Sitting of 2 February 1993

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

    ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 4 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    English
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the implementation of key stage 3 of the national curriculum in English.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will undertake a pilot project in the 1993–94 academic year to test further the most appropriate way of delivering key stage 3 English in the national curriculum.
    Mr. Milligan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on progress in introducing English tests in secondary schools.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): Tests provide vital information about children's progress. This is nowhere more important than in English, which is the bedrock of the curriculum.
    The preparation of the 1993 English tests by the School Examinations and Assessment Council has been scrupulous. The tests have been tried out in hundreds of schools over the past two and half years. SEAC itself has responded to teachers' concerns by providing all the information that teachers need about the tests in January—a good five months before they are taken.
    The tests will go ahead as planned; anything less would be to let down pupils who have been following the national curriculum in English for the past three years.
    Mr. Bradley: The Secretary of State clearly does not realise the anger and despair that he is causing in local schools by pressing ahead with key stage 3. Will he not today announce the postponement of the tests for at least one year and pick up the phone and talk to some of the teachers in my constituency at local schools such as Oakwood and Parrswood about the total lack of preparation time that they have been given? There has also been a complete lack of consultation on the adequacy of the tests, which are inadequate in relationship to the
    126
    national curriculum. The Secretary of State should today call for a postponement, not for his sake or for my sake, but for the sake of our children's education.
    Mr. Patten: Over the past two and a half years the tests have been piloted in more than 500 schools, involving more than 45,000 children. There are two separate issues. First, the tests are new, and all new tests cause problems with people who have not conducted them before; there are alleged teething problems, and I respect the views of teachers, including secondary school heads, who are always interested in getting the tests right.
    Secondly, there is a totally separate agenda characterised by the National Union of Teachers which, in its "Anti-SATs News", states that it wishes to undermine the whole of the Government's testing regime. It states:
    "The boycott of the Key Stage 3 English tests is the first step on this road."
    Mrs. Campbell: Given the Secretary of State's well-known reluctance to listen to anyone with misgivings about the direction of his education policy, may I ask to whom he listened when he decided to change the national curriculum for English well before the time it was due for review and against the recommendations of the report of Warwick university?
    Mr. Patten: The National Curriculum Council—professional advisers to the Secretary of State in England—felt that the English curriculum needed a review and that there should be much more concentration on the basics in the English curriculum. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that the English national curriculum and the testing regime run as smoothly as possible. There are more than 4 million adult illiterates in this country, and the number has been rising since the 1960s—hence the critical importance of the testing: we need a benchmark against which to judge children's improved performance.
    Mr. Milligan: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said. Is it not vital to introduce proper testing to reduce the number of illiterates in Britain, which is one of the most serious problems that we face? Will he recognise, however, that some head teachers in my constituency who support the principle of testing are concerned at the relatively rapid speed with which the English tests have been introduced? Is there not a case for a dry run this year, as was done with the maths and science tests last year?
    Mr. Patten: Those are the kind of arguments that were put forward by head teachers, a great number of whom I have met in recent months to discuss those and other issues. In the run-up to the first ever proper tests in English for children aged seven in 1991 there were the same kind of fears and inhibitions, but the tests went ahead. They have given us a benchmark and have shown that, while between 1991 and 1992 the performance of children in English improved, lamentably, about one quarter of our children are still not performing adequately in English. We must begin to ensure that all our children get a fair deal, and testing is critical in that process.
    Mr. Madel: Will my right hon. Friend consider sympathetically representations made to him by schools that have suddenly had to buy additional books for key stage 3 for which they had not budgeted?
    Mr. Patten: I know the particular problems in Bedfordshire. My hon. Friend has been an assiduous

    127
    promoter of the interests of schools in his county and his constituency. This year, there has been about £15 million additional support for books. Every time there is a new syllabus—it is the same with GCSE and A-level—there can be additional demands. That is why I urge all local authorities to delegate as much of their budget as possible to schools, because less money spent on bureaucrats equals more money spent on books.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State correct his statement a few minutes ago that the tests have been piloted in hundreds of schools? Is it not a fact that the University of Cambridge local examinations syndicate obtained the contract for the tests last summer and that the tests have been piloted in only 32 schools involving pupils of the wrong age—15-year-olds and not 14-year-olds? Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and realise that it is not just in Bedfordshire that schools face financial problems as a result of the imposition of the tests? What does he intend to do about the fact that some of the books on the recommended list are out of print? Will he acknowledge that he cannot say that he respects teachers, parents and governors and then always refuse to listen to them?
    Mr. Patten: No, and if the hon. Lady goes on like that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be putting in claims for damages for passive boring. The key stage 3 English tests have been prepared with more care and over a longer period than any other public examination.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting those teachers and their organisations who have set aside the idea of a boycott because they feel that that is not the right way forward? Does he agree that a boycott goes against the whole idea of teachers' professional standards and is not the right way to conduct a debate on this or any other issue?
    Mr. Patten: Any boycott would do great damage to the teaching profession. Head teachers, whom I met as recently as last Friday in a group to discuss just this issue, all said that they did not wish to see any boycotting of the tests. However, I happen to know from the evidence that I put before the House a moment or two ago that the NUT now wishes to go completely against testing. I happen to think that that is becoming Labour party policy as well.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received concerning the procedures associated with ballots for deciding whether schools become grant maintained.
    Mr. Patten: My Department receives a number of letters, telephone calls and other representations concerning the procedures associated with ballots for deciding whether schools become grant maintained. Since the Education Reform Act 1988 came into force, we have received many useful suggestions about ways in which the grant-maintained ballot process could be improved. The Education Bill now before the House contains measures to smooth the process and to assist governors in putting their case to parents.
    Mr. Madden: Is the Secretary of State aware that despite the political vendetta that he has waged against Bradford local education authority—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that opting out by schools in Bradford has been a complete and utter flop? Does he also accept that, however much he attempts further to rig balloting and other procedures, most sensible parents, when the full facts are placed before them, will reject the prospect of placing the fate and funding of local education authority schools in the hands of the Secretary of State or any of his successors?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is extremely important that parents, governors and the local community should have the full facts put before them in the most unemotional and non-political form possible. When information is presented in that way and parents have the chance to vote, we see the result in schools in Bradford such as Oakbank, which I can announce today has just become grant maintained. In Blackburn yesterday, a school voted to become grant maintained with a 70 per cent. turnout of parents and a massive majority in favour of grant-maintained status. Well-informed parents with the information before them should be left to make up their own minds and not be subjected to political bullying and harassment.
    Dr. Spink: In view of the ever-increasing number of parents who are voting for their children's schools to become grant maintained and, therefore, to take control of those schools with true local accountability, what does my right hon. Friend think of the remark by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the Labour Front-Bench education spokesman, that it is Labour's intention—
    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are completely out of order —and he paid no attention to me when I told him so. I call upon the Secretary of State to give a limited reply, provided that it does not relate to that part of the hon. Gentleman's question that was out of order.
    Mr. Patten: That will be quite difficult, Madam Speaker. However, I hold my hon. Friend—the pride of Essex—in great esteem for the way in which he attempted to put on the record the fact that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has come out on grant-maintained schools—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order".] This is on grant-maintained schools solo—honest John Patten —honestly, Madam Speaker. Following the question of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), the hon. Lady said that it is now Labour party policy to return all grant-maintained schools to local authority control.

    Special Needs
    Ms. Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the adequacy of funds available for special needs education.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): It is for local education authorities and schools with delegated management to decide on the level of funds to devote to special education. Well-run local authorities and schools should be able to fulfil their duties in respect of pupils with special educational needs.
    Ms. Walley: Although the Minister's answer sounds all well and good, does he not realise that the competitive direction in which he is leading local schools is causing anxiety to the parents of children requiring special needs education? Is he aware that in Staffordshire there has been an 18 per cent. increase in requests for formal assessment and that the average increase is the same throughout the country? Is it not the case that, as a result of the Government's so-called education reform, the budgets of local schools are so stretched and stressed that they cannot deal properly with special needs education?
    Mr. Forth: I do not accept that. There is ample evidence that special educational needs are being well met by schools up and down the country, and by most local education authorities. Because the hon. Lady's authority, Staffordshire, started off with a somewhat lower percentage of statemented children, it has scope to catch up and there is evidence that it is doing just that. Although there is some evidence that more parents are asking for statements, there is also evidence of an increase in the amount of statementing done by that local education authority.
    There has been a widespread welcome for the huge step that we are taking in the Education Bill now in Committee. We are introducing many radical new provisions for children with special educational needs and they have been welcomed throughout the community involved.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just a question of money? The provision of specialist help is also vital. Can my hon. Friend assure me that his Department is discussing the matter seriously both with health authorities and with social service departments, which are also purchasers of services such as speech therapy and psychology, so that the partnership between the three publicly funded bodies can be maximised?
    Mr. Forth: Indeed. My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We are constantly aware of the need to ensure, wherever possible, that all authorities involved in and concerned with the meeting of special educational needs—for instance, education authorities, health authorities and social service departments—work co-operatively to ensure that they all discharge their various responsibilities together in making the best possible provision. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that, although organisations dealing with special educational needs welcome a number of aspects of the Education Bill, they are nevertheless very fearful about funding levels? They have already presented evidence of a drop in provision of learning support services. With 120 cases involving statements going to judicial review, this is but the tip of the iceberg. The Minister's Department must take seriously the evidence of underfunding and lack of services for children with special educational needs, whether or not they have statements.
    Mr. Forth: I do not think that that is right, although I accept part of what the hon. Gentleman has said—that the mechanism for providing statements for children with special educational needs has let down many children and parents progressively over the years. That is exactly why we propose to introduce, in the Bill now in Committee, a new code of practice to give guidance on the statementing
    130
    procedure, new time limits and a tribunal to provide an independent source of appeal. I believe that all those measures will go a long way towards enabling the statementing process, which is vital to a small but important number of children with special educational needs, to work properly. As for the other children involved, we have strengthened the Bill's provisions to ensure not only that all schools are aware of their responsibilities, but that they spell out those responsibilities clearly. They will be inspected in regard to their responsibilities. That is the way in which to proceed.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although resources for special educational needs must be kept under constant review, the clear message from the Audit Commission was that the problem was not lack of resources but the fact that some local education authorities did not give high enough priority to the statementing process? Will my hon. Friend send the message to every education authority in the country today that authorities should not wait for the measures in the Bill, good as they are, but should get on with the process now and protect the children currently in need?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in such matters, is absolutely right. It is not so much a matter of the resources available as a question of how they are deployed. Many local education authorities have demonstrated that, with the right sense of priorities and the right management practices, they can fully fulfil their obligation to children with special educational needs. I believe that the Bill will provide the proper framework to ensure that all authorities do that in future; in other words, it will enable us to raise all of them to the excellent standard of the best.

