiction of the opinion polls constituted a remarkable personal achievement. But to fight the election during the deepest recession that the nation has seen for more than 60 years was a particularly remarkable personal achievement. Not for nothing will my right hon. Friend become known in the hearts and minds of our people as "Honest John".
9 pm
Mr. Alan Milburn: It is with a great sense of pride that I rise to make my maiden speech—in, appropriately enough, a debate about the future of British Rail. As hon. Members will know, the railways and the town of Darlington, which I am proud to represent, are virtually synonymous. Darlington, however, has another reputation, of which hon. Members are probably aware: its reputation as a barometer marginal seat.
It is my pleasure to say a word or two about my predecessors. My immediate predecessor, Michael Fallon, was a man of impeccably right-wing views. Indeed, he remained a devoted follower of Mrs. Thatcher even when that fell somewhat out of fashion on the Conservative Benches. He was, none the less, a hard-working Member of Parliament who rose to junior ministerial rank, and I wish him well in his new career outside Parliament.
I also pay tribute to my two immediate Labour predecessors, Ossie O'Brien and Ted Fletcher. Ossie had

451
the misfortune to serve in the House for only six weeks after his splendid victory in the 1983 by-election; Ted, by contrast, sat for nearly 19 years, often bucking the national trend by dint of his diligence and personal popularity in the town of Darlington. Like those hon. Members, I will always put Darlington's interests first, and will do my utmost to maintain their record of service to the town's residents.
As hon. Members will know, Darlington gave birth to the railways, and so helped to spawn the first industrial revolution. Happily, that spirit of engineering enterprise and skill remains alive today in the string of top international companies for which Darlington is home: Cummins, Bowaters, Torringtons, Rothmans, and Cleveland Structural Engineering, to name but a few. One of those companies, Cleveland Structural Engineering, beat off international competition last week to win the contract to build the Tsing Ma bridge in Hong Kong. The bridge will be the largest structure of its kind in the world, and, like the Sydney harbour bridge, the Tyne bridge and the Humber bridge, it will be built in my constituency. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in congratulating both the work force and the management of CSE on their well-earned success. Whenever I have visited the Yarm road factory, I have been immensely impressed by the skills and commitment that I have seen there; now, they have obtained their just reward.
Although I am delighted by Cleveland's success, after hearing the Gracious Speech I am less optimistic about the future for British industry as a whole. The speech was virtually silent about the economy, which remains in such dire straits. That the word "unemployment" did not even earn a mention is an insult to the 4,740 people in the Darlington district who remain without work. The recession has already cost 1,300 manufacturing jobs in my constituency, but all the major forecasts suggest that unemployment is set to go on rising.
Last year's record fall in industrial investment risks plunging the country into a repeat of the economic mistakes of the mid-1980s—capacity failing to meet demand, thus forcing up imports and prices and lea ding inevitably to a Government-engineered slowdown. Companies such as CSE deserve better than that. They should be able to rely on the same support as is available to their foreign competitors from their home Governments: measures to stimulate investment in training, transport and technology. Yet here, in the middle of the longest recession since the war, we have the spectacle of the Durham training and enterprise council being forced to cut adult training by more than 20 per cent. in Darlington because its budget has been squeezed dry once again. It is a scandal that those offering youth training will have to provide more for less. Funding for non-endorsed training weeks has fallen from £31 to £28. What was training on the cheap is rapidly becoming training for a pittance.
These cheap and nasty cuts are pouring Darlington's future down the drain. I fear that, without a change in policy, Darlington's very real potential for economic take-off will be grounded, even before it has started. That would be a tragedy because, as Cleveland's success amply shows, we have much to be proud of in the town of Darlington. The town is ideally placed to be at the core of
452
a new industrial revolution that will bring more high-quality, high-skilled, high-tech, and high-paid employment.
Darlington's fortunes, however, depend upon the Government removing the ideological blinkers that so restrict their vision and rethinking their hostility to manufacturing and their indifference to the north. The Government's preoccupation with the privatisation of the railways is, classically, a triumph of ideological hope over the experience of those countries who owe their fast, efficient and safe railway systems to Government policies on planning and investment. The dictum that the market, and nothing but the market, can bring prosperity to areas like the north has proved disastrously wrong. After 13 years, unemployment is higher, the number of people in work lower and the gap between the rich and the poor ever wider.
Last week I listened with great interest to the Prime Minister's promise to open up the powers of Government to public scrutiny. I hope that he will go one stage further and devolve power out from Whitehall to the regions and nations of our land. If the Prime Minister is serious about breaking down concentrations of unaccountable power, he will begin by reversing that process of creeping centralisation that has so characterised Conservative party policies since 1979. The north not only needs restoration of regional policy and proper investment in our transport infrastructure to allow us to compete against better placed regions and nations at the core of the single European market, but we need the right to determine our own future through a new structure of regional government that will take power from the centre.
Any process of devolution should include giving towns such as Darlington the right to run all their own services. In 1974, Darlington lost its county borough status because of the last Conservative reorganisation of local government. Ministers now have an oppportunity to put matters right by returning to the people of Darlington the powers that are rightfully theirs. I am looking not for any special favours for Darlington, but for policies that will rightly reward the vigour, loyalty and skill of its people. Too many of my constituents have paid the price for the records that the Government have set in the town in recent years—record bankruptcies, record mortgage repossessions and record hospital waiting lists.
I fear that the policies in the Gracious Speech mean yet more of the same. Darlington deserves a new spirit that forsakes the short term, the quick fix, the "me at the expense of the rest"—a spirit that says that all of us rely on common services because we are all part of the same community.
For those of us who grew up in the north-east, the past few years have seen a loss of that sense of community which used to characterise life there. When the Conservative party declared that there was no such thing as society, it acknowledged that, by its policies, people had been cut adrift from their communities, and as community has been denied so hope has been smothered. Hope can return to the communities of the north-east, but it needs policies that put talents to use rather than allow them to go to waste; policies that will reduce crime by putting sufficient police officers on our streets. It means policies that will restore pride by cleaning up our environment. It means tackling the obscenity of homelessness and investing in our hospitals and schools. It means, above all, giving regions such as the north-east and towns such as

453
Darlington the chance to compete. It will be my privilige to fight for those policies in the House, I hope for many years to come. I shall do so in order to benefit the whole community of Darlington.
9.11 pm
Ms. Angela Eagle: Following overseas development questions earlier today, I must be the only Opposition Member who is quite pleased that the Minister for Overseas Development is in the other place.
Any new hon. Member rising to make their first speech in the Chamber cannot help but be aware of the history and tradition that reside in it. Traditionally, a maiden speech is non-controversial, praising one's predecessor and describing the constituency, yet some distinguished hon. Members, past and present, have maintained a tradition of rabble-rousing and controversy. Indeed, we have heard some speeches like that this evening.
Which tradition should I follow? I believe that no tradition deserves to be honoured for its own sake but only for its intrinsic merit and relevance to modern-day conditions. We must move with the times if we are not to atrophy into some quaint but irrelevant sideshow, fit only for tourists to admire.
In a real sense, the fact that I am here tonight is a most welcome break with tradition, because it is my privilege to be the first Labour Member for Wallasey—an honour for which I thank the voters of the constituency and those who worked so hard on my behalf. I believe that I can say with some feeling, as Shakespeare wrote, that some traditions are
"More honour'd in the breach than the observance."
It is not my intention, however, to break with the tradition of paying tribute to my predecessor, the noble Baroness Chalker. She was a formidable opponent, and I know that she was a popular and well-respected Member of the House—and deservedly so. She served Wallasey well for 18 years. I recall that she was the first Member of Parliament whom I questioned when I attended a meeting of the Hansard Society as an enthusiastic 14-year-old schoolgirl. I remember asking her a question about the future of the other place, which specifically related to its possible evolution as a democratic chamber. She gave me a response that I could not agree with then and I still do not agree with now, but as long as the other place remains in its present form I am certain that she will make a worthy contribution to its deliberations and I wish her well.
The constituency of Wallasey is located across the Mersey from Liverpool in the north-east of the Wirral peninsula. The derivation of the name most generally accepted is that it means "Island of the Welshmen". The pre-Doomsday history appears to show that the area was used by Celts sheltering from avaricious Saxon raiders. Thus Wallasey can, I believe, rightly express its solidarity with the endeavours of its Celtic descendants in Scotland and Wales who must, in the aftermath of the general election, engage once more in a similar activity.
Wallasey is a place of constrasts encompassing residential areas, derelict docklands, council estates and a seaside resort. The years of Conservative rule have hit Wallasey hard. Not only have two recessions in a decade decimated the basic manufacturing industries on which the prosperity of the area was founded—especially the
454
shipbuiding industry—but the continuing recession is threatening what is left. As a result, unemployment in the area is a chronic problem which affects nearly one in five of the working population if one counts those who are left out of the reckoning by the statistical redefinitions of unemployment so loved by the Government.
It is not unusual for me to meet constituents who have been jobless for 10 or 11 years, but the Gracious Speech —as has been pointed out many times today—made no mention of that problem. Any decent humanitarian Government would develop a strategy to deal with it and I implore the Conservatives to do so. Worthy attempts are being made by Wirral council and the local chamber of commerce to attract new business to the area, but their efforts have been undermined by the recent decision to raise the tolls on the Mersey tunnels to unacceptably high levels. That has hit commuters and businesses and is acting as a brake on any possible economic revival.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) recently initiated an Adjournment debate on the increase in the Severn bridge tolls. There is a similar problem with the Mersey tunnels about which my constituents feel very strongly. It is high time that the Treasury did something about the injustice of tolls and the unfair penalties currently meted out to those living in areas where the local authorities were far-sighted enough to build essential river crossings—whether bridges or tunnels —long before the Department of Transport got around to it.
I welcome the commitment in the Gracious Speech to combat the trafficking and misuse of drugs as there is, unfortunately, a growing drug problem in the Wirral. It is not only a personal tragedy for the victims of this scourge but it contributes to the rising rate of violent crime and causes much needless fear and misery. We must recognise the extent to which poverty and deprivation help to fuel such problems. It cannot be right to create a two-tier society which excludes significant numbers of people from the advantages that many others take for granted and then to expect that social problems will not emerge as a result.
It will not surprise Conservative Members if I say that there are many aspects of the Gracious Speech with which I cannot agree. Of its proposals, the attempt to privatise British Rail and British Coal are among the most objectionable. Other hon. Members have spoken in more detail about their objections to those proposals and I intend to confine myself to a few comments about the principle of privatisation itself. I see little merit in it. Indeed, I believe it is driven by the ideological obsessions of the Conservatives and lacks a firm empirical or theoretical justification.
One link that it is important to pinpoint is that between privatisation and redundancy. Another discernible link is that between privatisation and the seemingly inexorable rise of chairmen's salaries. For example, British Gas had 104,000 employees in 1980 but only 81,000 10 years later. Meanwhile, the chairman's salary had increased from £109,000—almost £1 for every employee—in the year of privatisation to £370,000 last year. It is safe to say that that has been an above-inflation increase. I think that many users will also have noticed the increased efficiency in sending final demands and cutting off the supply which the privatisation of the utility has brought in its wake. The primacy of profitability over all other concerns in privatised industries often means that social obligations come a long way down the list. There is a great deal of

455
nonsense in the current dogma on the Conservative Benches that private is somehow good and public is bad. These proposals are based on that false premise and to that extent they are undesirable and wrong.
The Prime Minister said in his post-election speech that he intended to be a Prime Minister for all the people, not just for those who voted for him. The people of Wallasey will judge him by those words. They expect action to return prosperity to their area, and that means a sensible regional economic strategy and a flight from the current economic dogma which these privatisation proposals symbolise.
9.20 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: This debate must be some sort of a world record because I find myself rising after 14 maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) said as part of an absolutely first-class contribution that tradition is not always right and should not always be observed. It was a splendid speech and I was interested in her prediction about the role of the Celts in the House over the next year or two. I shall certainly take her advice about tradition. I am sure that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will forgive me if I take the maiden speeches at a fast trot, if that is the right way of putting it.
Mr. Prescott: Donald the Trot.
Mr. Dewar: We are exporting them. It is one of our little Scottish successes. Better keep your tolls and your bridges: that might discourage them. [Laughter.]
As I was saying, there was a long-honoured tradition of the nervous wait. As far as I can see, that has been well and truly buried by this generation of Members. The standard, too, has risen tremendously over the years. I first came to the House in 1966 for a brief period, by mistake. [Laughter.] My then constituents put that right at the first possible opportunity. I cn remember what the House was like in those days and I can say with certainty that the standards have constantly risen in the intervening period. Moreover, I have the rather uncomfortable feeling that they are continuing to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) referred to the fact that one of his predecessors died of apoplexy after a council meeting. I fear that at times his temper and health may be sorely tried in his new career. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) showed his inexperience only once: when looking round what seemed to me to be an almost crowded House he referred to the small attendance. He will soon learn. I congratulate him on his speech and the remarkable achievement of a 10·6 per cent. swing to Labour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) is another who will get used to characteristically thin Houses in the time ahead. There is a small book of reference circulating on the Front Bench so that we can catch up with who is who. I notice that she is described in it as a shop assistant sponsored by the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. There is some passing mention of other interests. I have to say to her that it is not easy to come here with a reputation from outside, but the worth of her speech suggests that she will live down that disadvantage speedily.
456
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms. Jackson) made a first-class speech, concentrating on education. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) is one of a number who showed a deep knowledge of the mining industry. I am always amazed that as numbers in the mining industry decline people ask me where they all go, and I know. [Laughter.] My attention to that phenomenon was drawn by the appearance in our midst of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke). He is what is known in Scotland as a kenspeckle figure. That means roughly that he has been shouting at me for the past 30 years. I certainly welcome his arrival. He knows his own area and the mining industry inside out—perhaps upside down would be a better way of putting it. He has served on the national executive committee of the Labour party and has come back for more. What more can loyalty demand?
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) recorded a famous victory and made an outstandingly sincere and knowledgeable speech. I certainly welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). I am glad to have Darlington back in the fold. I remember the by-election as I was there, and I remember the short life—parliamentary life, I am glad to say—of the then Member. I recognise the importance of that seat as a balancing point in British politics. However, the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington made on the devolution of power endanger him being classed as a honorary Scot. I do not regard that as a great disadvantage, but he may find it a mixed blessing as things proceed.
It is only right to recognise that hon. Members on the Conservative Benches have made maiden speeches as have hon. Members from other parties. The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Harvey) particularly impressed me. He has left the Chamber because he is a very important person as he has the secret of instant success. I cannot remember a maiden speech in which the person making it could announce that he was the transport spokesman for his party. I then remembered that the hon. Gentleman was a Liberal.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) told us about dramatic happenings at his local railway station. For those who were not present, it may seem rather cryptic, but I give the categorical assurance that I shall never travel from Bury St. Edmunds to Clacton on an Easter Sunday. The hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) made an extremely competent and effective speech, on which I congratulate her. I had always thought that lace and old lace were made in Darvel and Newmilns in Ayrshire, but I now know better and I am glad for that information.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) had an unfortunate start. All sorts of people wished him as long a life as his predecessor, Sir Bernard Braine. I would not wish on anyone 40 years in this place. As an ex-solicitor, I know that that is the equivalent of four life sentences. There was also a good speech from the new Plaid Cymru Member, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis).
Before I turn to the subject of the debate, I apologise for not dealing with the retreads, one or two of whom had a spin during the proceedings. If the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is properly reported in the

457
public prints as having skiing and yachting as his principal interests, I can assume only that he will not be spending all his time in Croydon.
This is a debate about the Queen's Speech and, later, I want to say a word or two on what I am supposed to be talking about. Before I do that, I want to say a word or two about Scotland—a place somewhat to the north of this House. I wish to do so because the Scottish Office is a Department that scores low when it comes to ideas and, I am afraid, that is true of this Queen's Speech. The Scottish Office's contribution seems to be a collection of fairly unimportant bric-a-brac. I noted, although I am not surprised, that there was no reference or even a nod in the direction of the constitutional issue. There was nothing but a noticeable silence. I do not intend to spend much time on that, but I confess that I diagnose—I hope that this will not embarrass the Secretary of State—some very modest progress.
The Government now accept that there is a problem, but the trouble is that they have no idea at all as to what to do about it. They do not know how to prevent the Scottish question becoming, in the Prime Minister's particularly unhappy phrase, "a running sore" in British politics. It is perhaps too much to expect the Secretary of State to spell out the Government's intentions. After all, it is very difficult to define a void, but what we can expect is some account of the methodology and the timetable. In the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Prime Minister said:
"We will take stock of the present position in Scotland and then report back to the House. It is a matter of some importance and we will proceed with it. We are proceeding with it now, and when we have concluded, we shall report back to the House."—[Official Report, 6 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 67.]
Those words are of some significance.
If the process is under way, as the Prime Minister specifically states, the Secretary of State should be able to give some useful information. Press reports this weekend suggested that it is all happening in Cabinet Committee L and the Secretary of State has been added to its numbers for the occasion. The proceedings of that committee are no doubt clothed in mystery. Indeed, it may be one of those Cabinet committees that, in theory, does not exist—I do not know—but the right hon. Gentleman can surely give some basic facts. Is the study on the government of Scotland specifically or does it take an overview of the United Kingdom as a whole, considering the problems of Wales and other areas like the north, where the centralised system has served the people ill?
In Scotland on Sunday 10 May, we were told that Downing street warned last night that
"the Prime Minister is taking stock and that debate still has a long way to run. There is nothing planned for Scotland in the next 18 months and we can't even say that it will be in the next 18 months after that."
Can the Secretary of State, at the very least, knock down that dreary message that suggests a policy of inaction and delay? Are we really expected to live for the next three years under a Government who have nothing planned for Scotland? Does not he realise that such a timetable is simply unacceptable?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, a Minister in the other place, who was plucked from the respectable political obscurity of the law to deal with constitutional matters, has promised "substantial not cosmetic change". Is his remit
458
to wait and see what happens in Committee L or some other mysterious inner sanctum of Downing street, or has the Scottish Office an independent right of action? Scotland should know the outline of that unlikely concept —a Tory plan for constitutional change—at the earliest possible moment.
The Prime Minister has said that the objective is to make the Government more responsive to the needs of Scotland and that that must be done in a way that will not damage the Union. I agree, and I emphasise that Scotland's future should be as a full and equal partner in the United Kingdom. However, a certain way to damage that future is to show inflexibility now.
The Secretary of State must recognise that he will buy no friends with proposals that simply tinker with the present system. A Question Time in the Scottish Grand Committee or the appearance of a Scottish Select Committee are no substitutes for a genuine shift of power —the breakdown of the all-enveloping power nexus in Whitehall that has been at the heart of the present insensitivity of Government.
We expect the Scottish Select Committee to be brought to life but such a development should be justified on merit, not seen as a flimsy cover for a refusal to act on the central issue. The change that Scotland wants and needs cannot be met by some hybrid advisory body caught in a no-man's land between local and central government. The test—the essential benchmark—is the creation of a directly-elected body reflecting Scottish opinion and with the power that matters in a democracy—the power to make law. If the Government are prepared to do business on that basis, there will be real hope of progressing to a stable future.
There are many other issues in the Queen's Speech but one of particular interest today is the privatisation programme. I listened with interest to the contribution of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It was philosophical in approach but showed a remarkable disdain for practical detail. Perhaps naively, I hoped to learn something about the Government's plans. I did not. I accuse them of the oldest trick in the book, which is defining the opponent's position in a way that has nothing to do with the facts but everything to do with the convenience of one's argument. The Labour party is not still living in the shadow of Herbert Morrison. We are not spending our time debating the future of 200 monopolies or the legendary commanding heights. It is no good putting that up as our position in order to knock it down for personal satisfaction.
I was extremely intrigued when the right hon. Gentleman paraded the water industry as the ultimate argument against public ownership. It was a little less than tactful given that the debate was being summed up by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has conspicuously —and rightly—not followed the path of privatisation of the water industry.
The argument is now about public interest and control, not about ownership. The Chancellor of the Duchy has a reputation for intellectual depth. At times, he sounded like Ronald Reagan, muttering about the wickedness of the concept of government. It is all nonsense and I suspect, to be fair to him, that he knows that it is nonsense.
The problem about the privatisation issue, particularly the public utilities, can be seen as the action of the Government. They have had to scramble, patch, mend, duck and dodge—trying to build in the regulatory

459
machinery. They have been inventing strange concepts such as competition by comparison when we know that, in reality, there is no competition.
The case against privatisation is simple. For all that the balancing act is difficult to achieve and, ultimately, the balance between profit and the interests of shareholders is difficult to reconcile with the interests of consumers, is the right price the price that the market will bear or the price that the consumer deserves? There will always be tension and confrontation between those two concepts. I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that much of the enthusiasm is based on prejudice and ideology, and some of it on the attraction of the financial proceeds of privatisation that shore up the rickety structure that the Government call a fiscal policy.
There is a paving Bill, which deals with coal and rail, but tells us nothing. The questions that remain are fundamental and far-reaching. Privatisation is a term that is hard to define, as I think that the Chancellor of the Duchy will recognise. He looked distinctly shifty on that issue, but he ultimately admitted that what was proposed for the railways in the Queen's Speech was not privatisation but something different. In our view, what is proposed is misconceived, but it is not the ultimate in privatisation.
The reason for that is clear. It is because the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), and no doubt his predecessors, spent many months wrestling with the problems and trying to devise a privatisation scheme that they could present to the House. We have followed their tortured arguments, through newpaper cuttings and the media, but, ultimately, those politicians could not do it. Instead, they have come up with a different sort of scheme—a halfway house that they are presenting because they know that their ideology will not work in practice.
The argument is not simply about the wider vision of the inter-relationship between citizen and state, as the Chancellor of the Duchy tried to suggest. It was almost comic when the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) rose. He was not interested in that aspect, but wanted to know what the legislation would mean for the trains that run to Southend—a relevant and sensible question. If there is to be a private operator on the route to Southend, how is the rent that he pays for the track to be priced? How is his contribution to overheads to be priced?
I am told by those who know the Southern region better than me that British Rail is about to spend £50 million modernising the Southend line. If that is to be public money, how much is the southern version of Stagecoach to pay as its contribution to that sort of fixed overhead? What sort of contribution will it make for the right to run those trains? That is the sort of question to which the Government will have to find convincing answers quickly.
It is one thing to say that a firm such as Stagecoach can hitch on a couple of carriages. It may not be a sensible suggestion, but it is limited. But is the policy to go further than that? Will the firm be able to put on its own trains, drivers and staff? If it does, what will happen to safety standards and training? What happens to the untrammelled right to run the trains? Will it remain untrammelled or will there be arm's-length negotiations with the railways ultimately being able to say, "No more"?
Will the Minister address the issue of the picking off of the best routes in Scotland? Can he guarantee that,
460
whatever happens, the routes in a district which constitutes one third of the land mass of Britain and which is heavily dependent above the central belt on public service lines will still run and still be funded?
What can we make of the position when Scottish papers are full of speculation that Waverley station in Edinburgh will be the prime site that is sold first as the flagship of the new compromise? We find tagged on to an article in the Sunday Mail the reassuring news that
"A private company buying the station would have to give access for ScotRail track, trains and staff."
That is a relief—at least we are guaranteed that Waverley station will still have trains after the wonders of privatisation.
Can the Minister deny or confirm the report that appeared on the front page of Scotland on Sunday on 10 May that the Scottish board of British Rail is about to be disbanded? I hope that he can give us an assurance that that is not so, particularly in view of the reason given in the article, which is that the board
"does not want ScotRail's advisory board leading private or public opposition to piecemeal privatisation north of the Border".
It seems a sad state of affairs if, in order to try to muzzle opposition, we start disbanding important parts of the advisory and management mechanism of British Rail.
Why is the public against this privatisation—a fact conceded by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), at least by implication, when he said that privatisation was not one of the principal reasons of success? The answer goes back to the scepticism to which I have referred about the clash between the interests of the profit-driven operator and the needs and interests of the consumer.
I have about a minute in which to discuss the coal industry, so my remarks will have to be compressed. Coal is an industry with a future and it should be at the heart of energy policy. I do not believe that hard decisions about where we get our fuel and how we price it should be ducked by the Government merely because they have privatised and changed the form of ownership. Will coal be sold as one unit or will it be broken up and packaged? If the latter, will the packages include deep-mine and opencast potential in each package? Will we sell the operations with the reserves attached to them, or will we sell geographical areas with all the unused and unworked reserves in them? Will there be an analogy with the North sea in which the Government hold the reserves and any exploitation will go out to tender? Half a thousand questions could and should be asked.
We are reduced in Scotland to one pit—the Longannet complex—but it is profitable, with a five-year contract with Scottish Power. But Monktonhall and the Frances, and many other parts of Scotland, have possibilities that ought to be explored, too. There is opencast on a massive scale. At Dalquandy, the biggest site, on the borders of Lanarkshire, I am told that the potential is for about 4 million tonnes a year, with a life of 40 years. The Minister will know and doubtless be thinking about the fact that there will be many who will argue that any scheme for disposal should allow a Scottish sale that includes deep mine and opencast elements. There is much to be found out and examined before we get to that point, but I hope that all these matters will be laid on the table before the Bill goes into Committee so that we are not, ludicrously, left

461
having to pass a paving Bill which is in effect a parliamentary blank cheque while we still have no idea of how the Government will deal with the real issues.
The argument is not yet over; it has a long way to go both for coal and rail services. The Government still have to prove their case. I hope that they will be flexible but I take a gloomy view of the prospects of that. I fear that far too many Ministers will not even pay lip service to flexibility. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who I am sad to say is not in the Chamber now, said that an open mind was needed although, rather endearingly, he conceded that his own was set in concrete.
It is perhaps more sinister that when the Chancellor of the Duchy finally conceded that what was being offered to the railways was not privatisation in the full sense he went on, if I heard him correctly, to say that if this should lead to privatisation, so much the better. That confirms my fears that these proposals are buttressed by prejudice, that they are not well-founded in logic and that they are not in the public interest.
The Government should retreat. I remind them of the words of a well known Conservative rebel on this issue —the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who described rail privatisation as the poll tax on wheels. And look what happened to the poll tax.
9.43 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I begin by paying tribute to the rich crop of maiden speeches to which the House has been privileged to listen during today's debate.
First, there was my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who, as the hon. Member for Garscadden said, is a retread. He follows in the footsteps of Sir William Clark, the distinguished chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench finance committee who is fondly remembered in the House. My hon. Friend brought an international flavour to his review of privatisation—a clear suggestion of a speech written for another day in this debate: indeed, the speech was also a retread. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend made his mark well in a previous incarnation in this place and the House will look forward to hearing from him again.
The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Harvey), as the hon. Member for Garscadden pointed out, has made such a mark that he has already been appointed his party's transport spokesman. He paid a generous and welcome tribute to his predecessor, Tony Speller, and showed a great knowledge of and interest in his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) paid a welcome tribute to Sir Eldon Griffiths and showed great knowledge of the history and present problems of his constituency and the railways. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) showed a knowlege to the history of Sunderland and mentioned its forgiving nature to absentee MPs, which I am sure he will never be. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is in his place.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) spoke with confidence and assurance on local government and privatisation, not always with accuracy, but that can be a matter of opinion. The hon. Member for Sheffield,
462
Hillsborough (Ms. Jackson) spoke about her priorities in education and about deregulation and health and safety issues. The House will soon want to hear from her again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) made a distinguished speech using references with skill and ability. She showed great knowledge and a grasp of the issues and the geography of her constituency and spoke in particular about the lace industry and local government. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) demonstrated a knowledge of the railways and expressed clear views on environmental and constitutional matters. He spoke about harmful emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere and the House looks forward to his next speech.
I regret that I did not hear the only Scottish Back-Bench speech, that of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) who made what I am told was an excellent contribution. The House can imagine the enthusiasm with which I look forward to his next speech. I am sure that he will have many more opportunities in the House or in Committee to display his talents. He is the successor to Alex Eadie, a distinguished and much liked and respected figure. I am told that the hon. Gentleman spoke with authority and concern derived from 25 years underground in the coal industry and 16 years in local government.
He specifically asked about two matters which I shall deal with now in case they become lost. He asked about Frances colliery and Monktonhall colliery. As he knows, Frances colliery was closed following a fire during the miners' strike, with the loss of 500 jobs. It is currently maintained on a care-and-maintenance basis and the colliery's future is a matter for British Coal. However, reopening depends on several factors, not least of which is the need to secure a contract for its output. Monktonhall colliery has been on offer for third-party operation since December 1991, and two private sector organisations are interested in securing a contract with British Coal. It is encouraging to note that if Monktonhall colliery has a future, it seems to be in the private sector and not in nationalised management.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) made a fluent and entertaining speech which showed knowledge of his constituency and its needs and enthusiastic support for privatisation. I welcome my hon. Friend's tribute to Sir Bernard Braine, who was the Father of the House and highly regarded by all hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) spoke ably and interestingly about his constituency and about community care and privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, is paying a return visit to the House and this time I hope that he will stay longer. The House welcomed his sound knowledge of his constituency and listened with interest to his views on how rail privatisation might help his constituents.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) delivered her maiden speech in the accomplished way that one expects from someone with such a distinguished career already to her credit. We especially remember the great speeches of Queen Elizabeth I that she once delivered. In one of them the Queen dissolved Parliament and bade every Member before leaving for his shire to come and kiss her hand. Who knows where the hon. Lady might end up with an accomplishment of that kind. She also displayed knowledge of her constituency

463
and of housing matters and the House was grateful for her generous tribute to her predecessor, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg. We look forward to hearing her again.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) paid a kind tribute to Andy Stewart, a displaced Scot and now doubly displaced and sadly missed in the House. Like his predecessor, the hon. Gentleman displayed great knowledge of the coal industry, and I am sure that he can be relied on to advance the interests of his constituents.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) inevitably spoke about railways. I am sure that the House is grateful for his tribute to Michael Fallon, a former Minister in the Department of Education and Science and, perhaps more significantly, a former Scottish Whip, who is much missed. The hon. Gentleman's fluency and knowledge of his constituency and of his constituents' interests and his clear views on the policies that the Government should be following will have impressed the House.
Finally, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) paid generous tribute to her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. She also spoke with authority and fluency about her constituency and her priorities in this place.
All the maiden speeches that the House heard today were accomplished, confident and knowledgeable contributions that will enhance the reputation of the House. The House listened with interest and admiration to all of them and will look forward to hearing these speakers again.
The hon. Member for Garscadden tempted me to speak about the Scottish constitutional question, and I could reply at great length on that subject, as we have debated the issues concerned at considerable length. However, at this stage, I shall confine myself simply to saying that the Scottish Conservative party fought the election to this United Kingdom Parliament above all else as a unionist party. We rejected the charlatan potions of all the other parties and, although wipe-out was predicted, in the event we held all our seats and increased our representation in the House by more than one fifth.
We were the only party to increase both the number of seats and our share of the vote. For every three votes that the supposedly omnipotent Labour party secured, we got two. We got twice as many votes as the Liberal Democrats and four times as many seats as the Scottish National party. That clear rallying of support to us, despite the massive combined assault by all the other parties, was confirmed by last week's district council elections, in which our vote went up by one fifth and the number of our seats by one quarter. The Labour party fought the last election on devolution throughout the United Kingdom and was defeated in elections to the United Kingdom's Parliament. Where its case was argued strongest, in Scotland, the swing against it was the largest.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the Minister know that, in the northern region, the Labour party got more than 50 per cent. of the vote and that the commitment of the northern members of the Labour party was to devolution for the north? That was not a defeat.
Mr. Lang: Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, the hon. Lady stood for election to this United Kingdom Parliament, not to a Parliament for the north-east.
464
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me various questions about the consideration of these issues. All that I can say at this stage is that the Government remain willing to consider ways to improve the mechanisms of the government of Scotland, provided that that does not jeopardise the integrity of the United Kingdom and its Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the Government were taking stock and that we would report back to the House, and that we shall do in due course.
Mr. Dewar: I shall be brief, as I recognise that the Secretary of State has much to talk about. However, I referred to a report, allegedly authoritative, from Downing street and gave a direct quote from a Downing street source saying that there would be nothing in the next 18 months and no undertakings in the 18 months after that. I am sure that the Secretary of State will recognise that that is a depressing and lengthy timetable. Can he say anything to encourage me?
Mr. Lang: I can give the hon. Gentleman no specific information on timetabling, except to say that the speculation that nothing will happen for 18 months is not accurate.
The issue that primarily occupied the House today was privatisation and, most particularly, privatisation of the rail and coal industries. Many hon. Members spoke about railways, and some had close personal and constituency interests. The Government fully recognise the contribution that an efficient rail network can make towards the country's transport needs, as evidenced by our approval —here I respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) who requested that we ease the grip of Treasury control—of unprecedented levels of investment, which have amounted to more than billion at today's prices since 1979. Investment is now standing at the highest level for 30 years.
Introducing the disciplines and freedoms of the private sector will enable the railways to respond better to users' needs, and that will result in a better service to customers. To those who ask about our detailed proposals, I can respond by saying that the Government will publish a White Paper setting out our proposals as soon as they are ready. We shall continue to provide subsidy for loss-making regional rail services for as long as is necessary.
The arrangements will sustain the present national network of services. The liberalisation of access to the rail network for private sector operation can satisfy the necessary safety and competence standards. It is a positive move towards making the best use of the nation's railways and to seeing more traffic carried by rail. The development whereby Stagecoach Holdings is attaching two coaches for seated passengers on the Aberdeen-London train shows the sort of diversity and creative approach that can so much improve the quality of service to travellers.
Mr. Robert Hughes: During the election, the right hon. Gentleman dropped hints from time to time that we might get the electrification of the east coast main line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen. What are his plans for that? Under the Bill, who would pay for the capital development? Would he be asking Stagecoach to pay a substantial part of the capital development?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I made no reference to the electrification of the Aberdeen-Edinburgh line during the election. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I give him the same reply as that which I have given in the past, which is that it is a matter for British Rail. It has been investigating the matter at great length to ascertain whether the project would be economically viable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) emphasised the importance of safety standards in the privatisation of the railways. That is something to which the Government attach the highest priority through the railway inspectorate. My hon. Friend asked me about the Dornoch Firth bridge. In general, projects of that kind are matters of judgment for British Rail. It has to decide whether additional investment for such a project could be justified commercially. In this instance both Highland regional council and British Rail have studied the proposition and concluded that public investment could not be justified.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) talked about British Rail Engineering Ltd. and the position of employee shareholders. She suggested that those shareholders were being compelled to sell their shares. I understand that that is not the position. ASEA Brown Boveri, having taken over from Trafalgar House shares in BREL, is anxious to increase its holding by acquiring shares that are held by employees, but the employees are not obliged to sell. The unions are advising them not to sell. It is a matter for individual shareholders and not one for the Government.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lang: I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me for not doing so. He was not present during the earlier part of the debate and I have little time left to me.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Members for Sunderland, North and for Midlothian emphasised the importance of safety and suggested that safety considerations in a privatised coal industry would be at risk. There is no reason to believe that there would be any reduction or diminution of safety matters under privatisation. The Health and Safety Commission and its executive would be much involved in safety matters throughout. I readily acknowledge that
466
safety remains a paramount consideration. There is no reason to believe that privatisation would make coal mining any less safe.
I have had little time to reply to the debate, but I want to say a few words about the underlying philosophies of privatisation and nationalisation. It is unsurprising that the Labour party is so preoccupied, especially in Scotland, with constitutional mechanisms. That is partly because, having failed in successive elections to win power through the established democratic processes, it is trying now to change the rules to its advantage. That lack of respect for checks and balances and for parliamentary democracy is recognised and resented by the British people. It is partly, too, because it has an unhealthy preoccupation with the exercise of power. That is based on an excessive belief in the role and functions of government. Nothing more clearly demonstrates that than its sustained addiction—it has been with the party throughout its life, which is now drawing peacefully to a close—to the draining and debilitating cause of nationalisation.
Nationalisation is an economic deformity. It is a dead end. To take over the commanding heights of the economy is at once to reduce them to the quagmire of the economy. Nationalisation cannot succeed, and now it is not only Britain but the rest of the world that know it. Labour's tragedy is a terminal one. However much it pretends that it is no longer wedded to nationalisation, and however much it renounces its creed, it cannot carry conviction because it is not convinced itself.
Clause IV is still there. It is still beating at the heart of socialist philosophy. With almost everything else excised, it is the heart of the socialist philosophy. I was struck by the ringing nature of the endorsement of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), when he said that he was quite happy to accept it. The Labour party mouths the phrases of decentralisation, free enterprise, choice, competition and private ownership, but nobody believes it because it does not believe these ideas itself. Its faith is a different one altogether. The Labour party cannot adapt because at its centre is an idea that has gone.
Privatisation is undoing the damage of nationalisation. It is returning the property confiscated by nationalisation. It is releasing a new life force to create wealth. It goes with the grain of human nature, it encourages enterprise, it generates prosperity, it enriches society and it is a force for good. That is why it will endure and why we, who support it, will endure.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Forestry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
10 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: I open this short Adjournment debate by saying how delighted I am that the Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—is to reply to the debate. It is his first time on the Front Bench for a few years. There is no one better qualified to speak about forestry. As a Scot, he knows how important forestry is in Scotland—although it is equally important for all in the United Kingdom. I warmly welcome him to the Front Bench.
I apologise to my hon. Friend and to you, Madam Speaker, as the debate was billed as being on the subject of the Forestry Commission. I am not saying that that is a dull subject, but it is not what I intend to speak about tonight. If anyone from the Forestry Commission is in the Gallery listening to the debate, he will be sadly disappointed.
I want to talk about the crisis in forestry in this country, which could and should have been dealt with over the years. I hope that it will be a debate in shorthand because those with an interest in forestry know what the problem is only too well. I shall briefly set the scene. Between 1980 and 1988 there was a renaissance in the forestry industry in Britain which benefited all sectors of the industry. Sometimes people think about the subject only in terms of forestry, but there are three sectors—the nursery men, the growers and the processors. They are interdependent and equally important.
During that period, the level of planting of broadleaf and conifers in private woodlands rose from 8,302 hectares to 23,821 hectares. There was near certainty that the target —and I stress that it was the Government's target—of 33,000 hectares would have been achieved by the year 1990–91. I am not arguing against the tax changes in 1988 because there were things that were wrong and things that needed to be put right. However, nobody really anticipated what would happen after those tax changes. I have a particular constituency interest as the first thing that happened was that 10 million plant orders were cancelled and a large nursery man in my constituency stopped production. In 1988 to 1990, there was a drop in planting in the private sector alone, from 23,000-plus hectares to 12,767 hectares. I am quoting the exact figures so that there is no nonsense about the matter. That massive reduction was not expected.
In 1988 and 1989 people said, "Don't worry. We have changed the tax system, we are moving over to grants, and grants will solve the problem." That has not happened and the haemorrhage and the lack of new planting have continued. Even the Forestry Commission reported in 1990 that new plantings totalled only 4,081 hectares—lower than in 1988. I apologise for giving more figures, but total planting in 1990 was 16,874 hectares, which was the lowest figure for 20 years—at a time when demand worldwide and in this country in particular had risen rapidly.
In 1989–90, spurred on by those with a great interest in the forestry industry, I went to see the then Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who
468
gave an assurance that if the situation was as serious as we had indicated, he was only waiting for the planting figures for that year before taking action.
The scene is one of falling planting over four years, and with no take-up of the grant system that can ever compensate for taxation. Some people might ask why there is any need to worry. The reason is that 90 per cent. of this country's consumption of forestry products is imported, at a cost of £7·2 billion per year. Imported timber products account for our fourth largest trade deficit after vehicles, food, and fuel. My guess is that, given that our vehicle exports are doing so well, our third largest trade deficit is now accounted for by timber imports. Demand will double over the next 60 years, so if no action is taken that deficit will massively increase.
Another aspect relates more to industry and processing. Most people would not know what I was talking about if I were to mention the Shotton and Caledonian paper mills. They are state-of-the-art mills that are at the top of paper processing, and were established between 1980 and 1988, in the firm expectation that there would be a massive rise in forestry and wood products in this country. Sadly, they are to be disappointed. Some 55,000 people are employed in the private sector, to which one can add those working for the Forestry Commission and processors. Therefore, the livelihoods of a large number of people depend on an expansion in forestry.
Forestry is and always will be part of the agricultural and rural scene. At a time when we are facing cutbacks in agriculture, it is ludicrous that forestry, which could and should provide an alternative, is not being fully exploited and taking up more land. Twenty-five per cent. of the European Community's overall agricultural land is taken up by forestry and forestry work, whereas in this country the figure is only 10 per cent. We are not only at the bottom of the league table; we are right at the bottom of it. At the present rate of planting, we will stay there for many years to come.
Given that we face the certainty that our requirement for timber products will double over the next 60 years, it is unbelievable that we are prepared to import more timber without setting an environmental example by increasing our own planting capacity.
There is a crisis. That cannot be denied by any Minister, least of all those in the Treasury. It is summed up in a letter written to the Chancellor on 31 October by Mr. Christie-Miller, chairman of Timber Growers UK. He wrote:
"The change in support for forestry from a tax based to a grant aided system is clearly not achieving the Government's aim, which is to sustain a healthy forestry industry whilst at the same time providing for a wide spectrum of public benefits including leisure, recreation, wildlife habitats and environmental enhancements."
I cannot believe that a single hon. Member would not say, "Hear, hear" to that.
What, then, are we to do about the crisis? The letter from which I have just quoted made some recommendations. First, it recommended that planting grants should be index-linked. Secondly, it recommended that land acquired for purposes of forestry should enjoy the same tax relief as agriculture on the interest on its purchasing loans. I quote the letter in shorthand, as it were; it exists, and can be quoted again—as I hope that it will be—in a further meeting with Treasury Ministers.
The third recommendation was the exclusion of forestry from inheritance tax. The fourth mentioned the