    Graduates (Employment)
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of university graduates left university last year and went straight into full-time employment.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Of those first-degree students whose first destination is known, about 50 per cent. went into full or part-time employment in the United Kingdom or overseas in 1991, the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that the figures that I have obtained from the Library are very different? According to my figures, of 70,000 graduates, only 32,000 obtained jobs; the rest had to go on studying, because they could not find work—apart from the 7,000 who were still on the dole six months later.
    Is the Minister aware that unemployment among graduates has risen by 50 per cent. in three years? Why are we training these youngsters? Are we doing it to provide the best-educated dole queue in the world so that the Japanese can come in and exploit them as there is no minimum wage? What is the purpose of it all?
    Mr. Boswell: The purpose of education is long term. It is to secure a trained, skilled and motivated work force in which graduates will play a leading part in terms of their chances of employment and their salary structure in the years to come. The hon. Gentleman has taken the worst

    131
    possible construction of the figures. He has not, for example, looked at the "Graduate Employment Prospects Review" for the current year which, while stating that this is a difficult year, says that we are in a difficult but not impossible situation and that employers are optimistic about the future. The hon. Gentleman should not use the disappointments of today to dissuade people from going to college to build for their tomorrow and for the country's future.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that there are more than 40 per cent. more students in higher education now than there were in 1980? Will he also join me in condemning the reduction in grant for students, especially mature students, by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council?
    Mr. Boswell: I accept my hon. Friend's first point. There has been a huge expansion in graduate numbers, and I make no apology for that, as I do not want to return to elitism—I want people to go to college if they are qualified to do so.
    As for further education and the discretionary awards in Lancashire, that is a matter for the council but also for the electors in May. I am sure that the electors of Lancashire will draw the appropriate conclusions.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that investment in higher education is investment in the human capital of the nation, but that there may be a threat to the quality of that investment in higher education and to the quality of future graduates if the funding council is given control of quality in universities? Will not that pose a threat to academic freedom throughout the country—a threat which is as unacceptable from the right as it would be from the left? Self-regulation is good enough for the City, and in respect of quality it is better that self-regulation comes from the universities rather than being imposed on them by the funders, which would pose a threat to the quality of future graduates.
    Mr. Boswell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about one objective—that investment in higher education is clearly an investment in the country's future. That is right. With respect, however, I disagree with him on his point about quality and the analogy that he drew with the City. So far as I know, the City does not run on taxpayers' money—[Interruption.] Higher education is financed with several billion pounds of taxpayers' money and we wish to ensure proper value for money—not on my account, but through the Universities Funding Council, which is to establish an independent and proper system of assessment of the quality delivered.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that since the introduction of student loans there has been a substantial increase in the number of students going to university? Does that not give the lie to the prophets of doom whose forecasts were as inaccurate as their policies are unacceptable?
    Mr. Boswell: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We want people to go to university. We are delivering that, and the quality and standards in universities to go with it. We have no apology to make.

    Teacher Morale
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the morale of teachers in local education authority schools.
    Mr. Patten: Teachers have responded admirably to the challenge of raising standards and extending choice, and the Government and the country are grateful to them. The Government's reforms have helped parents to appreciate how much good teaching contributes to their children's education. Effective management at school level is the key to motivating teachers and ensuring that good performance is identified and rewarded.
    Mr. Jones: After the waves of change and legislation, why do Ministers not slow down and, in particular, listen? It would help. Why has the right hon. Gentleman been so rude to parents and so condescending to the profession? Does he not know that he is seen as a posturing and dictatorial figure in education—in fact, as a sort of Mussolini of the school service?
    Mr. Patten: I shall not take that accusation of fascism to heart, Madam Speaker, and nor will you. I suppose that it is the kind of thing that we expect to hear from the hon. Gentleman Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who is a parliamentary consultant to the National Union of Teachers. It is always important to know which hon. Member is the parliamentary consultant for the National Union of Teachers because he or she will remain a marked person for the rest of this Parliament.
    Since last April, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blatch in the other place, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and I have been to more than 75 schools, not talking at teachers but listening to them. Perhaps I could give the hon. Member an example. When Baroness Blatch, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and I visited those schools, we were told by a number of primary school teachers that they felt that the national curriculum was a bit overcrowded.
    In response to listening to teachers, we announced two Mondays ago that we would introduce over a period a review of the national curriculum. There is no going slow on the Government's schools policy.
    Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not a parliamentary consultant for the National Union of Teachers.
    Mr. Patten rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Clappison. [Interruption.] Order. How can I hear unless hon. Members are quiet?
    Mr. Patten: Further to that point of order—
    Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no point of order in the middle of Question Time. Perhaps we can deal with the matter at the end of Question Time.
    Mr. Clappison: Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing concern at the destructive effects on the morale of teachers, parents and pupils of the small minority of teachers who undermine testing and water down standards in our schools, as in the case of the small minority of

    133
    English teachers who want to set aside our rich literary heritage and abandon Shakespeare? Is that a case not so much of morale as of fitness to teach?
    Mr. Patten: I think that we should be grateful to all teachers who work hard. There is always a small group of people who simply do not like the way in which a Government conduct their education policy. It is those people, especially in the National Union of Teachers, who have been waging such a battle against testing. I predict that we will see the Labour party fight hard in an attempt to undermine our education reforms. It was from the Register of Members' Interests that I took the attribution to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what arrangements will be made to protect the interests of staff at a school that transfers from local education authority control to grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Boswell: The contracts of employment of staff automatically transfer from the local education authority to the governing body of a grant-maintained school, which is required to observe all aspects of employment law. Staff at grant-maintained schools have the same rights as other employees to take their case to an industrial tribunal or to the courts.
    Mr. Pope: Does the Minister accept that there is a legal obligation on GM schools not only to accept the terms and conditions that exist for teaching and non-teaching staff but to maintain the union recognition agreement when there is evidence—and I have evidence—that conditions of service for teaching and non-teaching staff in GM schools are worsening? Can he give an assurance to the House, which he would not give to the Standing Committee, that the Minister has not only the power but the political will to intervene?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the acquired rights directive which is under consideration in another Standing Committee of the House. Whether or not the directive is enacted in our domestic legislation, it already requires that grant-maintained schools must recognise unions for the same purposes and to the same extent as they were recognised by the local education authority until such time as the agreement is amended or terminated.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: Can my hon. Friend advise my local authority, the teachers who work therein and those people in schools who are considering going grant maintained what protection there is for teachers who wish to participate in, or at least give their assent to, becoming grant maintained against the local authority that indicates that they may be acting contrary to its wishes?
    Mr. Boswell: I had the opportunity to attend a college in Surrey yesterday, and I know of the good reputation that my right hon. Friend's local education authority generally holds. I emphasise, however, that in the Education Bill, which is currently under consideration, we have taken steps to ensure that obstruction and interference by the local authority—whether Surrey or elsewhere—as they may bear on individual teachers involved in a compaign, should be reduced to a minimum
    134
    and, if possible, eliminated. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to sanction or condone such unfair and inappropriate practices.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister is telling the House about unfair and inappropriate practices. He must be aware—the Standing Committee considering the Education Bill has certainly been made aware—that grant-maintained schools have already sacked teachers and altered their contracts of employment, refusing, for example, to recognise length and continuity of service or to allow maternity and other benefits to be properly enjoyed. Is it the Government's intention that grant-maintained schools should erode the employment conditions of teachers to save money? If, as the Minister implies, the answer to that is no, will he take steps to prevent grant-maintained schools from doing that?
    Mr. Boswell: The purpose of the discussion in the Standing Committee was to consider the effect of the acquired rights directive on conditions of transfer. If the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to say that no grant-maintained school may ever dismiss a teacher, I must remind him that, under the local management of schools arrangements, the governors of schools within the maintained sector already have the power to hire and fire, and I know of at least one locally managed school where two teachers have been dismissed through redundancy. There is no essential difference between the two sectors in that respect.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with children queuing up to get into grant-maintained schools and with strong community and parental support for them, the morale of teachers in such schools is unprecedentedly high?
    Mr. Boswell: As ever, my hon. Friend is exactly on the point. The survey recently conducted by Grant-Maintained Schools Ltd. shows a positive side on employment practices as well as on the delivery of education. My hon. Friend is right: staffing levels are generally better and staff turnover is very much lower than in the equivalent maintained schools.

    Teaching Practice
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on his Department's policy and role in respect of instructing teachers (a) what to teach and (b) how to teach it.
    Mr. Patten: I have recently brought to schools' attention advice from the Office for Standards in Education—the inspectorate—and the National Curriculum Council on strategies for improving curricular organisation and classroom practice.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is not there a real danger that the Secretary of State will become too involved in the way in which things are done in the classroom and too prescriptive and rigid about the way in which teachers teach? Should not we trust teachers, governors and heads to decide how teaching should be done in the classroom, rather than the state being involved in every single decision?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman says. There is a wide spectrum of opinion