469
need to broaden the base of forestry investment and ownership—the "people's capitalism" argument. That could be achieved through a unitised corporate vehicle whereby investors in forestry would be treated in a similar fashion to the individual investor. I shall not go into the details, but if my hon. Friend the Minister wants more information, he can refer to the people who really know what they are talking about—the timber growers.
Let me sum up my argument. No one can deny that there is a problem; no one can deny that we need more home-grown timber; no one can deny that at present, instead of seeing an increase in planting in this country, we are seeing a massive decrease. Something must be done. All that I ask of my hon. Friend is that he makes the strongest possible representations—on behalf not only of those who live in rural areas, but of all who care about our environment in this country and that of the rest of the world—and tries to persuade the Treasury to see some sense.
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) for the warm welcome that he gave me on my return to the Front Bench. No doubt he was almost as surprised as I was. The portfolio for which I am now responsible is a great asset in terms of the Scottish Office, and also in terms of the United Kingdom where forestry is concerned. The environment, the countryside, agriculture, fisheries and heritage have all been combined as a single responsibility, and I think that in the long run that will prove a tremendous advantage.
I am glad to speak on behalf of forestry. My constituency, along with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), probably contains a larger acreage of planting than any other region in the United Kingdom in percentage terms. We are both particularly aware, therefore, of the importance of forestry to the rural economy—and, indeed, of the other aspects mentioned by my hon. Friend, such as recreation, tourism and, of course, employment.
My hon. Friend was right to raise the question of the industry as a whole, from the seedling to the ultimate manufacturing process. He must accept, however, that that is connected to a large extent with developments in the Forestry Commission and the private sector. Both are interdependent and extremely important.
The incentives that have been developed in the past year or two, and even in the last month or two, to increase planting are significant. The overall crop is also important. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the timber deficits, in terms of the balance of payments, are extremely important in United Kingdom terms. I shall cover as much ground as I can, but if I am unable to cover all of it by the end of the debate, I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
The Government are fully committed to developing and supporting the forestry sector. During the past 12 years, our record of policy initiatives has been one of considerable progress and achievement. The Forestry Commission has played, and continues to play, a central role in the development of forestry throughout Great Britain. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we have no intention of privatising the Forestry
470
Commission. That remains the position. Many Forestry Commission staff have asked me what policy the Government intend to pursue in the future. We have given a firm commitment not to privatise the Forestry Commission.
Only a month ago—this is important in terms of how forestry will develop—the Government commissioned a major reorganisation, designed to achieve a clear distinction between its regulatory and advisory roles as a Government department and the management of its forests. The commission has set up a policy and resources group at its Edinburgh headquarters. That group is responsible for supporting and advising Ministers on forestry policy. Moreover, the Forestry Authority, which provides advice and sets standards for the forestry industry as a whole, administers the grant schemes, carries out regulatory functions, such as felling control, and undertakes forest research. That will be particularly helpful as we move into the world of set-aside and encourage farmers to plant trees on land that is no longer required for agricultural purposes. Advice there is particularly required, though farmers do not always realise that advice is available from the commission.
Forest Enterprise will now be free to concentrate on managing the commission's forest estate of more than 1 million hectares on a multi-use basis—for recreation, wildlife, landscape and conservation, as well as for timber production. That shows that the commission is forward looking and that it is determined to develop woodland planting in this country.
Nearly 250,000 hectares of new forests have been created during the last decade, mainly by the initiative and enterprise of private owners. Wood production has more than doubled since 1970 and is set to double again—to reach 10 million cubic metres—over the next 20 years. British timber is of high quality and is in demand by our domestic wood processing industries. The longer-term confidence of the industry has been amply demonstrated by the investment of over £1 billion in new processing plant since 1980. Our wood processing industry can compete with the best in the world. The new mills and plants incorporate the latest in technical innovation in paper making, panel production and saw milling. That has enabled them to capture a significant share of our growing domestic requirement for wood products. All that has been made possible by the doubling of the area of woodland cover during the past 70 years.
Sir Jim Spicer: The fact that we are going to double our production is very impressive, but does my hon. Friend accept that unless we have new planting we shall be left with an awful chasm? That is what worries me. I am not worried about all the products that will appear as a result of the planting that took place between 1980 and 1988. That is marvellous. But what will happen when we hit that trough? That is what worries me, and it should concern us all.
Sir Hector Monro: Yes, indeed. I was just coming to the point about the downturn in private sector planting over the past two or three years. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that new planting in England has increased. In 1987, the figure was 1,200 hectares, whereas in 1991—the latest year for which figures are available—it was 4,400 hectares. The picture should not

471
have been so depressing for nursery men and others in Dorset, but I know that conditions have been difficult for them.
In Scotland, the overall picture has been disappointing. The new grants offer an incentive to increase planting now and in the coming years. The woodland grant scheme, which we introduced in 1988, has made substantial progress. Grants range from £615 to £1,575 per hectare, depending on the size of wood and species of tree. I give these details because it is important to realise what is available to encourage people to plant more trees.
We recently introduced the better land supplement, which offers another £200 per hectare to £400 for conifers and £600 for broadleaf trees. That is another useful incentive. The woodland management grants are most important. As my hon. Friend will remember, possibly some of the fiercest criticism of the Chancellor's fiscal change was the fact that there would be no tax relief on maintenance in the later yars of the life of a plantation. Many foresters think that between 20 and 30 years is the crucial period for additional maintenance. The woodland management grant is of particular help in replacing what some foresters lost from the change in the fiscal system.
As late as last month we introduced a new community woodland supplement of £950 per hectare for establishing new woodlands open to the public and within easy reach of towns and cities. Its purpose is to encourage planting on the urban fringe to add to the amenity and to the overall amount of planting in this country. The native pine wood scheme encourages the management of existing pine woods in Scotland.
The most recent change or development has been our new farm woodland premium scheme, which provides grants to make planting more attractive to farmers. Its purpose is to offer a particular incentive to plant on good land. Farmers such as myself and many in my hon. Friend's constituency are reluctant, having looked after fields that require a lot of husbandary, to plant them into woodlands and know that their use as agricultural land has probably gone for ever. To encourage people to do so, bearing in mind our commitments in Europe to reduce overall production, there is a high grant for planting on good quality land and perhaps less grant for land of less importance, and certainly down to the less favoured areas.
We realise that there has been a drop in planting in the past two years. Only by raising the incentives as high as we can will the planting level be restored. My hon. Friend said —and this view is widely held among foresters in general —that we must think again about the change made to the fiscal system in 1988, but it is too early to be certain. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want more time to assess the impact of our new grants on planting before any reconsideration of the tax incentives. Bearing in mind the fact that the overall grant to forestry probably equates to the amount of money that the Treasury had to pay in tax relief, I believe that that must almost have balanced the position.
However, we must accept that the forestry industry makes a substantial contribution to meeting our growing demand for wood. It supports and provides employment
472
for people living in rural communities. The forests and woodlands also provide opportunities for people to enjoy and to have access to the countryside. They are also an essential habitat for a rich variety of wildlife.
My hon. Friend might be interested to know that earlier today I was in Perthshire at the inauguration of the new Scottish Natural Heritage, which is a combination of the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Nature Conservancy Council, which will now have overall responsibility for many aspects of the habitat and conservation in Scotland, not of course directly for the Forestry Commission although it will co-operate very closely with the commission and, of course, with private woodland owners for whom we have the highest regard and whom we must do all that we can to help in the future.
Our policies deliver environmental as well as economic benefits. The Forestry Commission has a responsibility to ensure that full account is taken of all interests and that those interests are carefully balanced. The commission consults the statutory bodies that represent the interests of nature conservation, amenity and local people to ensure that planting schemes are, as far as possible, acceptable to all involved. Investors now fully recognise the need for planting to be sensitive to the environment. They are taking time to plan their planting schemes and, to assist in that, the Government are encouraging local authorities to prepare indicative strategies to show preferred areas for planting and areas that are environmentally sensitive.
However, we must keep bureaucracy to a minimum and the new Forestry Authority will be able to focus clearly on the needs of the private sector. It will put additional resources into its role of providing sound advice to woodland owners and of promoting the grant schemes at a time when new opportunities are opening up. In terms of bureaucracy, the authority is determined to make quick and speedy decisions because that is the right way to proceed, to encourage the planting of new areas, and not to allow the head of steam among the landowners to fall away because of the time given to the authority to proceed with planting.
On the whole, I am certain that the commission and the Government are doing a great deal to give incentives for planting and, therefore, to ensure that the total hectarage increases rather than decreases, as it certainly did in 1990 and 1991. I believe that the confidence stemming from the general election and the lowering of interest rates in every way encourages the landowner and private forestry developer to proceed in the future, knowing that he has the full backing of the Government and that the Forestry Commission will give every possible assistance in the form of grants, advice and experience.
Although I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised this issue and shown his concern which will, of course, be considered by the Forestry Commission and the Government, I believe that we are on the right track, and I am personally confident that we will achieve great success in the coming year.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for the reform of the standard spending assessments in the light of the Audit Commission's report.

  Mr. Squire
  Standard spending assessments (SSAs) are based on extensive analysis, research and continuing discussions with local authority representatives. The Government are not proposing any major changes to SSAs although data from the 1991 census will be incorporated as soon as possible after they become available.

  The Audit Commission is in the early stages of a study of standard spending assessments, but has published no recent report on the subject. We shall, of course, consider any recommendations which the commission may eventually make.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) why the capital financing standard spending assessment for Westminster for 1991–92 was set at a level higher than that required by the council; what effect this had on the level of poll tax in Westminster; and if he will give the comparable figures for Great Grimsby and Humberside;

  (2) what considerations of policy led to the decision not to use the October figures of each charging authority's debt repayments as included in their budgets in calculating their standard spending assessments; and if he will give the basis of the assumptions which are used in fact.

  Mr. Squire
  The capital financial element of an authority's SSA is based on notional, rather than actual, outstanding debt. This is to ensure that all authorities are treated equally and that past and present policies with regard to financing capital expenditure do not affect SSAs. The use of actual debt would: penalise those authorities who have in the past chosen to use receipts to reduce debt; divert grant towards expenditure on trading services (which are specifically excluded from SSAs as they are assumed to generate income); and provide grant for those debt charges which are already covered by specific grants.

  The method of calculating the capital financing SSA element for all authorities is set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England). The underlying basis of the calculation is set out in annex VII of the SSA Handbook on Background and Underlying Methodology—copies of both documents are in the Library.

  The following table sets out the information requested:
  12

  1991–92 capital financing SSA element

  Equivalent net revenue expenditure

  Effect on community charge if net revenue expenditure were equal to SSA

  £ million

  £ million

  £ per head

  Great Grimsby

  0·627

  1·650

  -16

  Humberside

  44·489

  36·293

  +13

  Westminster

  20·610

  7·252

  +85

  Urban Regeneration Agency
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had, and proposes to have, with local government and other interested bodies with regard to his proposals for establishing an urban regeneration agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department will consult on the proposals to establish an urban regeneration agency.

  Waste Disposal Facilities
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he adopts when determining planning applications referred to him, or for decision by him following an appeal, that relate to the tipping of household waste and other rubbish.

  Mr. Baldry
  Each called-in application and planning appeal is determined on its merits, having regard to the provisions of the approved development plan and any other material considerations.

  Building Products
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the balance of trade in building products in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Imports

  Exports

  Deficit

  1982

  1·85

  1·31

  0·54

  1983

  2·28

  1·35

  0·93

  1984

  2·63

  1·45

  1·18

  1985

  2·71

  1·60

  1·11

  1986

  3·03

  1·46

  1·57

  1987

  3·56

  1·54

  2·02

  1988

  4·17

  1·59

  2·58

  1989

  4·70

  1·85

  2·85

  1990

  4·65

  2·15

  2·50

  1991

  4·00

  2·17

  1·83

  All figures are in £ billion at current prices.

  Rugby League Stadium, Dewsbury
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the result of his deliberations on the planning application to build a rugby league stadium in Dewsbury.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend has requested more information about alternative sites for the proposed stadium. He expects soon to receive and assess the further views of interested parties, before a final decision is made about the planning application.

  Barkby Thorpe, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now received the report of the inspector into the Barkby Thorpe, Leicester, methane site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Secretary of State expects to receive the inspector's report shortly and will consider it carefully before reaching his decision. I shall ensure that the hon. Member receives a copy of the Secretary of State's decision when it is available.

  Environment Week
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department is to make towards the environment week, 16 to 24 May, sponsored by the Civic Trust.

  Mr. Maclean
  I will launch the midlands region environment week at the Green Show in the national exhibition centre on May 14. Lord Strathclyde will be launching a leaflet explaining how the public can help to prevent summer-time smog. Officials are discussing other opportunities for participation with the Civic Trust.

  Standard Spending Assessment, Great Grimsby
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons his standard spending assessment estimate for capital financing for Great Grimsby in 1991–92 was lower than Grimsby's budget expenditure; how much difference this made to the average poll tax in Grimsby; and if he will make good the difference.

  Mr. Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier today.

  Nitrous Oxide Emissions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give an estimate of the impact of the introduction of catalytic converters on United Kingdom emissions of nitrous oxide from road transport.

  Mr. Maclean
  Before the introduction of catalytic converters on cars, road transport made a small contribution to United Kingdom emissions of nitrous oxide. Measurements made on the exhaust emissions of cars fitted with catalytic converters show that emissions are a factor of 3–5 higher. Nevertheless, even when all the United Kingdom vehicle fleet is equipped with catalytic converters, road transport emissions will still be small compared with other sources, particularly soils and nylon manufacture.

  Catalytic converters will in any case reduce emissions of other oxides of nitrogen by around 75 per cent.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures of households accepted as homeless by local authorities following mortgage repossessions for England and Wales.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities report quarterly on the number of households accepted under the homelessness 14
  provisions of the Housing Act 1985, distinguishing where the main reason for loss of the last settled home is mortgage arrears, but they do not separately identify those which were subject to repossession.

  The latest estimate is 3,700 such households in England, in the quarter ending December 1991.

  For information about Wales I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the comparative public sector revenue costs of housing homeless families in(a) Greater London and (b) in English non-metropolitan areas by (i) providing them with newly built council dwellings, (ii) providing them with council dwellings, newly acquired from the private sector and improved for letting and (iii) providing them with bed-and-breakfast accommodation; and if he will publish these figures on a comparable basis with those published in his replies to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 16 January 1987, Official Report, columns 331–32 and on 4 March 1987, Official Report, column 637.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have looked carefully at the basis on which such an answer can be given and have concluded that the information is not available in a form which enables a valid comparison to be made.

  Water Supplies (Pollution)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consultations his Department has undertaken with the relevant authorities to ensure that local authorities are given adequate guidance in responding to pollution incidents affecting water supplies;

  (2) what consultations his Department has undertaken to improve the emergency provisions guidance given to local authorities in responding to pollution incidents affecting water supply.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities have special responsibility for private water supplies. DOE and Welsh Office consulted the local authority associations and other relevant bodies in preparing the joint circular on private water supplies issued in December 1991, in which paragraph 6.11 deals with the response to pollution. Water companies are responsible for the wholesomeness of public water supplies, but the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989, which were also the subject of consultation, require water companies to notify local and district health authorities of any event which, by reason of its effect on water supplies, is likely to give rise to a significant risk to the health of local people. The Departments have also published guidance on safeguarding the quality of public water supplies, which includes advice on emergency procedures; water companies are advised to consult local and district health authorities with regard to the appropriate steps to be taken when incidents occur. As a result of the Water Act 1989, the National Rivers Authority became responsible for pollution incidents affecting controlled waters used for water supplies.

  Planning Regulations
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his plans for new regulations governing development by local planning authorities or on their land.

  Sir George Young
  New regulations to replace the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1976, together with associated secondary legislation and policy guidance, are currently being prepared. My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales intend that the new arrangements should be in force by the end of June. Their main features will be:—local planning authorities will continue to be able to grant themselves planning permission for development carried out by them, such as schools or local authority housing, and will also he able to grant themselves permission for development undertaken jointly with another person, such as a joint venture with a housing association;
  —for all other development proposals to be carried out on local authority-owned land by other parties, planning permission will have to be sought from the responsible development control authority. (Thus a county council which is, for example, seeking to dispose of land with planning permission will have to apply to a district council, unless the development is a "county matter" (minerals and waste in England; minerals in Wales); and the district council would have to apply to the county council for development which is a "county matter");
  —local planning authorities will now have to make a planning application to themselves or to another local planning authority and will be subject to broadly the same statutory procedures as other applicants;
  —applications must be publicised as prescribed by a development order in the same way as applications from the public;
  —to avoid a conflict of interest, applications may not be determined by a committee, sub-committee or officer responsible for the management of the land or buildings concerned;
  —planning permission granted to local planning authorities for development by them or jointly will not pass to subsequent owners of the land. For example, an authority will not be able to grant itself planning permission for council housing, then change its mind and sell the land with planning permission to a developer.

  In addition,
  —a new direction will be made requiring the Secretary of State to be notified of all local planning authority development proposals which do not accord with the provisions of the development plan, giving him the opportunity (if he so decides) to call them in for his own decision;
  —an order will be made to prevent the public from being excluded from committee meetings at which local authority development proposals are discussed; and
  —a circular will be published explaining the new arrangements.

  The Government believe that the new regulations will reconcilee appropriately local planning authorities' need to carry out their statutory functions with safeguards on accountability and publicity.

  I am making this announcement in advance of the new arrangements taking effect, to allow local authorities time to take account of the changes and to modify their procedures accordingly.

TRANSPORT

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  Recruitment for senior grades is undertaken by the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency on behalf of the Civil Service Commissioners.

  In order to aid the recruitment of members of ethnic minorities to senior grades the agency has formed links with universities, tertiary colleges and ethnic minority communities. Recruitment literature reflects a multi-racial work force; and validating selection procedures are in place to ensure that selection is fair and non-discriminatory.

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

  Mr. Norris
  The numbers and percentages of non-industrial ethnic minority staff identified in the Department and its agencies at 1 April 1991 are:

  Grade

  Total number of respondents

  Number of ethnic minority respondents

  Percentage of ethnic minority respondents

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  4

  0

  0

  3

  18

  0

  0

  4

  20

  0

  0

  5

  88

  1

  1·1

  6

  144

  4

  2·8

  7

  660

  20

  3·0

  Total

  935

  25

  2·5

  These figures are based on responses to a voluntary confidential survey of staff. Overall, 4·8 per cent. of all respondents to the Department's ethnic origin surveys are of ethnic minority origin.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department completed a full survey of the ethnic origin of non-industrial staff in January 1991. A targeted re-survey took place in September 1991, and further targeted re-surveys will be conducted where necessary.

  Ethnic origin information is sought from all new entrants. The Department's ethnic origin database currently records 86 per cent. of staff.

  M1-M62 Link
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the implications of surface temperature inversion for visibility on sections of the proposed yellow route for the M1–M62 motorway link on the Calder Valley.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No such assessment has been made at this early stage.
  17
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the sites of recognised vertebrate/invertebrate and ecological interest which will be affected by(a) the proposed yellow route and (b) the proposed purple route of the M1–M62 motorway link.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I will write to the hon. Member with a list of these.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the relative proportion of green belt affected by(a) the proposed yellow route and (b) the proposed purple route for the M1-M62 motorway link.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  80 per cent. of yellow route would be situated in green belt and 99 per cent. of the purple route. This is reflective of one of the design objectives, which is to minimise the effect on property.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate as to the number of public representations received(a) in favour and (b) against (i) the proposed yellow route and (ii) the proposed purple route for his suggested M1-M62 motorway link.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  More than 5,000 responses have so far been received, covering a wide range of issues. We have yet to analyse them.

  The purpose of consulting the public and representative bodies at this early stage in the scheme development is to listen to and learn from those affected. The comments received often relate only to localised matters rather than agreeing or disagreeing with any particular overall route.

  Fishing Boats (Registration)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to revise the Merchant Shipping Act 1989 to prevent foreign fishing boats registering as British.

  Mr. Norris
  An order amending the 1988 Act provisions dealing with entitlement to register a vessel as British, is being prepared. It will reflect a recent ruling of the European Court of Justice (commonly known as the FACTORTAME case) and will have the effect of permitting wider European ownership of British registered vessels.

  Sheffield-Manchester Motorway Link
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy with regard to a Sheffield to Manchester motorway link.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There are no proposals in the current roads programme to provide a new motorway link between Sheffield and Manchester. There are, however, a number of schemes in the programme which will improve journeys between the two cities. These include proposals for a new motorway link from the M1 to the M62 between Wakefield and Huddersfield; widening of the M62 between junctions 18 and 24; and improvements to the A616/A628 corridor. I shall, of course, keep the long-term trunk road network under review.

  M11 (Services)
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects completion of the services area on the M11 motorway at Birchanger.
  18
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The contract specifies completion of construction by August 1993.

  Motorcycle Licences
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of motorcycle licence holders were provisional licence holders in 1990; and what this proportion was for 1981 to 1985.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Since the advent of driving licences that are valid until age 70 it has become difficult to produce exact figures on licence holders. However, information from the national travel survey 1988–1990 indicates provisional motorcycle licence holders account for nearly 10 per cent. of motorcyclists. This is about the same as the 1985–86 survey although the number of motorcycle licence holders has decreased by about a third over this period.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department received a copy of the recently published report, "Local Bus Deregulation and the Consumer".

  Mr. Freeman
  The report has not been submitted formally to my Department, but we are aware of its publication.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Anthony Benton
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will intervene in the case of Mr. Anthony Benton to refer the conviction to the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. Jack
  Representations from Mr. Benton which have been submitted on his behalf are being considered to decide whether there are any grounds to justify our intervention.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 22 April concerning Mr. Anthony Benton.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend hopes to reach a decision on the case shortly. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as a decision has been reached.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is expected the Police Complaints Authority will decide on any disciplinary proceedings arising from the arrest and conviction of Mr. Anthony Benton.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This is a matter for the West Midlands police and the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the contemporaneous notes taken after the arrest of Mr. Anthony Benton are included in the papers of the case submitted to the Police Complaints Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  These are not matters for my Department.

  Immigration Guidelines
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to revise the guidelines for dealing with hon. Members' representations in immigration cases.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have no immediate plans to do so, but the guidelines are kept under review.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will announce a time-table for reducing the number of prisoners in police cells; how many prisoners were so detained at the latest date for which figures are available; and in which police authority areas;

  (2) when he expects Operation Container to be discontinued;

  (3) what representations his Department has had about the future of Operation Container and the problems it has caused for the police service;

  (4) if he will be meeting representatives of the greater Manchester police authority to discuss Operation Container; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Operation Container was set up specifically to deal with the shortage of prison accommodation in the greater Manchester area caused by the destruction of Manchester prison in April 1990. Since then, the prison population has risen and there is now a general shortfall throughout England and Wales of prison accommodation available to house all those who have been committed to prison by the courts. Measures have been taken to make more effective use of prison accommodation, and new accommodation is being added to the estate.

  Nevertheless, on 7 May there were still 1,638 prisoners in police cells for whom places could not be founed in prisons. They were held by the following police forces:

  Number

  Avon and Somerset

  43

  Bedfordshire

  21

  Cambridgeshire

  20

  Cheshire

  36

  Cleveland

  29

  Cumbria

  31

  Derbyshire

  15

  Devon and Cornwall

  22

  Durham

  34

  Dyfed

  24

  Essex

  13

  Greater Manchester

  233

  Gwent

  2

  Hampshire

  3

  Hertfordshire

  14

  Humberside

  30

  Lancashire

  114

  Leicestershire

  21

  Lincolnshire

  13

  Merseyside

  71

  Metropolitan

  203

  Norfolk

  11

  North Wales

  15

  North Yorkshire

  19

  Northamptonshire

  28

  Northumbria

  79

  Nottinghamshire

  34

  South Wales

  61

  South Yorkshire

  45

  Staffordshire

  11

  20

  Number

  Suffolk

  19

  Surrey

  14

  Sussex

  2

  Thames Valley

  24

  Warwickshire

  11

  West Mercia

  6

  West Midlands

  40

  West Yorkshire

  130

  Wiltshire

  18

  Total

  1,638

  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) when Home Secretary met a delegation from the greater Manchester police authority on 9 March. My predecessor as prisons Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), also met a delegation and visited Manchester to see Operation Container at first hand. I have had no request for a further meeting. I know that it was made clear to the delegation that although changes in the prison population made it impossible to predict when the use of police cells would cease the problem was regarded as extremely serious and the task of bringing it to an end was a top priority for the prison service.

  Neither I, nor my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regard the detention of remand or sentenced prisoners in police cells as acceptable either for the prisoners or the police. I hope that the measures which we have taken and the availability of new prison places will soon have an impact on the numbers. I cannot give a precise timetable, because the rate of progress is of course vulnerable to changes in the numbers of prisoners committed to prison by the courts.

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of overseas voters in each parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of overseas voters included in the electoral register for each parliamentary constituency will be published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in the annual reference volume, Electoral Statistics 1992, series EL No. 19, in the summer. Details of the figures will be placed in the Library shortly. The number of overseas electors included in the draft electoral register for 1992–93 was given in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 3 March 1992 at column.102.

  Young Offenders (Suicides)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders have committed suicide in custody in 1992, 1991, 1990 and 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of prisoners under the age of 21 years who have died as the result of an act of deliberate self-harm in each of the years 1989 to 1992 is as follows:
  21

  Year

  Number

  1989

  11

  1990

  10

  1991

  5

  11992

  5

  1 To 11 May.

  Football
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce, in the current session of Parliament, legislation outlawing the sale of tickets for, and on the day of, a football match without the authority of the home club to do so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government are committed to introducing this offence when parliamentary time allows, but that is unlikely to be in this Session.

  Appointed by

  Period of office

  The hon. Mr. Justice Anthony Evans

  Lord Chancellor

  April 1989—31 December 1992

  Mr. W. P. Davey CBE, DL, IPFA

  Home Secretary

  March 1989—31 December 1992

  Mr. M. P. McLaggan JP, DL, MA

  Secretary of State for Wales

  March 19891—31 December 1992

  1 First appointed in July 1980.

  No assistant commissioners hold appointment at present. The deputy chairman is required to be a judge of the High Court. No other formal qualifications are prescribed.

PRIME MINISTER

  EC Committee of the Regions
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on United Kingdom regional representation on the EC Committee of the Regions agreed at Maastricht.

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers are considering the nomination of the 24 United Kingdom members (and 24 alternates) on the Committee of the Regions.

  Minister for War Veterans
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister for war veterans, widows and dependants, within either the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Social Security.

  The Prime Minister
  Responsibility for matters affecting war veterans, their widows and dependants forms part of the departmental remit of a number of Ministers. There are no plans to change this arrangement.

  Lockerbie Bombing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the representations made to the United Kingdom Government by the Government of Libya about the proposed extradition of two Libyan nationals in relation to the Lockerbie bombing;

  (2) if he will discuss with the President of the United States the representations made to both of them by the Arab League in relation to the Lockerbie bombing and policy towards Libya; and if he will make a statement.

  Sunday Trading
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place over the past 12 months on breaches of the Sunday trading laws.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Welsh Boundary Commissioners
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Welsh parliamentary boundary commissioners and any assistant commissioners, giving their period of office and any appropriate qualifications.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Madam Speaker is chairman of the commission. The other members are:

  The Prime Minister
  We have had various approaches from Libyans and intermediaries over the Lockerbie bombing. None of them indicates that Libya is ready to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions 731 and 748. We have worked closely with the United States and France and shall continue to do so.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will state the Government's policy towards war crimes in the Channel islands.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy is that people who have committed murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide as violations of the laws and customs of war in German-held territory during the second world war should not be able to use the privilege of residence in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands to escape justice.

  Church Livings
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Prime Minister for how many church livings he has the responsibility of appointment.

  The Prime Minister
  I am responsible for recommending clergy to Her Majesty the Queen for appointment to 206 benefices where the Crown has rights of presentation. Of these, 126 belong to the Crown in full right, while appointment to the remaining 80 is undertaken alternately or sequentially depending upon the number of other patrons having rights of presentation to those benefices.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Radiation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will have powers to require the publication by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority of safety reports dealing with radiological risk to the public, under the new arrangements for oversight of the nuclear programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has the same powers as those previously held by the Secretary of State for Energy. It has been UKAEA's practice over a number of years to issue reports annually on the radiological effect of its operations. This information is given both in a safety report and in a report on the Radioactive Waste Disposal by AEA Establishments. I am arranging for copies of the latest reports to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he and his officials have had any meetings with the liquidators of BCCI in the last(a) two months and (b) one month.

  Mr. Hamilton
  My officials met Mr. Morris and Mr. Richards, two of the joint liquidators of BCCI, on 26 March 1992.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a copy of the Government of Abu Dhabi's proposal for compensation of the victims of BCCI; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hamilton
  My officials have been supplied with a copy of the joint liquidators' report to the court dated 16 March 1992 containing a 52 page summary of the proposed agreements between the liquidators of BCCI and the Government of Abu Dhabi. I understand that the High Court is to consider these proposals on 11 May 1992 at which time all interested parties will have the opportunity to give their views. If the proposed agreements are approved by the Court acceptance of the compensation offered by the Government of Abu Dhabi will be a matter for individual creditors of BCCI.

  Computer Software
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on discussions between the European Community and the United States of America, and in GATT, on patenting of computer software.

  Mr. Needham
  The draft final text of the trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPs) agreement of the GATT Uruguay round is a good one overall for United Kingdom business and industry. It is consistent with United Kingdom domestic law and will not preclude the Patent Office from excluding computer software patents.

  Regional Enterprise Grants Scheme
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the changes to the regional enterprise grants scheme that were announced on 6 March will be introduced.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The changes to the regional enterprise grants scheme that were announced on 6 March 1992 by 24
  the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry were subject to clearance from the European Commission. Now that this clearance has been received I have decided, in consultation with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, that from 18 May these changes will become effective and that the innovation element of the scheme will be extended to all inner city task force areas, city challenge areas and the Scottish urban areas which already qualify for the higher level of support under the consultancy initiative.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to allow the Gibraltar Government direct and independent access to the European Commission and Parliament on all those matters that presently fall within their competence.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No. Gibraltar's interests are represented by the British Government in the European Community.

  Treaty on European Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who decides disputes about the interpretation of the translation of the text of the treaty on European union.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The treaty makes it clear (article S) that the text in each of the Community languages is "equally authentic". Disputes about the texts are for the parties to resolve among themselves. Where they concern areas of the treaty within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice they may ultimately be referred to it for decision.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he published or intends to publish, the text of the treaty on European union; and if he intends to also publish any explanatory guide or other descriptions of its provisions and implications.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The text of the treaty on European union was published as a Command Paper (Cm 1934) on 7 May. Further information on its provisions is contained in memoranda submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Her Majesty's Treasury to the Foreign Affairs and Treasury and Civil Service Committees respectively. Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the provisions of article 7a as referred to in the revised article 100a(i) in paragraph (22) of article G of the Maastricht treaty; and if he will indicate where article 7a is located in the various European Community treaties.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Under paragraph 9 of article G of the treaty on European union the present article 8a of the treaty of Rome becomes article 7a (and articles 8b and 8c become 7b and 7c). Present article 8a was added to the treaty of Rome by article 13 of section II of the Single European Act.
  25
  Article 7a states:
  "The Community shall adopt measures with the aim of progressively establishing the internal market over a period expiring on 31 December 1992, in accordance with the provisions of this article and of Articles 7b, 7c, 28, 57(2), 59, 70(1), 84, 99, 100a and 100b and without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty.
  The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty".

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the treaty on European union he signed at Maastricht on 7 February is the text circulating in Conf-UP-U-EM 2002/1/92; in what language was the version he signed; who translated it into English; what check his officials made of the accuracy of that translation; and when an accurate text will be provided in Parliament and published.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Treaty signed at Maastricht was subsequently circulated as CONF-UP-UEM 2002/1/92. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs signed a version in English translated by European Community linguists. Officials and FCO translators were fully involved in meetings with linguists before 7 February to finalise the texts. The text as signed was made available to Parliament immediately thereafter and was published as a Command Paper on 7 May.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has in his possession a copy of the proposed treaty of Rome as it would be following ratification of the treaty of European union.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There is not yet an official publication of the treaty of Rome as amended by the treaty on European Union. The treaty on European union has been printed as a Command Paper (Cm 1934).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what enactment article 100A(i) of the treaty of Rome, which is to be replaced in accordance with paragraph 22 of article G of the Maastricht treaty, was inserted in the treaty.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Article 100a was added to the treaty of Rome by article 18 of the Single European Act which came into force on 1 July 1987.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the text of the treaty of Rome used as a basis for the amendments to that treaty in the treaty of European union is the same as the text of the treaty of Rome issued in September 1988 by HMSO as Cm 455.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Yes.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Bangladesh Government concerning reports of a massacre at Lougong in the Chittagong hill tracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have expressed our concern about these reports to the Bangladeshi authorities who have told us a judicial inquiry will be conducted. We will take a close interest in the report of this inquiry.
  26
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Bangladesh Government to allow UN observers into the Chittagong hill tracts.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. We doubt whether there is a role for UN observers in the hill tracts.

  EC Commissioners
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received concerning proposals made by any Commissioners of the European Economic Community concerning changes in or replacement of the commissioners or presidency of the Community; and when he expects any such proposal to be published.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  A declaration attached to the treaty on European union provides for a review of the size of the Commission by the end of 1992. The Commission has made no proposals regarding commissioners or the presidency.

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Abu Dhabi concerning that Government's proposal to compensate the victims of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had no such discussions, but I raised the plight of BCCI staff and depositors in the United Kingdom during my visit to Abu Dhabi last October. The Abu Dhabi authorities were made aware that we should like to see depositors get as much of their money back from the BCCI as possible and the employees given fair severance terms.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Crown Courts, Yorkshire
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is(a) the capital expenditure and (b) the revenue expenditure on each crown court in Yorkshire for each year since 1979.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It has not been possible to obtain the information requested in the time available but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Church Appointments
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for how many church livings the Lord Chancellor has the responsibility of appointment.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is responsible for making appointments on behalf of the Crown to 464 benefices where the Crown has rights of presentation. Of these, 194 belong to the Crown in full right, while appointment to the remaining 270 is undertaken alternately or sequentially depending upon the number of other patrons having rights of presentation to those benefices.

  Covenants on Open Land
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about covenants on open land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has received and is considering around 100 letters from Members of Parliament and the public expressing a range of views on the Law Commission's report on obsolete restrictive covenants published in July 1991.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Michael O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further steps are being taken to review the availability of criminal legal aid in cases where defendants are in custody.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A defendant to criminal proceedings is eligible for legal aid if, in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988 and legal aid regulations, a court decides that it is in the interests of justice that legal aid be granted and that the defendant's financial resources are such that he or she requires assistance in meeting the costs. The team conducting the review of financial conditions for legal aid is now considering legal aid in all criminal cases. A consultation paper will be issued in the summer.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give the latest figures for repossessions in England and Wales by month in tabular form.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table gives the total number of mortgage possession actions entered, suspended orders and orders made in England and Wales during January, February and March of this year. These figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts as not all of the orders made will have resulted in the issue and execution of warrants of possession. At this stage the figures are provisional and therefore liable to revision in the future.

  Mortgage possession actions in England and Wales during 1992

  Month

  Actions entered

  Suspended orders

  Orders made

  January

  14,223

  7,052

  5,813

  February

  13,781

  5,902

  4,938

  March

  14,465

  6,201

  5,807

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy by county or region in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to the latest available date.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested to 1 May 1992 is as follows:28

  County

  Confirmed cases

  ENGLAND

  Avon

  1,123

  Bedfordshire

  144

  Berkshire

  299

  Buckinghamshire

  469

  Cambridgeshire

  174

  Cheshire

  1,779

  Cleveland

  65

  Cornwall

  4,052

  Cumbria

  1,304

  Derbyshire

  950

  Devon

  5,586

  Dorset

  4,209

  Durham

  187

  Essex

  229

  Gloucestershire

  1,368

  Hampshire

  1,670

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  915

  Hertfordshire

  177

  Humberside

  227

  Isle of Wight

  347

  Kent

  916

  Lancastershire

  1,403

  Leicestershire

  1,163

  Lincolnshire

  390

  London

  28

  Manchester

  62

  Merseyside

  40

  Norfolk

  1,019

  Northamptonshire

  470

  Northumberland

  242

  Nottinghamshire

  288

  Oxon

  835

  Salop

  1,205

  Somerset

  4,929

  Staffordshire

  1,164

  Suffolk

  604

  Surrey

  458

  Sussex East

  691

  Sussex West

  1,213

  Tyne and Wear

  11

  Warwickshire

  509

  West Midlands

  26

  Wiltshire

  3,063

  Yorkshire North

  1,998

  Yorkshire South

  167

  Yorkshire West

  259

  WALES

  County

  Clwyd

  720

  Dyfed

  2,549

  Glamorgan M

  104

  Glamorgan S

  142

  Glamorgan W

  24

  Gwent

  385

  Gwynedd

  166

  Powys

  521

  SCOTLAND

  Borders

  111

  Central

  50

  Dumfries

  498

  Fife

  98

  Grampian

  330

  Highland

  91

  Lothian

  42

  Orkney

  18

  Shetland

  5

  Strathclyde

  487

  Tayside

  133

  Western Isles

  1

  29

  County

  Confirmed cases

  NORTHERN IRELAND

  County

  Antrim

  135

  Armagh

  26

  Down

  78

  Fermanagh

  36

  Londonderry

  50

  Tyrone

  73

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy by county or region in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from 1 January until the latest available date.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of cases confirmed for England, Wales and Scotland from 3 January 1992, and for Northern Ireland from 17 January 1992, to 1 May 1992 is as follows. Many of these cases will have a date of clinical onset of disease, and indeed date of report, before 3 January.

  Confirmed cases

  ENGLAND

  County

  Avon

  204

  Bedfordshire

  24

  Berkshire

  54

  Buckinghamshire

  88

  Cambridgeshire

  33

  Cheshire

  357

  Cleveland

  13

  Cornwall

  741

  Cumbria

  331

  Derbyshire

  258

  Devon

  948

  Dorset

  728

  Durham

  35

  Essex

  52

  Gloucestershire

  188

  Hampshire

  226

  Hereford and Worcester

  154

  Hertfordshire

  22

  Humberside

  32

  Isle of Wight

  45

  Kent

  130

  Lancashire

  347

  Leicestershire

  187

  Lincolnshire

  63

  London

  7

  Manchester

  16

  Merseyside

  15

  Norfolk

  239

  Northamptonshire

  94

  Northumberland

  50

  Nottinghamshire

  50

  Oxfordshire

  176

  Shropshire

  223

  Somerset

  946

  Staffordshire

  482

  Suffolk

  109

  Surrey

  89

  Sussex, East

  133

  Sussex, West

  233

  Tyne and Wear

  3

  Warwickshire

  80

  West Midlands

  5

  Wiltshire

  491

  Yorkshire, North

  391

  Yorkshire, South

  31

  Yorkshire, West

  51

  30

  Confirmed cases

  WALES:

  Clwyd

  156

  Dyfed

  565

  Glamorgan M

  15

  Glamorgan S

  37

  Glamorgan W

  5

  Gwent

  79

  Gwynedd

  34

  Powys

  104

  SCOTLAND:

  Borders

  30

  Central

  10

  Dumfries

  169

  Fife

  17

  Grampian

  69

  Highland

  17

  Lothian

  12

  Orkney

  5

  Shetland

  2

  Strathclyde

  118

  Tayside

  25

  Western Isles

  0

  NORTHERN IRELAND:

  Antrim

  33

  Armagh

  5

  Down

  15

  Fermanagh

  5

  Londonderry

  12

  Tyrone

  16

  Meat Depots
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether distribution and transit depots handling packaged meat fall under the category of cold stores as defined in the draft Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992; and what requirements these depots will have to meet.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes. Distribution and transit depots handling and storing packaged meat fall under the category of cold stores as defined in the draft Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992. Such premises will, therefore, have to comply with the requirements applicable to cold stores laid down in those regulations in order to operate in the single market. The extent to which individual requirements of the draft regulations apply will depend on the operations carried out at each premises. Businesses can obtain advice from their local MAFF animal health office.

HEALTH

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she is reviewing policy on tobacco advertising; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government continue to keep under review the position on tobacco advertising, against the background of our long-standing policy that the right way to control the advertising and promotion of tobacco products is through the voluntary agreements that we have with the tobacco industry.

  "Caring for People"
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason her Department's advice to local authorities and health authorities on implementing "Caring for People" states that the current broad pattern of funding should be regarded as an implied commitment for 1993–94 by the local authority in respect of new clients requiring residential or nursing home care after April 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The funds for such placements will transfer from the Department of Social Security to local authorities. Whether there should be any adjustment to the current pattern of service would be a matter for local decision which should be taken jointly with the relevant health authority. Individual assessment of need will of course determine the exact numbers of people who enter residential or nursing home care after April 1993.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what proportion of prescriptions for which a prescription charge is paid the cost of the item to the NHS is less than the prescription charge.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The proportion in 1991–92 was 29·4 per cent.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice is given to health authorities with regard to public consultation prior to the closure or change of use of individual wards in hospitals where the long-term closure of such hospitals has already been agreed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Community Health Council Regulations 1985, as amended, require district health authorities to consult the relevant community health council on proposals which would result in substantial changes to health services in the district. It is for regional and district health authorities to consider when further formal or informal local consultation is necessary during the phased closure of a major institution.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Kenya
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current level of aid to Kenya.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our gross bilateral aid programme in 1990—the last year for which figures are available—was £44 million.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the Government's response on aid to sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Sub-Saharan Africa has a high priority in the bilateral aid programme. Gross bilateral aid flows amounted to £367 million in 1990, the latest year for which full figures are available.

  Aid
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom official aid has been untied for purchasing at the discretion of recipient developing countries in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British aid is provided for specific purposes. Nearly all the aid we provide through multilateral institutions is untied. The untied proportion of our bilateral aid commitments was 18 per cent. in 1988, 24 per cent. in 1989 and 21 per cent. in 1990.

  Tropical Forests
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's current policy on overseas aid in respect of tropical forests.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government's policy is to help promote the sustainable management of tropical forests and their biodiversity. We have substantially increased our bilateral aid activities to this end and encouraged other donors to do likewise.

  Debt Rescheduling
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet third-world leaders to discuss rescheduling of debt.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development regularly meets leaders of third world countries. The rescheduling of debt is often discussed. The Prime Minister's 1990 Trinidad terms initiative has so far benefited five countries, and Britain has relieved developing countries of the burden of aid debt worth more than £1,000 million.

  East European States
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with east European leaders on the question of aid to east European states.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are in regular contact with colleagues in central and eastern Europe on all aspects of our bilateral relations, including aid.

  Zimbabwe
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given to help Zimbabwe deal with the current drought.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government has provided £7·5 million in balance of payments aid for Zimbabwe, to help relieve the financial burden of food imports, in response to the current crisis.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy on freedom of information relating to papers in the possession of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the law officers and under consideration where prosecutions have not been instituted.

  The Attorney-General
  Papers relating to prosecuting decisions are distinct from Government papers. Their handling must reflect special considerations, such as the need to avoid harm or unfairness to a prospective defendant or to witnesses if the decision is taken not to prosecute.

  Hillsborough Inquest
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received in respect of the conduct of the inquest into the Hillsborough disaster; and what has been his response.

  The Solicitor-General
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has received various representations. He is at present considering a formal application received on 16 April, for consent under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to enable the relatives of six persons who died at Hillsborough to apply to the High Court for an order quashing the inquisitions in respect of those six persons and directing a fresh inquest.

  Extradition
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his responsibilities in relation to extradition.

  The Attorney-General
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has responsibility for the law and practice relating to extradition.

  I myself conduct certain communications on behalf of the United Kingdom with the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland concerning the return of alleged offenders from the republic under the backing of warrants arrangements.

  Mr. Anthony Benton
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General when it is expected the Director of Public Prosecutions will make a decision over any possible criminal proceedings regarding the conviction of Mr. Anthony Benton of Walsall.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service has considered whether any criminal proceedings should be brought following complaints regarding the conviction of Mr. Anthony Benton of Walsall. The deputy chief constable of the West Midlands police has been advised that the evidence is insufficient to justify any criminal proceedings against any police officer involved in that case.

  Mr. Kurt Klebeck
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the proceedings taken by the allies at the end of the last war against Kurt Klebeck; and whether he will discuss with his counterparts in the Channel islands the taking of proceedings against him for Nazi war crimes in the Channel islands.
  34
  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Kurt Klebeck was prosecuted and convicted in 1947 by the British military court in Germany for:

  (i) being concerned in the killing of allied nationals, in violation of the laws and usages of war, who were interned in the Hanover/Ahnem concentration camp between November 1944 and April 1945.

  (ii) being concerned in the ill-treatment of allied nationals in the same camp and during the same period as (i) above.

  He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

  The papers relating to the proceedings against Klebeck are open to inspection in the Public Record Office. I understand that he is a German national resident in Germany. The War Crimes Act 1991 is not, therefore, in issue. I further understand that Germany does not extradite its own nationals. The question of his prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed in the Channel Islands is a matter for the German authorities, who have the necessary jurisdiction.

  Crown Prosecutors
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish the code for Crown prosecutors drawn up by the Crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  The code for Crown prosecutors is a public document.

  In accordance with section 10(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the Director of Public Prosecutions sets out any alterations to the code in the annual report which she makes to me under section 9 of the Act. The annual report is available to the public through HMSO.

  The code was re-printed in January 1992, incorporating amendments that have been made since it was first issued in 1986. A copy of the revised edition was placed in the Library of both Houses on 10 March 1992.

EDUCATION

  Standard Assessment Tasks
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has for scrapping standard assessment tasks for children of seven years of age.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to reduce the amount of business funding for city technology colleges.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no such plans. Each city technology college represents a funding partnership between Government and private sector sponsors. Sponsors have already contributed some £20 million to the capital costs of CTCs, and are committed to contribute over £10 million more. My Department funds the running costs of CTCs on a basis comparable with that of other secondary schools.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to increase the number of city technology colleges.

  Mr. Forth
  Thirteen city technology colleges are now operating. A further college will open in Derby this
  35
  September, and another in Bristol the following year. In accordance with our manifesto commitments, the Government will enable the creation of new types of grant-maintained and voluntary-aided schools which will embody the characteristics of CTCs.

WALES

  Employment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps have been taken to increase employment opportunities in the Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency; and what plans there are for the immediate future.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Office, the Development Board for Rural Wales and other Government agencies operate a wide range of measures aimed at increasing employment opportunities throughout all areas of Wales. The Welsh Office and all the other bodies involved in economic development will continue to look for and respond swiftly to opportunities that arise which have the potential to increase employment prospects in the Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the current unemployment figures for Ogmore, Mid Glamorgan and Wales; and what the figures were in May 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In March 1992 there were 4,435, 32,551, and 125,871 unemployed claimants in the Ogmore constituency, Mid Glamorgan and Wales. Comparable data for May 1979 for Ogmore and Mid Glamorgan is not available. The comparable number of unemployed claimants in Wales in 1979, seasonally adjusted, was 66,100 and 122,500 in March 1992.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the annual rate of inward investment to Wales for each year since 1974.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Wales has consistently recorded very high levels of inward investment. 1991 was the best ever year with 183 projects promising more than 17,000 jobs and capital investment in excess of £860 million.

  Local Government
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish his White Paper on local Government reforms.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Later this year.

  Education
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to implement the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Commencement orders establishing the Further and Higher Education Councils for Wales came into effect on 6 May. My right hon. Friend has 36
  announced the membership of the Higher Education Funding Council and the chairman and chief executive of the Further Education Funding Council. He hopes to be able to announce the members of the Further Education Funding Council shortly.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet leaders of county councils in Wales to discuss educational provision in the Principality.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has meetings with leaders of Welsh county councils to discuss matters of mutual concern, which are arranged when needed.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the percentage of total council spending to be raised by the community charge this year in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Community charges set by Welsh authorities account for around 11·5 per cent. of their provisional budgeted revenue expenditure for 1992–93. The £40 million that I am providing through the community charge reduction scheme will reduce the proportion to around 10 per cent.

  Recession
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about his plans to alleviate the impact of the recession in Neath.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is clear that the Government's policy of bearing down on inflation has been successful and that all the essential ingredients for economic recovery are in place. The latest reduction in interest rates will add further impetus to economic recovery and will be of benefit to, and welcomed by, the business community in Neath.

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the provision of secure units for young offenders in south Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I share the urgency for secure establishments to be operational, for I see such as a major agency in combating crime, and I am determined that this will be pressed forward as quickly as possible.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest number of expressions of interest in applying for national health service trust status among hospitals in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Pembrokeshire NHS trust became operational on 1 April. We announced on 19 December 1991 that 14 health units in Wales had been invited to prepare applications to become NHS trusts in April 1993. These applications are expected shortly and there will be widespread consultation before any decisions are taken.

  Elsewhere in Wales, the decision whether to seek NHS trust status is a matter for individual health units, in the light of local circumstances.

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans for(a) the future of Cardiff royal infirmary and (b) the future arrangements for accident and emergency services in South Glamorgan.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  These are primarily matters for South Glamorgan health authority. However, I am taking a keen interest and am aware of the uncertainty that exists. I am confident that the current Strategic Review of future intentions by South and Mid Glamorgan DHAs and University of Wales College of Medicine will allow the uncertainty to be removed.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received relating to planning decisions(a) in Clwyd, South-West and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend frequently receives representations on a range of planning matters throughout Wales.

  Environment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the environmental priorities for his Department during the last six months of 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friends and I intend to pursue the environmental policies set out in the manifesto, "The Best Future for Wales". Attention will focus on land reclamation and housing improvement programmes, together with a wide range of agricultural,

  Imports of hazardous waste

  October 1988 to 1 March 1989

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  11 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  (1) via Welsh and English ports for disposal in Wales

  5,547·3

  6,693·9

  6,881·5

  4,933·0

  (2) via Welsh ports for disposal in

  (i)Wales

  —

  754·9

  585·3

  459·8

  (ii)England

  43·0

  733·5

  4,758·0

  6,824·8

  1 Subject to validation.

  Note: The waste is consigned to licensed waste disposal facilities.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department was represented at the conference on wind energy opportunities in Wales, organised by the National Farmers Union in Aberystwyth on 7 April.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

  Forestry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for forestry in Wales of(a) the new Forestry Authority and (b) Forestry Enterprise.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The internal reorganisation of the Forestry Commission which was implemented on 1 April 1992 makes a clear distinction between its regulatory and 38
  transport, planning, pollution control and other measures designed to protect and enhance the environment in Wales.

  Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are currently being taken to respond to the economic difficulties of north Pembrokeshire, resulting from the proposed closure of Royal navy armaments depot, Trecwn.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to relieve unemployment in the Pembroke constituency.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I established the west Wales task force and a strategy group, which I chair, in January. Since then I have announced the allocation of £4·7 million for a range of projects which will develop the industrial and economic infrastructure of west Wales. The task force has commissioned consultants to draw up a five year economic development plan for the area and this report, to which I will give urgent and careful consideration, will be available in the summer.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what volumes of toxic waste have been imported into Wales each year since 1979; and what has been done with those wastes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the importation of hazardous waste into the United Kingdom is available only for the period since the introduction of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations in October 1988.

  The information is given in the table:

  advisory functions (as the Forestry Authority) and its forest management role (as Forest Enterprise). This has strengthened the commission's ability to lead the way in implementing forestry policy in Wales and improved its efficiency and effectiveness in managing its forest estate.

  Environment Week
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contribution is to be made by his Department to the environment week, 16 to 24 May, sponsored by the Civic Trust.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department has not received an invitation to participate directly in environment week. It does, however, provide grant aid for the work of the Civic Trust for Wales, which is participating.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the timetable for his proposals for local government reorganisation and in particular the restoration of Monmouthshire.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will be publishing a White Paper later this year. Legislation will follow. I intend that the new shadow authorities should be in place from 1 April 1994 and fully operational/functional for 1 April 1995. The proposal for a separate council for Monmouth featured in my statement of 3 March on which I have invited views.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Allowances
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to publish the Top Salaries Review Body's report on hon. Members' secretarial allowances.

  Mr. Newton
  I hope to be able to inform the House soon about our plans for publication.

EMPLOYMENT

  Investors in People
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many companies have been awarded the Investors in People kitemark; and what percentage this represents of the companies eligible.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  By 7 May 1992, 50 organisations have been recognised as Investors in People. This achievement reflects the demanding nature of the national standard. This is a small percentage in these early days of the initiative as it is open to all employing organisations to commit themselves to work towards achieving the standard.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently unable to take up a guaranteed training place by reason of such a place not being available.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people have not received an offer of a guaranteed place on youth training.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available in the form requested. The YT guarantee remains a key objective, and sufficient resources will be available to ensure that an offer of a suitable YT training place is made to all 16 and 17-year-olds not in work or full-time education who are seeking entry.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated average employer's contribution to each filled youth training place per annum in 1992–93.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No reliable estimate is available. For management purposes, the asumption is that on average about a quarter of the total cost of providing youth training is meet by employer contributions.
  40
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons aged 16 and 17 years have been refused a place on youth training schemes in (i) 1989, (ii) 1990, (iii) 1991 and (iv) at the latest available date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Unit Labour Costs
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the movement of unit labour costs in the United Kingdom and Germany since October 1990.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Between October 1990 and December 1991 unit wage and salary costs in manufacturing in the United Kingdom rose by 6·6 per cent. compared with an increase in the former Federal Republic of Germany over the same period of 11·0 per cent.

  Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people were disqualified for unemployment benefit under each paragraph of section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 in the area covered by the Newport, Gwent, unemployment benefit office, in the latest month for which information can be obtained from the office; in how many cases disqualification was imposed for the maximum period of 26 weeks; and what is the estimated cost of obtaining this information.

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

  Unemployment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the figures for the change in unemployment each month since January 1987.

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

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Non-stipendiary Priests
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners how many non-stipendiary priests are currently licensed for parish work.

  Mr. Alison
  The records held by the Commissioners for Crockford's Clerical Directory list 2,159 deacons and priests who are not paid by the Commissioners but who are licensed to, or have permission to officiate, or are otherwise listed as non-stipendiary ministers. Of these 501 also hold other appointments such as school chaplains.

SCOTLAND

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to reach a decision in relation to legislation on deferred damages for victims of asbestosis as proposed by the Scottish Law Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has welcomed and accepted the recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission in its Report on the Effect of Death on Damages (Scottish Law Commission No. 134). We hope that it will prove possible for a private Member to bring forward a Bill to give effect to the Commission's recommendations early in the current Parliament.

  Housing
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a list in descending order of the average rents of local housing authorities in Scotland for 1991–92 and for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the table. Average council house rents are expected to have increased by 7·0 per cent. from £23.14 per house per week in 1991–92 to £24.75 in 1992–93.

  I have placed in the Library a more detailed analysis of local authority housing revenue account income and expenditure outturns for 1991–92 and budget forecasts for 1992–93. This shows the wide variations which exist between local authorities in, for example, the level of council rents, expenditure on loan charges, and expenditure on management and maintenance of their housing stock.

  Average rents (£ per house per week)

  1991–92

  Scotland

  23·14

  1

  Edinburgh

  28·88

  2

  Dundee

  28·40

  32

  Western Isles

  28·31

  42

  Clydebank

  26·93

  52

  Glasgow

  26·78

  6

  Dumbarton

  25·95

  72

  Orkney Islands

  25·60

  82

  Ross and Cromarty

  25·10

  92

  Stewartry

  24·65

  102

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  24·53

  112

  Skye and Lochalsh

  24·51

  122

  Annandale and Eskdale

  24·14

  132

  Shetland Islands

  24·12

  142

  Inverness

  24·08

  152

  Nairn

  24·04

  162

  Roxburgh

  23·94

  172

  Wigtown

  23·60

  182

  Lochaber

  23·59

  192

  Sutherland

  23·43

  202

  Argyll and Bute

  23·43

  21

  Stirling

  23·26

  222

  Gordon

  23·24

  23

  Clackmannan

  23·19

  24

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  23·16

  25

  East Kilbride

  23·11

  26

  North East Fife

  22·89

  27

  Kirkcaldy

  22·63

  28

  Monklands

  22·58

  292

  Caithness

  22·20

  42

  1991–92

  30

  East Lothian

  21·95

  31

  Inverclyde

  21·77

  32

  Hamilton

  21·63

  33

  Strathkelvin

  21·58

  34

  Banff and Buchan

  21·26

  35

  Nithsdale

  21·23

  36

  Dunfermline

  21·21

  37

  Berwickshire

  21·00

  38

  Moray

  20·94

  39

  Aberdeen

  20·76

  40

  Clydesdale

  20·68

  41

  Renfrew

  20·47

  42

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  20·32

  43

  Kyle and Carrick

  20·31

  44

  Cunninghame

  20·27

  45

  Falkirk

  20·02

  46

  Perth and Kinross

  20·01

  47

  Motherwell

  19·72

  48

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  19·31

  49

  West Lothian

  19·03

  50

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  18·84

  512

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  18·81

  522

  Kincardine and Deeside

  18·77

  53

  Angus

  17·90

  54

  Tweeddale

  17·87

  55

  Eastwood

  17·86

  56

  Midlothian

  15·92

  Average rents (£ per house per week)

  1992–93

  11

  Scotland

  24·75

  11

  Western Isles

  30·63

  2

  Edinburgh

  30·63

  3

  Dundee

  30·43

  41

  Glasgow

  29·02

  51

  Skye and Lochalsh

  28·92

  61

  Ross and Cromarty

  28·53

  7

  Dumbarton

  27·94

  81

  Shetland Islands

  27·81

  91

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  27·58

  101

  Orkney Islands

  27·45

  111

  Sutherland

  27·42

  121

  Inverness

  27·37

  131

  Wigtown

  27·33

  141

  Stewartry

  27·00

  151

  Nairn

  26·99

  161

  Clydebank

  26·77

  171

  Argyll and Bute

  26·45

  181

  Roxburgh

  26·27

  191

  Lochaber

  26·14

  201

  Annandale and Eskdale

  25·97

  211

  Gordon

  25·33

  22

  Stirling

  25·10

  231

  Caithness

  24·72

  24

  Clackmannan

  24·69

  25

  Kirkcaldy

  24·63

  26

  Inverclyde

  24·25

  27

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  24·15

  28

  Monklands

  24·11

  29

  Nithsdale

  23·72

  30

  East Kilbride

  23·70

  31

  Hamilton

  23·70

  32

  North East Fife

  23·21

  33

  Strathkelvin

  23·14

  34

  Moray

  22·86

  35

  Dunfermline

  22·84

  36

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  22·61

  37

  Berwickshire

  22·46

  38

  Renfrew

  22·44

  39

  East Lothian

  22·35

  401

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  22·31

  41

  Banff and Buchan

  22·17

  42

  Cunninghame

  22·05

  43

  Perth and Kinross

  21·94

  441

  Kincardine and Deeside

  21·84

  45

  Clydesdale

  21·82

  43

  1992–93

  46

  Falkirk

  21·21

  47

  Motherwell

  21·09

  48

  Eastwood

  20·97

  49

  Aberdeen

  20·65

  50

  Kyle and Carrick

  20·46

  51

  West Lothian

  19·82

  52

  Tweeddale

  19·75

  53

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  19·51

  54

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  19·38

  55

  Angus

  17·90

  56

  Midlothian

  16·21

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much expenditure on supplementary benefit and income support has been reduced in each year as a result of the restriction of mortgage interest payments to 50 per cent. for the first 16 weeks of a claim.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is as follows:

  National insurance widows and invalidity pensioners

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  Uprating date

  Rate of child benefit plus child dependency increase

  Equivalent value of column B amounts at April 1991 prices

  Gross male weekly average earnings, with amounts in column B as percentage

  Equivalent weekly earnings net of income tax and national insurance contributions, with amounts in column B as percentage

  Single person

  Married couple

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (per cent.)

  (£)

  (per cent.)

  (£)

  (per cent.)

  November 1979

  11·10

  24·52

  114·10

  9·7

  79·90

  13·9

  83·60

  13·3

  November 1980

  12·25

  23·47

  135·10

  9·1

  93·40

  13·1

  97·80

  12·5

  November 1981

  12·95

  22·16

  149·50

  8·7

  101·00

  12·8

  105·40

  12·3

  November 1982

  13·80

  22·22

  160·60

  8·6

  107·40

  12·8

  112·50

  12·3

  November 1983

  14·10

  21·65

  172·40

  8·2

  115·50

  12·2

  121·30

  11·6

  November 1984

  14·50

  21·22

  187·40

  7·7

  125·90

  11·5

  132·50

  10·9

  November 1985

  15·05

  20·88

  199·50

  7·5

  134·40

  11·2

  141·60

  10·6

  July 1986

  15·15

  20·68

  210·90

  7·2

  143·80

  10·5

  151·20

  10·0

  April 1987

  15·30

  20·00

  224·00

  6·8

  155·90

  9·8

  163·00

  9·4

  April 1988

  15·65

  19·69

  245·80

  6·4

  174·80

  9·0

  182·00

  8·6

  April 1989

  16·20

  18·86

  269·50

  6·0

  191·30

  8·5

  198·90

  8·1

  April 1990

  16·90

  17·98

  295·60

  5·7

  212·80

  7·9

  221·10

  7·6

  April 1991

  117·95

  17·95

  318·90

  5·6

  230·00

  7·8

  238·30

  7·5

  1 Where the new higher rate of child benefit for the eldest qualifying child applied, the child dependency increase was adjusted so that the total level of support remained the same for all children.

  War widows

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  Uprating date

  Rate of child benefit plus child dependency increase

  Equivalent value of column B amounts at April 1991 prices

  Gross male weekly average earnings, with amounts in column B as percentage

  Equivalent weekly earnings net of income tax and national insurance contributions, with amounts in column B as percentage

  Single person

  Married couple

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (per cent.)

  (£)

  (per cent.)

  (£)

  (per cent.)

  November 1979

  14·00

  30·93

  114·10

  12·3

  79·90

  17·5

  83·60

  16·7

  November 1980

  15·35

  29·41

  135·10

  11·4

  93·40

  16·4

  97·80

  15·7

  November 1981

  16·10

  27·55

  149·50

  10·8

  101·00

  15·9

  105·40

  15·3

  November 1982

  17·10

  27·53

  160·60

  10·6

  107·40

  15·9

  112·50

  15·2

  November 1983

  17·45

  26·80

  172·40

  10·1

  115·50

  15·1

  121·30

  14·4

  November 1984

  17·90

  26·20

  187·40

  9·6

  125·90

  14·2

  132·50

  13·5

  November 1985

  18·55

  25·74

  199·50

  9·3

  134·40

  13·8

  141·60

  13·1

  July 1986

  18·65

  25·46

  210·90

  8·8

  143·80

  13·0

  151·20

  12·3

  April 1987

  18·85

  24·65

  224·00

  8·4

  155·90

  12·1

  163·00

  11·6

  April 1988

  19·25

  24·22

  245·80

  7·8

  174·80

  11·0

  182·00

  10·6

  April 1989

  19·85

  23·11

  269·50

  7·4

  191·30

  10·4

  198·90

  10·0

  April 1990

  20·65

  21·97

  295·60

  7·0

  212·80

  9·7

  221·10

  9·3

  April 1991

  121·90

  21·90

  318·90

  6·9

  230·00

  9·5

  238·30

  9·2

  44

  Annual amount of mortgage interest not included in assessments due to the restriction to 50 per cent.

  Year

  £ millions

  1988

  33

  1989

  34

  1990

  71

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest million.

  2. Annual amount for each year has been derived by multiplying the average weekly figure for a week in May by 52.

  3. The figures do not take account of changes in interest rates and case loads, among other variables, during the year.

  Benefits Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will reissue the table published in the Official Report of 13 February 1992, columns 607, showing the combined value of child benefit and child dependency increases for widows and invalidity pensioners, with amended headings showing the meaning of each column of figures; and whether he will publish a similar table showing the combined value of child benefit and war widows' children's allowances.

  Mr. Burt
  The tables are as follows:
  45
  1 Where the new higher rate of child benefit for the eldest qualifying child applied, the war widow's child's allowance was adjusted so the total level of support remained the same for all children.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion and how many supplementary benefit income support claims from couples are made by women each year.

  Mr. Burt
  There is no information on the proportion of claims from couples made by women.

  Of those actually receiving income support, there are about 35,000 couples in which the woman is the claimant. This is approximately 5 per cent. of the total.

  Source: Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry May 1990.

  Young People
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds who failed to gain a place on a YTS scheme(a) applied for additional benefits and severe hardship payments and (b) what percentage were successful in such applications in (i) 1988, (ii) 1989, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  The Government guarantee the offer of a place on youth training (YT) to all 16 and 17-year-olds who seek one. The safety net of income support caters for those who are at risk of severe hardship whilst seeking an initial YT place or for those between YT places.

  No information is available with regard to 16 and 17-year-olds seeking a YT place who claim benefits other than income support. Information about the number of people claiming income support under the severe hardship provision was not kept before 1990. The number of people claiming in 1990 was 14,106 and in 1991 was 25,541. Of these 61 per cent. and 71 per cent. respectively were successful.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has received a copy of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report entitled "Severe Hardship CAB Evidence on Young People and Benefits"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We have received the report and are studying the recommendations closely.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has made to the recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Committee regarding benefits for young people.

  Mr. Burt
  We have received the report from the committee and are studying closely the recommendations that they have made on young people and other matters.

  Percentage of Community Care Grants awarded to client groups

  Client group

  National 1989–90

  Leeds West 1989–90

  National 1990–91

  Leeds West 1990–91

  Over 80 with higher pensioner premium

  5·4

  2·5

  5·5

  3·9

  60–79, disabled, higher pensioner premium

  5·1

  2·0

  7·0

  3·7

  60–79, ordinary pensioner premium or over 60 without pensioner premium

  15·1

  7·4

  14·4

  8·6

  Lone parent with disability premium

  0·1

  0·5

  1·0

  0·2

  Family with disability premium

  3·3

  2·3

  3·8

  2·7

  >Others with disability premium

  2·6

  7·6

  13·0

  8·1

  Lone parent without disability premium

  25·4

  35·3

  25·9

  45·5

  Unemployed, signing quarterly with family premium

  0·4

  0·0

  0·3

  0·0

  Unemployed, signing quarterly without family premium

  1·1

  1·0

  0·7

  0·5

  Unemployed or with training allowance with family premium

  8·5

  6·6

  8·1

  5·2

  Unemployed or with training allowance without family premium

  12·8

  23·6

  11·8

  16·2

  Others with family premium

  2·1

  1·8

  2·2

  1·7

  Others without family premium

  5·9

  6·4

  5·6

  3·2

  46
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will restore the full rate of income support for young people under 25 years living away from home.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to change the existing legislation.

  Maxwell Pension Schemes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will use discretionary powers given under the Social Security Act 1990, to ensure that the debt owed to the Maxwell pension schemes is treated as a preferential debt for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1990 introduced the employer debt provision for occupational pension schemes. There is no discretionary power to treat the debt as preferential for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the level of occupational pension above which unemployment benefit is reduced was last increased; what would be the present limit if it had been increased in line with average earnings; and what is his policy regarding future increases in the limit.

  Mr. Burt
  The £35 per week limit was introduced in April 1981 and has remained at that level. If it had been increased in line with average earnings the present limit would be £84 per week. Increasing the limit would not represent the best use of resources for those who have a measure of support through an occupational or personal pension and we have no plans to do so.

  Loans and Grants
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the percentages of(a) budgeting loans and (b) community care grants which were awarded to each of the 15 client groups defined by his Department for (i) the Leeds, West area and (ii) nationally, for the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows:
  47

  Client group

  National 1989–90

  Leeds West 1989–90

  National 1990–91

  Leeds West 1990–91

  No income support in payment, involved in a trade dispute

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Not in receipt of income support

  1·0

  2·5

  0·4

  0·5

  Note: Due to rounding the sum of the percentages in the above tables may not add up to 100.

  Percentage of budgeting loans awarded to client groups

  Client group

  National 1989–90

  Leeds West 1989–90

  National 1990–91

  Leeds West 1990–91

  Over 80 with higher pensioner premium

  0·4

  0·8

  0·1

  0·1

  60–79, disabled, higher pensioner premium

  0·6

  1·1

  0·8

  1·5

  60–79, ordinary pensioner premium or over 60 without pensioner premium

  3·5

  5·4

  3·4

  4·8

  Lone parent with disability premium

  0·4

  0·4

  0·5

  0·2

  Family with disability premium

  1·6

  1·3

  1·8

  1·5

  Others with disability premium

  4·2

  4·8

  4·5

  5·1

  Lone parent without disability premium

  48·6

  49·9

  51·0

  51·7

  Unemployed, signing quarterly with family premium

  0·4

  0·5

  0·3

  0·5

  Unemployed, signing quarterly without family premium

  1·8

  1·8

  1·3

  1·7

  Unemployed or with training allowance with family premium

  15·7

  14·4

  14·6

  15·3

  Unemployed or with training allowance without family premium

  18·4

  16·0

  17·6

  13·9

  Others with family premium

  1·1

  1·6

  1·2

  1·1

  Others without family premium

  3·0

  2·0

  2·6

  2·6

  No income support in payment, involved in a trade dispute.

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Not in receipt of income support

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  0·0

  Note:

  Due to rounding the sum of the percentages in the above tables may not add up to 100.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what rate of statutory sick pay was payable to a person previously earning(a) half average earnings, (b)

  Date

  Average earnings1

  Statutory sick pay2payable on average earnings of

  Statutory sick pay as a percentage of earnings of

  (a) 50 per cent.

  (b) 100 per cent.

  (c)150 per cent.

  (a) 50 per cent.

  (b)100 per cent.

  (c)150 per cent.

  April 1983

  £147·40

  £40·25

  £40·25

  £40·25

  54·6

  27·3

  18·2

  April 1984

  £159·30

  £42·25

  £42·25

  £42·25

  53·0

  26·5

  17·7

  April 1985

  £171·00

  £44·35

  £44·35

  £44·35

  51·9

  25·9

  17·3

  April 1986

  £184·70

  £46·75

  £46·75

  £46·75

  50·6

  25·3

  16·9

  April 1987

  £198·90

  £47·20

  £47·20

  £47·20

  47·5

  23·7

  15·8

  April 1988

  £218·40

  £49·20

  £49·20

  £49·20

  45·1

  22·5

  15·0

  April 1989

  £239·70

  £52·10

  £52·10

  £52·10

  43·5

  21·7

  14·5

  April 1990

  £263·10

  £52·50

  £52·50

  £52·50

  39·9

  20·0

  13·3

  April 1991

  £284·70

  £43·50

  £52·50

  £52·50

  30·6

  18·4

  12·3

  Note:

  1 Earnings shown are the average for all full-time adult employees. Figures for average earnings from April 1992 are not yet available.