    135
    among those interested in education—from right to left and from traditional to progressive—that regulation should not be too prescriptive and that there should not be too much interference in what happens in the classroom. Nevertheless, the National Curriculum Council and the inspectorate made individual reports to me at the same time saying that they felt that a number of practices that had largely been dropped in primary schools in the 1960s and early 1970s, such as setting and whole-class teaching, were practices from which children should benefit. It was important to draw the conclusions of those two bodies to teachers' attention.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is pure common sense, as the National Curriculum Council and OFSTED said in their reports last week, that primary teachers should do more whole-class teaching, that they should have an idea of exactly the curriculum that they are meant to be teaching and that it is not in any way ideological to set or stream pupils according to their ability? Does not the fact that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the Opposition spokesman, calls those common sense remarks "fanatical doctrine" show the extent to which she is out of touch with parental opinion in Britain?
    Mr. Patten: I cannot improve on what my hon. Friend has said about the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). It is very important that when parents make up their minds about the school to which they wish their children to go, they know not only what the examination results are and something of the ethos of the school, as well as how religion is taught and what sports are available, but what teaching styles are used in the classroom. I am sure that parents have a right to such knowledge. They have a right to know whether setting is used and whether there is whole-class teaching. I intend to make certain that in their prospectuses for next year all schools will be required to give an accurate description not only of what they teach but of how they teach.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State accept that his Department, in addition to having a policy about instructing teachers, should have a policy of listening to teachers? Can he give us any evidence that his Department is doing that?
    Mr. Patten: There is a range of evidence from my meetings with teachers, parents and governors during more than 75 visits to schools since last April. Week after week after week, individuals and groups of teachers come to see me and my ministerial colleagues to discuss just these issues.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers are now employed in grant-maintained schools; and how many children are educated in such schools.
    Mr. Patten: It is estimated that some 14,000 qualified teachers were teaching more than 236,000 pupils in January 1992 in schools in England that are currently grant maintained.
    Mr. Pawsey: These are indeed impressive figures, which underline the success and the importance of grant-maintained schools. Can my right hon. Friend speculate about what the reaction of teachers and parents will be when they discover that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has said that if the Labour party were elected to government they would abolish grant-maintained schools?
    Mr. Patten: When I left the Department to come to the House today there were 622 yes votes for grant-maintained status. We are well on target towards the projected 1,500 by 1 April 1994. I can only imagine the despair in the hearts of teachers, governors, parents and others connected with the growing number of grant-maintained schools at the pledge of the hon. Lady—a pledge now on the record, including television—that if she ever gets into power she will abolish all grant-maintained schools straight away.
    Mr. Steinberg: May I inform the Secretary of State that I am the consultant to the National Union of Teachers—and proud of it. Now that the policy of having an avalanche of schools opting out has failed, do the Government intend to force schools into grant-maintained status?
    Mr. Patten: It is very interesting that the hon. Gentleman has come out as the NUT's representative in this House. He has taken up the battle from his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) who, I understand, laid down the burden a few weeks ago, although his name is still in the Register of Members' Interests, which is where I got the information. I apologise, of course, for the inaccuracy. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman is next consulted by the National Union of Teachers, he will advise it how out of touch with the general public is its campaign against testing.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how welcome today's announcement of grant-maintained status will be to the teachers at Frances Bardsley school in my constituency? It will enable them to continue to provide the excellent education that girls receive there and, perhaps more important, will ensure the continued availability of badly needed single-sex girls' places in the borough. If, as I hope will happen, the school bids to retain its sixth form, will my right hon. Friend give that proposal his most sympathetic consideration?
    Mr. Patten: I, too, hope that grant-maintained schools and county-maintained schools will continue to diversify their spread of interests and to offer the choice and diversity in education that many of us wish to see.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State withdraw the remark—a remark that he has made on several occasions—that in ballots concerning grant-maintained status, "no" votes arise only because of intimidation by local education authorities? Do the ballots of the last few days—in Conservative North Yorkshire, a school voted no by 67 per cent.; in Conservative Cambridge, a school voted no by 72 per cent.; in Conservative East Sussex, a school voted no by 80 per cent.; and in Conservative West Sussex, a school voted no by 90 per cent.—indicate intimidation by local authorities?
    Mr. Patten: I congratulate the hon. Lady at having a second go during Question Time and I answer her question

    137
    by making only two points. On eight out of every 10 occasions when parents are asked whether they wish their schools to be grant maintained, they vote yes, as they voted yes in Blackburn yesterday.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In view of the outstanding success of grant-maintained schools in Lancashire, where the teachers are only too happy to come out from under the bureaucratic Lancashire county council, may I ask my right hon. Friend to suggest to any teachers who may be apprehensive to visit some of those schools to see how successful they are?
    Mr. Patten: It is always good for hon. Members in all parts of the House to visit grant-maintained schools. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dewsbury and her hon. Friends have ever been to a grant-maintained school. They should do so, because they would find queues of parents outside wishing to send their children there and they would see the walls bulging and standards improving continuously.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms. Lynne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ms. Lynne: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is aware of the case of my constituent Stefan Kiszko, who was wrongfully imprisoned for 16 years for the murder of Lesley Molseed? An inquiry is being conducted by the Lancashire police into the investigation of the case by the West Yorkshire police. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a personal commitment that when that inquiry is completed, the full facts will be made known to Stefan Kiszko and his mother and to the relatives of Lesley Molseed so that they will at long last know why there was a miscarriage of justice?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of that distressing case and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she would raise that specific point. As she will know, the then Home Secretary acted to refer the case to the Court of Appeal as soon as he had received and considered the results of the police inquiry that he had ordered. As a result of that, Mr. Kiszko's conviction was quashed.
    The Home Secretary has agreed that compensation should be paid to Mr. Kiszko. I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend to pursue with the police—whose responsibility it is—the question of publishing information about the case with the objective of publishing as much information as possible, subject of course to the need to avoid prejudicing criminal proceedings.
    Dr. Liam Fox: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Fox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the news that Oman has ordered 36 Challenger tanks and Saudi
    138
    Arabia 48 Tornado jets is extremely welcome, especially in the west country, where many jobs rely on the defence industry? Is he further aware that the chairman of British Aerospace has said that those deals would not have been concluded had it not been for the direct intervention of my right hon. Friend?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. Those successes by British companies show precisely what British exporters can achieve and underline the importance of the partnership between the Government and business and industry. The orders and other business concluded during my visit to India are worth literally billions of pounds and will sustain about 20,000 jobs in this country. They also reflect the close relationship between this country and the other countries concerned. But one of the most important aspects of such visits is not necessarily the business gained on that occasion but the opportunity for business that may result in the future.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister consider it to be satisfactory that many economic commentators regard the Sunday Times as a more credible guide to Government economic policy than his Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall deal with realities—[Interruption.] It may be that many people would like to find divisions between my right hon. Friend and me, but there are none.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister read the newspapers in which city commentators say, and I quote one:
    "It comes down to a question of whether people believe the Government or the Sunday Times. Frankly, they believe the Sunday Times."?
    How can people be expected to comprehend Government intentions when the Government and No. 10 deliberately brief the press to undermine the Chancellor on Saturday and then on other days go into reverse because of the damage done to the economy? Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman supports his Chancellor in public while undermining him in private, just as his predecessor did?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is clearly in the business of mischief-making, but he is wasting his time. My right hon. Friend and I are not going to be pushed around by that sort of remark. My right hon. Friend has cut inflation to 2½ per cent; has continued our tax reforms; has introduced an autumn budget which was widely welcomed by business and industry; and has cut interest rates to 6 per cent. That is a record which he can be proud of and which I fully support. It is the essential prerequisite for growth, and the fact that it has been achieved is largely due to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. John Smith: Despite the Prime Minister's bluster, is it not clear that the events of last weekend show once again that we have a Chancellor with no credibility and a Government with no economic policy? Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that the people of this country, who face increasing recession and rising unemployment, are appalled to see the Prime Minister and the Chancellor behaving like two ends of a pantomime horse?
    The Prime Minister: I am astonished that the right hon and learned Gentleman should say that, in view of what his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), said only yesterday about Labour's recent budget for jobs. He said that it is
    "already sinking without trace as virtually all of Labour's economic policies have sunk without trace in recent years"
    When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was shadow Chancellor he said:
    "The Opposition will not be satisfied until interest rates in this country are roughly equivalent to interest rates in other competitor countries in the European Community".
    Now our interest rates are below those of other countries and the credit for that goes to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when he kept Britain out of the social chapter President Jacques Delors accused him of having made our country a paradise for foreign investment? Has the decision by Hoover to move its factory from France to Britain proved that Jacques Delors was right in what he said and that my right hon. Friend was quite right in what he did?
    The Prime Minister: I do agree with that reported quote by Mr. Delors. I also agree with the union leader, Mr. Airley, who in a newspaper article in the last few days said:
    "We have secured one of the best pieces of news we have heard on the Scottish industrial front for many years."
    I agree with him about that. The fact is that industry will locate where it can be most efficient and most competitive. No one compelled our partners to sign up for the social chapter and they were amply warned by me and by others of the consequences if they did so. The social chapter adds to costs, destroys jobs and destroys competitiveness. That is what the Labour party would sign up to. It was vital that we stayed out of the social chapter. We did. We have done. We shall continue to do so.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what advice he will give to the 1,200 small businesses that went bust last week, including that of his constituents Doug and Eileen Belcher who run the post office in Great Stukeley and delivered the Prime Minister's newspapers until they went bust?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady would know if she had her facts straight—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Gentlemen resume their seats.
    The Prime Minister: I would say to the hon. Lady that what is needed to make those small businesses grow is precisely the economic ingredients of low inflation and low interest rates which we have now produced in this
    140
    economy. What would destroy those jobs is the social chapter and the additional imposts that the Labour party would place on small, medium and large businesses.
    Mr. Willetts: There are more than 7,000 regulations affecting businesses in this country. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for his initiative to cut back on red tape which is essential for small businesses and consumers, and can he assure the House that progress was made on that subject at his meeting this morning?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that progress was made on that this morning. I met colleagues from every Government Department, and we have agreed a way in which to examine each and every one of 7,000 individual Government regulations. We agreed that in future any proposal for new regulations will have specifically to spell out the cost to British companies. It is a huge task to review the regulations, but it is necessary and it is very much in the interests of British business and the creation of jobs that we do so.
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bayley: Three weeks ago when the pound stood at 2.51 deutschmarks, the Prime Minister said, and I recall his exact words, that Britain had the right exchange rate for recovery. Now that the exchange rate is 2.38 deutschmarks, will the Prime Minister tell us what has gone wrong?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly fails to notice what has been happening. He failed to notice the CBI survey that showed business confidence at its highest level for five years, he overlooked the 3i survey that showed a big increase in optimism in small and medium-sized firms, and he failed to notice also the change in the inflation rate and interest rate that are the essential prerequisite for sustained growth with low inflation in this country.
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest contributions that the House can make to the success and enterprising spirit of British industry is to do away with as large a number of petty restraints and regulations as possible? Will he reaffirm that objective, notwithstanding the preference for still more obstacles to businss shown by the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right and he implicity spells out one of the differences between the two sides of the House. This side believes in cutting burdens on business and the Opposition side believes in adding burdens to business.