  2 The majority of SSP recipients get occupational sick pay in addition to SSP when they are sick. In many cases this brings the total payment received up to full pay.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he is intending to bring forward amending regulations in light of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report on "The Social Fund and New Structure"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  In considering the conclusions and recommendations of this report, we shall also wish to take into account the findings of the university of York social policy research unit's report which we commissioned at the start of the social fund. We have now received that report and it will be published in due course.
  48
  average earnings and (c) one and a half times average earnings, in cash terms and as a percentage of their earnings, in each year since statutory sick pay commenced.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice has been issued to area social fund officers in the past year to assist them in drafting their guidance to other social fund officers.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 10 March 1992 to him, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  EC Pension Age
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the state pension age for men and women in each EC country.
  49
  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is as follows:

  Country

  Men

  Women

  Belgium1

  FPA

  60–65

  Denmark

  67

  67

  France

  60

  60

  Germany2

  63

  60

  Greece

  65

  60

  Republic of Ireland3

  65/66

  65/66

  Italy

  60

  55

  Luxembourg

  65

  65

  Netherlands

  65

  65

  Portugal

  65

  62

  Spain

  65

  65

  United Kingdom

  65

  60

  Notes:

  FPA—Flexible pension age.

  1 Different contribution conditions apply to men and women.

  2 State pension age is 65, but because of early retirement provisions the effective ages are 63 for men and 60 for women. Pension ages will be raised gradually from 2001 until fully equalised at 65 by 2012.

  3 Retirement pension 65, old age pension 66.

  Rent Subsidy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the implications for the family budget of the families eligible for income support of the cuts in subsidy to rents introduced on 6 April.

  Mr. Burt
  We are not aware of any significant changes being introduced from 6 April this year in the subsidy paid to local authorities towards housing benefit expenditure.

DEFENCE

  Royal Naval Spare Parts Distribution Centre, Eaglescliffe
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what specific information has come to light since assurances about the future of royal naval spare parts distribution centre, Eaglescliffe were given to the hon. Member for Stockton, South in early 1991 that jobs on the site were safe;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the future of RNSPD at Eaglescliffe;

  (3) what studies have been commissioned about the future of RNSPD Eaglescliffe; and what factors have been set for consideration by (a) Ministers and (b) officials.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence is conducting a comprehensive examination of its support activities in order to match reductions in the front line. As part of the examination, we are considering whether a more cost-effective operation could be achieved by the introduction of market testing at certain establishments, including RNSPD Eaglescliffe. We are also examining the possible transfer of some headquarters staff at Eaglescliffe to the Bath area, in accordance with our plans to establish a naval support command, but no decision has yet been taken. I have written to my hon. Friend with details of the work in hand.

  HMS Vanguard
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the naming ceremony for the Trident nuclear submarine HMS Vanguard in Barrow on 30 April.

  Mr. Aitken
  The full cost of the naming ceremony for HMS Vanguard is a matter for the shipbuilder, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. In accordance with the established practice, the Ministry of Defence made a contribution towards the April 30 ceremony's cost. This will not exceed £45,000.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has had any discussions with his French counterpart over the use in emergencies of the channel tunnel to transport missiles, missile launchers or other military equipment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such discussions. Officials of my Department meet biannually with their French counterparts, however, to discuss arrangements for resupply and reinforcement in times of crisis, including the possible use of the channel tunnel.

  Komsomolet Submarine
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to have urgent discussions with his Norwegian and Russian counterparts over methods safely to remove the nuclear materials from the Komsomolet nuclear submarine of the former Soviet navy that sank off Norway in 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The recovery of nuclear materials from the Russian submarine Komsomolet is a matter for the Russian Government. We would be willing to consider requests for advice from the Russian and Norwegian Governments concerning the future of the submarine.

  Radioactive Waste, Wales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sites in Wales contain radioactive wastes arising from(a) the production cycle for nuclear warheads and (b) the operation of nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Aitken
  Small amounts of low-level radioactive waste are stored temporarily at the atomic weapons establishment, Cardiff. No sites in Wales hold waste from the operation of nuclear powered submarines.

  HMS Turbulent
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the cause, effect and cost of the fire on the Trafalgar class nuclear submarine HMS Turbulent in Devonport dockyard on 30 April; and whether there are any implications arising from the fire for the future designation of Z-berths for nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The fire occurred in the electrical switchboard of HMS Turbulent. The precise cause, the full extent of the damage and the costs of repair are still being
  51
  assessed. Twenty-four personnel were treated for the effects of smoke inhalation. There were no other casualties. The fire posed no threat to the submarine's nuclear reactor. There are no implications for the future designation of Z-berths.

  Nuclear Submarines (Health Risks)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the radiological risks posed to people living in Scotland by the presence of nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines on the Clyde and Forth estuaries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All Royal Navy nuclear powered submarines are operated to stringent safety criteria. As is 52
  made clear in the latest issue of "Marine Environment Radioactivity Surveys at Nuclear Submarine Berths in the UK", published by HMSO and covering the surveys undertaken in 1990—a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library—there has been no radiological hazard to any member of the general public from the operation of nuclear-powered submarines.

  It has of course been the policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at specific locations or times. I can, however, state that there has never been an accident involving a United Kingdom nuclear weapon that has resulted in any radiological hazard to the public.

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

Southern-Central Africa: Aid
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to meet the needs of people suffering from the drought in Southern-Central Africa.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister for Overseas Development has already announced two new packages of aid for the region totalling £30 million, including food aid, balance of payments support and technical assistance. The Government are in close touch with their European Community partners and other donors to urge a similarly prompt and generous response.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her new post. I assure her that I at least will give her every support in squeezing the pips of the Treasury to find the money to serve the purposes of the department concerned with overseas development.
I have a few supplementary questions. First, is it the case that the European Commission has promised 680 million tonnes of cereals to Africa as a whole and not solely to Southern-Central Africa? Is it also the case that the estimate of need for Southern-Central Africa is 5.5 million tonnes? Has the noble Baroness any suggestions on how the Government will assist in bridging that gap? Further, can the noble Baroness tell the House anything about the difficulties of distribution and transport for the food aid that is being sent and whether the British Government, in conjunction with our European partners, can do anything to lessen the transport delays?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. Your Lordships may well be reflecting on the words,
"What, still around at 92,
a fine upstanding girl like you".
However, I wish noble Lords to note that I am happy to be here.
As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, in addition to its regular food aid programme the EC will provide an additional 800,000 tonnes of food aid valued at £154 million. The UK share of that is about £27.5 million. Most of the food aid is destined for Africa. As great a quantity as 11.5 million tonnes of food aid, including 5.5 million tonnes for South Africa, is needed. The region is usually more or less self-sufficient in cereals with
138
deficits made up by exports from South Africa, Zimbabwe and, to a lesser extent, Malawi. This year all those countries are badly affected. The infrastructure and logistics are indeed a formidable problem. We are doing what we can to help through voluntary agencies. The countries involved must take a certain responsibility for getting the food in.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is it not a fact that it is not always possible for Britain to provide a bottomless pit of aid, much as I would like us to do so in the present circumstances? We must take a constructive view. Has my noble friend any information about the position in Zimbabwe? I understand that some kind of suggestion was made earlier as regards alleviating this drought but that the Government turned it down. The Government have received a certain amount of criticism in Zimbabwe for not taking action early enough.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have said, the UK has responded generously and promptly. The money comes from the funds allocated for emergencies and from the Overseas Development Administration's contingency reserves. We have not gone back to the Treasury because we have been able to use the funds I have mentioned. However, my noble friend would not hesitate to restate her case to the Treasury if she felt the need to do so.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure the House will welcome the initial action that has been taken. However, does the noble Baroness agree that the matters of targeting and logistics are as important as the food itself? Can the noble Baroness reassure the House as regards how soon the food will begin to arrive and whether the arrangements realistically take into account in a co-ordinated way the port capacity and specific location of the communities most at risk?
Can the noble Baroness also reassure the House on whether adequate help will be provided for port rehabilitation in Beira, Dar es Salaam, Maputo and Lobito? Will she also inform the House what action has been taken to ensure access to those desperately in need in Mogadishu and in and around Khartoum? Will the noble Baroness also inform us whether the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank will modify their structural adjustment policies to ensure the poor can buy the food that is available and that those bodies will provide subsidies for vital agricultural inputs to help stimulate food production for next year?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have always said that fishing rods are as important as, if not more important than, the food itself. However, in a situation which is much worse than anything which has been known before in our lifetime we are acting as promptly as possible. I have already mentioned that the import of food on the scale envisaged poses enormous logistical problems, and regional ports and road and rail systems will be under enormous pressure, as will internal distribution arrangements. I understand that my noble friend will be meeting voluntary organisations. Equally, she is meeting our EC partners. No doubt those subjects will be thoroughly pursued at the various meetings.

139
I believe that the noble Lord mentioned the target. We accept the target in principle but we cannot agree to a specific timetable. Our aid is planned to grow by about 3 per cent. in real terms over the next three years but the level of aid depends on many factors, including our economic circumstances and public expenditure policies. I should add that our aid is effective and growing.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the fact that she obviously acknowledges a sense of crisis, and rightly so with 40 million people in Southern-Central Africa at risk of famine. Will she pass on to her noble friend the fact that in the present crisis in Zimbabwe in particular (which is especially tragic in the view of the success of Zimbabwe agriculture and its exports in previous years) not only have crops failed but cattle are either dying or being eaten to fill the food gap? Will the Government recognise that it is now necessary not only to meet the immediate crisis but to prepare the way for the next harvest and the restocking of the cattle population so that there is some hope that if the drought does not recur next year recovery can begin?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I had the pleasure of greeting President Mugabe this morning on behalf of Her Majesty and I spoke to him about the situation. No doubt he will be having talks on the problem. A unit has been set up in Harare under the auspices of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference to co-ordinate logistical arrangements. Contacts have also been established with the South African transport authorities. That is an encouraging example of co-operation on a regional scale. The figures which I have relating to Zimbabwe show that the harvest is 26 per cent. of the average, leading to a food import requirement of 1,410,000 tonnes through South Africa and Mozambique.

Bank Holiday Arrangements
2.47 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in order to secure a more evenly balanced distribution of bank holidays through the year they will take the necessary steps to transfer the May Day bank holiday to the early autumn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government have no present plans to change the current public holiday arrangements.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while I do not necessarily thank my noble friend for that reply, will he consider whether it is not palpably absurd to have three bank holidays at this time of year, in this particular year separated only by a fortnight, and then for over half a year to have only one? Is that not both socially and economically a very silly way to organise matters?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course this year Easter has led to the bunching of holidays. The difficulty remains that there is no consensus on moving May Day. For instance, industry—the CBI and EEF in particular—is opposed to a change because it wants to maintain an uninterrupted production run from the end of August through to Christmas. On the other hand, tourism favours a move from May Day to October. Until a consensus can be arrived at I do not believe that it would be sensible to consider a change.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the celebration of May Day in Britain is in line with a very old tradition; and is not the party opposite dedicated to the maintenance of tradition?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have to agree with the noble Baroness. People were dancing round maypoles centuries before Marx was born. I believe that Scotland has enjoyed a holiday on that Monday since the Bank Holidays Act 1871 and probably ever since the Act of Union of 1707.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that there is something ridiculous about having not only the May Day holiday but also the late spring holiday? Does he agree that if one wants to maintain the uninterrupted flow of work from 31st August onwards—although it is doubtful whether that really happens—one could at least move the late May holiday to the end of June? Does he also agree that that would spread out the holidays and that the weather is likely to be a good deal better? It is not necessary to wait until the autumn. Is it not nonsense to have the holidays all together—when the weather is likely to be rotten—following an inevitably movable Easter?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there could probably be a good reason for moving all those days and I dare say there would be opinions about which day to move and which day to fix. I believe that people have now got used to the fact that there are those three days at the beginning of the season and there is no consensus on moving the May Day bank holiday to the autumn.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as May Day is now movable and no longer celebrated on 1st May, unless it happens to be a Monday, it reduces the objections to moving the holiday to early autumn? That would bring it into line with the American equivalent, which is Labor Day.
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend that May Day is not celebrated on 1st May unless that date happens to fall on a Monday. Labor Day in America is celebrated on 7th September. However, most of the holidays in the European Community are celebrated on the day on which they fall. In this country those holidays are celebrated on the Monday closest to the day on which they are located. In most countries of the European Community if a holiday falls at a weekend there is no compensatory day.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that there is a widely held consensus that the present arrangements are nonsense?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I recognise that here may be a consensus in your Lordships' House but as I sought to illustrate there is no consensus in industry.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if he were to take the advice of my noble friend sitting immediately behind me and move the May Day holiday to October, it would give a totally new meaning to: "Here we go gathering nuts in May"?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble and learned friend puts his own interpretation on this matter. As I said, I believe that people are beginnning to get used to the position of these holidays and there would be a financial cost involved in moving the May Day bank holiday.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will my noble friend resist the temptation to shift May Day and will he indeed re-invigorate it as a celebration of the defeat of socialism? If he fails to do that, will he reconsider the answer he gave earlier about that day having been a holiday in Scotland since 1707 and perhaps institute a Union Day to underline the importance of the union of the nations of this country?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I take my noble friend's suggestion about celebrating the defeat of socialism—on every day and not only on 1st May. In this country it is perhaps the custom not to celebrate particular events unless they are religious ceremonies and to have only seasonal holidays rather than to celebrate holidays which are attached to any particular day.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Viscount feel that perhaps we could satisfy both camps by declaring a new bank holiday—perhaps Michaelmas Day—at the end of September? Can we not still enjoy the spring bank holidays when we celebrate the end of winter?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there are no plans to increase the current number of bank holidays. There is a considerable cost to industry in terms of disruption, lost output and damaged competitiveness.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the headlong pursuit of consensus, particularly in business and industry, does not necessarily result in benefit to the majority of the population? At the same time will he bear in mind that retailers now count on bank holidays a great deal to do much of their profitable business and if the May Day bank holiday should be moved—I am sure that most people feel that it should—will he bear in mind their interests?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is up to any company to declare any day a holiday. It is simply fixed by statute that banks can close on the days
142
mentioned in the Act or under Royal proclamation. There is no instance where there is a national holiday just because it is a bank holiday.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister explain why industry does not mind being disrupted in spring but takes exception to disruption in autumn?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that it is already disrupted by Easter which, as the noble Lord knows, is movable between March and April. However, there is an uninterrupted period between early August in Scotland or late August in England and Wales through until Christmas.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it hardly gives the impression of a dynamic government when they are not prepared to deal with an obvious anomaly because there is not a consensus in favour of remedying it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we are always willing to listen to proposals but until those proposals have some degree of unanimity, I do not believe that it would be right to legislate.

El Alamein: Commemoration
3.56 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What preparations are being made to commemorate the battle of E1 Alamein.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, we shall be commemorating the 50th anniversary of the battle of E1 Alamein in Egypt at a Commonwealth ceremony and at an international ceremony to be held jointly with Germany and Italy.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on his appointment and thank him for his reply. Does he agree that in many lands the battle of El Alamein is looked on as the first great victory over a most formidable evil foe? The men who participated in that important battle are now reaching their seventies. All battles are remarkable and must be duly remembered, but the 50th anniversary of E1 Alamein will be a great celebration for those who take part and for those who gained from that victory. Does he agree that it would be right to acknowledge that it was the first great blow struck against an evil enemy by the British and Commonwealth forces?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, E1 Alamein was a great victory and a turning point in the war. As Churchill later wrote: "Up to Alamein we survived; after Alamein we conquered". We are very conscious of the debt of honour that the nation owes to those from so many allied countries who fought and died there. We believe that the arrangements which have been made will mark the 50th anniversary in a truly fitting way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend is to be congratulated on his appointment, which I am sure is welcomed throughout the House. Is he aware that for the very reason given—namely, that those

143
who took part in the battle of El Alamein are now of some age—it may be extremely difficult for them to attend a ceremony in Egypt? Does he feel that it would be as well to have in addition a service in St. Paul's?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, in praising the achievements of those who fought at E1 Alamein, we must not forget those who sacrificed their life elsewhere in the world on land, at sea and in the air on active service or as prisoners not only in 1942 but throughout the war. The Government believe that the present pattern of national commemoration coupled with local services of remembrance is wholly appropriate.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the noble Viscount feel that it would be a good idea to show our appreciation to the survivors of that remarkable battle by having a commemorative stamp? Commemorative stamps have been issued for many lesser affairs and people than the victors of El Alamein.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall ask my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence to comment upon that suggestion.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, did the noble Viscount say that the battle of E1 Alamein was to be celebrated not only by this country and our former allies but by Germany and Italy? If so, will he tell us what part Germany and Italy are taking in celebrating a notable defeat?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, in recent years it has been the Government's policy that those acts of remembrance should also be acts of reconciliation. We hold these commemorative services jointly with Italy and Germany.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount is right in the terms of his last answer. However, does he consider that that policy will prevail with regard to the service at the Cenotaph on the Sunday close to 11th November? That would seem logical.
As one who was at Alamein, perhaps I may say that many would like to attend the ceremony. They have no knowledge of the ceremony, how they could participate or which organisations they might approach. If the Government could be more helpful in that respect I believe that a large number of people —not only from the United Kingdom but from Australia, India, New Zealand, Poland and Czechoslovakia who participated in the battle—might wish to attend that ceremony. If we could have some knowledge—some circulation as to the arrangements —about how members of that force may celebrate that battle, it would be helpful.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Royal British Legion holds annual ceremonies. We also have the ceremonies at the Cenotaph. In view of what I have said about a great number of battles whose 50th anniversary we shall be commemorating, I believe that the current arrangements are totally appropriate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may add my welcome to the noble Viscount on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box and wish him well in answering Questions for the Ministry of Defence. He seems to have landed himself with something of a hot potato today.
Does he recognise that there are strong feelings on this matter in particular from those who participated in the battle? I follow the question of my noble friend Lord Shepherd. Will the noble Viscount help the House by describing in a little more detail the ceremonies that will take place in Egypt at the 50th anniversary of E1 Alamein? Who will be present? Will there be ministerial representation from the Government? Will the regiments who fought in the battle be represented? What will happen? Who will lead the ceremony?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the management of the battlefield ceremonies rotates between ourselves, the Germans and the Italians. It falls to the Germans to lead this year's ceremonies.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I understand that the Prime Minister hopes to attend the ceremonies.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be good enough to explain how a defeated people can celebrate a battle? Does he accept that it is very important that our young people should remember these great battles and that we never have a repeat of a terrible event such as the Second World War because we have very conveniently forgotten it?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness not to confuse celebration with commemoration. The current policy is towards reconciliation with former enemies. We now talk in terms of commemoration rather than celebration.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble and Strange kinsman on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I ask that the War Widows Association of Great Britain be included in any commemoration that there will be.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I note my noble friend's comment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that all areas of the Royal British Legion, including the great metropolitan area of which I am proud to be president, acknowledge totally what he said about the contributions made by all troops, in particular British troops, in other events in the last war? However, the Americans, the Australians and the British all acknowledge that the great turning point was that magnificent victory at El Alamein. Many of the victories that followed would not have occurred had it not been for that great victory at E1 Alamein. I beg the Minister to ask the Government that there be some celebration, preferably at the Royal Albert Hall, at which this tremendous event can receive the thanks of a very grateful nation and of many other parts of the world which love freedom and democracy.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can only repeat again that, although El Alamein was in itself a remarkable battle, I believe that the Government will consider it invidious to choose its commemoration over and above those events that followed and those that preceded it.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess on Thursday 21st May and return on Monday 1st June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 21st May.

Armed Forces (Liability for Injury) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide that, in an action for liability in tort in a case involving the Armed Forces, a plaintiff need not in all cases show negligence on the part of the Crown. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Swinfen.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Committee of Selection
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this Motion is to appoint a Committee of Selection whose function is to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form most of our Select Committees. If the House agrees to the Motion, the Committee of Selection will meet on Thursday of this week so that the Select Committee work of the House may be quickly resumed. I beg to move.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 61 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees; and that the Lords following together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee—L. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Colnbrook, L. Graham of Edmonton, L. Hesketh, B. Hylton-Foster, L. Jenkins of Hillhead, L. John-Mackie, L. Thurlow, L. Tordoff, L. Wakeham (L. Privy Seal). —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.7 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on 6th May last by the Baroness Carnegy of Lour—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we are due to debate today the important issues of local government, the environment and transport. Before saying something in turn about each of those areas I should like to say how much I look forward to listening to the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Bradford and Lord De L'Isle. I should like to set my remarks in context by saying a few words about the general philosophy underlying the Government's policies.
This Government do not believe in the old model of monolithic service providers, offering the public only what they, the providers, care to provide. We believe in offering the public better services, and we believe that the way to achieve this objective is to allow the public to choose. Competition represents the best way of securing effective and efficient services, and making it possible for members of the public to get the services which they want. And we believe in rolling back the frontiers of the state, and harnessing the energies and initiative of the private sector wherever this holds out the promise of better and more cost-effective service provision. During the past 13 years, despite a rearguard action from the parties opposite, we have made enormous progress in putting these principles into practice, to the benefit of the public; and we intend to continue to do so in the future.
Our approach to local government has been an illustration of those principles. Our aim throughout has been simple: to improve the standard of service that local government provides. We have improved the responsiveness of authorities to local taxpayers and to the consumers of local services. We have pressed for value for money. We have been against the dead hand of vested interest and for the rights of ordinary people who have in the past so often been ignored. And we have been successful, to the point where the basic message of our argument has been generally accepted in local government, and approved by the electorate. That was graphically illustrated only last Thursday at the local elections. In particular, just as in the general election, the results in Basildon were memorable. In the new Parliament we intend to press on with our reforms.
The improvement of standards and efficiency in local government is a vital element in the Citizen's Charter. We will continue to change the role of local authorities from direct providers of services, as they have historically been, to effective enablers acting on

147
behalf of local communities to set the standards for levels of service and to ensure that those services are provided as efficiently as possible. Some authorities are in the vanguard of the movement towards the enabling model; some find it more difficult to leave behind the old approaches. We aim to encourage all authorities to serve their communities effectively and efficiently by giving local electors the information they need to make informed judgments and by applying the incentive of competition.
The Local Government Act 1992 provides new powers for the Audit Commission to require the publication of performance information so that local people can judge whether the services they receive represent value for money. Local authorities are now required formally to publish their responses to auditors' criticisms. The Act also enables the Government to set out a clearer framework for compulsory competitive tendering by laying down clearly what does and what does not constitute anti-competitive behaviour. The Government will bring forward their proposals for using these powers in the light of responses to the consultation paper Competing for Quality.
There is also the vital question of what the structure of local government should be. Unitary authorities can reduce bureaucracy and costs and improve the co-ordination and quality of services. But we have made it clear that we do not wish to impose a national blueprint for reform or to require the wholesale abolition of either district or county councils.
Flexibility is the key. We need to find the right structure for each area and to tailor the pattern of authorities to local views and circumstances. The framework for the review is now almost complete. Sir John Banham has agreed to become chairman of the new Local Government Commission provided for in the Local Government Act. We hope to announce the commission's timetable and programme in the summer after we have consulted the local authority associations. The commission's work should lead to a structure which will provide a firm foundation for local government in the 21st century.
Our policies of encouraging choice and competition and improving efficiency apply equally to housing. We remain committed to our objective that a decent home should be within reach of every family, and to our policies of increasing owner-occupation, widening choice for tenants, and improving targeting and value for money in public expenditure. The House will no doubt welcome the announcement made last week by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a further cut in interest rates, which will help to stimulate the temporarily depressed housing market.
In particular, we need to maintain the momentum of our policies to give more choice to council tenants following on from the success of the right-to-buy in the 1980s—another policy which proved so popular and which the party opposite tried to block. The Housing, Land and Urban Development Bill, which we shall be introducing in the autumn, will give council tenants a new right to buy a share in their
148
houses for outgoings no greater than their current rent. This rents to mortgages scheme has been successfully piloted in Scotland and Wales, and among new town tenants in Milton Keynes and Basildon.
The Bill will also implement our Citizen's Charter commitment to give council tenants an effective new right to repair. It will replace the present over-complicated procedure so that where a council fails to do essential repairs, the tenant can have them done privately and make the council pay the bill.
We also need to sustain the momentum of our policies for the inner cities, and ensure that those who live there can enjoy their share of our rising prosperity. Far too much land still lies idle and derelict in our cities. The Bill will contain measures for the establishment of an urban regeneration agency. It will work with local authorities and the private sector to bring vacant land and property back into use and so unlock the potential of the run-down areas of our cities for the benefit of all their citizens.
We remain most anxious not only about the national and regional environment but also the wider global environment. We shall continue to play a leading role in the discussions which aim to solve some of the very real problems that confront us. Obviously at the top of our agenda is the earth summit in Rio this June. Perhaps no other meeting this decade will be as important for the future of our planet. An earth summit which makes a significant contribution to dealing with the world's environmental problems is still not a certainty: success will require a great deal of effort. But I believe that success for the summit is now a better than even bet.
The UK has been at the centre of the negotiations for the earth summit. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was the first world leader to make a commitment to attend the conference. And he has been actively encouraging others to attend.
This Government's commitment to the success of Rio was emphasised by our decision to tighten up our target on CO2 emissions. That decision was a significant contribution to the recent climate change negotiations.
In New York another milestone in our aim to conclude an effective framework convention on climate change to halt the threat of global warming came as recently as last Saturday evening. The intergovernmental negotiating committee for a framework convention on this vital area adopted a convention in New York. The agreement has come after 16 months of difficult negotiations in which the UK played a leading role.
All developed countries which ratify the convention will commit themselves to policies and measures aimed at returning emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. The convention will also commit developing countries to report on the steps that they are taking to combat climate change.
Our other goals for the conference are equally clear. We aim to agree a convention to protect the planet's diversity of plant and animal habitats. We hope that the summit will adopt a declaration on the sustainable

149
management of the world's forests. And we want to adopt a statement of environmental rights and obligations; the Rio Declaration. That will not be a wish list but a statement of fundamental practical principles; principles such as the polluter pays; public access to environmental information; and the right to participation in environmental decisions. Those principles are already the basis for the UK's own environmental policy.
Nationally, the UK wants to establish a practical action plan for the 21st century to be known as Agenda 21. The plan should be realistic, achievable and measurable. It should include regional and national strategies and take account of the differing needs of developing and developed countries.
Perhaps I may now turn to transport. During the past 13 years we have put into practice the same principles of competition and choice which I referred to at the beginning of my speech. Deregulation and privatisation have led to greater efficiency and better services for the public. At the same time we have been investing record sums in the improvement of our transport infrastructure and those increases are set to continue. Since the mid-1980s public sector investment in transport has doubled in real terms. British Rail investment is at its highest level for 30 years. Our investment in roads has more than doubled in real terms since 1979.
In the current financial year the Department of Transport will be spending no less than £7 billion. Of that nearly £3 billion will be spent on building, improving and maintaining roads and more than £3 billion will be spent on public transport. British Rail's external financing limit for the current year is more than £2 billion—by far the highest ever. Government grant to London Transport is being increased to £1.2 billion—and increase of about 60 per cent. compared with last year. During the next three years LT plan to invest more than £3.5 billion—more than double the figure for the previous three years even allowing for inflation. And we shall be continuing to invest more than £2 billion a year in our national roads.
The Government believe firmly in making the best use of all the transport resources at our disposal. For international traffic, at least until the opening of the Channel Tunnel, that means mainly sea and air. As Minister with responsibility for aviation and shipping I naturally take a particular interest in these forms of transport.
The shipping industry plays a particularly vital role in our national economy. Our position as an island nation means that no less than 95 per cent. of all our international trade is carried by sea. The market for shipping services in the UK has long been open to competition, and the whole industry is of course privately owned. We have also taken steps to extend commercial disciplines in our ports by privatising Associated British Ports, abolishing the dock labour scheme and enacting legislation which is making it possible for the trust ports to move into the private sector.
Our airlines and airports also operate according to commercial principles. There has been enormous growth in the demand for air travel in recent years. We
150
have sought to respond to this challenge by removing unnecessary restrictions on airline competition and encouraging the development of new air services. For example, in 1979 there were about 50 foreign destinations served by scheduled services from UK regional airports. The comparable figure now is more than 130. The UK has been at the forefront of international negotiations on more liberal agreements for the provision of international air services.
That brings me to the proposals in the gracious Speech for making better use of our railway system. Whatever we do, road transport is likely to remain the predominant form of transport for domestic journeys. But there is clearly much to be said for making better use of our rail network as well. Just as we believe in competition and choice in other fields, so the Government believe that the best future for rail services is to open up their operation to private sector initiative and to introduce competition into their provision. An important element in this policy is to liberalise access to the railway network for operators who want to provide new services.
We shall be pursuing that objective in three stages. The first stage is already under way. BR has responded positively to our request that it gives sympathetic consideration to proposals for new services by private sector operators. There has been an encouraging level of interest from the private sector. The first of the new services—a new overnight passenger service between London and Scotland operated by the Stagecoach Group—is beginning today, and I look forward to the introduction of more new services.
The second stage of liberalisation has a European dimension. The UK played an active role in the negotiations which culminated in the recent EC Directive on the Development of European Railways. That introduces a right of access to the rail network from the beginning of next year for international groupings of railway operators as well as individual operators of intermodal freight services.
The third stage of liberalisation will be introduced by the legislation announced in the gracious Speech. That will provide greater access to the rail network for all types of domestic rail services. The paving Bill, which we have already introduced in another place, gives British Rail the power to participate actively and constructively in the development of our proposals. In particular, it will enable BR to consider and take advice on any proposals for increasing the role of the private sector, to advise the Government and to draw up plans for implementing any scheme based on such proposals.
This Bill will be followed by full legislation later in the Session. We shall publish our proposals for this legislation and put them before the House as soon as they are ready.
The House will also wish me to say something about our plans for transport in London. In our manifesto we proposed to create a new ministerial post with responsibility for the co-ordination of London's transport services. My honourable friend Mr. Norris, the Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, has been appointed to undertake that important responsibility. He will play an important

151
role in the new Cabinet sub-committee on London. He will also chair a new working group on public transport. London Underground, Network SouthEast, the bus operators, local government, business and consumer interests will all be represented. We are confident that the group will more than prove its worth in helping to ensure effective co-ordination of public transport in London.
In both the environment and transport fields our agenda for the latter part of this year is likely to be dominated by the UK's presidency of the European Community. The Environment Council will have a busy agenda under our chairmanship. We aim to bring forward for discussion a number of new proposals, including legislation on integrated pollution control, on environmental auditing, on vehicle emissions and on trade in endangered species. We shall also be emphasising during our presidency the importance of proper implementation and enforcement of EC environmental legislation.
It was in the transport field that I first met the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and I am pleased to be able to renew my battles with him. It was in 1985/86 that as Minister with responsibility for shipping I was trying to persuade the Commission and some doubtful fellow members of the European Community to liberalise restrictive trading practices, minimise bureaucratic interference and improve safety in a practical way. Some progress was made during our presidency in 1986 in achieving those goals. During our forthcoming presidency I look forward to renewing those discussions across the whole transport field as the principles of competition and choice are as relevant to a European transport policy as they are to our domestic agenda. A realistic common European transport policy is central to the success of the European single market. We will use our presidency of the Community to carry through any work left to us and help secure the completion of the transport single market.
Regrettably, there is still a wish by many in the Commission to centralise everything in Brussels. That is not always the right answer. We will therefore scrutinise the Commission's proposals, recommendations and decisions to see that the principles of subsidiarity agreed at Maastricht are observed. We shall also wish to discuss state aids, which only serve to distort the market and to protect inefficient home-based industries from the rigours of competition to the disadvantage of their users. I hope the Commission and other member states will be more ready to move forward in those areas than they have been in the past.
Both in Britain and on the European and world stage the coming months will be important and exciting ones for the development of both environment and transport policies. This Government have the policies which are needed to meet the challenges we face and build on the solid achievements of the past 13 years.
3.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome the noble Earl back to the Dispatch Box on domestic issues. He has been swanning around the South Pacific, Hong Kong and other places while I have been travelling here every day on the 43 bus, the 38 bus and the 24 bus. I hope that the shock of his return will not be too serious for his constitution.
While the noble Earl has been away the Government have introduced quite a lot of legislation, with some of which he was involved. We saw the erection of the poll tax and its demolition, all within the space of the last Parliament. We have seen the continuation of housing Bills designed to prevent any effective public housing without anything being put in its place. We have seen the continuation of local government Bills designed to restrict the activities of local authorities without making any positive attempt to help them to achieve better service.
Looking at the gracious Speech, we have before us very little sign of change in the Government's attitude. Therefore, during the time available to me I propose to spend a few minutes dealing with the provisions of the gracious Speech itself. I propose to spend a little more time speaking about the kind of problems which the Government should have addressed, whether or not in legislation. If your Lordships will permit me, I shall spend rather more time pursuing a theme which my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and I believe to be absolutely critical to our understanding and progress in these matters; that is, the indivisibility of the approach we must take to the environment as a whole.
That is not just a matter of the environment as understood by the Department of Environment. It is also the work of what one might call—I use the words of the noble Earl a few moments ago—monolithic producers: the monolithic producers of roads in the Department of Transport; the monolithic producers of more and more energy and less and less conservation in what was the Department of Energy; the monolithic producers of agricultural produce in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If they are not involved in environmental policy, there will be no environmental policy. Our fear on these Benches is that because they are not involved there is no effective environmental policy.
Noble Lords will forgive me for paying less attention this afternoon to the global questions of environmental protection. That is a subject the Opposition has chosen for its first Wednesday Debate on 20th May. At that time we shall debate the issue of the Rio conference and what ought to be expected from it.
I turn to the contents of the Queen's Speech and to the comments of the noble Earl on those provisions. notice that he gave priority to a matter which received little emphasis in the gracious Speech—the Citizen's Charter, which I note is defined as giving priority to improving public services. There is no question of giving priority to improving all the services which

153
people want, whether private or public; only those public services which are covered by the Citizen's Charter.
The noble Earl referred to the consultation after the White Paper, Competing for Quality. He may recall, although he was not present himself, that Competing for Quality was rather a nonsense as a consultation document. The legislation to implement it was, in outline, being put through Parliament at the time the consultation was taking place. This House had to give a blank cheque to the Government to adopt or reject any of the results of consultation. Therefore, I do not take that seriously as a policy initiative and I do not believe that Parliament takes it seriously as an earnest of the Government's willingness to take Parliament seriously.
We have a little more detail with regard to what the Government intend to do concerning housing. They intend to give priority to the rights of local authority tenants; they intend to introduce a common-hold system which, on the whole, we will welcome although there will be difficulties. For example, difficulties will arise when it is applied to blocks of flats where there are some right-to-buy leaseholders and some secure tenants of local authorities. The Government will need to convince us that they are paying adequate attention to the rights of those secure local authority tenants.
The other proposal which appears in the speech is the rents to mortgages scheme. I believe that that will be severely squeezed and of limited effect. Inevitably it will be deliberately less attractive than the right-to-buy provisions and therefore will not apply to anyone who could possibly benefit from them. Further, it will not be available to any person receiving housing benefit. I doubt whether there will be many council tenants in between or that there will be any real scope for the rents to mortgages scheme, although in principle we would not be opposed to it.
The gracious Speech refers to the creation of an urban regeneration agency. There have been an awful lot of agencies in the time that I have been involved in local government. One must ask the question whether it is a genuine new initiative or simply a piece of repackaging. We have the urban programme, city challenge, city grants, urban development corporations and an attempt to have housing action trusts. Many new acronyms have been created in the sphere of central government imposition on local government. We must wait to see whether the idea of an urban regeneration agency is a real improvement, with new funding and new collaboration between central and local government or whether it is simply another gimmick as so many of the others have been. If there is real new money, real collaboration between central and local government and an extension of multi-year funding for major projects, we shall certainly welcome it.
The gracious Speech refers to the amendments to the business rate—the national non-domestic rate. Those amendments are made to the transitional relief to be provided. When the sums are done it looks as though almost £1.5 billion over a period of three years is to be allocated for that purpose. Again, in principle we are not opposed to it. However, there might have
154
been some thought given to it when the legislation was tabled. One does not readily get £1.5 billion wrong and put oneself in the position, as the Government are doing, where local authorities will be forced to send out new bills for 1992–93—this year—due to the delay in government making up their mind on what they wanted to do about the national non-domestic rate.
Finally, in looking at the Queen's Speech I find something that is barely included; that is, any reference to the environment. In full, the Queen's Speech states:
"My Government will work both at home and abroad to protect the environment. They will ensure that environment remains a key issue in all policy-making and will continue to publish annual reports".
There is a commitment! There is a bold programme for the future! The Government "will continue to publish annual reports". When I read that kind of statement in the gracious Speech I see members of the Athenaeum and permanent secretaries congratulating themselves for persuading government that there is no need to make any fuss about environmental nonsense, even though they may have wanted to. It is good enough for the election—green issues may be important at election time—but as soon as the election is over there is no real reference to environmental policy in the whole of the Queen's Speech or the Government's programme. The absence of such reference has already been greeted as a betrayal of some of what Ministers were saying. I can assure the Government and the noble Earl that that accusation of betrayal will not simply come from these Benches; it will come from throughout the country.
Let us look at what is not contained in the Queen's Speech yet could readily have been included. First, we are stuck with a system of local authority taxation which was finalised in a great hurry before the general election. I have seen no reference to the Government taking the opportunity, which they still have, to abolish the 20 per cent. minimum being charged on the poll tax in 1992–93. It would have been at least a gesture of goodwill to those less fortunate for the Government to have said, "We have won the election and now we can do something which we knew all along was right. We admitted it was right and are going to implement it from 1993 onwards but can now do it this year".
I see no reference in the gracious Speech to any recognition that the replacement for the poll tax, although not as unfair as the poll tax, is still an unfair piece of local authority taxation. It is a council tax which is only half based on property and half based on a debased version of the poll tax. It is a system which is deliberately designed, deliberately skewed in bands and at levels of differentiation to satisfy Tory voters and to continue to penalise those who are less well off. The opportunity could have been taken to put that right, but it has not.
I do not find reference in the Queen's Speech to any significant level of support for effective local government. After all, the period covering the 1980s —the past 13 years—has seen 50 Acts of Parliament concerned with local government. We have seen the control of capital receipts from the exercise of right-to-buy legislation. We have seen a vast increase

155
in quangos and commissions at the expense of democratically elected bodies in local government and elsewhere. We have seen increasingly detailed control of the staff, the procedures, the contracts and all other aspects of the work of local authorities. In his opening speech the noble Earl called it a move towards an enabling local authority. I suggest that the "enabling" is only enabling Whitehall to control local authorities rather than enabling local authorities themselves to do a decent job.
What we fear for 1992 onwards—the legislation already exists—is that there will not only be higher charges for local authority services, with few exceptions, but also that new charges will be required to be imposed by central government. We shall see quality standards which are not agreed between local authorities and their electors as they should be, but are in fact imposed by central government and quangos reporting to central government.
What do we see as housing policy? I described the pathetic little elements which are proposed by the Government in the gracious Speech. But we are now in 1992 with a housing situation in which homelessness has increased threefold over the period of this Government, or even shorter. It is a period in which public home building has reduced to less than one-fifth of that when the Government came into office with no significant increase in private building to replace it and in which there is an unprecedented level of mortgage repossession.
The home condition survey in England alone shows that there are 1 million homes which are unfit for human habitation and half a million which lack a basic amenity. This at a time when there are 200,000 building workers thrown out of work as a result of the present recession. Where in the Queen's Speech is there any reference to positive action to deal with homelessness and to provide affordable housing for rent; in other words, to use at least some part of the capital receipts which are available for that purpose? Where is the provision for effective mortgage rescue and provision for special housing for those with special needs, such as the elderly or people with disabilities? There is no reference whatever in the gracious Speech to those matters.
There is no reference either to planning issues. We recently had the Planning and Compensation Act. I recommend that the noble Earl pay attention to it. In that Act all the opportunities which exist for the positive use of planning for the benefit of our community were wasted. There is nothing in that Act to provide for any security for the quality of new development or for the needs of the community to be met. After all, planning is one way in which communities exercise democratic rights over their own surroundings. The establishment of a coherent local plan and its co-ordination into wider council plans, and the provision that those plans shall be adhered to when planning applications are considered unless there is very good reason to the contrary, are all factors which are protectors of the democratic process rather than a threat to it.
156
I return to the issue of what is not in the Queen's Speech as regards quality. We see in that speech standards of quality and performance indicators laid down by quangos nationally and imposed on local authorities. There is no indication that local authorities themselves have a role to play in setting out quality programmes, in providing their own contracts with their customers and setting out their own performance standards; in providing compensation for substandard service and in providing surveys of customer satisfaction in order to see whether the work which has been done is effective; in providing minimum levels of training for local authority staff and minimum levels of employee participation; in quality audits carried out not centrally but by local authorities, by independent professionals and the users of services. If we had the quality commission which the Labour Party had proposed to introduce that would have been a far more effective way of dealing with quality than is at present the case.
There is no reference in the gracious Speech or, I am sorry to say, in that of the noble Earl, to the wider issue of consumer rights in the private as well as the public sector. There is no reference to the need for consumers to be able to make effective and informed choices, to have quality standards and also standards of redress imposed by law, in the few words that cover the subject of today's debate—my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis will be covering the transport issues.
This is a very disappointing Speech and a very disappointing programme for government. As I said earlier, above all the gracious Speech does not recognise that the issue of the environment is indivisible. There are some things that are better done by Government action. For example, where is the environmental protection agency which appeared in the Conservative manifesto and which had appeared in Labour policy statements for some years before the Conservatives recognised that it was the right thing to do? This issue seems to have disappeared. It seems that inter-departmental rivalries have squashed the idea of an agency which would effectively cover all aspects of the environment and its legislation.
Where is the recognition that local authorities ought to be acting on the ground in the localities as environmental protection agencies? Above all, where is recognition of the citizens' and employees' rights, enforceable in the courts, and which ought to be part of government action on the environment? It is not just government action. We should be supporting in Europe the idea of company environmental audits which would enable companies, and require them, to account to their customers and the wider public on the environmental impact of their activities.
I shall deal with this matter very briefly because we have a debate on the subject next Wednesday. We should be doing a great deal more about the international global environment than we are. I have listened with great care to what the noble Earl said about the decision taken in New York last Saturday. I noticed that he used the words, "aiming at" keeping carbon dioxide down to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The words "aiming at" are a good deal less powerful than the fixed targets which were originally

157
understood to be the objective of the Rio conference. I fear that in achieving the presence of the United States at that conference we have given away the real power and strength of the commitment which this Government had (I welcomed it when it was made) to advancing the date from the year 2005 to the year 2000.
On our own account, and whatever happens at Rio, we should be imposing energy saving objectives on the energy utilities instead of encouraging them to go for profit through higher sales of fuel. They should be making their money out of energy conservation. We should be imposing higher building standards and higher standards of insulation. We should be imposing standards of environmental and energy labelling and considering issues concerning tax allowances for energy. We should be considering the issue of green mortgages whereby we give priority to applicants for mortgages who are prepared to include energy conservation in expenditure on their own housing.
In the international area and aid—I appreciate that this area was largely dealt with last Thursday—we should be dealing with issues of technology transfer and debt relief. In the European Community we should be supporting an environmental charter comparable to the Social Charter. We should certainly be supporting the idea of a European environmental agency with the power to enforce compliance on recalcitrant governments, agencies and companies. We should be arguing for an effective tropical forestry control rather than the present grotesquely ineffective system.
As regards water, we should be looking much more closely at the use of the powers which regulators already have to enforce higher standards of drinking and river water. I believe that we require greater powers. We should have a clean water Act of some kind. When we look at the environmental investment required from the water companies, that should be capitalised rather than charged to the water rate payers as it is now.
In the countryside we appear to be squandering millions of pounds in compensation under inadequate legislation to landowners who agree not to do things which they never really intended to do anyway. I appreciate that that applies to a number of Members of this House, but that does not give me an excuse not to say it here and now. Instead, we should be considering how to improve the United Kingdom science base of our countryside policies which were so gravely damaged by the splitting up of the Nature Conservancy Council last year. We should be considering how to increase the number of national parks and the number of sites of special scientific interest and importance rather than undermining them as is happening at the moment.
I shall deal very briefly with the issue of farming and food. Farmers should be paid to preserve the environment rather than to refrain from producing food. As I said, the transport side of these matters will be dealt with, far more effectively than I could ever deal with it, by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis.
I return to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech—it is still the most important point. Unless
158
this country has an environmental policy that is adopted wholeheartedly by government and imposed on all departments of government—including the Department of Energy; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and the so-called Department of the Environment—we will not have an effective environmental policy, and any party not having an effective environmental policy will stand condemned at the next election.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is a little impertinent for such a newcomer to welcome the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to this debate, but I look forward to—as he put it—"doing battle" with him and with his noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I certainly look forward to our debates in this Session.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, the gracious Speech is interesting for what it does not say as well as for what it does say. No legislation would have been required, but it would have been comforting and reassuring for those in the local government sector to hear words such as, "The Government will work to strengthen local democracy to ensure that the best services are delivered to people at a local level". After all, does not this Session mark the start of a fundamental review of our local government?
We on these Benches do not quarrel with excellence and value-for-money being at the centre of decision-taking, but will those aims be achieved by applying the Citizen's Charter as we have been promised? Simply applying the charter's principles throughout the public services will not be enough. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke about "encouraging responsiveness". I could not help wondering whether we encourage responsiveness by capping local authorities. Of all that has happened in local government in the past few years, the effect of capping has been so dramatic that to talk of encouraging local responsiveness is, I fear, a grave misunderstanding of the effect of what has happened.
We are now seeing the introduction of the council tax. I fear that the tax may not be accepted by people as a reflection of their ability to pay, but we shall see another whole set of problems arising because of its administrative complexity and the difficulties of persuading people that it is a tax that should be paid.
The last Parliament saw a real erosion of local democracy. The leader in The Times of last Friday, the day after the local elections, is worth quoting. I shall not take up too much of your Lordships' time by quoting it all although I was sorely tempted simply to read it out as my speech instead of speaking generally about the issues involved. The Times, which, after all, is not a newspaper that is noted for its Left-wing leanings, stated:
"This is the eighth inglorious year in which Britain's elected local councils have found themselves capped by central government. Local authorities, even the daftest ones, should enjoy the legitimacy conferred by yesterday's democratic election. Yet an electoral process held sacrosanct when applied to Parliament is rendered meaningless when the same people turn out to vote for their local councils".
The leader ended:

159
"The transferring of more and more power over policy, regulation and service quality from local authorities to Westminster is a disease of governments long in office".
However, The Times was not entirely negative about the Government, stating:
"John Major's government, refreshingly innovative in other constitutional matters, is gripped by this disease. Each year a group of London-based civil servants, ministers and computers must work out the spending needs of over 400 local authorities with a population of almost 50 million. They are a good deal less answerable for their decisions than locally elected leaders. These are precisely the grounds on which ministers have repeatedly opposed the transfer of powers from London to Brussels. Local authority capping is part of the same argument. Sauce for the goose"—
yes, indeed.
We heard earlier about the concept of the "enabling authority". That is an interesting concept and it is not one with which I would take enormous issue, save to say that I should prefer to think more in terms of "empowerment" than "enablement". We should be looking for ways to empower our local communities to run their own lives.
There is enormous scope for partnership in all sectors and levels of government. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned, the City Challenge has enabled some major achievements to be made. It is certainly an advantage to have funding that will be certain over a period of years. It is a fairly poor show that knowing where the funding is coming from over a period of years should be so noteworthy, but it is nevertheless welcome to the local authorities which competed for that funding. The co-ordination of Whitehall responses to local authority programmes is also welcome, but let us not forget that we are talking about competition for the same resources. It is not new money.
Will the Urban Regeneration Agency also see a reallocation of existing funds? I hope not. I recognise that there cannot be a blank cheque, but the question of who writes that cheque should not be entirely for Westminster and Whitehall to decide.
We must regret the position of certain—not many, but too many—Labour-led authorities. Their position would be high farce if it were not deep tragedy. To me it is a matter of enormous regret that, because of the activities of certain Left-wing authorities, we inevitably hear about restrictions being placed on the great majority of more level-headed authorities. Authorities that thought that there might be a change of government and hoped that they would be bailed out are now left with the impossible task of redrawing their budgets. That is sad.
However, we still need to ask where the money is coming from and to have a dialogue about that with local authority electors. The uniform business rate has been mentioned. That is an example of where there might have been better partnership, because where local authorities are required to re-bill greater administrative work and cash-flow delays result—and that is a shame.
One answer is the use of local authorities' capital receipts. During the recent election campaign, I was struck forcefully by the number of people who were aware of that issue and who raised it with the politicians rather than waiting for the politicians to do
160
so. Those people regarded it as just plain daft that that amount of money is available in local authority coffers but cannot be released and used. We know why—the capital base is regarded as a power base and if local authorities are involved there must be a question mark over that. However, the release of what the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy believes to be £6.3 billion would mean—could mean—the building or improvement of schools, hospitals and homes and the creation of jobs. It is time that the Government looked at such resources to improve our infrastructure.
Speaking of the infrastructure, the opening of certain activities to the private sector is also welcome, but it is not the whole story. It is important to break up certain monopolies, provided that we do not sell the family silver at the same time. We on these Benches welcome in principle the measure to permit private operators to have access to the British Rail track network. That will be no surprise to those who have read our manifesto as well as that of their own party, because that measure was contained in it. We look forward to the detail of those proposals, which will receive our scrutiny.
However, other ways of involving the private sector are not so welcome. One would not have expected to hear in the gracious Speech that lessons have been learned, but I hope that lessons about the reliance that has been placed on the private sector have been learned from what has happened when the private sector simply cannot cope. I refer to the problems experienced by Olympia & York. Its contribution to London's rail network has been "postponed"—how else could it be described? The problems that have been caused and the doubts that must now exist in many people's minds about what will happen to the rail sector in which Olympia & York was to have been involved are matters of great concern. It is not simply a question of the contribution of Olympia & York alone because what has happened to Olympia & York —the difficulties that it has encountered and its almost certain inability to meet that commitment—must be a deterrent to other private sector investors. Are we to see the same sort of problems on other parts of London's rail network? What will happen to the Heathrow-Paddington link which is so important to provide transport from Heathrow, that major international airport, into the centre of our capital?
There is no reference in the gracious Speech—not in the sections on transport, the environment or indeed on health —to measures to reduce dependence on the car. I mention health because pollution is perhaps the greatest health problem facing us. Measures to reduce the use of the car could lead to less congestion and pollution. We are aware that the Government are considering the question of road pricing. That is not a panacea but it is certainly an important strand of policy. We look forward to recommendations to introduce or at least publicly to consider road pricing and other similar measures.
There is little by way of legislative measures as regards the environment. There is merely a reference to annual reports. The Secretary of State for the Environment has been reported as believing that, as

161
we move out of recession, environmental issues will become more important. I hope that that will be soon, but we must not create wealth at the expense of the environment. We need measures to control pollution and to conserve energy. We on these Benches had looked forward to debating the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency to work in partnership with other sectors. I welcome the comments that have been made this afternoon about making the polluter pay and the trailing of a little more freedom of information in this area. I look forward to hearing more on those issues.
I return to what is in the gracious Speech. The enhancement of the rights of local authority tenants is unobjectionable on the face of it, but even existing local authority tenants would not want that to happen at the expense of others who are in need of housing. There is no choice if there is a shortage of affordable housing. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, who was in his seat a few moments ago, has, through his experience as chairman of the London and South East Regional Planning Conference, spoken eloquently on the issue of affordable housing when visiting various districts and authorities.
Homelessness is an increasing problem, not only for the individuals who are sadly affected but for local authorities. There is a danger that in dealing with homelessness all the "slack" of local authority budgets will be swallowed up in the next year or so. The Government must help the various agencies, including local authorities, to address this problem. I have mentioned the use of capital receipts. We hear about rough sleepers. That term seems to be a euphemism which does not take on board the real tragedy and the problems and the measures that can be taken to address those problems.
Finally, perhaps I may mention a matter which will be debated more fully tomorrow. I refer to education. I do not wish to touch on the education measures but simply to say that I was struck by the concerns that have been expressed recently about the need to recruit local school governors. There are parallels between the recruitment of governors and the recruitment, before they stand for election, of local authority councillors. The Secretary of State for Education is right to be concerned about the recruitment of school governors. Their responsibilities are great, their powers are inevitably constrained and their finances are subject to LMS. There are problems with opting out because, after the initial goodies, life is not quite such fun. Indeed, if more schools follow the route of opting out, the amount of cash that is available for those schools will inevitably be reduced.
It may be that more people will be tempted to stand for local councils after the restructuring. If there are unitary authorities councillors will see their powers in the right sense; not in the sense of self-aggrandisement but of the ability to carry out the functions that they wish to carry out for their electorate. They may see those functions as having greater scope. However, the underlying problem remains. The centralisation of power, as The Times states, means that central government are stepping in to protect the public as taxpayers from the public, the same public, as local
162
electors. What role will there be for the councillor? Will there also be the difficulty of recruiting people to serve our communities in local government? I fear that there will be. Increasingly people are understanding the responsibility of this Government for the damage to our democracy. I hope that over the next few years we may see a reversal of this trend.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out that one measure which has not been included in the gracious Speech is the creation of an Environmental Protection Agency, as foreshadowed last summer by the Prime Minister. Reports in the press suggest that this measure has been shelved for the time being because Ministers cannot agree whether to split the National Rivers Authority or to keep it intact with other aspects of pollution control added to it.
The concept of integrated pollution control has a good deal to commend it, and I think that there might well be advantage in eventually merging the NRA and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. I do not think myself that there is any serious disadvantage in leaving things as they are for the time being, but I am quite sure that it would be wrong to split the NRA by taking pollution control away from it and giving that function to another agency. Anyone who has worked with the NRA, as I have in the past two years, is rapidly convinced of the interdependence of its various functions—water resources, water quality, the control of pollution, flood defence, fisheries, navigation and recreation. They all hang together, and increasingly the staff of the NRA are performing integrated functions, dealing with all the interlocking problems of our rivers. Moreover, to disrupt the NRA after only two years would be the reverse of good management and would be extremely unsettling to the staff. The environment committee of another place, whose reports are usually valuable, produced a remarkably wrong-headed report on this subject, coming out in favour of splitting the NRA, a conclusion it had apparently formed before undertaking its study. I think it was wrong. If the Government do decide in due course to revive the idea of an Environmental Protection Agency, I hope that they will keep a unified NRA as a fundamental constituent of it.
That said, I want to talk this afternoon about one of the most serious environmental problems we face today—the lack of adequate rainfall, the growing volume of abstractions and the effect of those on our rivers. We have had another dry winter and may be facing a fourth consecutive drought year. According to the Meteorological Office, the past two years have been the driest since 1749. Since the autumn of 1988, average rainfall has been 20 per cent. less than the normal. The situation is of course particularly serious in the South and East. Last month Southern Water had to impose a hosepipe ban in Kent, affecting three quarters of a million people. Those covered by hosepipe bans in south and east England now number between 5 million and 6 million.

163
There is, however, a steady rise in consumption. Demand has increased by 70 per cent. in the past 30 years. The NRA estimates that demand will increase by a further 17 per cent. over the next 30 years. That represents a doubling of demand between 1961 and 2021. Demand expands dramatically in hot summer weekends. The results are already serious. Between the wars the development of new towns and the consequent sinking of boreholes in the Chilterns destroyed the Hertfordshire chalk streams. Those in north Kent were similarly destroyed. The upper Kennet, which I knew as a boy as a splendid trout stream, is now dry or no more than a pathetic trickle.
In the past few years, with the constant new building of factories and housing estates, the pace of destruction has accelerated. In many parts of eastern and southern England beautiful rivers, which have run deep and clear for centuries, have dried up completely or are just puddles for most of their length. The Wharfe, the Derwent and the West Beck in Yorkshire; the Lowther in Cumbria; the Till as well as the Kennet in Wiltshire; the Piddle in Dorset; the Darent in Kent; the Stort in Essex; the Ver at St. Albans; the Burn in Norfolk are among the worst affected. The level of the Windrush is falling year by year. Many perennial springs have ceased to flow. Many of our few remaining wetlands have dried out. The effect on birds, animals, insects and plants associated with rivers or damp habitats—snipe, kingfishers, water voles, otters, kingcups, marsh orchids and many others—has been very damaging.
Lack of water is also killing thousands of trees. The Royal Society for Nature Conservation has launched a national campaign, "Water Wildlife", to restore our rivers and wetlands, which it rightly describes as essential to the survival of people and wildlife. In the summer months since 1989, people too have been affected by water consumption restrictions which have had to be imposed often at short notice. Moreover, lack of natural flow often means that polluting effluents are not quickly and adequately diluted. Finally, although the NRA is obliged by statute to maintain, improve and develop fisheries, those in badly affected rivers have often been destroyed or severely damaged.
The problem we face has two principal causes. First, a succession of drought years which may be a natural cycle or may be the result of climate change and global warming: no one yet knows. Secondly, ever-increasing consumption. As we build more power stations—and the RSNC points out that a 2,000 MW power station needs 1,300 million gallons of water to produce one day's electricity—more factories and more housing estates, so we take more and more water from aquifers and rivers. Power stations and industry take three-quarters of all this, while domestic supplies take a quarter. Each person in this country uses an average of 30 gallons of water a day; one-third of this on flushing the WC.
What then can be done? Two years ago the Regional Fisheries Advisory Committee of the NRA's Welsh region, of which I have the honour to be chairman, produced a paper on the problem. The
164
committee made 10 specific recommendations. The first was that the maintenance of adequate flows and levels should be given greater priority by the NRA. At that time, it did not seem to be fully alive to the urgency and seriousness of the problem. Now I think that it is. It has identified 40 rivers which are in need of urgent rescue. They are, so to speak, those now in intensive care, if not on the way to the graveyard. But there are many more on the sick list. The NRA also published two months ago a discussion document—a Water Resources Development Strategy—which provided useful information about the extent of the problem and listed the options available to cope with it.
My committee's second recommendation, to my mind a key one, was that when water is abstracted from rivers for domestic, agricultural or industrial use, it should be a requirement that, after treatment, it should be returned to the river of origin at or above the point of abstraction. That, we argued, should apply to existing as well as to projected abstractions. I think that we should now insist on treated effluent being returned at or above the point of abstraction, and for abstraction points to be moved downstream to near the tidal limit. It may be cheaper to abstract water from near the sources of rivers, but we can no longer afford the damage that this does to river flows.
Other recommendations we made were that charging tariffs should encourage abstraction (and storage) during the winter high flow months and severely discourage it during the summer; that the NRA should determine for each river a reasonable adequate flow, below which no abstraction should be allowed; and that the 8:1 dilution ratio of natural flow to effluents recommended in 1901 by the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal should be maintained at all times in all rivers.
Since we wrote our paper, the situation has got much worse. I think that it is time we tackled it in a much more determined way. We need a co-ordinated strategy worked out between the Government, the NRA and the water supply companies. We must begin by making it clear that it is unacceptable that any river in this country should have its flow cut off or reduced to a trickle by over-abstraction. We must put an end to the destruction of our rivers and restore the flows of those that have dried up because too much has been taken from them or from the strata from which their springs emerge.
There has been talk of massive new transfer schemes, like the existing ones taking water from reservoirs in Mid-Wales by gravity to Birmingham, but on a much larger scale, taking water from Wales and the North-East to the East and South. But such schemes would be enormously expensive, and transfer of water from one river to another might create serious ecological problems. Any such solutions must be for the very long-term, if cost-effective at all.
Meanwhile, I suggest that we should tackle the problem straight away by taking the following measures, apart from those that I have already mentioned. We must reduce the appalling waste of water through leakages in the system. Where I live in Wales, Welsh Water admits to losses of 39 per cent.

165
from the distribution system and only plans to reduce that to 25 per cent. by 2012, although it is cheerfully spending huge sums investing in South Wales Electricity, hotels and leisure facilities. South West has losses of 32 per cent., Southern 25 per cent. to 30 per cent., Thames and Severn Trent 25 per cent. and Yorkshire 24 per cent. Only Wessex and Northumbria are under 20 per cent. All those figures are much too high. To ruin numbers of our rivers and then lose a quarter to a third of the water in the system is simply not good enough. Leakage must be reduced without delay to something like 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. I should like to ask the Government, who privatised the water industry, how the water companies can be made to reduce their leakage rapidly to a more reasonable level.
I should not like to leave noble Lords with the impression that the aquatic environment generally is being ruined as a result of the location and quantity of water licensed for abstraction. In fact most of the 50,000 licensed abstractions in England and Wales do no serious damage to the aquatic environment. But there are some—a minority —which do. Now when the NRA sees that a river is being damaged by over-abstraction, usually by a water supply company, it can revoke the licence. But under present legislation, it may have to pay massive compensation, for which it has no available funds. Nor, under present legislation, can it introduce incentive charging to discourage abstraction at times of low flow.
How do the Government think that that particular problem can be resolved? The NRA must be given powers to veto housing or factory developments for which no proper water supply can be provided without damaging the rivers, subject to appeal to the Secretary of State concerned. The NRA should discuss with the CBI, and others, how industrial water use can be reduced or recycled and returned to the rivers. Happily most of the large quantity of water abstracted for power generation is returned at or close to the point of abstraction, and much is abstracted at the downstream end of river systems.
If our climate is becoming drier, we need to consider whether spray irrigation can be allowed to continue. We may have to move to crops which are less dependent on abundant water, and we should certainly move to more efficient and less wasteful forms of irrigation, like trickle or drip irrigation. We may need to restrict or ban garden sprinklers which use about 1,100 litres an hour. We should consider and encourage metering in areas where the rivers and aquifers are under pressure, so as to encourage care in using water. We should also seek to produce more efficient WCs, dishwashers and washing machines which do the job effectively while using less water, and provide for mandatory labelling of appliances according to their efficiency in using water.
We should, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has recommended in this House, consider the construction of some new reservoirs in areas where the need is greatest, while taking care that this does not stimulate more development and so more demand for water. We should consider the whole question of land drainage policies. For much too long we have concentrated on
166
getting water away to the sea quickly, so that our wetlands, once valuable sponges, have mostly dried out and river spates subside in a day or two. Those policies have done untold harm, and we must now consider modifying them. We should encourage research into cheaper forms of desalinisation (a breakthrough here would have immense export potential) and meanwhile encourage desalinisation plans in special situations; for example, the Scilly Isles. Above all, we should recognise that the problem is urgent and needs vigorous action now.
4.18 p.m.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, this is the first time that I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships. I am deeply grateful for the honour that has been accorded to me. I trust that noble Lords will forgive my silence for the past 10 years. However, I felt that, with the great accumulated knowledge of your Lordships' House, it was sensible to wait until there was a subject for debate on which I had at least more than a passing working knowledge.
The gracious Speech highlights the need for increased protection of the environment, a need of which the Tidy Britain Group, of which I am a member of the council, is only too well aware. We were all delighted by the last Government's initiatives in improving the litter situation. Particularly welcome was the Environmental Protection Act of 1990 which for the first time gave real teeth to the fight against litter. Until then we felt that we were battling against an ever-rising tide of litter. King Canute these days would be more likely to be knocked over by the rubbish in the waves rather than by the water itself; of course he might then have to survive hepatitis and stomach disorders as well.
Now that the general public is able to fight back and hold other parties responsible for maintaining cleanliness, it is to be hoped that everyone will respond in kind. It is not enough to clear the litter that has been created. We must aim to prevent people from leaving it in the first place. We must convince particularly the children, as it is hard to change the entrenched attitudes of adults, that leaving litter is anti-social, wasteful and in some cases even dangerous. One hopes that the children may then shame their parents into behaving more sensibly.
Alas, the leaving of litter seems at times to be an almost unconscious act of vandalism carried out by most people without any thought that there is anything wrong with their actions. I recall a car driving through our home village of Weston under Lizard. The driver threw a white plastic bag of rubbish out onto the verge. I stopped, picked it up and chased off down the road after him. In my best "Sweeney" fashion I pulled past him so that he had to stop. As I walked over to the car he wound down his window and started to ask what I was doing—or words to that effect—but was dumbfounded when I threw the rubbish back into his car in front of his wife and two children. Perhaps he may think twice on a future occasion.
Far be it for me to suggest to your Lordships that everyone should take such action, which might lead to

167
violent confrontation. If, however, more people would point it out to offenders when they drop items of rubbish that a litter bin might be a more suitable receptacle, general consciousness of the problem would be raised. All too often people complain that they cannot do anything by themselves and are powerless to effect any change. I suggest that they must shake off this apathetic attitude as they can improve the situation if they are prepared to make the commitment. Unfortunately, the public find it too easy to write letters of complaint and far less easy to take positive action. The Tidy Britain Group has an excellent initiative called the People and Places Programme, an example of how local authorities and the community can work together to achieve litter control. This is always in need of further support and I recommend it to anyone who wishes to see progress made.
As your Lordships will be aware, considerable progress is being made in many areas. For instance, in March 1992 the Tidy Britain Group conducted a cleanliness standard survey of 10 per cent. of all local authorities. This showed that in the 12 months from March 1991 the average cleanliness index rose by 12·5 per cent., which was a most encouraging result.
Many challenges remain and the ultimate goal of a litter-free Britain still seems far away. A particular challenge facing the Government is the public's desire to have greater access to the countryside, a trend that tends to be resisted by some of the existing occupants, not because they are determined to be difficult, although some do tend to be, but because they feel protective. They fear an increase in the thoughtless damage that is already being inflicted on the countryside, particularly by flytipping and carelessly discarded rubbish. If public attitudes to leaving litter can be changed then much of this fear will be dissipated and visitors will be made more welcome.
However, we must look beyond just solving the litter problem to increasing the recycling of used materials. It is sad that in Britain we still bury enormous quantities of refuse each year in landfill sites, since one can anticipate the exhaustion of so many of the raw materials that this world requires. We as a country are far too wasteful and we must accept that there will be a present cost to increasing recycling, but this will be nothing compared to the cost in the future when these already scarce resources run out.
Although we have seen much action in recent years, the gracious Speech highlights the need for a greater awareness of the damage being done to the environment. More action is now proposed. Let us hope for the sake of the world that Britain will be held up as an example of good environmental management and help safeguard the future for all.
In conclusion, I thank your Lordships once again for the great honour and privilege that you have accorded me of being able to address you.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to be able to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, on this speech, especially because of
168
its content. Not only is he a man who is articulate; he is also a man of great courage. My experience of trying to make people take their rubbish away did not have happy endings. I must hand it to him for getting away with that. I hope that he will not wait another 10 or 11 years before we hear him again.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about the importance of the Earth Summit. My party agrees with that and we are therefore leaving most of our remarks about it until next week. But before I get to my few remarks about the environment generally, I must say that I had a wry smile when the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to the "temporarily" depressed housing market. Those of my friends who have had their houses on the market for two years at greatly reduced prices do not feel that it is at all temporary and they are not being told by their estate agents that there is any hope of selling them in the future. So he might perhaps have left out that particular word.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we must reduce reliance on the car. But, if there has been one single act of this Government which has made it almost impossible to reduce reliance on the car it is the privatisation of bus services. In Cambridge where I live we now have several competing bus companies. The effect is that it is not possible to get a bus timetable that tells you where you can get a bus from A to B. They are all in competition. They seem not to publish their timetables. You just stand by the bus stop and hope that something comes along. That is not the right path.
I must just make one mention of the Earth Summit because against that background we have to look at our own actions on the environment. The summit in Rio could be a turning point where we could agree to turn aside from our path of self-destruction and reach agreement not only on the ends—about which we are fairly well agreed at the moment—but on the means of achieving them. It could, but the signs are not encouraging. The attitude of the United States is crucial, and President Bush seems to have turned his back on the evidence and decided that the problems do not exist. It seems, therefore, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said, that in order to obtain his signature to the convention, targets for emissions of pollutant gases have been watered down to a point where the agreement will be virtually useless. I say that today because I hope that by next week the Minister will have worked out a more encouraging answer to the debate which we will then have.
I believe that Britain has a vital role to play at the summit. Our influence could be useful in persuading the United States to adopt a positive role, and our links with the Commonwealth give us a voice in many of the developing countries. I hope that the Government will use their best endeavours to make progress on global warming and on conservation of the world's natural resources to achieve sustainable development.
However, if our voice is to be heard abroad it is appropriate to look at the record of environmental considerations in our own country. I agree with other

169
speakers that the gracious Speech was sadly lacking in promises of measures to address our considerable problems.
In our overcrowded island we are unable to cope with our own waste products, as the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, mentioned, yet we continue to import wastes of all kinds, using up our limited capacity and increasing the possibility of damage to our citizens and to our environment. The Department of the Environment's own figures for 1991 show that in that year the United Kingdom imported nearly 10,000 tonnes more toxic waste than it did in the preceding year. That included 4,000 tonnes of PCBs. I am aware of the argument that is better to have toxic waste dealt with here because we have the expertise to do it safely. That argument makes sense in the case of PCBs, because the supply is finite, and, it is hoped that all will have been destroyed before the end of the century. But the same argument should not be used for other toxic wastes. So long as producing countries have a ready path to disposal outside their own boundaries, there is little incentive for them to develop their own disposal sites or to reduce the amounts available for disposal.
We need measures to deal with methane from our domestic tips. The noble Earl, Lord Bradford, spoke about using up our available space for domestic waste, but a byproduct of that use is methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas which is even more deadly than carbon dioxide which we have been attacking with such rigour. Our present practice on waste tips is to burn it off or to vent it into the atmosphere, where it rises as quickly as possible to do all the damage that it needs to do.
We rely upon our coasts for a myriad of uses—commercial and recreational—yet we allow chaos and confusion to reign in many areas because of our refusal to implement a coherent system of coastal management planning. We have discussed the subject so often in the House that it must be becoming boring, but it is a subject that will not go away.
We are responsible for a number of estuaries which are internationally important bird sites, but we continue to allow damaging developments, often against the advice of the statutory advisory bodies and in defiance of EC directives. The RSPB has identified a total of 57 estuaries facing threats of permanent damage, compared with 43 in 1988. I have a long list of the sites and of the threats that they face, and I can supply it to anyone who needs it.
Despite constant pleas from the Marine Conservation Society, the RSPB, English Nature and others, the Government seem unable or unwilling to tackle the vital matter of coastal zone planning. I am aware of the proposal for marine consultation areas, but that promises to be a lengthy, toothless, inadequate substitute for firm planning and control. And what about marine nature reserves? In 1981, during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, seven sites were identified as suitable for marine nature reserves. Since then—11 years ago—we have had one English site at Lundy and one Welsh site at Skomer. So far there is no site in Scotland. I take the
170
opportunity to ask the Minister whether the Government have abandoned the pursuit of MNRs? There is no mention of them in any recent document.
We are one year on from the fragmentation of our nature conservation bodies, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh reminded us, and we have yet to see their annual report. I shall suspend judgment until those annual reports are available. But, as my noble friend said, it is not encouraging to read of vast payments being made to landowners to prevent them closing footpaths or to divert their threats of damage to SSSIs. There was a report in a newspaper at the weekend of a payment of £1.5 million to a landowner to allow one mile of public footpath through his land. That is about the price of a single carriageway road; it used to be the price of a motorway. It is incredible that our nature conservation advisory bodies should have to pay that kind of money for such a small return. It makes a nonsense of all our efforts.
It was encouraging to read in the Conservative manifesto that the Conservative Party had adopted the Labour Party's policy for a single environmental agency, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said, there was no mention of it in the gracious Speech. Are we to believe press reports that the idea was not acceptable to the Minister for Agriculture? Or is it that, as usual, environmental matters fall far behind the pursuit of further privatisation, of yet more attacks on workers' organisations, and the Government's determination further to reduce local democracy?
Too many questions about the Government's real attitude to environmental matters remain unanswered. We shall ensure that during the coming Session Ministers will be given every opportunity to put the record straight.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I hasten to join the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in welcoming the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, to whom we listened with great interest. I agree entirely with what he says about waste disposal. It is something about which I have been banging on for years. We are probably beginning to make progress. I remember asking a Question about the disposal of mineral water bottles. The Minister said that there was no problem; that they could be disposed of without difficulty; and that the components for making glass were regularly available. Now we have bottle banks. People have become aware of the problem. The noble Earl will find that what he suggests will come to fruition in due course and that waste will be recycled rather than disposed of in landfill sites, which are often detrimental to the environment, and dumps. The disposal of litter is also far from satisfactory.
If it is not too presumptuous, I should like to make the point that it is perhaps only once in four and a half years —I do not presume to make any predictions —that Her Majesty's Government can address a problem which is known to exist but which is amenable only to an unpopular solution. I refer to the problem of transport and road traffic congestion.