    London Transport
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what further plans he has to meet any representatives of users of London underground trains and London buses.
    The Prime Minister: Ministers in the Department of Transport and their officials frequently meet representatives of users of public transport in London.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to look at the problems of London's transport and recognise that the people of London do not want to see their bus service deregulated? They want investment in the underground service rather than the cancellation of the capital programme. They want cheaper fares so that less pollution should occur in the air of London and much less congestion on its roads. Will he now intervene to restore a decent public transport system to our capital city?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are providing finance of close on £1 billion a year for London transport over the next three years—more than in any recent year. As far as London buses are concerned, we are fully committed to the privatisation of London bus subsidiaries, starting later this year, followed by deregulation as soon as legislation permits. We propose to do so because it will provide bus users with the benefits of competition from private operators keen to serve the market more efficiently than nationalised industries have done.
    Mr. Budgen: While my right hon. Friend is identifying the reasons for the better propsects for the British economy—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is a closed question. It has to relate to London transport.
    Mr. Budgen: —in particular, the prospects for the buses in London, could he not also find time to say a kind word for the speculators and all those who took us out of the exchange rate mechanism on 16 September?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that many of those speculators would have used London transport.

    Engagements
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gunnell: The Prime Minister will have noted that each time that his Chancellor lowers interest rates, the banks and building societies pass on a lower percentage to their customers and, therefore, increase their margins. What does the Prime Minister plan to do about that? Is it that his relationship with the banks is not cosy enough, or is it too cosy?
    The Prime Minister: As far as the building societies and many of the banks are concerned, the hon. Gentleman is not accurate about the reduction in interest rates during the past few months. There has been concern about whether sufficient of the interest rate reductions have been passed on and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been in touch with the Governor of the Bank of England and with the chairmen of the main banks in the United Kingdom. I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of that dialogue.

DAF Trucks
3.30 pm
Mr. Robin Cook(by private notice): To ask the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the cessation of trading of Leyland DAF and the possibility of Government assistance.
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The Government have been disappointed to hear about the financial problems facing the Dutch-based company DAF NV, which today filed for a legal moratorium on its debts. We are concerned about the implications for its United Kingdom operations.
I regret that it has not been possible for the company and its bankers to put together a satisfactory restructuring package. We have kept in close contact with the company and with the Bank of England, which has been closely involved in trying to help the relevant United Kingdom banks come to an agreement with their Dutch and Belgian counterparts, which have led the consortium. The United Kingdom banks have done all that they were asked, but unfortunately not all the other banks have felt able to agree an acceptable financing package with the Dutch and Belgian Governments.
The legal position of Leyland DAF should be clarified this afternoon. We have not participated directly in the discussions on the financial restructuring, as that primarily related to the company's Dutch and Belgian activities.
The Government stand ready to work closely with Leyland DAF, the receivers, banks and other interested parties to mitigate, as far as possible, the impact on United Kingdom jobs. We hope that it will prove possible for all those involved to find a means of creating a business with a long-term commercial future out of at least part of DAF's United Kingdom operations.
While regretting the particular circumstances affecting Leyland DAF, we must remember that the United Kingdom vehicles sector has made excellent progress during the past few months. In the midlands alone, Rover recently announced a 5 per cent. increase in output for its four-wheel drive vehicles in 1992 and a new £9.5 million fleet deal; Jaguar will be launching a £560 million investment plan on the back of a sharp rise in sales in the United Kingdom and the United States markets; and Lucas is to build a new £3.7 million factory, creating 350 jobs. We must continue to build on those extremely encouraging prospects.
Mr. Cook: Will the President of the Board of Trade précis his answer by confirming that, when I asked what Government assistance may be available, the answer that we got today was that there will be none for Leyland DAF? Is he aware that the news that he has just confirmed is another bitter blow to Britain's shrinking industrial base? Will he try to understand that it is not enough to express disappointment for the work force, as he did today? The work force, who face the loss of their jobs, want to know what he is going to do to help save them.
Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that he prefers to be known as the President of the Board of Trade? Does he know that Leyland DAF is the leader in the British truck market? If that market share goes on imports, how many more millions will it add to the trade gap? Will he
144
remember that he is the Minister responsible for regional policy? What help will he offer the communities whose local economy will be devastated if those factories and their suppliers close?
Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that he promised to intervene before breakfast, before lunch and before dinner? Why did he not intervene to stop that major British company going into receivership?
Why is it that the Belgian and Dutch Governments were willing to underwrite the loans that would secure the company's future but not the British Government? Why did the British Government not support that rescue package by underwriting it?
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, as advised this afternoon by DAF, the minority who wrecked the deal in the banking consortium were all British banks—NatWest, Barclays and Lloyds? Why has he not had talks with them to press them to take the longer view of the Dutch and Belgian banks who want to rescue, not close, the plants?
Today 5,500 people face the prospect of redundancy. When they hear the Government talk about recovery, it must sound like a Government who do not know what is happening in the real world. Will the President of the Board of Trade do them the justice of now admitting that Britain faces a real industrial crisis and needs an industrial strategy that tackles it?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member practises his usual technique of undermining any British company or institution. He would have done well to read the press release put out by DAF, a copy of which I have. Perhaps I can quote from it in dealing with the serious allegation that the hon. Member made:
"However, both Governments"—
that is, the Dutch and Belgian Governments—
"have informed the Board of Management of DAF N.V. that they consider a further delay in a final decision on the restructuring and long term financing proposals to be unacceptable …"
I do not understand how, faced with that public information, the hon. Member can suggest that the British Government have been dilatory in performing their duties. Nor do I understand how he can name and single out three British banks which, he says, did not co-operate without, as far as I am aware, one shred of evidence to substantiate the charge. Does he understand the damage that he does to British banking interests by so careless a use of language?
The Labour party might have learned from its experience in putting hundreds of millions of pounds through the National Enterprise Board into the motor industry when it suggests handing out short-term working capital to a company of this sort that such action is unlikely to solve the problems that it ought properly to address. Will the hon. Member realise that my Department has done all that has been asked of it by the company itself? We have been in touch with the company, and it has made no specific request to us for specific financial aid of the sort that we are discussing today. We have been in touch with the Bank of England, and we know that it has been in touch with British banks.
All the hon. Member seeks to do is to make mischief out of a very difficult situation. He also fails to understand what receivership is about. There is every reason to hope that at least some of these jobs can be saved. What now must happen is an orderly process of analysis so that other

145
people in the market can make offers for parts of this company in order that there can, we hope, be a viable commercial opportunity for those parts of the business that can stand competitive strains.
Mr. Den Dover: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in Chorley and Leyland in Lancashire there is purpose-built accommodation, a test track for vehicles, a major assembly plant for vehicles which is the largest in Europe, and Multipart office and warehousing? Will he also confirm that the labour force in Lancashire is one of the hardest working, best qualified, most skilled and most co-operative and, therefore, looks forward to constructive discussions?
Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) have been extremely energetic in making sure that the best interests of their constituents were drawn to our attention. I am delighted to confirm the references that my hon. Friend made to the work people of Lancashire. I am equally delighted to know that, while national average unemployment is 10.5 per cent., in the travel-to-work area of Preston it is 7.9 per cent.
Mr. Terry Davis: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Leyland DAF van factory in Birmingham increased its production, its sales and its market share last year in spite of the reduction in the market as a result of the recession, that 2,000 people work at that factory in my constituency, and that the factory has been forced to stop production this afternoon because suppliers have stopped deliveries, putting even more thousands of jobs at risk? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the factory has, in turn, been forced to stop its deliveries, including those of components of the Range Rover—the four-wheel drive vehicle mentioned by the Secretary of State—so putting yet more jobs at risk?
The Dutch and Belgian Governments have been engaged in direct talks with the banks in an attempt to save jobs in those countries. Why will not the British Government talk to the banks to attempt to save British jobs and avoid an industrial disaster?
Mr. Heseltine: I fully understand that the hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned about the large number of jobs that will be affected in his constituency. I can only repeat what I said in my first reply: my Department has been absolutely satisfied that the British banks and the Bank of England have been fully engaged in the necessary dialogue. It is now a matter of the administrators, the receivers and management of the company working out proper arrangements to secure, where possible, commercially viable jobs within the DAF organisation. That will not be helped by exchanges across the Dispatch Boxes of the House of Commons based largely on inaccurate allegations from the Labour party. We must let the receivers do their job. Jobs may well be saved as a result.
Mr. Iain Mills: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of my constituents live near the factory in Birmingham and, like the constituents of Opposition Members, have contacted me as they are greatly concerned about both the direct effect on their jobs and the indirect effects on the many component suppliers? Will he give me an assurance that he will do everything
146
possible to facilitate a quick solution, whether partial or total, to the problem? The workers have literally been presented today with a closure.
Mr. Heseltine: I give my hon. Friend an unqualified assurance of the sort that he requested. My Department has kept in touch with DAF over this difficult period and will certainly continue to do so. Any proper assistance that we are able to provide we will provide.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: If, as the Government claim, the recession is at last gradually coming to an end, how can it make sense to allow the collapse of a company which, when recovery comes, would make a substantial contribution to our balance of payments? The Secretary of State will recall that he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that no request had been made to the Government for immediate emergency support to see the company through its difficulty. Were such a request to be made, what would the right hon. Gentleman's answer be?
Mr. Heseltine: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the company has been seeking a solution to its difficulties over a significant period. Were there to be a request for the short-term working capital which is, as I understand it, at the heart of the dilemma today, such a request could be put to my Department by a myriad different companies in the motor industry and many others. It would be extremely difficult to find any argument that I could deploy for providing taxpayers' support for working capital for one company to enable it to compete more effectively with other British companies in the same industry that produce competitive products.
The second issue involves the development of an alternative product to the van, which is the principal product line of the DAF organisation in the midlands. That issue was discussed with my Department before the last election, when figures of the order of £450 million were suggested as the possible investment needed to deal with the long-term programmes. We made it clear that we could not contemplate a project of that sort. Under the regional assistance that my Department is entitled to provide, the maximum amount available would be £18 million. The House should understand that we are either talking about subsidising short-term losses and the implications of that for a wide number of companies in this country or we are talking about dramatically large investment capital projects, and the House having to decide why we should invest in one company when a range of other companies which have invested their own capital are surviving in the marketplace.
Mr. John Butcher: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on resisting the ghosts of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. My right hon. Friend is aware of the large implications that this has for the engineering industry generally in the west midlands. Will he reassure me that he will place his office at the disposal of private sector bidders, who may be involved in quite complex negotiations across the North sea, in order to expedite such negotiations, whether purely British companies or British companies in alliance with European companies, so that we may have a speedy solution?
Mr. Heseltine: I welcome my hon. Friend's constructive approach, which is precisely the approach that is likely to