171
Over many decades, successive governments—I am not talking just about the past 13 years, it goes far beyond that—seem to have hoped that the problem of road traffic congestion would go away, or, if it would not go away, it would be contained with millions of pounds being poured into new motorways, bypasses, through passes, over passes and vehicle parks, but experience has shown that that has not been the case.
Far from going away, the problem has not been contained and shows no sign of being containable. After a general election is an appropriate time for Her Majesty's Government to take a bold approach to the increasing problem of road traffic and all its implications for the environment. Before anything else is done, public transport must be enhanced. It must be made more attractive in terms of economy. It must not price itself out of the market. I honestly cannot see how public transport can be developed into the 21st century without the application of public funds. The market economy has much to be said for it but I do not see how private capital can be attracted to improve the track beds of the railways or the stations to bring the railways up to the standard that is required.
I am not up-to-date with the situation with regard to the high speed link between London and Dover. One gathers from the press that that has been the subject of a certain degree of vacillation on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I can only say that recently when I travelled to Dover and back the 80 mile journey took two hours. I believe that had I been travelling at a different time of the day, I would have been able to catch a train that completed those 80 miles in one hour and 40 minutes. However, even Brunel in the middle of the 19th century would not have considered that to be a particularly brilliant working time. If we are going to make public transport attractive, we must surely do better than that, particularly in view of the implications of the Channel Tunnel. I cannot see that being done without some application of public funds.
Furthermore, public transport must be made reliable and convenient. I am sure I am not alone among your Lordships in having had to stand at a bus stop in London for 20 minutes waiting for a certain bus to arrive, only to find that three buses arrive, nose to tail, bearing the same number. I do not quite know how they manage that. Convenience and reliability in public transport are necessary. Those factors are also necessary for the Underground. The Underground provides an excellent service provided that one is not carrying luggage. The Underground is one of the best forms of transport, but the limiting factor is the length of the platforms which were not designed for the size of trains that are now required. I was glad to read the other day that the signalling system on the Central Line has been renewed to enable trains to run at greater frequencies. That should certainly help the position, but more and more incentives should be given to the public to use the Underground as well as the bus services.
In my experience the InterCity service on British Rail is a good one. However, other rail services need
172
to be improved such as the service between London and Dover which I have already mentioned. If public transport could be enhanced to make it an attractive alternative, I would venture to make a controversial proposal. I propose that road fund tax on motor vehicles should be abolished and that the equivalent revenue should be raised by placing additional duty on motor fuels. I am not suggesting that the motorist or vehicle owner should be penalised by this measure. I am suggesting that an incentive should be provided for the car owner to use public transport when it is available and when it is reasonably convenient and appropriate for his requirements. I suggest my proposal would also encourage vehicle manufacturers to continue developing engines which are more fuel efficient. Much progress has been made in that matter in recent years, but more progress could still be made. Such a measure would encourage drivers to drive in a more economical way. I am the first to admit that I am at fault in this matter. My car has a close ratio gearbox and I am tempted to change down into second gear to take a bend which I could take quite well in top gear. However, I would add in mitigation that I use a 50 cc moped for my local journeys. That moped is extremely fuel efficient.
I am suggesting that those who use most petrol or diesel are those who contribute most to traffic congestion. Therefore they should be taxed proportionately. Those who drive vehicles which consume the most fuel should be taxed proportionately. I realise that such a suggestion will provoke an outcry from those whose profession involves them incurring high mileages on the road; for example, commercial travellers. Her Majesty's Government might consider introducing the equivalent of what was known as red petrol in the war. They could introduce a cheaper rate of fuel for those who can prove that they have to incur high mileages in their vehicles and cannot use public transport. I do not know whether that measure could be implemented. Research is needed into that matter and I am not competent to make a definite pronouncement.
A further objection might come from the motor industry which might claim that the upmarket cars which consume more petrol are already under pressure and could suffer a further disadvantage if my proposal were adopted. However, I believe it is up to the motor manufacturers to make high performance and luxury cars more fuel efficient, if those cars are still required. Nevertheless, anyone who wished to drive a luxury or high performance car would still have the opportunity of so doing, but he would have to pay for that. I believe that is a fair proposal and that is what the market economy is all about.
To sum up, I would suggest that Her Majesty's Government now take firm steps to tackle the problem of road traffic congestion by enhancing public transport to make it more attractive. Her Majesty's Government should also tackle road traffic congestion by taxing proportionately those who use most petrol and who take up most time and space on the roads.
4.48 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, I am deeply grateful and indeed honoured to have been given the opportunity of making my maiden speech in today's debate. I wish to turn your Lordships' attention to the rural economy. Over 80 per cent. of the land mass of this country is rural, and about one-fifth of the population live and work in the countryside. The rural landscape which we know and love has largely been created by man and has been adapted for his use down the ages. Unless we maintain a vibrant rural economy, the landscape will deteriorate quickly and will be lost to future generations.
Environmentalists and others who oppose change must understand that their own interests will be damaged unless evolution is allowed to continue to meet the changes and challenges of this decade and beyond into the next millennium. Farming is providing a viable living for fewer and fewer people. It is projected that some 30,000 jobs will be lost over the next three years. Work must be found for those who in the past worked on the land or whose livelihoods depend upon it.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said at the Oxford Farming Conference in January:
"We do not want to see a population exchange with the less well off in rural areas being driven into the cities in the absence of affordable jobs in the countryside".
During the past decade much has been achieved. The Action for the Countryside programme announced jointly by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture in February this year with the aim of stimulating the rural economy while preserving the increasingly threatened landscape and wildlife is welcome. However, the £20 million set aside for the programme over the three years it is to run looks a little anaemic when compared with the £3,000 million spent on the Action for Cities programme in the year 1988–89 alone.
The conversion of redundant farm and industrial buildings, often listed, can provide workspace for small businesses and reduces the need for new buildings on green field sites. Buildings, sensitively converted, can help to keep the countryside alive by building on the past in creating the future.
The demand for the products of craft industries and the returns they generate is strictly limited. The increasing use of telecommunications, and in the not too distant future telematics (which combines the use of computers with telecommunications), will make it possible for many businesses which are environmentally friendly to operate away from the conurbations, thus reducing the demand on the transport system, and more importantly, creating jobs in villages. Those new businesses complement and help to make a financial contribution to the business rate as well as to the established enterprises in villages such as the shop, sub-post office, public house, and garage.
Often planning applications in connection with such ventures are strenuously opposed by environmentalists and the ubiquitous NIMBY. For those noble Lords unfamiliar with this species of man, he spends his life saying, "Not in my back yard". District
174
council planning committees often spent much time debating the shape and size of a window but ignoring the economic need for development. The advice issued in Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 earlier this year emphasises the range of industries which can be located in rural areas without causing undue disturbance and the benefits which arise to the local economy and employment. I hope that district councils will pay due attention to the guidance in formulating their district plans and determining planning applications.
Objectors to planning applications frequently cite noise, smell, traffic and reduction of property values as reasons why developments should not be permitted, often ignoring the site's previous use for farming or industry, which can be as noisy or noisier and, certainly in the case of livestock farming, much more smelly. Ignorance and emotion often take over where discussion and reason could win the day.
So often the idyllic view of the countryside is allowed to sway discussion. The hard fact is that unless the rural economy can be kept alive and well the landscape will wither and die. I hope that during this Parliament the Government will increase their support for the rural economy.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, we have just heard a speech which, it is evident to anyone who knows Penshurst Place, reflects the authentic voice of rural England. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Viscount on his speech, which was well thought out, well constructed and provided an excellent view of the problems facing rural areas. I am sure that the whole House will want me to extend congratulations to the noble Viscount, which I do with pleasure.
When the Minister opened the debate, he referred to the question of freedom of choice, which is almost the flagship of the Government. The thought struck me that there has not been much freedom of choice for the millions of people who are affected by unemployment, which the Government, when they started their long journey 13 years ago, stated on a placard that they would cure. The Minister also said something about participation in environmental decisions. I shall refer today to three matters which demonstrate that the people of this country do not enjoy much participation in environmental decisions which affect their lives. I shall go further and say that people in London do not have much influence on decisions which affect their lives. I am talking about freedom of choice. I wonder how much freedom those people who have had their houses repossessed have as a result of the encouragement of private enterprise. I wonder how much freedom of choice people who have been the victims of private enterprise in the financial world of late believe that they have. That is the path we travel when we begin to free the financial and economic resources of individuals in this country.
The three subjects I wish to cover all concern London. One is the question of the Waterloo terminal for the Channel Tunnel. It was decided to build a Channel Tunnel. Some people thought that the issue was of such a magnitude that there should be a public

175
inquiry to assess the effect of that tunnel on the rest of our environment. We even thought it important to consider the consequences of traffic arriving at one terminal in London. Some people suggested to the Government that one terminal would not be enough and that the disturbance of the environment in London might be unacceptable to the people of London. But, no; the Government had made up their mind. Those on high said that there was to be a Channel Tunnel and there would be no public inquiry because that would take too long, and they went ahead.
Those who were concerned about the consequences of that decision for the one place which was mentioned when the Channel Tunnel terminal was first discussed —Waterloo—were assured that that one terminal would be contained within the existing infrastructure of British Rail, and that there would be no undue effect upon the people living in that area. What is the result? Because of the operations of British Rail and London Underground that terminal will extend outside the existing infrastructure of the railway station and the people of the area are being affected. The situation will get worse if the Jubilee line extension is finally built, and there is some doubt about that.
That brings me to my second subject which is, of course, the Jubilee Line extension. The Jubilee Line extension has been proposed not because it is the number one priority of London Underground. It is not. That is what I have been told. The extension has been proposed because it is vitally necessary for Docklands and Canary Wharf. That is the reason for the extension of the Jubilee Line.
When the Government made their report to a committee of another place at the beginning of the passage of the Bill—and the same thing happened when the Bill reached a committee of this House—they said that one of the reasons for going ahead with the Jubilee Line extension was the financial contributions pledged by developers who would benefit from the line. There were two: one was the gas authority and the other was Olympia & York, the company which is developing Canary Wharf. What has happened to them?
Being a member of the committee I was curious. I asked what the agreement was about. What was contained in the agreement? Did it bind its successors to the present company if that company were to go bankrupt? What kind of time limit was imposed on the agreement? There were no answers to my questions. Therefore I wrote to the Minister and I received an answer. First of all, I had an answer from London Underground which in effect said that regretfully it was not in a position to provide me "with a copy of the agreement". If the English language means anything, that meant that somewhere there was an agreement and a copy of it could not be provided.
In the committee proceedings I asked the project manager—a man who one would think would know all about the matter—whether he knew of the agreement in regard to Canary Wharf and London Underground. I received the reply that yes there was
176
an agreement and a time factor about the construction of the line was involved; but without having the agreement in front of him, he was not prepared to say what that contract was. That again emphasised that an agreement was there. It must have been. So, was there indeed an agreement? Of course there was.
When the Bill went through the Commons, the Member of Parliament for the area was given information which led her to drop any opposition. It was wrong information. She was told that the matter could be dealt with in Committee. I have mentioned that before to a Chamber which was practically empty except for the "payroll" of the Government who wanted to ensure the passage of the Bill. Again, it was said that we could not discuss the matter. Again, it was wrong information. That is what happens when someone high in authority takes a decision to press ahead with a scheme and ignore completely an examination of the consequences of that scheme. Evidently political standing is affected if such a scheme does not go forward.
The Minister speaks about public participation in environmental decisions. Did the public participate in the decision to demolish No. 2 Marsham Street? It will do so. I do not know, but I am prepared to believe that even the Cabinet did not know that Marsham Street was to be demolished. Mr. Heseltine knew because he took the decision. Last night on television the "Money Programme" showed viewers the reason. According to that programme it seems—unless I misunderstood—that Mr. Heseltine will demolish Marsham Street and move the staff. Guess where they will go? Yes, Ministers on the opposite Bench have already guessed it: they will go to Canary Wharf.
That underlines a very important principle with regard to planning. If the staff go to Canary Wharf, there will be no physical contact between the offices and Parliament. All contact will be telephonic. If those people go to Canary Wharf, they could just as well go to the north of Scotland. The Minister says, "Hear, hear". He is reflecting another point of view. It shows their contempt for our Civil Service. That is why he says that.
Yet that could be a very useful way to assist regional programmes. I wonder whether that is the reason why, in the Queen's Speech, there is not a single mention of regional policy. That is amazing. Perhaps the Government did not wish to stir up a hornets' nest. Perhaps they thought that someone would feel that too much resource was going into London. If Marsham Street is to be demolished, will we carry on as we did over Scotland Yard when quite evidently someone made an error which cost millions of pounds to put right? No one ever sued.
What is one to say about Vauxhall Cross? That is a building which, as I have said before in this House, was erected by a speculative developer who had difficulty getting rid of it. Then, by coincidence, it was suddenly clear that MI6 had to be in London. So now the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are responsible for Vauxhall Cross. I asked a question about that matter and was told that its cost was £150 million, which was paid. I do not believe it. I think that that was the sum paid to the speculative developer.

177
Because as I pass Vauxhall Cross I see another contractor and that contractor has a management contract. What is he managing? I believe that he is managing to adapt a new building—a building that we bought—to the whims and fancies of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Should I be right, if ever there was a waste of money, that is it.
It is about time that the committees in the other place which examine how such decisions are made and can summon in front of them and question civil servants and other people, such as the Maxwell brothers, look nearer home. I think that we are being ripped off. We are being ripped off in order to assist Canary Wharf. I am told that it is the tallest building in Europe and a wonderful thing to see with its searchlights distracting the traffic. I am told that it is a marvellous place and it may be.
I come to my last point. When Canary Wharf was proposed, I opposed it in this Chamber. I said that the building of Canary Wharf was an irresponsible decision that should not be taken unless the consequences of the building upon the rest of London were examined. I do not know why, coming from where I do, I should have defended the situation of London; but that is what I did. At the time I said that it was the height of irresponsibility for anybody with any knowledge of the financial and business world to think that the activities of the financial and business world and its personnel will increase by one third. That is what we were told by the person who proposed the Bill; namely, that the development at Canary Wharf was one third the size of the whole of London's commercial structure.
How on earth could any sane Government give permission for that development to be built without at least looking into the consequences of building it? Now the chickens have come home to roost. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is not present. At 10.30 p.m. one night in this House I suggested that I did not believe that the agreement would be honoured or that Canary Wharf would pay. I, and it seems many other people except the Government, had read press reports which indicated that the developers were almost bankrupt. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, rose in his majesty to say that I must withdraw that remark. But does anyone today believe that the financial situation in regard to Olympia & York is healthy? It is not and there is a great danger there. I have put down Question after Question in this House. I receive only evasive replies. But I tell the Minister that I shall keep putting down Questions—and no doubt keep getting evasive replies.
When I asked upon whose report the Government had decided to demolish Marsham Street—this is my last point—I was told that it was produced by Arup Associates. That is the company which has something to do with the Channel Tunnel. That is the big company which knows all about the matter.
The Government appoint some associates to produce a report. However, if a Member of another place, a Privy Counsellor or I assume Members of the Cabinet, wish to know what the report states, they are told that it is commercially sensitive. I have never heard such evasion in my life. It would be a farce if it
178
were not so tragic. This Government will demolish a building that is practically brand new. If they do so and this Parliament—I do not refer only to this Chamber—does not demand a public inquiry as to how that decision was taken, why it was taken and what it will cost the Government, that will be a dereliction of duty. We should demand information. The other place should have a committee on the issue. We should look into the matter and try to unravel the mysterious goings on between this Government and Olympia & York.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend Lord De L'sle on an excellent maiden speech, made even better because I support every word that he said. I welcome a colleague who states the issue so effectively.
The gracious Speech referred to the fact that this Government wish to work to reform the CAP. Reform of the CAP will mean that the prices of agricultural products will be brought closer to world prices. As a farmer—I declare that interest—it is a situation that I greatly welcome: that slowly the agricultural system should be less supported by the CAP which has done more harm than good. We should work towards world prices for our products. That is also the view of agricultural farmers in this country and of the National Farmers' Union.
What concerns me is the future of the countryside. Will it survive as a distinct economic, social and cultural entity, or will the special qualities of rural society be lost irrevocably as the urban majority rushes headlong towards a misty dream of Arcadia?
Will agriculture be permitted to renew itself by means of technological and scientific advance or will its practitioners be reduced to the status of mere guardians of the landscape while the factory replaces the farm as the main source of nutrition?
Will the countryside represent anything other than an historical theme park, an open air leisure centre, a tourist attraction, and a diorama of a way of life that has no place in the modern world? Alternatively and worse, is it possible that in a manic and misguided desire to "save" what we think is the countryside we are actually in the process of constructing an Orwellian nightmare of overdeveloped, overcrowded, urban standardisation surrounded by a neglected and barely populated wilderness? There remains only about a decade to establish a new balance between town and country if the health and most precious features of both are to be preserved.
The picture that we have inherited from the romantic ruralist movement of the late 19th century —that of a peaceful and plentiful countryside peopled by jolly farmers and contented peasants—has served to obscure the sad truth of falling farm prices, collapsing land values, low wages, unemployment, extensive depopulation and dereliction, grim living conditions and widespread starvation that accompanied the adjustment of rural areas to the march of the industrial revolution 100 and 200 years ago.
In 1947 nearly 5,000 square miles of England and Wales, almost all privately owned, were arbitrarily

179
brought under official protection and control as national parks. It was the beginning of a bureaucracy that would swell alarmingly during the next 40 years. The parks were followed by 4.5 million acres of green belt, 7,500 square miles of areas of outstanding natural beauty, half a million acres of forest parks, 5,500 sites of special scientific interest, and nearly 3,000 nature reserves of various kinds. By 1990, for example, 30 per cent. of the northern counties of England and 98 per cent. of the land area of Scotland were officially "protected". What was not protected was the rural economy; and nor were many of the people and their families who depended upon the land for their living and their future. That was apart from the enormous economic benefit that those people brought to the country as a whole.
The best forecast—my noble friend referred to it —is that by the year 2000 a further 100,000 farmers and 55,000 farm workers will leave the industry with 10 million acres of land going out of production. What a wonderful opportunity there will be to redevelop our rural economy, to offer great opportunities—opportunities that existed in the past and that could do again —not only for those who live within a rural economy but also to enable those in urban areas to live in a much better environment.
The land has always been a symbol of power and identity. For that reason some pressure groups in Britain seek in effect to nationalise the land by demanding free and open access to it regardless of ownership. Again the views of the landowners are mostly ignored. With regard to the national parks the Countryside Commission has demanded almost a blanket ban on any change. Some authorities are even seeking powers to close areas to the public for whom the parks were opened in the first place. It was the farmers, landowners and developers who turned the British countryside into the precious possession it now is. But those are the very people who stand to lose control of it under the new, urban-inspired rural ethic. The rural economy is not only being allowed to run down; it is being encouraged to do so, and to be replaced by increasing amounts of taxpayers' money which do not go into communities, or to people, and do not promote an efficient rural economy to benefit all, but promote the landscape and wildlife. Such moneys do not create what we believe that we wish to see; they create some new concept that has no reality.
In 1990—the year that I entered the House—the House of Lords' committee then considering the future of the rural society was,
"struck by the absence of any consensus about what overall objectives should be … rural policies are confused and hard questions rarely asked".
To what extent should economic and social change be encouraged in the countryside? Should self-sufficient rural communities be developed, and at what cost? What is the cause for concern if villages become dormitories for the commuters or enclaves for retired people from the towns? Should there be a relaxation of planning controls to enable new housing and industrial premises to be built? Should farmers be
180
encouraged by economic incentives to adopt new farming methods rather than be constrained by regulation?
Is it not time to consider again the green belt policy which puts such enormous restrictions on towns which are now being forced to redevelop areas? Such development spoils much of the historic charm and character of the very towns that the policy is supposed to assist. There is an interesting article in today's Daily Telegraph regarding Carmarthen. The centre of that town is being destroyed by a new development which has pushed out the people who lived there. The new development could not be built on the outside of the town. It could not produce new jobs and new investment, and still retain the character of that lovely old town.
The protection of our rural environment rests on the health of our rural economy. The rural economy involves more than agriculture. My noble friend Lord De L'Isle referred specifically to the need to encourage such new investment opportunities in our rural areas. That is the key that those who wish to protect the rural investment need. The worst possibility is to allow the land to stultify and stagnate, without any thought for the people who need to manage it and to create wealth from it. For that reason we now have in this House a rural economy group. It is dedicated to put those points of view to your Lordships and to the Government. We must create not a one-sided picture but a balanced picture which will provide the right mix of environmental benefits and economic growth. That will maintain a lively and economic rural economy as changes in agriculture are brought about.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friends Lord Bradford and Lord De L'Isle on their excellent maiden speeches. I hope and I am sure that we shall hear them speak again many times in the future.
During the past few years anxiety for the environment in which we live has grown with lightning speed. Even brief mention of the subject brings out expressions of deep emotion from most people. And so it should, for if this generation fails to address the key issues of caring for all aspects of the environment, the consequences for future generations may well be catastrophic.
However, as we are all aware, the environment is a wide-ranging and complex issue and there are few easy answers to be had. It would be wrong of me to claim any expert knowledge of the matter in any particular area or to suggest answers to some of the environmental problems which are currently facing commerce and industry in this country. However, I should like to take this opportunity during our debate on Her Majesty's gracious Speech to flag up a small but extremely important number of issues.
The issues I am concerned with are threefold. They are opencast or strip mining; the thorny issue of contaminated land, which is one of the most potentially damaging matters to affect commerce and industry for many decades; and, finally, the place in the environmental world being carved out in the

181
pursuit of excellence through continuing British standards such as BS 5750 and others concerning total quality management practices and targets.
Perhaps I may take the open-cast coal industry first; and at this point I must declare an interest. It is a most successful section of the United Kingdom coal industry but it suffers from the public's general perception of filthy sites full of dust, mud and constant noise. However, I must stress that that is not quite the case in the modern day. By its very nature of course the winning of near-surface coal by open-cast methods is bound to cause environmental problems. But those difficulties are in the main relatively short-lived as most open-cast sites have a three to five year life. Indeed, the operators of those sites do have an environmental conscience and continually try to lessen the impact of nuisance and discomfort on the areas and populace surrounding those sites.
At the end of the life of an open-cast site great care is taken to return the area to its original state and in many cases to a much higher standard. For instance, in Telford, where the industrial revolution had its beginnings, the Clay Colliery Company is drawing to the close of extraction at one site; and I understand that plans are under consideration to refurbish the site to create a golf facility. Next door to that particular operation a recently completed extraction area has been returned to productive green fields and it looks terrific. In the future, there will be opportunities for housing, for light industrial uses and for agriculture and leisure. It would be greatly worthwhile if the contractors and landowners could be persuaded to replace hedges which in themselves will assist in the re-establishment of wildlife habitat on those sites.
Gone are the days when such sites could and often would be left at the end of production simply to remain as eyesores covered with scrub bushes and weeds. The care for the environment must be practised but the provision of fuel is also a necessity. The cost of producing that fuel must be kept as low as possible. The financial cost of the greening process is huge. Therefore we must have a balance taking into account the needs of commerce and industry, the public at large and the future.
Dwelling for a moment on rural matters, perhaps I may ask how often have we experienced the ridiculous situation of some heavy-handed, open-toe sandalled person visiting us, not telling us but ordering us to put into effect his or her own views as to what the countryside should look like? That is the wrong approach. One achieves nothing by that method. However, great and significant achievements can be won by mutual agreement through an exchange of views, perhaps with the landowner's greater knowledge of the area, and by gentle persuasion. I should find it difficult to log the number of times in recent years that my farmer friends have said to me that they had had a local council visitor who had not only ordered them to carry out a particular task to reinstate, say, a footpath but had then threatened prosecution when with slight and insignificant deviation in the route, such a footpath could have been perpetuated with much less effect to the farming business. Such intransigence is not only unacceptable,
182
it is often totally unnecessary. Councils must be more flexible and tolerant in these matters to the benefit of not only the landowner but also those who wish to exercise their rights of access to the countryside, and all concerned should endeavour to act in a responsible manner.
There is seldom the need for confrontation and with discussion on a sensible basis there should be no need for such unpleasantries. I hope that that will happen in the future but I am doubtful. Together with many colleagues, I must keep a keen eye on the matter.
I turn now to the huge problem of contaminated land. The problem is I believe far larger and far more complex than the Government originally estimated. Furthermore, I am not certain by any means that it is fully appreciated that the very mention of the compilation of a register of contaminated land within the United Kingdom has already sent very serious shockwaves throughout both the property and banking sectors. It has occurred at a time when potential tenants, purchasers and developers are extremely difficult to attract. The damage which has been sustained by the property sector in particular to date is in many cases irrepairable. I say that because I am aware that some companies are already in difficult financial circumstances. Having their assets in areas of previous industrial use, they have tried to sell sites in what has been for quite a while now a market of falling land values. It must be said that the banks have added to the pressure as their margins are without doubt also under pressure like many other businesses.
If one includes in that nasty little equation the fact that the land in these areas almost certainly will be placed on the register one has reached a doomsday situation for the company where the land is rendered unsaleable, the banks will not lend on its value because in their eyes it has none, and the owners will not only have to cover the cost of an environmental assessment but will also have to clean the site to make it a saleable asset at vast expense which could reach well over £1 million per acre in clean-up costs. That is well in excess of what could possibly be hoped for even for the cleanest of land at present and probably for the foreseeable future. Indeed, comment from an environmental expert in the Midland's paper Business Report recently estimated that the potential cost of cleaning the UK's contaminated land bank could well be in the region of £30 billion. Where will the money come from?
As an example, I know at first hand that the sale, reported in the Press, by the troubled quoted-property company, Mountleigh, of the highly successful Merry Hill Shopping Centre in Brierley Hill in the West Midlands—originally the brainchild of a local development firm which knew the history of the site, the principals of that company having been born in a house overlooking the steelworks—has recently been placed in jeopardy because of the fact that it was built on the site of a former steelworks. Although the original developers made every effort to remove any contamination on the site prior to construction, the

183
very fact that it was a steelworks has potentially blighted it and indeed any sale of the complex in years to come.
At a recent conference in Birmingham instigated by the Black Country Development Corporation, at which my noble friend Lady Blatch spoke (and I chaired the second day) those matters were discussed in detail. Many experts presented papers. During question time I was greatly worried by the fact that many developers even from the house building industry—one particular speaker representing Beazer PLC which builds a large number of homes in the West Midlands—expressed complete horror regarding the serious difficulties that it was experiencing (and indeed would encounter in the future) due to the contaminated land register and the consequences thereof.
It is estimated that in the West Midlands alone more than 22,000 acres of land are contaminated by previous industrial use. Those are in fact the areas which are crying out for urban renewal, into which the Government are pouring money and where they are trying to create enthusiasm, jobs, homes and new industrial and commercial opportunities. Yet here we have a situation where the caveats could be such that no private-sector developer would wish to be involved in the decisions. It could simply not be worth the risk —and the risks in normal developments are great.
We all know and realise that the environment must be cared for. We must leave as good as possible an inheritance to those who follow. We must clean up and try to redress the terrible mistakes that have been made in the past. In pursuit of that goal, I urge the Government to consider very carefully the balance between progress and protection in environmental terms before reaching decisions which have lasting effect. We live in an ever-bubbling cauldron of environmental issues, but a balance must be struck. The new Government have a golden opportunity to achieve great success in this area given the will and enthusiasm, and indeed some foresight.
Finally, I shall speak for a few moments on the exceptional new standards progressed by the British Standards Institution with regard to world environmental issues. In response to requests from industry to bring quality management tools and techniques to bear on environmental issues, the British Standards Institution has published a new standard which provides a management tool for any organisation to put in place practices and procedures to assess and manage the environmental effects of their activities. That must be good for the environment. This initiative was strongly supported by the DTI and DoE, building on the success of BSI in the field of quality systems; namely, BS 5750 which has now become an international standard, ISO 9000.
This new standard BS 7750 is a specification for environmental management systems. It will enable a company in any area of industry or commerce to assure itself and outside parties that the internal management system is designed to meet the legislative challenges it faces and to go far beyond compliance to continual improvement. The standard has already met
184
with high praise from UK industry and an active pilot programme is under way, involving over 100 companies.
In addition, the European and international standards bodies of the world have commenced work on the development of a common standard along these lines with the UK, through BSI, providing leadership in the debate. Indeed, BSI has been asked to tell its success story at Rio in June, such is the international impact of the work it has carried out.
This standard is designed to be compatible with the proposed EC eco-audit regulation, which the Government strongly support and which we hope will provide further incentives to industry to tackle the immense challenges which industry, the general public and the country face. All this progress has come about within 12 months from the commencement of the BSI initiative; a remarkable response that demonstrates the commitment to providing the tools for industry present at the BSI.
I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the British Standards Institution on that achievement and on the excellent work which it continues to carry out. However, that underlines the fact that we do not need to be lectured by our EC partners on environmental matters.
In conclusion, the environmental issue is certainly here to stay. It is up to us to make absolutely sure that to the very best of our ability we lay the foundations of sensible and workable environmental practices for the benefit of future generations, while striking a balance between our environmental needs and the needs and capabilities of industry and commerce.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am tempted to follow my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury down the environmental road because much of what he said was correct and well worth saying to the House. However, I shall resist that temptation just as I shall resist the temptation to follow my two noble friends who made their maiden speeches, my noble friends Lord Bradford and Lord De L'Isle, both of whom touched upon subjects of considerable importance.
It may not surprise your Lordships to know that I intend to spend my few minutes dealing with in particular local government in Scotland and perhaps also the wider aspect of Scotland's position within the United Kingdom.
I understand that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is taking stock of the Scottish position. I hope that he will do that carefully but will not take too long to do it. The rather successful outcome of the general election north of the Border will not last for ever unless the Government take steps to address some of the difficulties which the governing party faces in Scotland.
The most interesting thing that can be said about the general election is that my fellow Scots showed quite clearly that they wish to remain within the United Kingdom. Indeed, some 78 per cent. of them voted for parties which firmly believe in the continuation of the United Kingdom. Only a minority

185
voted for the party which made it abundantly clear that its policy was to break up the United Kingdom —and it was given every opportunity by the media to make clear its position. Indeed, your Lordships may be interested to know that the Scottish National Party claimed that, if it won 37 seats, it would be on the phone to the Prime Minister to negotiate the dissolution of the Union. Indeed, I suppose in those circumstances it would have some right to do so. The Scottish people's view was simply that that phone call should not be made and the Scottish National Party lost rather than gained seats. It emerged with three parliamentary seats. Therefore, from that point of view the message was loud and clear. The people of Scotland wish to remain quite firmly part of the United Kingdom.
Many of your Lordships will have read in the newspapers, seen on television or heard on the radio continuations of the argument that we had in March and April. That is partly because the chattering classes, as we call them—that covers the writing classes as well—are very keen on the whole idea of Scottish home rule and independence. In fact many of them yearn after some kind of socialist tartan paradise, quite oblivious to the fact that socialist paradises around the world have all been found to be slightly faulty and are declining like the proverbial snow off a May dyke.
We have a problem in Scotland. It may be that your Lordships and the people of the United Kingdom believe that people in Scotland are seething. Indeed, on the Monday after I had read in the Sunday papers that they were all seething I stood on the railway platform looking at my fellow Scots. I must say that I did not see a single "seethe" among them. They were all busy reading the sports pages of the newspapers, as is normal on a Monday morning. Yesterday morning or this morning they would be reading about the success of Rangers football club in the same newspapers.
On a serious point, there is a view in Scotland—a minority view in my opinion and the electorate has shown it to be a minority view—that we should change the constitutional arrangements for the United Kingdom. Some hold to it in a rather vigorous manner. One of the leading members of the chattering classes, a young lady called Muriel Gray, who writes a weekly column in Scotland on a Sunday, on the Sunday after the election indicated that in her view the British voters have as much intelligent political vision as Rod Hull's emu. She described the electors of Perthshire, where one or two of my noble friends live, as Barbour-jacketed morons, the sort of voter that can barely master instructions in their new Range Rover handbooks in order to make the heater work. She showed a total contempt for the Scottish electorate, which had just said quite clearly that it wished to remain part and parcel of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps a more interesting comment came from Mr. Jim Sillars, who was defeated at Glasgow, Govan, a by-election he won some two or three years ago from the Labour Party. He described his fellow Scots as 90-minute patriots. I believe he is absolutely right. I am not sure whether he thought he was being
186
insulting. I thought—as I occasionally think—that Jim Sillars had seen through the verbiage round about him. We are 90-minute patriots. We are great supporters of Scotland on the football and rugby fields and we are great supporters of the culture, heritage and history of Scotland. However, that does not mean that we are not equally great supporters of the United Kingdom. That is an important point which many people in the chattering classes and certainly in the Scottish National Party fail to understand. They believe that cheers for the Scottish football team are cheers for the dissolution of the Union. That is simply not the case.
Mr. Sillars went on to say that we did not have the bottle to grasp independence on 9th April. We had a lot of bottle. We had the bottle to resist what the chattering classes and the nationalists were telling us and to say that we still wished the Union to survive. That does not mean to say that nothing should be done about the government of Scotland. The Government must look very seriously at the situation north of the Border to try to devise patterns of government, whether local or national—I shall turn to local government in a few moments—which will accord with the wishes of the Scottish people; that is, to remain within the United Kingdom. For example, the Government could be much more sensitive than perhaps they have been over the past decade—
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord as he develops his argument on devolution. However, is he aware that on questioning the procedure of this House, those of us who wanted to discuss devolution for Scotland were advised that that was in the remit of tomorrow's debate? Therefore, if we refrain from commenting on his contribution today, perhaps the noble Lord will realise that we are following the guidance of the Clerks of the House and the usual channels that the subject is for tomorrow's debate.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I apologise if I am not obeying the ground rules. I intended to turn to the subject of local government because it is the important part of looking at the government of Scotland. As the noble Lord reprimanded me, I shall jump to that immediately.
The Government have made it quite clear that they wish to see local government in Scotland reformed. The two-tier system which has been in place in Scotland since 1974 has not in fact accorded well with the wishes of the people of Scotland. For example, the cities of Scotland have felt emasculated and the rural areas often felt that their interests were subjected to the urban interests of the nearby major towns with which they are joined in local government reform. Perhaps the ultimate oddity—I put it no higher than that—in local government terms is that Strathclyde Regional Council—named after my noble friend who is to reply—covers half the population of Scotland. I am not sure how one can define as "local" a local government which covers half the population of Scotland.
The two-tier system has not generally been felt to work properly. The three island authorities in

187
Scotland are all-purpose single-tier authorities and have worked extremely well. They are a major improvement on the local authority systems that went before. It is perhaps a little fashionable to knock the Western Isles because of BCCI. But I do not believe that that was the only local authority which found itself in that position. It is a little fashionable to knock Orkney because of the child abuse inquiry currently taking place. I do not believe that Orcadians should be blamed for that. Most of the players are incomers and any questions that need to be asked should be asked about social workers and the way in which we conduct public inquiries in Scotland.
My point is that, despite those two problems, the three all-purpose island authorities, which are small in population, have worked well. I believe that we should shift in that direction. I hope that the words in the gracious Speech,
"Other measures will be laid before you",
encompass some form of Scottish local government. I hope that we shall move towards single-tier local authorities, perhaps 22 or 26. Clearly the cities will encompass four of those authorities. When the Government are looking at the matter I hope that they will take with them the people already involved in local government and conduct wide consultations. I hope that they will listen to the public view and especially to the view of those people involved.
Population must be taken into account, but all too often in the past population has been the be-all and end-all of government reform. We should look also at the historic links, the economic links and the geography of the local authority units that we create. I should like to think that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will look carefully at the way he devises single-tier authorities in Scotland which will work with the grain of Scottish opinion.
I should like to mention another possibility, though I do not favour it; that is, to introduce more local authorities than the 22 to 26 I suggested, perhaps around 50. When one goes towards smaller authorities one runs up against the problem that they may not be able to carry out effectively and efficiently all the functions of the current upper and lower tiers of local government. One will therefore want an all-embracing Scottish tier, which is one of the suggestions put forward, with one all-Scottish local authority to look after some of the functions such as police, education, water and sewerage.
I am somewhat ambivalent about whether I am attracted to that idea. As I see it, one of the dangers would be that the devolutionists—the people who wish for a quasi-separate parliament inside the United Kingdom based in Edinburgh—may use that all-Scottish authority as a lever to prise open the door of setting up such a semi-independent parliament. If it were not for that fear I may be attracted to the idea. However, that fear is real and one cannot run away from it.
I am conscious of the fact that I have spoken for 12 minutes but it is an important subject. It not only concerns local government in one part of the United Kingdom. If the Government get it right, we can
188
perhaps look to solving one of the instabilities within the United Kingdom which worries people in Scotland from all three parties who believe in the continuing existence of the Kingdom. I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser was asked by the Government to look at the constitutional arrangements. I am a little puzzled therefore as to why Mr. Allan Stewart was asked to look at local government arrangements. I hope that that does not mean that the two will be looked at separately. As I hope I illustrated to your Lordships, I believe that the Government should look at the constitutional arrangements of Scotland and the local government arrangements as part and parcel of the same problem. If they do so in a sensitive and sympathetic way, the problem experienced in Scotland of people feeling that they are not properly a part of the United Kingdom will disappear.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I should like to thank the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for two things. The first is that by his contribution he has widened the sphere of the debate and I shall do the same. The second is that by raising the subject of single-tier local authorities he enables me to put the counter argument that we should not think in terms of local authorities as one institution but as part of the hierarchy of democracy that exists through parish, town, city, region, nation, European Community, internationally and the world. I hope that in succeeding weeks, months and years we can debate that aspect more fully.
I want to say a few words on the election result, international affairs, national affairs, local government and to touch on transport. It is a rather wide-ranging contribution and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me.
Before I begin I must report a brief impression of an international conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union which I attended some weeks ago. I wish to touch on two points of significance. The first is that the United States of America was the only significant country not in attendance at that conference. The second is the anxiety felt at the conference regarding the success of the Rio summit because of the attitude of the Americans, led by President Bush, who apparently are prepared to take no responsibility for saving our world environment, even though they are among the world's worst polluters. Britain's support for the Americans and their stance on the environment does this country no credit and only enhances our reputation as the dirty man of Europe.
I should like to say a few words about the election result. When I say that no one expected the Tories to win and that the reason they won was by spending more money than other parties and by being economical with the truth, I hope that I shall not be accused of being a poor loser. After all, all is fair in love and war and politics. But I should like to highlight the responsibility of the Tory Government and to identify some opportunities facing them.
The Tories promised during the 1979 election not to double VAT if they won. They did win and promptly

189
raised it from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. It has since been raised to 17.5 per cent. which is more than doubling the 8 per cent. at which it started. That demonstrates two things. First, that what they say in election campaigns does not constrain them in government. Also, that they are the party of increased taxation. We now pay more in taxation after 13 years of a Conservative government than we did in 1979.
The Government have a responsibility to govern the whole of the United Kingdom for the benefit of all people; that means the poor, the unemployed, ordinary workers, the sick, the disabled and the elderly as well as the better off members of our society. They have the opportunity to do the right things because of changed world circumstances. The latest knowledge that we have is of the risk of doing the wrong things and of acceptance by the British people that what was promised in the election does not necessarily have to be done by the Tory Government.
I now wish to turn to the gracious Speech. The Government say that they will maintain a substantial aid programme to reduce poverty in the developing countries. The aid programme under this Government over the past 13 years has been cut mercilessly over a period when the under-developed countries have been getting poorer and poorer. That does no good for the stability of the world or for the protection of the world environment because it is well known that poverty leads to some of the worst damage to our environment. The Government say that they will reduce the share of the national income taken by the public sector. As I have mentioned earlier, the Government currently take a higher proportion of the national income than was taken in 1979.
I make a plea that the Government do that in two ways. The first method is by reducing expenditure on arms and on the Armed Forces, and that is possible because of the change in world circumstances. The second method is by reducing unemployment. By that I do not mean cutting unemployment benefit to such an extent that people have to work for even lower poverty wages than they currently have to work for. I mean that there should be development, improvement and investment in our economy to such an extent that well paid jobs are created where people earn enough money to pay income tax and so increase Government revenue.
I spoke about increasing public expenditure. Here I shall talk a little about local government. Over the past 13 years one of the areas where the Government have reduced expenditure is in the subvention to local government. The results of that have been twofold: one is that local taxes have had to be raised. The rates increased; the poll tax came in which increased the burden on ordinary people at the same time as local authorities, year after year, have had to cut their expenditure. That has led to a decline in the standard of public services that I hope we all wish to see being improved and enhanced.
I shall speak about two particular areas where we need that improvement. The first is in education. I am a local councillor in Manchester. Last year we made a plea to the Government for a spending bid. It was a capital expenditure request for over £30 million worth
190
of capital expenditure to improve, modernise and repair our schools, some of which are in such an abysmal state that even this Government have recognised that the schools need rebuilding. Initially we were allowed to borrow—here I make the point that it is not money that the Government contribute, but permission they give us to borrow money for capital expenditure—just over £3 million out of a total requirement for our schools of over £30 million.
Subsequently, an all-party delegation from the city council of Manchester, including Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors who all recognised the desperate local need of our community, came to Westminster and succeeded in persuading the Government that we should be allowed to borrow more money to make capital improvements in the education sector in Manchester.
That does three things. First, it improves employment locally because of the expenditure incurred. Secondly, it improves the physical structure and surroundings of our children in which they can be educated. Thirdly, it demonstrates the importance of local government and of locally elected councillors. We have just had local elections. I wish to point out that in those local elections the Labour Party won the vast majority of the contested seats. What I am trying to get across to the Government is the need to respect local government and to listen to it because it speaks for local people.
The second area which I would like to touch on is the social services. In that area we support and help some of the most vulnerable members in our society. When I talk about education I am speaking about the future of that society. When I speak about social services I am talking about the here and now and the desperate plight of children who are in need of support. I speak also of disabled people and the elderly who need support. We are going through a process of change in the social services. We are trying to bring in care in the community. However, that is not a cheap option. Care in the community is about enabling local people to live in their own homes in the local community with support rather than being institutionalised. I hope that we shall all aspire to that situation. We would all wish to see that happening. We must ensure that the local authorities who are going to make it work have adequate funds to employ the carers, the home helps and the social workers to do that job.
There is one other area in which local government can help to regenerate our economy. I am speaking about house building. Currently the Government restrict the ability of local government to spend the receipts of the right-to-buy sales. If the Government were to relax those rules we as a nation could inject into the building industry a significant improvement to the economy and therefore start to reduce unemployment.
I was going to spend some time talking about transport which is a major subject. Unfortunately I have been speaking for over 12 minutes and there is one other subject which I would like to touch on. As regards transport, Manchester has a major international airport which is wholly owned by Manchester

191
City Council and the other nine metropolitan district councils in the Greater Manchester conurbation. That airport has been developed over many many years. It is a major national asset which is an engine for economic growth for the region as a whole and a source of dividend payments to relieve local taxation. I hope that the Government will not interfere with the good management and organisation of that part of our transport infrastructure.
Perhaps I may touch finally on the fight against terrorism. We have heard recently that MI5 has been given a leading role in that fight. That does not sit well with that section of the gracious Speech which speaks about the resolute enforcement of the law combined with progressive economic, social and political policies with reference to Northern Ireland.
The Los Angeles riots and the riots that occurred right across the United States as a result of what happened in Los Angeles have demonstrated the folly of creating an impoverished underclass in society. I hope that our new Government will learn the lessons and will take action to prevent such a situation occurring in the United Kingdom.
6 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, at the outset of my speech, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, and the noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, on making such excellent maiden speeches. We all look forward to their participation in other debates in this Chamber in the future.
I am sure the whole House welcomes the assurance in the gracious Speech that the environment will remain a key priority for the Government and that the Government are committed to international leadership in environmental protection. However, many noble Lords and others outside this House were astonished that there was no specific commitment to legislation on environmental matters, in particular on national parks, hedgerow protection and the proposed environment agency.
The Government promised last September to legislate to ensure that every national park authority will become an independent board. This would enable the parks authorities to carry out their tasks more effectively. The promise was seen as a positive response to a thorough and highly respected review of national parks which found evidence of "deteriorating environmental quality" and "permanent damage to the landscape". Effective authorities are vital not only for the protection and care of our finest countryside heritage but also for the well-being of the many people who live and work in our national parks.
I hope that my noble friend can assure the House —and, indeed, the 100 million visitors to the parks each year—that there will be legislation to grant independence to national park authorities soon. I fear that, without such legislation, national park authorities will be left in limbo, neither independent nor strong partners in local government. Worse still, delay could result in their future becoming embroiled in local government reorganisation.
192
The announcement last July by the Government to introduce a hedgerow notification scheme and so finally stem the destruction of Britain's hedgerows was welcomed by many. However, the absence of any mention of this legislation in the gracious Speech last October and again on 6th May has left such people despondent.
Recent figures from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology have shown that hedgerows continue to be lost at an alarming rate. Between 1984 and 1990, 24,180 miles of hedgerow were destroyed. This represents 10 per cent. of the total stock of English hedgerows. Unbelievably, net annual losses are now over 2,000 miles a year.
The sad outcome of that situation is that English hedgerows may now be in a worse position than they were only a year ago. My noble friend Lord Marlesford, who is sitting on my left, told me only this afternoon that an ancient hedge at Benhall in Suffolk, near his home, was grubbed out only a few weeks ago. It was noted for its diversity of wild life, as well as being a landscape feature.
In my view, it should be possible to get an instant listing of a threatened hedge in the way that it has been possible to do so for buildings—in fact ever since Michael Heseltine acted following the scandal of the Saturday demolition of the Firestone factory in London some 10 years ago. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can provide the House with the assurance that there will be legislation to protect the hedgerows soon, despite its absence from the gracious Speech.
It was also last July that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced his intention to establish an environment agency. While the principle has been broadly welcomed, there has been overwhelming opposition from environmental bodies to any suggestion that the functions of the National Rivers Authority should be split apart in the process, a point that was forcefully made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
Can my noble friend enlighten the House as to whether there will be legislation to create an agency soon and whether the Government still see this as a priority, or has no decision on its likely structure yet been made? I hope that the Government have not persuaded themselves that, with the White Paper and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the legislative task has now been achieved. Many non-governmental organisations and environmental bodies are concerned that the lack of legislative proposals may indicate a departure from the spending plans for 1992. Can the Minister confirm that the expenditure plans in the annual report of the Department of the Environment for 1992 are unchanged?
Finally, I hope that when my noble friend responds to this debate he will be able to provide the assurances I have sought. If we are to contribute effectively to the current debates on international environmental issues, we should be quite sure that we have addressed fully our own domestic agenda.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, we have today a multitude of topics and specialised axes to grind. I should like to concentrate on British Railways, on behalf of which I declare an interest. I should also like to explore one or two aviation issues.
I welcome the Government's wish to see greater private investment and involvement in the railways and look forward to seeing the paving Bill when it reaches this House. I hope that, in the meantime, the Government will not rush the promised White Paper. It is much better that we take our time and get the White Paper, and thus the subsequent legislation, right than that we make haste and get them both wrong.
There are a number of issues that I hope will be carefully explored. The first is the investment regime that will develop. All of us who follow railway matters are aware that BR will continue to need investment at the current rate for several more years—perhaps for a whole decade. That is a fact of life in the investment cycle of all railways. They have periods of deep investment, then periods of lesser investment, and progress then means that they must go further, especially if they are to fulfil their role in a modern transport system.
To give just a few examples, Network SouthEast still needs a great deal of capital to renew its fleet, which, even at the end of the present orders, which have been massive, will still have an average age of 18 years. The rolling stock of the regional railways has been almost completely modernised, but there needs to be considerable investment in track and signalling. InterCity has to finance the west coast mainline upgrading, an eventual high-speed train replacement; and the electrification of the main lines out of Paddington. Those are specific to the individual businesses of British Rail as it is currently established, but then there are projects of such magnitude that one can almost call them "national", such as the Channel Tunnel link and CrossRail. All those projects need investment.
As we discuss and explore the possibilities of franchisees during the next few months, one must be concerned that those who so far have expressed an interest in becoming involved in British Rail seem committed to the leasing route. They must be persuaded that the fees that they pay when they lease—if that is what they choose—must cover investment unless they themselves are prepared to make that investment. If they are not so persuaded, in the long term the railways will go downhill rather than achieve the improvements that we are seeking and, equally important, the railway supply industry will grind to a halt.
What can go wrong has been illustrated by Sweden, which has had a track authority/operator system for two and a half years. That system was examined by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House but at that stage it had been running for only a year. Everyone seemed relatively content and everything was still shaking down. The positive aspects were emerging and the black sides had not yet become apparent. However, it now emerges that the track
194
authority in Sweden thinks that it is doing a grand job by keeping subsidy down. Therefore, it is making very little investment.
Who wants the investment? It is the operators which the Swedes have set up—Swedish Rail, the regional passenger transport authorities and private interests. They collectively want to see investment in infrastructure. They have a massive shopping list ranging from mega projects to link up with the European high speed rail proposals, to very modest elements sought by the passenger transport authorities, which in the case of Sweden are the counties. The operators feel that the shopping list has been ignored. They feel that the objectives of the track authority —keeping the subsidy down—and the objectives of the operators—maximising the use of rail—are irreconcilable. It is ironic that even projects with potentially high profits, such as Stockholm's version of the Heathrow Express, cannot attract either private funds or track authority funds from the government.
One of the steps we must take to avoid the Swedish situation, or at least to learn from it, is to make sure that the commercial relationship between franchisees or other operators who come in and the track authority includes an element for investment. I do not feel that the Government can carry all that investment. The franchisees must bear their share. The relationship between the franchisees and the track authority will lie in the hands of the regulator. That is a challenging task, and I would not envy anyone who had it. I hope that in defining his powers we shall learn from other regulatory bodies which we have already established.
Should the railway regulator, like Ofgas, be able to order cuts in prices? That does not seem a way ahead in terms of the investment that I am looking for. Should he, like the Civil Aviation Authority, be able to take frequencies from one franchisee and give them to another, as the CAA recently did in respect of the BA/Loganair competition on the Manchester-Edinburgh route? That hardly seems to be encouraging competition but restraining it. Can he be asked to strip an established operator of opportunities in order to give new entrants greater opportunities? I am reminded of Sir Michael Bishop's recent remarks relating to Richard Branson—that there was more to running an airline than trying to deprive established operators of established trade. I hope that the railway regulator will be told that cherry picking is not the way to develop the commercial railway. We have seen that already in terms of bus deregulation. There is massive choice on two or three occasions in the day but, if you want to go in the middle of the day or you do not want to pay the full fare because you are a senior citizen, tough.
I turn now to the proposal to reorganise the railways. One has to ask, hand on heart, not surely another one? British Rail has just spent 10 years switching from a product-related to a customer-led railway, always with the endorsement of successive Secretaries of State. That should not be forgotten. The reorganisation was completed on 4th April, beating the manifesto commitment to yet another reorganisation by a very short head. Given that, in the words of

195
a senior and late lamented BR manager from 20 years ago, when you reorganise you bleed, and when you reorganise you divert management time, management resources and management skill from the business of running a railway—from making it the best railway it can possibly be in the circumstances in which it operates—I wonder whether we really do need another reorganisation. If it is to be mandatory, let it be brief.
I turn briefly now to aviation. One did not need to be terribly clever to work out several months ago—even several years ago—that a fifth terminal at London Heathrow was imminent. It is necessary for three reasons. The first is to preserve London's pre-eminence as the world's gateway to Europe. The second is the fact that air traffic control has meant that runway capacity is no longer the great problem that it was. We have greatly improved air traffic control. The third reason is that bigger and more modern aircraft make less and less demands on runways. One can get a higher throughput but one needs more terminals. Given those facts and given that the announcement of Terminal 5 or a proposal to develop it is imminent, I wonder what has happened to that survey of quite a few years ago. Entitled HASQUAD—the Heathrow and South-West Quadrant Access Study—it looked not only at the problem of access to Heathrow but at the problems of communication within that area of outer South-West London. If in 10 to 12 years we are to have the additional terminal capacity, I hope that my noble friend can tell me that HASQUAD, which has already given us Heathrow Express, is not dead and buried, that the other elements in it—there were road links and other railway links—are still being considered and that we can look forward to an announcement.
If, as I hope we shall, we get Terminal 5, one has to ask about the other survey which seems to have been put on ice over the past three years. I refer to the survey which looked at runway requirements in the South East and made some eccentric suggestions. It put forward the idea of trying to persuade passengers from the Iberian Peninsular that their gateway to the United Kingdom should be Bournemouth Herne. Can I be told—if not today then perhaps in writing—what steps we are taking in that regard?
Lastly, I turn to the aviation issue that has been closest to my heart for about nine or 10 months. It will come as no surprise to several noble Lords sitting around me. I am broadly in agreement with the Asylum Bill but I strongly urge my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in his reconsideration of that Bill to scrap the immigration carriers' liability clauses. It is iniquitous that the staff of British airlines or British ferry companies or indeed the staff of foreign carriers should be expected to carry out this task without being paid for it. We pay the immigration service to be Britain's first line of immigration control. The system is not really working. Those who are taking it seriously are trying very hard to make it work, but we know that there are diplomatic pressures to make sure that others, who do not give a damn about the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act or
196
indeed its development through the Asylum Bill, ignore it completely. I therefore hope that those clauses will be seen to have died a death.
6.17 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the two maiden speakers this afternoon. I know how immensely relieved they must be and I very much hope that we hear from them on many future occasions.
When I was deciding whether to speak this afternoon I tried to get guidance from the officials as to whether agriculture could be discussed in a debate on the environment. One of the officials suggested to me that agriculture should now be debated under EC matters. That I thought was rather indicative of the times that we live in. However, I have not taken that advice for I take the view that the two are so inextricably linked that it would be totally illogical not to discuss them together. I am glad to say that I have noticed that other noble Lords have discussed agricultural matters at length.
I have long held the view that there should be a far greater link between agriculture and the environment, for in the wider countryside there exists what can only be described as a symbiotic relationship which lends the two to being together. I look forward to the day when we can have a Ministry of Rural Affairs.
I appreciate that much has been done by the Government in bridging the gap between farming and conservation. But conflict still exists, not simply at official level but also among those who own and work the land. As noble Lords will be aware, there is now a plethora of schemes administered by many government departments and agencies, each offering their own piece of action designed to promote the well-being of the countryside. I should like to point out that the rates of compensation, or incentives, paid to farmers, often for the same objective, seem to vary considerably from agency to agency. I seriously suggest that perhaps some degree of standardisation would in fact be advantageous for the Treasury.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for those of us on the ground—I am a landowner and therefore I appreciate such matters—to know with whom we are supposed to be dealing. I am very much aware of the argument that the more agencies there are vying for funds the more money they are likely to accumulate as a whole, but surely the pooling of resources and expertise would result in a more cohesive, efficient and effective operation.
Having said that, I think that the Government must be given credit for the undoubted success of the split of the old NCC. Here I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I believe that it has been an enormous success. I think that we are now seeing nature conservation being delivered in a more effective and sympathetic fashion. But, of course, we must not forget that that resulted in the amalgamation of the NCC and the Countryside Commission in Scotland and in Wales. I believe that it must surely happen in England, too, in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said that she was looking forward to reading the annual report from

197
English Nature. That will shortly be announced on a day in May. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will be present at the time. I hope that she finds that that will demonstrate that English Nature has had a very successful year. I appreciate that there has been extensive damage to SSSIs in some cases. However, I think that it should be pointed out that much of that has happened on common land. As the Government have now made it absolutely clear that English Nature is in the position to enter into management agreements on common land I hope that many of those indiscretions will cease. I should add that I believe that the reports concerning much of the damage that landowners and farmers have been accused of causing have, to a certain extent, been mischief making and greatly exaggerated.
One of the consequences of the range of fragmented schemes designed to encourage environmental objectives is that we are seeing a continued split between areas of agricultural production and nature conservation. Obviously those areas of high conservation value must be specifically protected—that is, the national nature reserves and areas under the sites of special scientific interest system of designation. They are the cornerstone of our nature conservation resource base.
With the state of agriculture and the desire to cut back on production I believe that we should have a real opportunity of marrying those two sides of rural land use more closely and of making amends for much of the damage that has come about through intensive production. We have seen that policy being developed through the environmentally sensitive areas system or scheme—largely very successful and, I am delighted to say, recently increased. Again, the Government must have our congratulations. It is working well.
In his maiden speech the noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, mentioned the importance of investment in rural areas. Of course, I appreciate that that is absolutely imperative. But we must shortly contend with the outcome of the GATT talks and indeed the realignment, if I may use that term, of the common agricultural policy. There is no doubting the fact that they will have a profound effect on agriculture and on the way that the land in this country will be utilised.
I do not profess to be an expert in these matters, but in my view food production must surely be exposed to greater competition, which must sooner or later pose a threat to large areas of land and those who manage and work upon it. Unless we can devise a policy by which production can be spread more evenly I am sure that the problems could be acute for many rural areas. We must develop a strategy that revolves around area payments, linking production and countryside management, thus reducing the need for farmers to rely so heavily on a high input and high output system.
In America, set-aside has not been deemed a success in environmental terms. As has already been mentioned in the debate, there is a strong reaction in this country against the idea of landowners being paid to do nothing. The management of wildlife cannot be seen simply in terms of isolated protectionism—important though that is in some cases, as I have
198
already said. I think that it must be seen more as a working partnership between man and the wider environment.
Further, if public money is going to be continued to be used to support agricultural output, or to help maintain the social fabric of rural societies, then it seems to me to be quite proper that environmental conditions should be imposed on those in receipt of such payments. Moreover, although cross-compliance, as it is known, appears to be a dirty word, to many of us it makes a great deal of sense.
One specific example of that is in the less-favoured areas, where the payment of the ewe premium and the hill livestock compensation allowance payments (vital though they are in supporting the hill economy) still continue to encourage overgrazing in upland areas and in their associated habitats. With much of the LFAs having been designated SSSIs we now have the somewhat bizarre situation where English Nature is entering management agreements and paying farmers to reduce stock with money from the public purse, while at the same time the Ministry of Agriculture also continues to pay farmers to keep the sheep out of the public purse.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture undertook to review the whole question of what became known as the "greening of the HLCAs" before the election. In addition, there was talk of a code of good farming practice, plus the definition of overgrazing. I hope that those issues will continue to be reviewed very closely by the Government. I ask my noble friend—although I appreciate that it is not his department—perhaps to let me know the Government's response.
Remaining largely in the hills, but returning to one of the many agencies that I mentioned earlier, I refer specifically to the national parks. My noble friend Lord Norrie has already referred to them and, indeed, he asked the Government specifically whether they intended to enact any of the recommendations in the report of Professor Edwards. I appreciate that for many people the national parks represent something very special. But living in one, as I do, I have to ask whether in fact they have reached the end of their initial purpose and simply represent an ideal supported by an additional layer of bureaucracy.
In some ways I think that those concerned genuinely deserve our sympathy in that many of the new initiatives which have been designed to promote environmental well-being—much of it in land within the park boundaries—have in fact been carried out by other agencies or government departments. One has to say that they have been carried out extremely successfully, but that begs the question: what role do the park authorities really have? Further, I believe that I am right in saying that the habitat loss within the parks has been just as great as that outside the parks.
Of course, I appreciate that the role of reconciling the needs of the local people and those of the visitors is not an easy one, but public relations in many cases have been, to put it mildly, disappointing. After nearly 40 years in existence it is disturbing that over 1,000

199
local residents in a remote rural area could have signed a petition of no confidence in one of the park authorities.
I fully appreciate that politically the national parks are here to stay. But, if they remain—and remain they will—I hope that a more sensitive and dynamic regime can be brought into play if they are to succeed in winning over the goodwill of the local people, in bringing together the needs and aspirations of both locals and visitors and at the same time helping to conserve the well-being of the countryside.
I finish by simply reminding the Government, particularly in view of the near success of the McNamara Bill in another place, of the importance of field sports to the countryside. An incentive to retain and manage habitats without a constant call on the Exchequer is a rare commodity indeed and not one to be taken lightly. Apart from the crucial environmental benefits, may I draw your Lordships' attention to the recently produced report by Cobham Resources entitled Countryside Sports—their Economic and Conservation Significance. The combined direct spending and indirect spending of countryside sports generated £2.5 billion in 1990 and resulted in 125,000 full-time jobs. A copy of the full report and executive summary is in the Library. I hope very much that the Government will read it and that as many of your Lordships as possible will read it.
I have to leave shortly after my speech and I hope that my noble friend and your Lordships will forgive me if I am not here for the conclusion of the debate. I have to get back to Yorkshire this evening.
6.32 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I wish to consider the commitment made in the gracious Speech to,
"increasing the role of the railways in meeting the country's transport needs".
Above all, I welcome the Government putting the railways on to the agenda and the opportunity that this creates for fresh initiatives and fresh assessments.
Whether or not one is or ever will be a rail user, it is vital that an increased role for the railways is genuinely achieved. The greater the contribution of the rail system to our transport needs, the greater the benefit to the environment and therefore the greater the benefit to the entire nation. We must realise these benefits and we must begin to solve the very serious environmental problems that are directly related to our huge reliance on road transport. To do so, however, the increased role for the railways has to look very much further than the quality, packaging and ownership of selected journeys. The overriding preoccupation must be with the quantity of usage, the capacity of the infrastructure for further usage and its integration with other transport systems.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has declared that the needs of the consumer are uppermost in his mind and that the absolute objective is an improvement in quality. This reassurance is aimed perhaps at existing rail users. Ultimately, I hope that the needs of the nation are uppermost and that the improvements in quality will
200
not be seen to be sufficient unless they in turn are responsible for a notable improvement in customer volume. The absolute objective and only yardstick should be the success with which rail transport attracts and meets an ever-increasing proportion of our total transport needs. If government strategy adopts this long-term objective with single-mindedness, one of the principal environmental benefits to accrue will substantially underpin their efforts towards reducing the output of greenhouse gases.
The most significant of the greenhouse gases, because of the sheer volume that we produce, is carbon dioxide; and between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. of the CO2, that we pump into the atmosphere every day comes solely from motor vehicles. It is misleading to take some vague comfort from catalytic converters—they actually increase the carbon dioxide emission. There is no known technology that can practically remove CO2, from vehicle exhausts. Catalytic converters have some bearing on the emission of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. However, there are two problems with these converters. They do not operate until the engine temperature reaches 300° centigrade and they operate efficiently only when it reaches 1,000° centigrade. Since 60 per cent. of our car trips in Britain are of five miles or less, catalytic converters are not as effective as we might have believed.
The second problem applies also to lead-free petrol, and that is that the projected increases in the volume of road traffic will easily outweigh the reductions made in pollution per vehicle. The most conservative estimates are that road traffic levels will have risen by between 87 per cent. and 142 per cent. by the year 2018. Other groups suggest that it could approach an increase of 300 per cent. by the year 2025. Thus carbon monoxide emissions, which are responsible for between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. of global warming, are set to rise further, as are nitrogen oxides. The latter emissions derive predominantly from motor vehicles and are a principal constituent of acid rain. A substantial number of trees—some 64 per cent. in this country—are now showing signs of acid rain damage.
The long-established right to travel comparatively freely by road is now becoming a threat to our own health and interests. Air pollution is just one of the major environmental factors that must be a central consideration of transport policy decisions over the next few years. There are others of equal importance, such as land take and land use, noise pollution and congestion and the depletion of non-renewable resources. Air pollution, however, is more topical in the light of the Government's commendable backing for carbon dioxide reductions.
Given the wide-ranging, long-term benefits that will accrue from increased rail usage, I cannot help but be concerned when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport promises to continue loss-making services where socially necessary. My concern is that social factors alone are the only justification other than profitability for a rail link. If this is the case, I urge him to enter environmental benefits on to the balance sheet. In the broader context many such services are not loss makers at all. Should

201
the environmental costs of travel, furthermore, be charged as fully to the road user, as they are to the rail user, many rail services will become a dramatically more popular option for consumers. At the very least there should be a wider understanding of the different environmental costs involved and how they are being met. For instance, we should all be broadly aware that financially the pollution costs of a passenger mile by road are 4.4 times greater than a passenger mile by railway, while the pollution costs of goods and freight for a tonne mile by road are some 19 times higher than a tonne mile by rail.
The proposed restructuring of British Rail seems to be an excellent opportunity for redressing a crucial imbalance. It is in everyone's interest. If we fail, there is a danger that new rail operators will realistically be competing only among themselves for existing rail users. The competitive edge that will be brought to the railways through the introduction of private sector skills and choice must be felt beyond their own immediate market place. Above all, it must be felt by road users.
I welcome the White Paper as an opportunity for the Government to take a good hard look at what lies ahead. I therefore agree with my noble friend Lord Mountevans that it must not be rushed and due time must be given for consultation. It must do more than tinker and play with the colour of the ribbon and the wrapping of the package which in real terms will achieve very little. What is needed, with all its manifold benefits, is exactly what the gracious Speech heralded; namely, increasing the role of the railways in meeting the country's transport needs.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the comments of the noble Earl on the environment. It is a subject I raised here in 1976—much to the amusement of noble Lords at the time. With regard to his reference to catalytic converters I think he might have said that there is a danger that when a catalytic converter becomes old, as in a secondhand car after some years of use, it actually pollutes the atmosphere even more than a car without one. However, that is something for another debate and another day.
We were fortunate to have two marvellous maiden speeches—by the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, and the noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle. It is good to have new voices speaking with their own expertise to add to our debates in this House.
I welcome the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and congratulate him, if I may—rather irregular attender that I am—on his first delivery on rail transport matters, the subject upon which I intend to speak. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that there were many similarities in his reference to rail transport matters to those of his predecessors in previous debates on previous gracious Speeches. They were politically correct; but, alas!, little or no action was offered. I have to declare my interest. My company is a member of the Rail Industry Association of Great Britain. One of the many reasons that I am away from your Lordships' House is that I am trying
202
to find work for my men on railways outside this country, mainly in Europe but also in the Far East and America.
Without giving away trade secrets, I can say that the railways in Europe are working on the integration of a high-speed, high-tech network which at the moment is about 10 years ahead of what we have in this country. On no railway anywhere in the world of which I have knowledge is anyone approaching the capital problem by painting trains or coaches different colours or selling stations. They are putting money into the track and the systems so that trains, locomotives, passengers and freight can travel at high speeds, efficiently and cleanly, without the problems that their equivalents in heavy lorries would cause the environment.
I suppose that we do not do much about rail transport in this country because there is the question of money—it always has been—for the Government. Therefore, I welcome the noble Earl's comments about financing a terminal at Heathrow and the provision of billions more for the motorways which will be necessary to take on the extra trucks, freight and containers that cannot use the broad-gauge railway that does not exist to link up with the Channel Tunnel.
The only complaint I have is that the method of providing capital funding is done on an annual basis. Did your Lordships notice that the noble Earl said that this year we have spent more than ever before, and that if we are good boys we may get more next year? I do not understand why the Government, or, more particularly, Her Majesty's Treasury, refuse to make a distinction between capital and income. It is known as the "no money" syndrome, I believe. Ministers in this House and in another place get up, turn their pockets out and say, "It is a wonderful idea, but we have no money". How many chairmen of public companies get up in front of their shareholders, or would dare to get up, and say, "I cannot refurbish my factory, because I do not have any money"? They go to the bank and obtain some finance.
The Government are one of the biggest raisers of finance, through their gilt-edged securities, anywhere in Europe and this country, obviously. Why cannot they do it for the railways? I will not accept, and I do not believe that the House should accept, the "I do not have any money" syndrome. It is the attitude of a high street grocer with his head stuck permanently in the till. If that is an undignified position to take, it is also one from which vision is singularly restricted.
I want to deal now with the omissions from the gracious Speech. The first Channel Tunnel was conceived more than 100 years ago. I believe that planning on the present Channel Tunnel was started 15 years ago. The Channel Tunnel link was obviously part of that planning and system. I ask the Minister to tell us when he replies whether—after 15 years of planning, and apparent activity, coupled with a commitment in the gracious Speech to meet the country's transport needs—the terminal at Ashford —the English end of the tunnel—will be completed to take the first trains by 1993. Will it be completed in

203
such a way that it will cover the high-speed link which has not yet been built and also local traffic? That would be a helpful start.
There is the other matter of the high-speed link. For 15 years nothing has happened. I wonder what everyone has been doing all that time. There are problems with tunnels. When one starts at one end one is sometimes not sure where it will come out; but with this tunnel we started at this end. We should be clear that it was going to start at Ashford and that trains coming from the Continent were going to come out at Ashford. They were coming out nowhere else. Yet it seems that in the deliberations of the Department of Transport and the Treasury there is uncertainty about that, because there is no high-speed link to link up with the high-speed trains that have been travelling across Europe. They will come here and, as we all know—I shall not go into details again—have to fit in with the commuter trains coming into London.
Will the Minister tell us whether the high-speed link will be built in this century, or will we have to wait for the 21st century? It is a yes or no answer. Will he say when it is going to be built? Some people have been working on it for 15 years. They have been paid for by the taxpayer. British Rail has been working on it, but there is no route agreed. Perhaps there is, but I have heard nothing since Friday when British Rail told me that there was no route. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten the House on that point.
What about the broad-gauge freight link to take European containers? When will that be built? We have known for 15 years that these containers were coming. I have sat on committees, as have noble Lords, during the 1970s and 1980s. The information was available not only in the House, it was available in the department. It is available everywhere. What are we going to do with the containers?
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, is worried about the environment. So are many other people. So, apparently, are the Government. There has been a great deal of talk about the environment; and yet a broad-gauge freight link has not been built so all the freight will go on the roads. Many of the billions put forward for motorway expenditure are merely to cope with the excessively large loads that will come off the trains. I believe that they will arrive every two minutes in Kent from the Continent.
When will the broad-gauge freight link help the environment? When will it take the loads off the roads for the wretched people of Kent? Can the Minister give a date for that? Let us have a date. Is it this century or is it the 21st century? Do we have to wait for some unscheduled date? For how many more gracious Speeches will we have to wait before we hear that a high-speed link and a broad-gauge freight link have been made? There has been a great deal of pontificating about the environment and about painting trains different colours. That is fine, but that is a laissez-faire policy. That is the policy upon which the Government were re-elected. They are famous for it. I feel that that is what the people of this country
204
really want and they may also not be entirely happy about having a link with the Continent. The Government have been very clever.
I am not criticising the Government for delay as such but an extraordinary delay of 15 years is taking laissez-faire to new extremes. New boundaries have been crossed. I believe that there will be another five or more years to go before they do anything. When he replies, I want the Minister to give us some dates. If he cannot give us any dates, there are no dates. Laissez-faire is alive and well for the future! If that is what the people want, that is what they have. Will it make any difference?
I remember from when I was at school a poem called "The Rolling English Road" by G.K. Chesterton. It goes:
"A reeling road, a rolling road, that rambles round the shire,
And after him the parson ran, the sexton and the squire",
It goes on:
"But I did bash their baggonets because they came arrayed To straighten out the crooked road an English drunkard made".
It was a good attitude to have at the time. Why should the French come here and tell us what to do, whether it is running our railways or straightening our roads?
There is a more serious side to this matter, although I have been trying to lighten up the debate which frankly has been long and rather dreary. We must face the question of the location of the European Central Bank. I am not in the House much because I spend my time going across Europe and the world, like many other railway people. Europeans are quite used to travelling large distances on fast trains but we are not. As regards the City of London being the central financial hub of Europe—there is no question that it has the electronic technology and the ability to assume that position—we must consider how people will get to London from Europe. I am sure most people try to reach their destination and get back home again in one day when undertaking business trips. In Europe people cover enormous distances by car, and more and more frequently by train for this reason.
My European friends feel we are so far behind in our thinking about the railways—let alone as regards what is on the ground—that the fast rail link will not become a reality. They do not believe they will be able to leave Europe and travel to London and back to Europe again in the same day. They will be able to do so, even with the system that we have planned. But I want to hear the Government utter some more positive remarks about the railways. I do not want to hear them say they do not want foreigners. I want to hear them say something enthusiastic about the railways rather than indulge in the kind of sniping at the chairman and board of British Rail that has been going on. I want the Government to pronounce enthusiastically that the fast rail link will come about and that it will be used by all Europeans.
We have had debates on this subject time and time again. I and other noble Lords have taken part in these debates but I do not think they are getting us anywhere. Nothing has happened. We are about 10 years behind now. By the time the next gracious Speech is delivered to your Lordships' House we shall

205
be perhaps 15 to 20 years behind. I just feel that all this matter needs is a little more enthusiasm and a proper system of long-term financing. That way we would achieve what everybody wants to see achieved without the kind of huffing and puffing that goes on at present. I hope noble Lords opposite and the Department of Transport will talk a little less and engage in a little more action.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I wish to speak about railways. However, it is always difficult to follow a good act and for a moment I shall divert my railway thoughts into a siding and start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on his thoughtful, wise and correct—I emphasise the word "correct"—political analysis of the situation in the country in which I am happy to live, that is Scotland. We should not believe what we read in newspapers about the urge for the dissolution of the Union. The people of Scotland wish to prosper and to live safely and be content. The course that my noble friend advocated is in my opinion best calculated to achieve those aims.
As regards railways, there is a reference in the gracious Speech to enlarging the role of railways and permitting bodies other than British Rail to operate services on them. That is possibly a good idea, but I must tell my noble friends who are sitting in front of me that I do not think it is half as good an idea as they think it is. The problem with British Rail is that it suffers desperately from a particular symptom. One can turn on one's television set and hear a man say in a loud voice that the Government must do something about the railways. He usually comes from another place. The Government are tempted to do something but that is not a good thing as governments tend to do almost everything badly. They would not exist at all if it were not for some matters that they simply have to tackle—for example, maintaining the integrity of the Realm, adequate defence and a system of law and order. However, running the railways is definitely not an area that the Government tackle well. Therefore they should do as little as possible in that area.
For proof of that theory one has only to look across at the countries that were behind the former Iron Curtain. One can see the devastation that has been wrought on formerly prosperous and expanding countries by 70 years of centralist rule by governments who did everything. That point needs no further elaboration.
Another reason why governments are bad at running railways is quite simply that they think they know best. Mercifully I have never been in a government post and I have no intention of taking up such a post even if I were asked to do so. However, it is important to remember that the people who have to make the decisions are those who stand by the consequences of those decisions. I support the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that members of the British Railways Board should not be the subject of sniping that is apparently government inspired. The members of the board are able and experienced men and are doing a good job in difficult
206
circumstances. The reasons why the circumstances are difficult are twofold. First, the economic climate of the country is causing difficulties and, secondly, there is unremitting interference in the investment decisions of the board by Department of Transport officials backed by the Treasury.
I remember hearing the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, remark when he was in the Department of Transport that many of the officials in his department spent all their working lives working with British Rail. I criticised him subsequently for that remark as I felt it would be much better if those officials did less rather than more. I stand by that remark. If one wishes to see the results of that unremitting interference one has only to travel to Southend, as I have done.
Let us start from the premise that British Rail is basically working in discouraging circumstances and it is as efficient as it is possible to be in such circumstances. InterCity is the only inter-city rail system in Europe—and I believe further afield—that operates at a profit. I repeat that it operates at a profit. That is an amazing achievement.
If noble Lords do not believe that InterCity is the only rail system in Europe to make a profit, they should study the finances of the Swiss railways. Where the infrastructure has been modernised high speed trains can operate. However, much of the British railway system has not been modernised due to short-sighted parsimony on the part of those controlling the investment programme. The investment programme is reviewed on an annual basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has remarked, no one knows what investment will be allocated the following year and there is constant pleading that such and such an investment cannot be afforded. In many ways the British Railways Board has achieved remarkable successes in discouraging circumstances.
Being second best in everything one does is akin to the situation in a family business where there are far too many old uncles doddering about saying to the younger members of the family, "No you cannot do that". Being second best in everything one does is also akin to the famous cotton spinner's view on investment when he remarked in connection with opening a showroom in London that anything South of Crewe was an overhead. That is the situation that pertains at present. The uncles in the family business comprise a mixture of officials in the Department of Transport and the Treasury. The lot of them should be sacked as soon as possible. I realise that my remarks may cause horror in various places but I believe we should make the British Railways Board accountable directly for its decisions. It should be turned into a plc. I believe that that could be achieved in a one or two clause Bill. If it were turned into a plc its borrowing and financial requirements—we are all agreed they are substantial—would not form part of the public sector borrowing requirement.
It is a curious commentary on the rules of the public sector borrowing requirement that if British Rail attempts to borrow on the London market its borrowing is termed a public sector borrowing requirement, but if the French railway borrows on the