147
bring the best possible outcome for the large numbers of people employed by DAF and for the viability of the separate component parts of that organisation.
There is no question but that in Leyland in Lancashire there is a modern factory with order books for an important product, and one hopes that there will be alternative owners and capital for that product. It must also be self-evidently the case that the products sold by the company over the years leave considerable demand for spare parts which, again, must offer potential jobs in some companies based on what we have here today. But none of this can be dealt with without a detailed set of negotiations conducted by the receivers in the calm atmosphere that is essential to constructive progress.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Is the Secretary of State aware that compliments to highly skilled, hard-working workers will not be well received unless they are accompanied by some action? The right hon. Gentleman is apparently willing for taxpayers' money to be used to pay unemployment costs rather than invest in maintaining them at work. He casts scorn on short-term capital investment. Why does he not then find some long-term solutions to prevent the 2,500 workers in the Preston-Leyland-Chorley area from being put on the scrap heap? If the right hon. Gentleman is so scornful of short-term solutions, who does he not look for long-term solutions?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady should have more faith in the quality of the work people and the quality of the product in Leyland. She would do well to remember that her party has indulged in massive long-term investment in the automobile industry with scant benefit to show for it.
Sir Giles Shaw: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this company was set up by his predecessors in office at the Department of Trade and Industry, and he will recall the substantial losses that were written off at that time to enable the consortium between Leyland and DAF to survive in order to employ those persons in Lancashire whose considerable skills were at risk. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the project, which was initially to provide a trans-European prospect for commercial vehicles, where DAF would have the entry into the Community, still remains a realistic partnership on offer to any other company that may well seek to acquire the considerable assets which British taxpayers have supplied to that plant?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. One of the arguments in favour of the DAF deal with Leyland in 1987 was that DAF would secure for Leyland greater access into the European single market. That it has done, and that is an additional asset now available within the negotiations that must come under way. It is obviously important that those negotiations are given a fair chance.
Mr. David Marshall: Is the Secretary of State aware that 500 jobs are at risk in the excellent Leyland DAF Albion works in Glasgow which makes axles for the company? As the Dutch and Belgian Governments are doing all that they can to help, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Secretary of State for Scotland that the Scottish Office, Scottish Enterprise and
148
Glasgow Development Agency will need to do everything possible to protect and maintain those vital, highly skilled jobs in Glasgow?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to what I said about the Dutch and Belgian Governments. They have made it clear that they are not satisfied with the arrangements that have been offered by the banks involved, so it would be wrong for me to suggest to any colleague of mine in the Government, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, that he should seek to act in a way that neither of those two Governments is prepared to do.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: While everyone is understandably concerned about the possibility of job losses, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when considering requests for financial assistance the huge amount of Government money that the predecessor to Leyland DAF received in the 1970s? Does he recall that, under a Labour Government during the period that it received that money, manufacturing output in this country fell, whereas, despite the recession, it has risen under this Government? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any money that he might give companies such as Leyland DAF would have to be taken from other companies that might better be able to utilise it in creating jobs and products that can be successfully sold?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. I can only reiterate that the Labour Government's experience, through the National Enterprise Board, of investing huge sums of taxpayers' money in what was then seen as the creation of a long-term, viable automobile industry in this country was wildly unsuccessful. During the course of the 1980s, very largely as a result of inward investment in the industry, Britain can now enjoy the prospect of moving back to a trade surplus in the automobile industry. That is because we have viable companies with profitable records behind them. It is absolutely clear that no purpose is to be gained from trying to repeat the mistakes of the past and the Government trying to double-guess the commercial market in that industry.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) said, many people in Glasgow are dependent on the Albion motor works for employment. There are highly skilled engineers throughout the group, and if steps are not taken to protect their jobs Britain will lose an engineering base that has taken generations to build. If the right hon. Gentleman argues that the recession will soon be over, we shall need skilled men and women to cope with the new situation.
Mr. Heseltine: It is precisely because Labour tried to protect industry after industry from the effects of world competition that so much of Britain's manufacturing base was eroded. The then Government tried to protect it in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests that we should do.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend rightly said that he is willing to maintain a dialogue with interested parties. Will he discuss with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence the military implications of the possible failure of Leyland DAF? As A. W. D. Bedford, another supplier of military vehicles to the British armed forces, failed only recently, will my right

149
hon. Friend and his MOD colleagues see whether some restructuring can be achieved, whereby the important indigenous capability to build military vehicles that Leyland DAF hitherto provided can be maintained?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Army truck order that was won by Leyland with the help of DAF. That contract has about another 18 months to go. That supports the point that I was making, that here is a company with a good product and order books—and, hopefully, someone in the commercial marketplace will come to invest in it.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the President of the Board of Trade recollect that at the time of the Leyland DAF merger I and others expressed concern about the long-term implications for the British truck industry? Admittedly, there has been investment, but the situation now is that a major sector of our industrial base faces destruction. Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept the inconsistency of his statement to the House? On the one hand, there are full order books and a competitive business; on the other, there is no role for Government in ensuring its continuity.
Mr. Heseltine: That is a classic example of the Liberal Democrats wanting it both ways. They claim to want a single European market and to believe in Europe, but the moment a company sets out to achieve a Europe-wide base they criticise us.
Mr. Richard Burden: If the right hon. Gentleman really believes that he and his Department were doing all that was necessary in the run-up to today's announcement, how does he explain the fact that last week there was speculation in the press, particularly in Holland, that jobs in Britain would be at risk because of the Government's failure to get involved in a rescue plan? Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the figures and the effects on jobs in Birmingham, Glasgow and Leyland claimed by my hon. Friends? What does the President's statement amount to, other than a wringing of hands?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman can start with the employment of 5,500 people in Leyland DAF in this country. I do not accept that that automatically means that all those jobs are at risk. It is hoped that there will be commercial solutions, which will produce long-term, viable opportunities for at least parts of the company and, therefore, for a significant number of the work force.
I fully accept that there has been speculation about the company's future for some time. We were fully aware of that. The only issue is whether we should have joined the Dutch and Belgian Governments, and whether we would have reached a different decision from theirs. I do not think that it was necessary for us to join them, because
150
they were dealing with problems that were largely located on the continent; but, in view of the advice that we have received from banking sources, I do not see any reason for us to have reached a different decision.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Was the Secretary of State aware of the existence of the Albion works in Glasgow? He did not mention it until he was prompted. When did his Department first learn the extent of the serious financial problems enveloping the company? Was an intervention package prepared by his Department at any stage, and was such a package then rejected by the Secretary of State on political grounds? Has the right hon. Gentleman tried and failed, or has he just failed?
Mr. Heseltine: Yes, I was fully aware of the existence of the Albion factory in Glasgow. I have before me a list showing the location of Leyland DAF employees, and showing that the axles for the van were produced at the Albion works in Glasgow, which at the time employed some 500 people. The number of employees may have changed since then, but it is of that order.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether an intervention package had been presented. If he was asking whether we were prepared to put money into providing short-term working finance, I can tell him that we were not asked to do that, and that, if we had been asked, we would not have done it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Was not selling off British Leyland to DAF an act of sabotage in the first place, and were not the Government warned at the time that it could lead to the extinction of a significant part of British manufacturing industry?
The Secretary of State keeps talking about refusing to put money into manufacturing industry. Given that he knows that between 10,000 and 20,000 jobs may be at stake—if the component manufacturing jobs are taken into account—why will he not argue the case for putting money into British manufacturing industry to keep our skills and our industry alive? He is prepared to put money into the dole queue to finance the millions who are unemployed, and to add to the queue at a rate of more than £9,000 per head per year. That simply does not make economic sense, or compassionate sense.
Mr. Heseltine: The simple answer is that, having been here as long as the hon. Gentleman, I have observed the track record of parties in government which have put money into what is called "manufacturing industry". It always results in mounting losses, and in Governments eventually having to face unpalatable conclusions. The Labour party knows that, but is not prepared to recognise it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Points of Order
3.57 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will confirm that, from time to time, all Secretaries of State exercise quasi-judicial duties, and that they are also responsible for allocating funds without partiality or prejudice. Today, when I accused the Secretary of State for Education of conducting a political vendetta against Bradford local education authority, he shouted from a sedentary position, "You haven't seen anything yet." For as long as that statement remains on the record, many of my constituents and others in Bradford will believe what they have suspected for a long time—that the Secretary of State for Education is greatly prejudiced against Bradford local education authority and its schools.
What I would like to ask you, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order are now prefaced with such a long preamble that they are really an extension of Question Time. I hope that, from now on, every hon. Member who raises a point of order will come directly to the point of order itself. To do otherwise is to abuse the House's time.
Mr. Madden: What I would like to ask is this, Madam Speaker. Will you arrange for my concern to be conveyed to the Secretary of State for Education, and will you provide him with an opportunity to withdraw what he said earlier today?
Madam Speaker: I fear that that is an extension of Question Time. Of course, the Secretary of State and other right hon. and hon. Members will see in Hansard tomorrow what has been said. I am sure that it will be brought to the Secretary of State's attention.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The procedural circumstances surrounding the Secretary of State's statement have changed; indeed, they changed as he was making it. During the statement, we discovered that the Government are not prepared under any circumstances to provide the rescue package which might keep Leyland DAF in business. The statement having been made in reply to a private notice question, the conditions are now ideal, indeed typical—even irresistible—for an emergency debate
152
as the Leyland DAF case now fulfils the three qualifications of the Standing Order. If you were to allow me to make such an application, Madam Speaker, such a debate would also enable us to clarify some of the discrepancies between the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade and that made by DAF. Will you allow me to make such a submission, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman and the House will know, all Secretaries of State, and hon. Members for that matter, are responsible for the statements that they make. It is not for the Speaker to comment on statements made by Secretaries of State. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to make an application to me, I shall of course consider it on its merits. I must not, as Speaker of the House, concern myself with the argument. As the right hon. Gentleman will understand, I must concern myself with the merits and I shall always look at applications purely in that light.
Mr. Hattersley: May I make an application?
Madam Speaker: I must have it in writing.

BILL PRESENTED
  HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (TOBACCO SMOKING)
  Mr. George Foulkes, supported by Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. David Alton, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. John Maxton, Sir John Stanley, Mr. Henry McLeish, Mr. Alistair Darling and Mrs. Maria Fyfe, presented a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 so as to provide for the control of smoking in places of work; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

  DEFENCE RESEARCH AGENCY
  That the draft Defence Research Agency Trading Fund Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,&c.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Question agreed to.

Maritime Safety
4.1 pm
Mr. Eric Clarke: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision regarding maritime safety; to regulate shipping flying flags of convenience; and for connected purposes.
As you will be aware, Madam Speaker, I am an ex-miner, not an ex-mariner, but I make no apology for introducing the Bill because we both fight mother nature to earn a living—or we did in the past.
The case for tighter safety standards at sea is overwhelming; the motor vessel Braer disaster brought that home to us all in this country, especially those in Scotland and Shetland. Ferries, cargo ships and other ships with hazardous cargoes are all covered in the Bill. We must demand a commitment to safety from the Government to be enshrined in legislation. We should not have to wait for disasters before action is taken.
Lives have been lost. European documents show that since 1986, on average 230 ships, or 1.1 million gross tonnes, are lost every year involving a loss of more than 1,000 lives. The highest percentage—46 per cent.—of accidents involves general cargo ships, 26 per cent. fishing vessels, 6 per cent. bulk carriers and 5 per cent. tankers. All the indicators are that the situation will deteriorate in the near future.
Approximately 35 per cent. of all bulk carriers sunk in the past 15 years have been lost in the previous two months. Seventy-four per cent. of all tonnage lost in 1991 was more than 15 years old, and the world fleet is growing and aging rapidly.
Many flags with good safety records are losing vessels to flags with poorer safety records. Statistics derived from port state controls show a ratio of deficiencies over inspections of almost 79 per cent. of the worst flags compared with 12 per cent. for the best. The average age of flag of convenience ships is 17 years.
The people of Britain, especially those of Shetland and Scotland, are looking for immediate action to protect them. I suggest an amendment to the memorandum on port state control and the public right to know. My proposals are: first, the explicit concentration of inspections of ships flying flags of convenience and, secondly, full publication of all inspections, including those requested by the crew or maritime trade unions.
At present, inspections are carried out at random and few are undertaken. The results of such inspections are secret. The captain of the ship and the flag of convenience country get a copy of the results. The Minister of Transport keeps a copy, but it is confidential. No one else knows the results of such inspections. Australia has a black list of ships of that nature, and the system is working. That is one aspect which I should like to envisage in my Bill.
Thirdly, there should be an extension of inspections to operations in piloted waters with specific emphasis on the competence and efficiency of the officers and crew and the ability to understand and converse with each other. That proposal comes from a recommendation in a House of Lords inquiry in the past. Fourthly, the restrictions to reinspect within six months should be removed; and, fifthly, all foreign flag ships entering a Paris memorandum port for the first time should be inspected. Through the
154
European Community and the International Maritime Organisation, there would be a similar extension of port state inspections to all other countries.
I understand the complexities of maritime law. I see no reason why the Government should disagree with my Bill. I cannot possibly include in my Bill the proposal to route tankers and ships from critical zones in and around, for example, the Minch and other ports of Scotland such as St. Kilda because of a restriction of time and space.
The Minister and the Government have had 13 years. The Minister of Transport was president of the Transport Committee in Europe for a year. I shall quote a statement made by the Minister in the House on 11 January on the MV Braer:
"The hon. Gentleman asked about the salvage operations convention. We hope to be able to ratify it as soon as we can find a legislative opportunity; it requires primary legislation."—[Official Report, 11 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 613.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) wrote asking that the international convention on salvage operations be incorporated in my ten-minute Bill and has had no reply. The offer still stands.
Part of the agreement of the international convention is a proposal that, if a ship is in trouble at sea and a tug appears to give assistance, the line must be taken aboard immediately. At present, the skipper must confer with the owners and valuable time is wasted. He may even refuse to take the line on board. If we endorsed the convention, such ships could be saved, lives could be saved and both the salvage and rescue workers could be protected. Other nations have endorsed such an arrangement. We should endorse the convention immediately, and I am willing once again to allow the Government to use my Bill to ratify and adhere to the principles and directives contained in the document entitled "International Convention on Salvage 1989".
The proposal is common sense. A new ship can break down and drift helplessly in a stormy sea. Delays in notifying the territorial maritime authorities and refusals of help must be stopped. If ships are in our territorial waters, the captains and owners must adhere to the directive. The quicker the Bill is accepted, the better.
If the result of my Bill means clearing the seas of potential disasters called ships of covenience, so be it. If it means that freight rates increase, so be it. If it means a scrap and build policy giving orders to British shipyards, so be it. If more ship owners continue to fly the red ensign, so be it. If we save the lives of seamen, sea women and, obviously, passengers, flora and fauna and seals and otters and the livelihood of the fishing communities in Scotland and elsewhere, so be it. If the Bill gives the people of this nation access to information about what is going on at sea, so be it.
Above all, if the Bill brings benefits out of disaster and leaves my grandson and others like him with a sea and seashore environment that is guaranteed safer, it will have all been worth while. I hope that the House will support my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Eric Clarke, Ms. Joan Walley, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Calum McDonald, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Ian Davidson.

Maritime Safety
  MARITIME SAFETY
  Mr. Eric Clarke accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision regarding maritime safety; to regulate shipping flying flags of convenience; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]
Orders of the Day

  Railways Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  [Relevant documents: The First Report from the Transport Committee, The Future of the Railways in the Light of the Government's White Paper Proposals: Interim Report, HC (1992–93) 375, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Transport Committee, HC ( 1992–93 ) 246 i-xxi.]
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I should tell the House that I have had to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between the hours of 6 pm and 8 pm. I should be much obliged if those hon. Members who speak outside those times exercised voluntary restraint—as I appreciate they have in recent times—so that other hon. Members may be called.
  4.10 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  British Rail has improved considerably in recent years in many of its services. But most people agree that there is still much room for further improvement. The Bill will make possible an historic change for the better in Britain's railway system. In moving its Second Reading, I propose to reaffirm the objectives of our policy; to announce further major decisions affecting the railways; to explain how the Bill will enable the necessary changes to take place; and to deal with some of the key issues that have been raised since we launched the White Paper last July.
  We begin with a railways regime not fundamentally changed since nationalisation in 1948. It is not in the interests of customers—or of management and staff—to persist with that regime. As an organisation, BR combines the classic shortcomings of the traditional nationalised industry. It is an entrenched monopoly. That means too little responsiveness to customers' needs, whether passenger or freight; no real competition; and too little diversity and innovation. Inevitably, it also has the culture of a nationalised industry: a heavily bureaucratic structure; an insufficiently sharp awareness on the part of employees that their success depends on satisfying the customer—indeed, on attracting more customers; and an instinctive tendency to ask for more taxpayers' subsidy and to feel that public subsidy will always be there as a crutch whenever things look difficult. Inevitably public ownership also brings with it the constraints of public finance, not least given the many competing demands on the public purse.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have hardly begun; I shall give way in due course.
  All this shows up in public dissatisfaction with the railways. As I said, there have been many improvements in BR in recent years. The organisational changes that the present chairman, Sir Bob Reid, and his board have been bringing in are major steps forward. Many employees do a splendid job within the confines of a monopolistic

  157
  nationalised industry, showing much dedication and skill. A recent example was the way in which those in ScotRail kept the trains running during appalling weather in recent weeks. I should like to pay a particular tribute to Tommy Robertson who, in the foulest of weathers, and after already very long hours, discovered in the middle of the night that the bridge at Forteviot had been badly damaged. His vigilance and dedication deserve the highest praise.
  I repeat, however, that those who work in BR and the system have been constrained by the nationalised industry form of organisation, which has now been found wanting for all the other industries that we have privatised. The railways and their customers will benefit as much as other industries from a change in the culture and the system under which they have to operate.
  We therefore aim to create a new regime for the railways. Our objective is to improve services for passengers and freight customers, while maintaining high safety standards and other necessary safeguards, including a commitment to the provision of subsidy to maintain loss-making but socially necessary passenger services, such as commuter lines and rural services.
  I see at least three advantages in getting as much private-sector involvement, attitudes, objectives and management into our railway system as we possibly can. First, there is the big issue of the change of culture. I have been struck by the reaction I keep getting from those who worked in former nationalised industries and who now operate, in a range of industries, in the private sector. Time and again, it is the galvanising effect on their attitudes that they highlight—the transformation in work practices and approaches that occurs when they realise that their success depends on always putting customer requirements first.
  This is a fundamentally important point, which is stressed by many people. Always putting customer requirements first is a change that we need in British Rail. I was struck by the fact that, just after we published the Bill, no fewer than five of the many newspaper editorials that support our proposals highlighted this aspect. Secondly, what we are doing will help to create more competition and choice. Thirdly, it will enable private-sector capital to supplement the existing sources of British Rail finance.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Has the Secretary of State had representations from former employees of British Rail about concessionary travel? Can he give the House a commitment in respect of this matter?
  Mr. MacGregor: We have often made it clear that concessionary travel arrangements will continue. Indeed, hundreds and hundreds of letters on that very point have been sent out. The same applies to pensions, with which I shall deal later.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I have a great deal to say, so I must get on.
  We shall achieve our objectives by a structure with the following key elements. They were first set out in the White Paper, but it is worth restating them today.
  First, British Rail's freight and parcels services will be sold to the private sector, and there will be open access for new operators. I have noticed that there has not been quite the same concentration on freight services as on passenger
  158
  services. They are very important, so I want to deal with them. Freight services will be provided competitively, with no monopoly for any operator. I am in no doubt that this is what freight customers and potential operators want, and that breaking British Rail's monopoly is crucial if we are to succeed in getting more freight back on to the rails. We should be quite clear about the fact that this is a challenging target.
  However, I have talked to many existing and potential customers, as well as operators—for example, at a conference a few weeks ago attended by well over 300 people—and they all sing the same tune. They are saying, in print and, everywhere they go, verbally, that this is the right way to reverse the decline in rail freight, to attract more freight from the roads.
  Mr. George Foulkes: How can the Secretary of State say that he has not heard us talk about freight?
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State was giving way to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman).
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Many Conservative Members warmly support the broad arguments that my right hon. Friend is adducing in favour of the Bill, and wish him well in his long-term project, but I have to ask him whether he is aware that the majority of my rail-travelling constituents and, I suspect, many of those of my hon. Friends will apply three tests to this legislation.
  They will ask, first, whether it will make the trains more reliable; secondly, whether it will improve the infrastructure of tracks, rolling stock and signals; and thirdly, whether it will deal with the problem, which is very acute in the short-haul commuter services, of the non-availability, at critical times, of drivers and guards. If my right hon. Friend can satisfy us on those points, we shall be very pleased.
  Mr. MacGregor: The answer to all three questions is yes—[Interruption.]—and I pick up the final point, in view of some comments that have been made in the press. Because of previous practices in British Rail in the way in which people were eligible to become drivers, BR currently has a considerable proportion of drivers over the age of 55, so there is quite a long retirement queue coming up shortly. That is a problem because of previous employee relations practices, with BR not recruiting enough drivers. Our proposals, by encouraging franchisees to come on to line, will undoubtedly help with that problem.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I must get on, because I have a great deal to say.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I keep hearing the hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is clearly not giving way, at any rate for the moment.
  Mr. MacGregor: Secondly, existing passenger services will be franchised to the private sector. Franchising allows subsidy to be paid if subsidy is needed. So it solves the