207
London market—as it has done—its borrowing is not termed a public sector borrowing requirement. I do not know what heading the latter borrowing would come under. It might even be termed an invisible import or export but it is certainly not termed a public sector borrowing requirement. We should get rid of that nonsense.
If the British Railways Board became a plc it would gain the financial freedom to develop as it felt best. It would be encouraged by the knowledge that it was in charge of its own affairs. The public would inevitably obtain by degrees a better service and they would view British Rail in a better light. The solution I have advocated is a progressive one and I believe it would deal with a situation which has been badly handled for far too long. Let us have no more of it.
Finally, I should like to consider a very small point. It concerns a national park which contains a large quarry called Redmire. The rail loading facilities, which are owned by the quarry operator, are not efficient. The quarry owner feels that he can obtain a better bargain by hauling several hundred thousand tonnes a week by road through the national park. He is perfectly entitled to do so with reference to nobody but it will cause heavy traffic in a beautiful area on wholly unsuitable roads. Surely, with all the thought that goes into the environment on other matters, a better way can be found. No blame can in any way be attributed to British Rail in the circumstances. Were the rail loading facilities to be improved, I understand that British Rail is confident that it could continue its service, matching or bettering the special quotation for haulage by road.
I advocate further support for British Rail, detaching it from the Department of Transport, and transferring it to people who understand railways, which are complicated to run and require great devotion, such as I met the other day. A lunatic jumped off the end of the platform at Huntingdon straight into the front of the train on which I was travelling. After some delay, the driver took the train forward because no other driver was available. He was not bound to do so but he did his duty by the passengers and the railway. When we criticise, we must remember that there is another side to everything.
7 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, first I must apologise for the fact that I was not able to be present for the first two speeches. I shall look forward to reading them in Hansard.
Her Majesty's most gracious Speech referred to the environment in a number of ways, demonstrating most clearly how the subject has moved up the political agenda in recent times, both nationally and internationally. We were treated to two excellent maiden speeches on the subject today.
Some years ago the right honourable Mrs. Margaret Thatcher contributed to that upward acceleration with her timely speech to the Royal Society, drawing attention to the possible dangers of global warming. Scientists world-wide are studying
208
the subject, and while most are agreed that there are dangers in the coming century which must be prepared for sensibly, they also know that there are many factors whose effect is not yet known.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, chaired our House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in 1989 when it considered the subject and published a most balanced report, particularly drawing attention to the influence of oceans on global warming, which urgently needs to be researched. Nevertheless, the committee firmly recommended that:
"The best way of securing reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is through a UN Climate Convention. In view of the potentially unpleasant consequences of global warming, every country, including the United Kingdom, must plan to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases in advance of such a Convention. Developed countries should assist less developed countries to do the same, especially where more advanced technology is required".
Britain has decided to set itself a tougher timetable for stabilising its rising emissions of carbon dioxide, changing the target year for bringing annual output of carbon dioxide back to its 1990 level from 2005 to 2000. The Government have also committed us to phasing out chlorofluorocarbons by 1995.
We all need to contribute to that target in our personal actions, both domestically and through our involvement in industry and commerce. The Citizen's Charter is about responsibilities as well as rights if we are to play our full part in combating global warming.
Her Majesty's gracious Speech refers both to the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in June this year, and also to our substantial aid programme to reduce poverty in developing countries. There is no doubt that the rapidly rising world population is one of the dominant factors in global warming, particularly as developing countries achieve a better standard of living. Our assistance in achieving that better standard of living can also assist in keeping families to a size where they can be fed, and the demands of fetching wood and water do not exhaust the mothers of those families, preventing them from acquiring more valuable skills and doing more rewarding work.
I hope, too, that economical ways of utilising solar energy can be found to assist those countries. Sunshine is something in which they are rich, and its energy needs to be harnessed in their service in an economical way. The richer industrial nations need to exercise their scientific ingenuity to utilise intermediate technology to develop means of harnessing solar energy to create either mechanical or photovoltaic power to reduce drudgery and contribute to raising living standards in poorer countries. Mass markets will develop which can eventually repay investment, and families will not need to produce more and more children as their only way of achieving support in their old age. World population has a hope then of feeding itself and sustaining its environment to support future life.
At the United Nations convention we must also persuade the USA to take a stronger line on energy saving. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, John Major, will attend, and I understand

209
that we have played our part in persuading President Bush also to attend, which is excellent. Anyone who has visited the USA must be shocked at the profligate way they leave lights on in offices throughout the night and use air conditioning in hot climates which makes it necessary to wear a warm jacket indoors—a complete waste of energy. Again, if a climate of opinion can be encouraged in that country to conserve and reduce energy use, an immense amount of fossil fuel can be saved and volumes of CO2 prevented from contributing to global warming.
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 will have a major effect in this country, with its control of emissions to air, land and water monitored actively by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, and in seeking the best practical solution to the problems as they are exposed. Local authorities will also have an important part to play in this matter, and in enforcing toughened regulations on waste management and control and in clearing litter—one of the curses of our modern age—as mentioned by my noble friend in his excellent maiden speech.
Recycling has become far more common, I am glad to say. Again, citizens are reacting responsibly, filling bottle banks, collecting paper, cans and clothes. In addition, registers will have to be prepared of contaminated land, which should have a profound effect on setting up new industrial processes in the future, taking into account the principle that the polluter pays.
To turn to a different aspect of the environment, over the past few years the way in which local government works has changed considerably. Enlightened local authorities, in trying to reduce the financial burden on their electorates, have put services out to competitive tendering, utilised private operators to reduce costs and gradually developed policies of enabling the provision of good quality public services rather than actually providing them. That trend will continue in line with the Citizen's Charter.
The process of schools opting out and becoming much more self-reliant in providing the sort of education local parents want for their children and enhancing parental choice is all to the good. Once again, however, the good LEA can be of vital importance to lay school governing bodies in providing advice and expertise, in keeping down costs, in-service training of teachers, economical purchasing arrangements through bulk buying, energy saving schemes, design and provision of science laboratories and, of course, immense educational experience in the raising of standards in all subjects through the expertise of their inspectorates and advisers. That will continue where the service is good but in competition with private provision, which again should raise standards.
To come to my last point. In the time of the present Parliament, the Local Government Commission, under the chairmanship of Sir John Banham, will be adjudicating on the future pattern of local government throughout England. In the Act setting up the Commission the Government made allowance for local flexibility particularly taking into account local
210
opinion, which I welcome. I do not believe that the universal imposition of unitary authorities would be either desirable or economical.
I was glad to read that my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State, Michael Howard, is also of that opinion. The report stated that he is in favour of reinstating a number of old county boroughs as unitary authorities, such as Bristol, Leicester, Nottingham, Norwich, Oxford, Plymouth, Southampton, York and others, and that he also had in mind to readdress the creation of the unpopular local authorities such as Avon and Humberside. Sir John Banham is reported as saying very wisely that his guiding principle would be: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". He knows all too well from his long experience as chairman of the Audit Commission before he went to the CBI how local authority expenditure can escalate and he is concerned, as is the Secretary of State, that the possible costs of wholesale reorganisation both in money terms and disruption may be too great.
I was involved in the last local government reorganisation at both district and county level. I know from practical experience that reorganisation results in a flurry of empire building and a need for new office building to house those new empires, which works no better than the old. There is also a spate of redundancies and ring-fencing of appointments which lead to greater expenditure but not greater efficiency.
Nor does the infighting between district and county councils as to who might be the new unitary authority lead to better service to the public. It diverts both councillors' and officers' attention from that primary duty of good local government service to the public. In my experience, the interaction of county, district and parish councils, which will entail discussion and eventual compromise to achieve workable solutions to problems, is healthy and should result in greater efforts to please and serve the public in the provision of services.
Planning particularly needs the parish opinion and the district decision, but within the control of the county structure plan, if personal favour is to be kept out of the process, and that is essential. Highways must be planned at a level above the district if they are to be efficiently provided, but housing is better organised at district level. It will be of no assistance to anyone to break up valuable collections of county archives. Fire brigades and police need to be organised by larger authorities to utilise expensive equipment economically.
All those factors will need to be taken into account by the Local Government Commission. I am sure that they will be able to achieve better local solutions if they are free to exercise flexibility in their conclusions. In my view, the unitary authority can obviously succeed but should not be imposed as the rule, bearing in mind our long history of diversity in local government. I hope that in the majority of shire counties where efficient administration and friendly co-operation with district and parish councils is already in existence, the pattern will not be disturbed.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we come to the winding-up of this debate. It has been extremely wide-ranging. I had intended to make a number of remarks about the speeches that have been made by noble Lords in the course of the debate but I notice that most noble Lords are conspicuously absent from the Chamber. I except from that observation the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who was good enough to come to me during the course of the debate and explain that he had an engagement elsewhere bearing partly on transport matters and partly on his earlier activities in the foreign affairs field. It is very good to see him back again in the transport group. As noble Lords know, it is a very private club in your Lordships' House. Normally not more than six people attend a transport debate. The noble Earl has been through the mill before. We tamed him on that occasion and I dare say we shall manage to do so again. In passing, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, will no longer be part of the transport fraternity. The House owes him a great debt for the way in which he has handled transport matters over a good many years. He was a very welcome member of that exclusive club.
I was very interested in a couple of remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his opening speech. I shall not go into a polemic about it but I thought that the regional airport statistics were interesting. The number of destinations served by regional airports has risen from 50 to 130. Long may that trend continue. I am one who has always believed that there is much more scope for the use of regional airports. The Government must continue to throw their weight behind as many bilateral arrangements as they can with overseas countries to ensure that our rather splendid regional airports, especially in the case of Manchester, Birmingham and the Scottish airports, are used as much as they possibly can be. There is always the argument that people want to travel via London. It is part of the job of government, the tourist boards and other organisations to make sure that packages are available to attract people to enter this country via our regional gateways.
I also heard the noble Earl praise the appointment of Mr. Steve Norris to the job of co-ordinating transport in the Greater London area. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I welcome anybody who will co-ordinate transport in the Greater London area. It is something for which we have been pleading for a long time. However, I rather doubt that that is the right way to do it. Certainly I would rather see a democratically elected body dealing with the people of London. Nevertheless, it is a step forward. What a pity that one of the important factors in the equation —land use planning—is apparently not included in his remit. I do not believe that it is possible to plan for transport in Greater London unless one considers the whole movement of population, which includes land use planning.
The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, as regards water was an important and significant contribution to the debate. I was glad that he highlighted the enormous losses in the transmission of water within local areas. It is scandalous that water,
212
which is such a precious commodity in this country, is wasted. Certainly the Government ought to do something to make sure that the water authorities do not chuck it all away.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, stole most of my intended speech on road traffic congestion, but that will not necessarily stop me from making it. I applaud what he had to say on that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, after what I thought was a poor start when he suggested that his party had had a great success in the election in Scotland, went on to make a very interesting speech in relation to the development of local government in Scotland. The point has been made already once or twice in this debate that it is very important to recognise that the size of the local government entity should not be determined only by population. My view, and it has been the view of my party for a long time, is that the size of local government should be determined by the genuine feeling of community that the people have in their homes, villages and towns. It will mean that there will be numbers of local government areas which are very disparate in size. Therefore one must look at the functions that can be allocated to them. I am a great believer in regional government for England as well as in devolution for Scotland and Wales. But we are some way off that situation because the rest of the people of England have not quite caught up with me. It will come one day. But it is within that context and the context of overall European politicisation that we must look at the way that government is structured all the way through.
I am sorry to have missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, about the railways. He always speaks good sense on British Rail. I had to leave the Chamber on a matter not unrelated to the accommodation of that group, which I am chairing in this House. I apologise to the noble Lord for not being present but as he is not now in the Chamber, perhaps I may have back half that apology. I was glad that he raised the question of the carrier's liability in relation to the Asylum Bill. The Government now have the opportunity to put right a particularly stupid piece of legislation from the last Session. No doubt encouraged by their noble friend from British Airways they will consider again that piece of legislation.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, made an interesting speech. It was only undermined at the end by his determination to return to Yorkshire. As a Lancastrian that seems to me a very foolish thing to have to do.
To the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, I can only say, "Will he please come back to these Benches where he belongs?". It is some years since he took himself off to the Cross Benches. However, his speech was one of the great moments of the debate. He put his finger on a series of issues, ridiculing the situation that has existed over 15 years. It is a matter of ridicule that the Continentals are putting large sums of money into building up the new infrastructure of the rail network for Europe and we are fiddling about on the edges wondering whether we can perhaps build a small tram track to meet the exit at the tunnel. It is a piece of crass incompetence that we have not been able to establish

213
a high speed link to that tunnel. As I have said in your Lordships' House many times before, the tunnel, as much as anything, ought to exist for carrying our freight from manufacturing industries into the markets of Europe; and we are singularly failing to do that.
I wish to mention two omissions from the gracious Speech. They have both been referred to. First, why was the Environmental Protection Agency omitted? It was certainly included in the Government's manifesto as regards the election. I quote from a document called A Brighter Britain which states:
"We will establish a new Environment Agency which will bring together the functions of the National Rivers Authority, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the waste regulation functions of local authorities".
The question has been asked; I ask it again. When will the Government establish that new environmental agency? Will they indeed bring together all those functions, or have the Government changed their mind? Has Mr. Gummer's persuasive tongue already broken the promises in the manifesto?
We on these Benches believe in a truly independent Environmental Protection Agency. It needs to be independent because the Government should not be in a position of attempting to scrutinise their own record. It is also necessary because we require a proper linkage with the European environmental agency. Ministers with green responsibilities in each department are a start, but they are not capable of offering the strict external appraisal that is necessary if the environment is to he taken seriously.
Along with others, we welcome the Prime Minister's announcement that this country will stabilise CO2 emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000, and not, as originally suggested by 2005. However, by global standards that is not enough. We hope that the change of heart by the British Government will continue to put pressure on the Americans. We are glad that Mr. Bush will attend the Earth Summit but, as has already been said, the announcement over the weekend seemed extremely timid in relation to what was being promised. That position has to be firmed up. The developing countries must be getting sick to death of the way in which the developed countries are using up the earth's resources and making no attempt to maintain the necessary self-discipline to ensure the future of this planet.
We are also glad that we shall have catalytic convertors although I echo the problems referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. Such measures are welcome; they will help in the short term. However, they have serious downside effects. Similarly, the stricter control on sulphur in diesel emissions in 1995 is welcome.
All those measures require a reduction in the use of private transport—the motor car—if we are to get anywhere near meeting those requirements. From 1952 to 1989 demand for passenger transport rose by 230 per cent.; and that trend continues. In consequence, although fuel efficiency has increased, the growth in the total number of cars has led to an increased share of energy being taken by transport. As the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said, we have to shift the burden on to public transport as best we can.
214
In the conurbations, the major role has to be taken by buses. We have heard much talk today about railways but very little about buses. I now refer to the second omission in the gracious Speech: the deregulation of London buses. I hope that the Government are to be congratulated on that omission. I hope it means that they are thinking more deeply about the issues. When one compares what has happened in areas where buses have been deregulated and those where they have not, as in London, the comparison is startling. Between 1985 when the Act was introduced and 1990–91, patronage on London buses increased by 3.9 per cent. In metropolitan areas it decreased by 26 per cent. The operating costs per passenger decreased in London by 16 per cent. and in metropolitan areas by only 8 per cent.
There is an interesting comparison between those areas which have been deregulated and those which have not. Many of the fears that were expressed when the Bill went through your Lordships' House, sadly, appear to have been fulfilled. Numbers of bus passengers have fallen enormously except in the London area. That cannot be good for the environment or for road transport in general.
The question regarding reliability of bus services has been raised. If passengers are not convinced that a bus will appear in a reasonable time they will find other means of transport. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to timetables. It is a serious matter. We have technology on the London Underground which gives information that another train will be along in so many minutes. At major bus stops it is perfectly possible to have the same information: that there will be a bus along in so many minutes. It will not be possible for such technology to be funded if buses are deregulated. I hope that that matter will be taken into consideration when the Government consider deregulation.
We know that the Government are reluctant to interfere with the workings of the market. However, I believe that they have to interfere to ensure that some of the mistakes made in the 1985 Act are corrected. For instance, are the traffic commissioners upholding professional and safety standards? Are the people who operate genuinely up to standard, or are there too many cowboys around?
Much as been said today about the railways. I do not propose to go into great detail beyond what has been said except to say this. If the Government are to do more than tinker with the situation—in other words, if they wish to do more than merely to extend the franchise to the Orient Express, to Mr. Branson or to Stagecoach with a few cosmetic changes such as airline seats and package meals (which heaven forfend, when considering some airline meals) —they ought to bear in mind that no one will accept a franchise to do anything unless it is for a much longer period than the Government normally consider possible in transport matters. No one from outside the public sector will make any significant investment in the railways unless he or she has a guarantee of a franchise of probably a minimum of 10 years and almost certainly a requirement for 20 years. Unless

215
that is so they will be unable to invest the kind of money to make the kind of improvements that are necessary.
I am not against money coming from outside the Exchequer but at the moment that is ill defined. I hope that at some stage we shall have a proper White Paper discussion on the matter. I hope also that the Government will not come forward merely with a pre-digested Bill.
We have had a useful debate. I hope that the Government have taken some notice of what has been said, otherwise we shall have wasted our time in this House more than usual.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who is the doyen of our club. I echo his words about the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. However, like other Ministers of Transport, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, failed to pay his dues to be a member of the club. They are that whoever is a member must produce a half-decent transport policy. I fear that his successor, whom I welcome, will be able to do that; but not on the evidence of today's debate.
I met the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in my capacity as a commissioner. He was a pleasure to deal with, although somewhat hyperbolic in his claims for the Government's environment policy. I remember that during the first informal meeting that he attended as Minister for the Department for the Environment he claimed, to the incredulity of every other environment Minister sitting around the table, that under Mrs. Thatcher the Government had been in the lead on environment policies. Other Ministers present could not believe that because they had witnessed obstruction after obstruction placed in the way of advance. So be it. Unfortunately, in his claims today about the Government's transport policy he appeared to go a little over the top. I regret that he can no longer be present, but I understand the reasons.
Your Lordships have been privileged to hear two maiden speeches of outstanding quality. They were delivered by noble Lords who not only knew what they were talking about but cared about the issues they were addressing. They were the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, who is a powerful advocate of the Tidy Britain Campaign, and the noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, who spoke compellingly about matters affecting the rural economy.
We also heard fascinating speeches from a number of other noble Lords. However, they did not appear to appeal greatly to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who found the debate rather dreary. But not his speech—
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I made those remarks in good faith but I did not mean them to be taken too seriously.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if they were made in good faith the situation is even worse!
Perhaps I may refer to noble Lords who spoke about the issue of transport because I shall address the
216
House primarily on those issues during the course of this wind-up speech. I believe that my noble friends Lady Nicol and Lord Sefton asked some searching questions to which I hope the Minister will reply. Not least was the question of the threat to the Jubilee Line extension. That threat impinges on so many other elements of transport and environmental policies. Those questions deserve a full response.
My noble friend Lord Sefton questioned why a statement could be made by Mr. Heseltine about the proposed demolition of Marsham Street without any questions being asked. There may be some merit in doing away with the building but I only hope that some of the hard-boiled and half-baked ideas which have emanated from there during the past 13 years will perish with it.
I turn to the matters which were raised in the gracious Speech. It appears that the Government have carried the concept of opt-out, which they memorably demonstrated during the course of Maastricht, to a fine art. They are opting out of essential issues affecting the community and thus marginalising Britain's influence. They are opting out of the question of a European infrastructure policy on transport. They have never liked nor supported that; they have merely paid lip service to it. They have opted out on the question of unemployment, homelessness and critically important environmental policies. Most important in that context they have opted out of the much-vaunted environment agency which was the flagship of the Tory green manifesto. The agency was to police air, water and land pollution. Last July it was proudly proclaimed, and now it has been torpedoed somewhat extraordinarily by a Minister whom one thought least capable of doing so; Mr. John Selwyn Gummer.
The Government have been hanging on to the coat tails of the United States in relation to Rio. Most noble Lords who have spoken in the debate would have wished Britain to have asserted its demand that the United States should come into line on this matter instead of being prepared to opt out of the essential issue of the application of timetables. Without timetables the declaration at Rio will be less than useless. The Government have opted out of the question of environmental audits. All that sets in reasonable context their so-called green credentials on the eve of the earth summit.
The Government have opted out of the obvious need to give top priority to a reduction in pollution emissions and the encouragement of environmentally friendly production and transport. That issue was alluded to by my noble friend Lord McIntosh at the beginning of the debate. In this House I have never heard from the Government a clear demonstration of their commitment to the relationship between transport and environmental policies. All too often transport policies lead to environmental degradation. That is an issue to which the Government have not even paid lip service during the course of the debate.
At present there is no national transport framework; one which integrates land use with transport planning and which is designed to minimise traffic generation seeking to place public road and

217
transport schemes on a comparable and equitable basis while ensuring that environmental protection requirements are always a component of all other policies. That is a duty laid upon the Government and accepted by them in the Single European Act.
In our judgment co-ordination between different transport modes is also extremely important. There is a requirement for railways to relieve road congestion which is enormously costly to this country not only in terms of environmental pollution but also in financial terms. There needs to be a good public transport system to relieve urban congestion. We need to have effective road infrastructures into our railheads. We need to concentrate on the environmental benefits of a sensible transport policy.
The Royal Institute of British Architects has stated that the transport system in this country is in a state of chaos. It has produced a report on the matter; An agenda.for the 1990s. It is a most interesting report but I fear that the Government have paid little attention to it.
I wish to cite one or two of the themes struck in that report. It says that a balance must be struck within the next generation between private and public transport and road and rail. It says:
"More road building is not the solution to the problem of traffic in towns and cities. Without efficient public transport towns and cities will be condemned to terminal decline".
It goes on:
"Railways are the most effective means of mass transportation and a target should be set for the transfer of freight from road to rail … But more public investment and subsidy will be needed to maintain and improve rail services. Privatisation will not ensure an improved railway network".
I believe that is profoundly right and that comes not from my lips but as a direct quotation from the report by the Royal Institute of British Architects.
If the Germans can manage to achieve higher car ownership but use their cars less often and if the people of Holland are now seeing car use decline as a result of public choice, why can we in this country not do the same? Of course, the situation demands a government with foresight and the will to act. So far those qualities have not been produced by this Government or their immediate predecessor.
I have some sympathy for the new Secretary of State for Transport. He has only been in the job for about five minutes and he inherits from his predecessors that chaotic position described by the Royal Institute of British Architects. The Secretary of State for Transport is a member of the Magic Circle but the problems confronting public transport in general and British Rail in particular cannot be dealt with by illusions or tricks. It is no use trying to apply the Prime Minister's nostalgic nostrums of reviving the old regional railway companies. They were not a distinct success in any event. We have moved on from that.
Barely six months away from the completion of the internal market that is promised at the end of this year, British Rail has announced that it has inadequate funds to expand its long-term investment programme. The situation is dire: no new rolling stock orders for five years, thereby threatening the viability of Britain's rolling stock manufacturers, coupled with all the other damaging consequences to which I need
218
not refer again; 250 InterCity trains for the west coast main line between London and Glasgow and 1,500 new Networker coaches for Network SouthEast and Kent coast services postponed indefinitely; the deferment of the £4.5 billion general high speed rail-link from London to Folkestone; the deferment of the £1 billion development of the second Channel Tunnel terminal at King's Cross; major modifications of track and signalling works; and inadequate funds to carry out infrastructural works to enable speeds to be raised from something like 100 mph to service the Channel link in contrast—and this is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults—with the French trains which will travel at something like 200 miles per hour to the French coast.
British Rail faces a declining income from fares and property sales. Those are but some of the problems which confront a much maligned but extremely significant, for us, road transport system. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, boasted, as his predecessor did, about investment; not much of it, not all of it by any means, coming from the Government, while British Rail is left to fend for itself. The demands have changed so much over the course of the past decade that it makes the claim almost irrelevant to the needs of British Rail and, indeed, British infrastructure as a whole.
A very important question was posed by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, which we posed over and over again before the election campaign. How does it come about that the French railways are able to borrow on British markets whereas British Rail is constrained from doing so? That is a nonsense but the Government simply will not address that. Britain desperately needs high speed rail links between the Channel Tunnel and the regions but what realistic chance is there that those will be provided by the private sector? I doubt whether the Minister can address the issue this evening, but we are entitled to know how the Government propose to fund such links. Time is of the essence.
We need more private investment in railways but what sense is there in denuding the Government of necessary strategic decision-making powers, which should be inherent in a government's plans? What was needed was a clear plan announced in the gracious Speech and followed by legislation. To divide the ownership of tracks and trains could well involve a serious fragmentation of services, a breakdown in co-ordination, very substantial fare increases and also a substantial reduction in services to rural areas. As my noble friend Lady Nicol said, that is the result of the bus deregulation about which the Government, curiously, seem to be so proud.
As regards the roads programme, the Government insist on going ahead with their £6.3 billion road programme over three years. I am certainly not arguing that we should totally axe that programme; that makes no sense at all. However, the Government need to heed their own warnings; namely, an 80 per cent. to 142 per cent. increase in road traffic by the year 2025. That is simply unsustainable and

219
environmentally intolerable. Will they never learn that building more and more motorways does not reduce the problems of excessive road transport?
Just over a year ago the previous Secretary of State announced that he was enthusiastically and unequivocally in favour of getting more freight and passenger traffic onto the railways. Is that the intention of the Government today? I do not know whether the Minister can nod in affirmation or deny it. We seem to get nothing out of him and I suspect that we shall get nothing from him when he winds up the debate. However, there is a duty on the Government to explain—and they have never done so before—how they propose to achieve that objective.
What has happened to the previous Secretary of State's study of road pricing? That appears to have disappeared totally from the Government's agenda. There is not a word of it in the Queen's Speech. What is needed is a major switch of investment from the roads budget to the railways. That is a case which we have made over and over again but the Government simply will not heed it.
On shipping, that does not rate much of a mention in any of the Government's thinking today. There are a few words about shipping in the manifesto. What the Government have to say about shipping is very interesting. They say:
"We will ensure that the recommendations of the Government-Industry Joint Working Party are put into effect as rapidly as possible".
Why does something not appear in the Queen's Speech about that, because so far the Government have not yielded to any persuasion from the shipping industry or anybody interested in that sector or anybody on the Opposition side about how the floundering British shipping industry is to be rescued? The Government appear not to have a thought about that. They appear not to have applied any degree of importance to the salvation of that critically important industry.
At this stage of the debate I cannot go into all the problems affecting other modes of transport. However, I promise that we shall scrutinise the Government's legislation with great care. We shall use whatever influence we can to persuade the Government not to embark on the sort of policies to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred; namely, bus deregulation in London. We shall listen most carefully to those noble Lords on both sides of the House who, judging by their expertise demonstrated in the course of this debate today, will have much to offer in terms of advice to the Government in the months and year or so which lie ahead.
7.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I rather admired the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for his courage in saying that this debate was dreary. I suspect that in one or two areas he was probably right, but in another two areas he was not right; that is with regard to the two excellent maiden speeches we heard from my noble friends Lord Bradford and Lord De L'Isle.
220
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bradford on a most thought-provoking and stimulating maiden speech. I hope that he will continue to give this House the benefit of his knowledge in regard to the real challenges we face in protecting the local environment in which we all live and work. The littering of our streets and public places has been a problem in parts of this country for a long time. It is an issue which causes considerable concern within local communities. Like many other noble Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend about the excellent work done by the Tidy Britain Group.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord De L'Isle on his choice of subject for his maiden speech and the eloquent style with which he delivered it. I agree with my noble friend that the rural economy is extremely important. It is a matter dear to the hearts of many of your Lordships and indeed to all citizens of this country. Many noble Lords mentioned that subject during the course of the debate and I shall return to it during the course of my reply.
Another speech I should not call dreary was that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It was slightly more depressed than anything else and perhaps only achieved a slight spark when he mentioned the poll tax, the council tax and the problems surrounding them. Noble Lords will be delighted to hear that I shall not deal with any of those old subjects that have been dealt with time and time again.
However, the noble Lord levelled some charges against the Government in regard to their approach to local government. I believe that my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle got it right when she said that we want to ensure that local people receive high quality value for money services from their local authorities, and that is the plan that we have pursued over the course of the past few years.
The noble Lord questioned the content of our proposed Housing, Land and Urban Development Bill. It is this Government which improved the rights of local authority tenants and we intend to continue to do so. However, I am glad that the noble Lord welcomed our rents to mortgages policy; at least he did so in principle and that is an encouraging sign.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has been around for a long time and seen many initiatives. But the proposed urban regeneration agency is not just another inner city idea as he suggested. The agency will bring together existing land development programmes and tackle the problem of vacant and derelict land in a single-minded way. On that subject the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the finance of the agency. Of course as the agency develops the need for resources will be kept under review and we commit ourselves to making sure that the necessary finances are available.
Noble Lords from all sides of the House asked why there was no legislation on an environment agency. There is no need to become excited about that omission. The Government remain fully committed to the agency. We are urgently examining the results of our recent consultation exercise. We shall shortly be announcing our preferred option for the environment

221
agency. Drafting of the Bill will then proceed so that we can take advantage of the earliest possible legislative opportunity. That remark seems to cause some amusement among noble Lords, but it is something for us all to look forward to over the course of the next few years.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening but can he answer the question of whether or not he is including the rivers authorities. That was not clear from what he said though it was clear in the manifesto.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I certainly would not want to pre-empt the next gracious Speech. It is something for which we shall all have to wait before we obtain a final answer.
I take issue with one point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He said that there was no environment policy across the board in the United Kingdom. In my experience in ministerial office I feel that we have one of the best environmental strategies in the world, particularly in our White Paper system of annual monitoring and reviews. The noble Lord poked fun when my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned annual reviews. But he should read them. He will discover that they are extremely well thought out, detailed documents explaining exactly what we have done over the course of the past year. In October of this year we shall be issuing the second report on action and update and I shall ensure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, receives a copy.
We are not simply aiming at CO2 reduction. Our target is to return CO2 emissions to the 1990 level by the year 2000, provided others take similar action. It is a demanding target and we shall meet it in several ways—through energy efficiency, through longer-term measures, including the use of renewable energy, and in the long term through energy pricing.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, along with many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, spoke of the Rio conference. It is a subject to which we shall return next week when there is a general debate on it. I look forward to that with great interest. However, the Rio conference is only a beginning. The real work will take place after the 14th June. It will be for governments, international bodies, including the United Nations, to put into effect the commitments that are being set out.
I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He accused this Government of acquiescing in the USA apathy on the Rio summit. This country, under this Prime Minister, has been in the forefront of negotiations leading up to the summit. The Prime Minister was the first head of government to announce his intention to attend. He has been actively encouraging others to do so. My right honourable friends the former Secretary of State for the Environment and the present Secretary of State pressed the US to attend. The successful outcome of the negotiations on a climate change convention have greatly increased the likelihood that President Bush will attend the summit.
222
My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle put the point so well when she said that it is up to individuals who have a responsibility for the environment. The Government are also encouraging that view through our variety of publicity campaigns, especially through the Helping the Earth Begins at Home efficiency campaign.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on water resources was an important one and I entirely agree. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, raised a number of questions regarding water resources. He was right in saying that the South and East of England have suffered four successive winters of abnormally low rainfall. That is bound to make questions of water resources more acute and urgent. My department is keeping a close watch on developments. However, the primary responsibility lies on the water undertakers who have a duty to maintain supplies and the National Rivers Authority which has wide statutory duties on water resources. So far as we can judge, appropriate action is being taken by all those parties.
The noble Lord also specifically mentioned the problem of rivers with low flows. That issue is being addressed by the NRA. We recently approved its proposed expenditure on the River Ver. The noble Lord was concerned that that work may be hampered by the need to pay compensation for the revocation of licences to abstract water. Under the law as it has stood since 1963 compensation is payable if an abstraction licence is withdrawn, and such compensation will come from the licence fees payable by other abstractors. Answers other than licence revocation may well be more appropriate. I am sure that the NRA is addressing these matters in a sensible way. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, as well as other noble Lords, were also concerned about leakage from water pipes—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a fascinating point about where the money to pay compensation to abstractors whose licences are revoked is to come from. Is he telling the House that the money will come only from the licence fees of others abstractors and that no public money will be involved?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am saying that if there is compensation, it should come from the licence fees payable by other abstractors. That seems to be a perfectly sensible approach. Perhaps I may continue about the problems of leakage because it is an important question. There are no reliable figures on the extent to which it happens, but all water undertakers have in hand sophisticated programmes for detection and repair. They have an incentive to improve their performance and they are satisfied that they are making good progress. From my department's point of view we would like to keep in close touch with the water undertakers to see exactly what steps are being taken to minimise the amount of leakage from our water system.
Perhaps I may now turn to our policy on the countryside which was mentioned by many noble Lords during the course of the debate. The noble

223
Baroness, Lady Nicol, raised a number of points relating to the countryside and coastal nature areas. We feel that the Government's record on the countryside is an excellent one. In February of this year we published a major policy document, Action for the Countryside. No doubt the noble Baroness has seen a copy. That sets out clearly the Government's commitment to protecting and enhancing the countryside and habitats and announces a range of measures which we shall be introducing throughout this year and beyond. I look forward to putting the record straight in the course of the months ahead in the debates and questions that we shall undoubtedly have.
My noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton made a most impressive speech about the role of farming and the threat to the rural economy. I share his concerns for a vibrant rural economy. The Government are working on the integration of environmental considerations and for the reform of the common agricultural policy. We are offering support to farmers through set-aside schemes for benign environmental management, for encouraging organic farming and providing support for diversification. But nothing will help more than providing that balance between effective conservation and the vibrant and dynamic rural economy. I know that my noble friend will continue to argue forcefully for it.
The noble Baroness asked about a footpath for which someone had been paid £1.5 million in compensation. It is not a case I know; but perhaps she will allow me to look into it and I can write to her. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury spoke about contaminated land and the blight on property prices. Implementation of the new regulations requiring local authorities to compile registers on contaminated land has been postponed for the time being. That will allow for further work and consultation on the detailed requirements of the registers. In particular, we shall be giving careful consideration to the problems of blight and declining land values which were raised by my noble friend.
I now turn to my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Peel both of whom raised the issue of national parks and common land. We recognise that some parks have been criticised for not taking into account the views of local people. We have addressed that issue in our recent policy statement on the future of the parks and we have undertaken to ensure truly local representation on national park authorities. Park authorities are required to consult locally on management and development plans for their area before they can be formally adopted. We shall not renege on our commitment to legislate on national parks and that will come forward when parliamentary time allows.
My noble friend Lord Norrie was also particularly exercised concerning our policy on hedgerows. I regret that it has not been possible to include such legislation in the plans for the present Session. I recognise that there is some disappointment on that score. However, results from our recent survey of hedgerow loss show that the main threat to hedgerows comes from poor
224
management. Therefore, we have been discussing with the Countryside Commission and others ways in which our proposed hedgerow incentive scheme can be implemented aimed at aiding the improved management of hedgerows and helping to prevent losses from that cause. That scheme does not require new legislation for its introduction, and we shall make a further announcement as soon as possible.
Perhaps I may now change direction and talk about the transport policy considerations of this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned road congestion and public transport among many other things. Of course we are aware of the problems of congestion. We are carrying out a three-year programme of research into both the causes of congestion and the possible solutions including the feasibility of road pricing, which was a subject which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was getting exercised about.
The Government have committed record levels of public funding to public transport including the highest level of investment in rail since the transition from steam. But more than 90 per cent. of passenger journeys are made by road compared with 8 per cent. by rail. Even with the most massive investment in public transport, I have some doubts that we could provide a genuinely viable alternative to the majority of car trips. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, made a most interesting and exciting speech. I too hope that he will spend more time in this House, and that he will bring his energy and verve to this Chamber.
The key to improving rail services is increased investment and not subsidy. Recent increases in the grant reflect the difficult trading conditions and show that the Government are flexible. The delay to inter-capital trains caused by technical difficulties is not a delay in authorising or ordering the trains. BR and the Government are pressing the contractors to bring forward the delivery date. Services will build up through 1994. BR plan to operate a north of London day service from 1995. It also plans to operate some InterCity trains into Waterloo to provide an interchange with international trains for regional passengers once the inter-capital services start.
The first tranche of the order for the freight wagons has been given and they should be ready in time for the Tunnel opening. British Rail plans to invest over £1.4 billion to run services from London and the regions via the Channel Tunnel. Over £1 billion has already been authorised by the Department of Transport. BR's infrastructure works are on time and on budget.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. In the light of that statement, how does the noble Lord reconcile what he has said with the assertions made by British Rail that it will have to defer £7 billion worth of essential investment in infrastructure and other services because it cannot hope to get the money from the Government or any other source?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, presumably, if it is deferring it, it cannot really be that essential. As I have said, the amount of money which has been spent by

225
this Government on British Rail stands at a record level. Not since we changed from steam trains has so much money been spent.
In answer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Cochrane, discussions continue with all the parties concerned, with the aim of finding a long-term solution to retain the traffic on the Redmin branch. This includes consideration of whether a Section 8 freight facilities grant is applicable.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, seemed to suffer from the same depressive problem as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He talked about the Channel Tunnel. That is being built and is a significant achievement. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, was worried about the Department of the Environment moving and about whether there was some Machiavellian instinct in the previous Secretary of State for the Environment on the issue of a decision about Docklands. No decision has yet been taken on the relocation of staff from No. 2 Marsham Street. Various options are being explored, only one of which is Docklands.
The London Underground Bill for the extension of the Jubilee Line received Royal Assent on 16th March. Since then, London Underground has been awaiting the necessary approval from the Secretary of State for Transport to commence construction. My noble friend Lord Caithness is looking to Olympia & York to honour its undertaking to make a cash contribution to the project before we can give our approval to start construction.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, did Olympia & York make a pledge? Did it make an agreement? If it did not, why was the committee and this House told that there was an agreement in existence?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that if the noble Lord was told that there was an agreement in existence, then there is an agreement in existence and we shall have to see whether or not that agreement is honoured.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans—
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will forgive me for intervening again. Will he please repeat that because I did not quite hear it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that Hansard will have picked it up, so the noble Lord will
226
be able to read it in detail tomorrow. To briefly answer his point, if the noble Lord was told by a Minister at this Dispatch Box that there was an agreement, then surely there is an agreement.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, you can take it from me that there was not.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not going to get into a great and specific debate on this subject. I shall turn to my noble friend Lord Mountevans, who made an extremely interesting speech on a subject that he knows well. On the HASQUAD study, a report has been received and is being considered by Ministers. The report will be published as soon as possible. On RUCATSE, the working group is undertaking complex and sensitive work. My noble friend Lord Caithness looks forward to considering its report in due course. Any major runway development would of course be preceded by full public consultation.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish made an excellent speech, congratulating the Conservative and Unionist Party of Scotland on its tremendous result north of the Border. I understand that, although my noble friend was not out of order in speaking to that subject today, it will be replied to in greater detail tomorrow afternoon.
I know that I have not answered every question that has been asked today and I shall certainly write to noble Lords in more detail on the questions that they have raised. However, in conclusion, perhaps I may say that the Government's commitment to the improvement of services in local government, to a public transport system that truly meets the needs of the public and to a cleaner, healthier environment in which to live remains absolutely firm. The measures announced in the gracious Speech will take us closer to our goals and should be warmly welcomed. I commend them to your Lordships' House.
8.14 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at a quarter past eight o'clock.

  REGIONAL ENTERPRISE GRANTS SCHEME
  REGIONAL ENTERPRISE GRANTS SCHEME