  159
  dilemma of how to introduce private sector management and private sector capital into loss-making services provided for social reasons. Franchising also allows the public interest in particular passenger services to be protected through contract conditions imposed by the franchising director.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I warn the House that, were I to give way to all hon. Members who wish to intervene, I would make an extremely long speech, and I am mindful of what Madam Speaker said. In any event, I must finish the passage which I have begun.
  We envisage that the franchising director will begin his specification of services from the basis of the present timetable—[Interruption.] I am making some important points, which I am anxious to get over. He will also be able in appropriate circumstances to impose conditions on fares and services as part of the franchise contract. Such safeguards are made possible by, and are one of the major advantages of, the system that we are proposing.
  The third key element of the new structure is that responsibility for track will generally be split from responsibility for operating trains. A new public sector organisation called Railtrack will be responsible for track. That split has a number of advantages, on which I will expand later. Railtrack will be required to contract out as many of its services as it reasonably can. That, too, is a vital point and is laid down in the Bill. It will be vital in improving its efficiency and thus keeping its prices down.
  The fourth element in our proposals is new arrangements to allow access to the track for passenger and freight operators. That will be supervised by the independent rail regulator, who has among his responsibilities that of promoting competition and ensuring fair play, and of promoting the interests of consumers and ensuring that network benefits are maintained. I have announced that, subject to Parliament approving the enabling legislation, I intend to appoint John Swift QC as the regulator.
  Mr. David Harris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the assurances that he has given me in writing about safeguarding existing passenger services, and obviously I have a particular interest in the line from Plymouth to Penzance and the maintenance of through services. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that he as Secretary of State and his successors will have a power of direction over the director of franchising to consider in certain circumstances putting out the whole of an existing service for franchising, rather than allowing people to pick off just the bits of a service that they want to franchise?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have made that clear to my hon. Friend and, as I said, we expect the franchises—indeed, it will be the case—to be on the basis of the present timetable. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the assurance for the future that he seeks.
  So the fundamentals of the policy are exactly as set out in the White Paper of last July. We believe that that is the best way to get as full private sector involvement and approaches as possible. A conventional flotation, with the railways as a whole in the public sector one day and in the private sector the next, is not possible. [HON. MEMBERS:
  160
  "Why?"] I will explain why. Outright privatisation of all the railway is not on the agenda for the foreseeable future, not least because subsidy from the taxpayer is needed, and we have made it clear that we shall continue to provide that. So the principles and main structure of the Bill are entirely consistent—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I must make more progress.
  The principles and main structure of the Bill are entirely consistent with the White Paper, because we believe it to have struck the right balance. Nothing I have seen in the comments since it was published has convinced me otherwise, but on the detailed development of the policy we have been consulting carefully and taking seriously the representations we have received.
  We have issued a range of important consultation and other documents, as we have developed the details of the proposals. Documents on franchising, on safety, on pensions, on rolling stock procurement, on the British Transport police, and on consumer representations have all been published.
  I shall shortly be issuing a detailed technical document on the access and charging regime, and today I will annouce the general principles on which it will be based. I aim to issue by the end of March a document on the restructuring of the freight business for privatisation. There will also be a number of detailed documents put before the Standing Committee to deal with the various issues in the Bill. We shall continue to take account of the representations which we receive on these detailed elements of the policy.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I have almost forgotten my point, but the Secretary of State began by extolling the virtues of the change of climate in which the railways will become private. If that is so, why will the change of culture affect only those who are franchisees and not those who still run track?
  Mr. MacGregor: I am inclined to think that the hon. Member could not have thought it was a very good point, since he seems to have forgotten what it was. It was not a particularly good point. The change in culture will come about, not only by private sector companies coming in, not only from the fact that a considerable number of British Rail managers are keen to engage in management buy-outs and are well aware of the change in culture that that could bring about, but also through the proposals we have for RailTrack. The main design and objective is to achieve that, in the interests of passengers.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I will give way once more.
  Mr. David Howell: I am wholly in favour of my right hon. Friend's aims to change the culture and to harness private enterprise, with all its vigour, to public purposes. He must be right in the way forward he is going, but when it comes to the commuter services—I think particularly of Network SouthEast—he must recognise that we are looking not merely for improved services but for an entirely new and modernised infrastructure for the 21st century to provide a wholly new, enhanced and dedicated transport service for the area. This will require vast investment funds. Will my right hon. Friend assure us

  161
  that his new plans will open the way for mobilising those funds on a far bigger scale than anything we have been able to achieve under the present regime?
  Mr. MacGregor: I was intending to come on to that later, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support and his understanding of what we are doing. We have record levels of investment going into British Rail at present, certainly the highest—[Interruption.] I am replying to my right hon. Friend—levels are the highest since 30 years ago. I believe, and I shall be elaborating this later if I have time, that our proposals also offer, in addition to present methods of Government support and the possibilities of investment through revenue, more private capital to come in and supplement the revenue coming in for the first time. Although inevitably it will take some time, I believe that. over the period, we shall see a considerable increase in the investment going into the railway system.
  As so many people wish to speak, I think I should now get on, as I have some important announcements to make and I have given way a great deal. Some of the points that have been raised I am dealing with.
  We have very deliberately proceeded in this way. First, we set out the main policy in the White Paper six months ago, subsequently filling out the detail as we went along. That will continue. It would have been wrong to inflexibly pin down every element in advance of parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill and in advance of implementation by BR, the franchising director and the independent regulator, who need and will have important elements of discretion.
  I turn now to a number of announcements that I wish to make today. First, on Railtrack, in the White Paper, we said:
  "… The Government believes that track and train operations should be separated at an early stage and that a new track authority—Railtrack—should be established initially within BR with responsibility only for track and associated infrastructure".
  The separation of track from operations is a key element in our policy. Since the White Paper, we have been reflecting on this further, taking into account a wide range of comments—I am mindful, for example, of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) in the debate on the White Paper in October. We have now decided that BR ownership of Railtrack is no longer necessary or desirable.
  It is important for all passenger franchisees and freight operators to know from the outset that Railtrack will be a truly independent, commercially driven body, and that there will not be any possibility of a conflict of interest involved in its remaining in the ownership of a body which also operates trains. That means that it must be fully independent of BR. I intend therefore that Railtrack will be separated from BR and made a Government-owned company in April 1994, and that preparations should begin now.
  The chairman-designate of Railtrack will be Mr. Robert Horton, whom I recently appointed as vice chairman of the British Railways Board. Mr. Horton will have principal responsibility for taking forward the creation of Railtrack as a Government-owned company. He will work closely with the chairman and board of BR. BR will retain full operational responsibility until April 1994.
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State said that preparations are beginning now. He and his Department are undertaking actions now in anticipation of the Bill being enacted. We are debating the Bill on Second Reading. It is important that you make it clear to the House exactly what the position is in relation to the Secretary of State and his Department taking actions which anticipate the Bill.
  We have far too much of that from this arrogant Government. It is about time that they had some respect for Parliament and waited until Parliament had scrutinised the Bill and until it became an Act of Parliament before carrying it out. Will you give a ruling that the Secretary of State must not undertake the expenditure of money or take action until the Bill becomes law?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman has made his point forcefully, but it is a matter for the Government, and the Government know the rules.
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman made his point at great length, and I shall reply to him very briefly. Of course I have respect for Parliament, which is precisely why I did not introduce the Railways Bill until the paving Bill had achieved Royal Assent from both Houses. The hon. Gentleman is asleep. That Bill enables British Rail to spend money in preparation for privatisation. We waited until we had parliamentary authority before we did it.
  I wish to announce the first groups of services which I am asking British Rail to reorganise and prepare for transfer to private sector operators under our franchising proposals, and I could not do that without the paving Bill. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales have been consulted throughout.
  The groups of services will be: the InterCity east coast main line; the InterCity Great Western main line to south Wales and the south-west; ScotRail; the London, Tilbury and Southend line; the south-west division of Network SouthEast; the Victoria-Gatwick express; and the Isle of Wight line.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: The Isle of Wight!
  Mr. MacGregor: That is exactly the kind of sedentary intervention I like to hear.
  We cannot establish the real franchises—
  Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. I thought that I heard the Secretary of State say that the east coast main line has been franchised, but I did not hear him clarify whether that franchise extends to Aberdeen or stops at Edinburgh. Can you, through your good offices, ask him to repeat that?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No doubt so that the hon. Gentleman can intervene, and if the Secretary of State gives way, all well and good.
  Mr. MacGregor: That is a cunning way of asking a question, but I shall answer it briefly. Of course it extends to Aberdeen.
  We cannot establish the real franchises until we have the parliamentary authority and have set up the franchising director, who will be responsible for negotiating the contracts. The precise nature of those will be dependent on the response to the tenders— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan

  163
  (Mr. Salmond) complained about noise, but he is making more noise in the Chamber than anyone else. I should be grateful if he would allow my hon. Friends to hear me.
  It is important to organise potential franchises in an operational form now so that we can gain experience of the restructuring, management and accountancy issues and have the broad structure of some franchises ready for an early start.
  It is the intention that all British Rail's passenger services will be franchised in time.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: The time for hon. Members to raise matters is during their speeches. My hon. Friend the Minister will reply in his winding-up speech.
  Selecting the franchises and determining the pace of franchising must—
  Mr. George Walden: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I shall give way one more time.
  Mr. Walden: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is he aware that people who are not normally opposed to privatisation are sceptical about this privatisation? They are saying that anyone can run a line, but that what we need is someone to run the railway.
  Mr. MacGregor: Yes, and I envisage that, by having a number of people operating the railways and getting the private sector in, the railways will be better run. I notice that more and more people are saying the same thing. Indeed, the vast majority of editorials that have commented on the Bill have said precisely the same thing.
  Selecting the franchises and determining the pace of franchising must take account of the further views of the private sector. That is important, because we want to ensure that there will be competition for the franchise units to achieve value for money. We shall also continue to take account of users' representations and the views of others, including Members of this House.
  In the light of those views, I shall publish a complete map of franchises within the next few months, although even then it will be desirable to preserve flexibility for the franchising director, when he undertakes the real process of negotiating franchise applications in response to tenders after Royal Assent.
  Mr. John Home Robertson rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear that I shall not give way, as I have already done so a great deal for Opposition Members and I have made my position clear.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has said that he expects Members to mention detailed matters in their speeches, but given that our speeches will be set against the background of his announcements, we seek clarification. For example, it would be helpful if the Secretary of State, when referring to the east coast line, could say whether he includes Inverness in that line.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State will have heard the hon. Lady.
  Mr. MacGregor: There will be many months in which to go through the further details of all the issues in my announcement today before they become operational. There must be limits to what I give way on this speech—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] The answer to the hon. Lady's question is yes.
  In the light of those views, I shall publish a complete map of franchises within the next few months.
  Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as that seems to be the only way to be heard.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. MacGregor: It is perfectly clear what the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) was up to. I certainly would not wish to answer his point of order.
  Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is no good hon. Members saying that they have points of order when they are not genuine points for me. The rules of debate are clear.
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that it is a genuine point of order.
  Mr. Foulkes: Yes, it relates to my earlier point of order. The Secretary of State for Transport has said that there will be some months to discuss the details, yet in reply to my earlier point of order he said that he can make irrevocable decisions because of the paving Bill. The decisions will therefore have been made and implemented, and the House will not have had an opportunity to discuss them fully.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is a point of argument.
  Mr. MacGregor: Not only is it not a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is wrong again, because the hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I said—that there would be no real franchise until we had got the Bill through Parliament. So there cannot be a real franchise based on any of these until the Bill has gone through Parliament.
  If there are any more of these points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it will make my speech a very long one. I do not think that it is in the interests of others who wish to speak.
  I was saying that I would put forward in the next few months a complete map of franchises, although even then it will be desirable to preserve flexibility for the franchising director when he comes to undertake the real process of negotiating franchise applications in response to tenders after Royal Assent. Private sector bidders, however, will wish to see some operational running in shadow form before making bids, and my announcement today enables that process to start.
  Mr. Robert Adley rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: No, I would like to get on. I have given way to my hon. Friend a very great deal, and I want to complete this speech. [Interruption.] I will give way, but I must make it clear that this is the last time.
  Mr. Adley: My right hon. Friend has announced six franchises. Can he say whether it will be within his policy to agree that these six, or seven, franchises can be operable as vertical franchises, if that is what the private sector wants?
  Mr. MacGregor: I am coming to that point now. I was about to say that one issue which has surfaced in public debate is that of vertical integration—the management and control of both track and trains by the same body—as against horizontal integration—separating the track authority from the operators. We concluded, and we made it clear in our election manifesto, that full vertical integration was neither practical nor desirable across the great bulk of the railway network. That is why we propose Railtrack as the national infrastructure authority. I want to deal with this because it is a very important point—I agree with my hon. Friend on that—and it is important to set out the arguments.
  We decided not to pursue the alternative of a complete system of vertically integrated franchises, for a number of reasons. First, operators who run both the track and the trains would inevitably face a conflict of interest when others applied to run services on their line. We want to give everyone, including freight operators, a fair crack of the whip—they regard this as very important—but we could do it on vertically integrated lines only if we adopted intrusive regulation to ensure fair treatment for all.
  Secondly, one of our key priorities is to secure suitable levels of investment in rail infrastructure. Investment on that scale requires a strategic view of the kind that only Railtrack can provide. Railtrack will focus infrastructure investment on the parts of the network where it is most needed. It would be unrealistic to expect individual franchisees to do the same. There could be a problem for individual franchisees in meeting the capital investment requirements in particular franchise areas.
  Thirdly, Railtrack will have the key role in ensuring the safety aspects of track and signalling. The existence of a national track authority will ensure that safety standards and procedures are co-ordinated across the track in a clear and systematic way—a point that was of particular importance to the Health and Safety Commission in its consideration of our proposals. It would be much more difficult to achieve that if track responsibilities were spread across a large number of local operators.
  Fourthly, we need a national track authority to ensure that operational timetabling is co-ordinated efficiently across the whole of the network.
  Those are compelling reasons which led us to decide not to hand the whole railway, lock, stock and barrel, to local franchise operators. However, in a limited number of cases, particular features may suggest that it is right to make an exception and to allow a degree of vertical integration. I have decided, for example, that the Isle of Wight can be offered as a vertically integrated franchise —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."l—as it is completely separate from the rest of the network.
  I recently announced that, subject to parliamentary approval of the enabling legislation, I intended to appoint Mr. Roger Salmon as the first franchising director. Meanwhile, Mr. Salmon will act as my special adviser on franchising and will therefore play an important part in the development of our approach to franchising in this transitional period.
  Mr. John McFall rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: No, I will not give way again. I have made that clear.
  My third major announcement today concerns rail freight. Everyone agrees that carrying freight by rail usually offers environmental advantages as compared with using lorries. But translating that sentiment into practice is another matter. Rail freight has suffered from reductions in demand for the type of traffic for which it is best suited—heavy freight: aggregates, steel, oil and coal. In the fast-growing areas of consumer goods, new distribution and retailing patterns—just-in-time concepts, for example—are right for the consumer and for the marketplace but they are not easy for a monolithic industry to respond to. Under BR ownership, rail freight has not been as efficient or as responsive to that market as it should have been.
  I am convinced that our policies offer the best prospects for halting the decline in freight by rail and seeing more freight switched from road to rail. By privatising existing freight operations, ending BR's monopoly and opening up the rail network to as many private sector operators as wish to make use of it, I intend to assist this process by introducing three new measures.
  First, we will enhance the existing freight facilities grants scheme. The scheme provides targeted financial assistance to capital projects which demonstrably help the environment by switching traffic from road to rail or to inland waterways. I propose to expand the scheme in three ways. Grants will be made available to private rail freight operators as well as customers and consignors; grant will cover all forms of capital expenditure and equipment, including locomotives and track and structures specifically needed for freight; and grant assessments will now include traffic taken off inter-urban main roads and motorways. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nice little handout."] It is very significant, that derisory comment from hon. Opposition Members. The fact of the matter is that these enhancements will broaden the scope of this successful scheme and, I believe, will be widely welcomed by the industry and by all those concerned about the environment.
  Secondly, I propose to issue a consultation document containing proposals to encourage combined transport movements, and to help keep down the number of lorries on our roads, but allowing lorries carrying goods in containers or swapbodies, to and from railheads only, to operate at up to 44 tonnes gross weight on six axles, provided they are specially equipped with road-friendly suspension and axle layout. That will give rail a competitive edge. It will be particularly important for the development of channel tunnel freight services.
  My third proposal involves a new principle. I remind the House that all forms of subsidy to the freight railway ceased under the last Labour Government in 1977. That was based on the belief that rail freight should operate as a commercial business, and fundamentally that is right. But financial support can be justified where there are unambiguous wider benefits.
  I therefore propose to introduce a new grant, up to 100 per cent. of the track charges if necessary, to contribute towards track charges for freight traffic which can be demonstrably proven otherwise to move from rail to road, or could not be attracted to rail without it. This even

  167
  means that, where the environmental and other benefits can clearly justify it, access to the network can be made free at the point of use for freight operators.
  I must stress that the Government will expect to see clear returns for their money by way of these environmental benefits, and that the grant will be available only up to the limit of the track charges levied by Railtrack.
  Sir David Mitchell rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: The combination of our proposals for privatising rail freight, the introduction of open access to the network, the opening of the channel tunnel and the measures that I have announced today amounts to a major new opportunity for freight on rail. It demonstrates our determination to get the freight railway back on its feet.
  Mr. McFall rose—
  Mr. John McAllion rose
  Mr. MacGregor: It demonstrates our determination to get the freight railway back on its feet.
  I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Sir David Mitchell: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Can he say whether he will take steps to ensure that open access to freight is brought in under his existing powers before the Bill becomes law?
  Mr. MacGregor: I fear that I do not have the powers to do exactly what my hon. Friend suggests, nor can we introduce these measures until we have the Royal Assent. So I very much hope that we will get the Royal Assent as quickly as possible.
  Mr. McFall rose—
  Mr. McAllion rose
  Mr. MacGregor: I want to turn to a very important point now, which I know concerns a lot of hon. Members and which has already been raised—the access regime for rail operators. I will be publishing a separate detailed document on this before the relevant debates during the Committee stage of the Bill. Access arrangements are central to the private sector operation of trains. There are two key issues: how operators will be able to get paths, and the basis of the charges they will pay. We also need a system which is simple for operators, which facilitates franchising and encourages rail freight, and which gives the right economic signals. This includes generating revenue for Railtrack sufficient to cover its costs and enable it to invest.
  The independent regulator will be responsible for approving access agreements, and under the Bill he will have duties to protect users and encourage competition. All access arrangements will be subject to Community law. Within this framework, the Government see the system operating as follows.
  Freight operators should agree paths and prices with Railtrack on a commercial, freely negotiated basis. It is particularly important for Railtrack to be able to charge market-based prices to freight operators, because it needs income to cover the common costs of the track—those which cannot be attributed to individual operators. Operators can afford to make different contributions to
  168
  those common costs. If prices were based on average costs, marginal freight operators would be driven away. Conversely, if all prices covered only marginal costs, Railtrack would never cover its common costs.
  The system we propose offers the best chance of keeping marginal freight traffic on the railway, and of allowing Railtrack to cover its costs. The alternative of posted prices, whether average or marginal, fails on those counts. The new scheme that I have announced today for assisting rail freight operators with track costs will also help the most marginal flows. The regulator will supervise the system to ensure that Railtrack does not abuse any monopoly power or unfairly discriminate.
  A different regime is needed for franchised passenger services. Our longer-term aim is to adopt a market-based system of access for those services too, with increasing competition as the market develops. But for the first generation of franchises, the necessary trainpaths for franchises will be secured from Railtrack by the franchising director, acting under the guidance of the Secretary of State. Those trainpaths will then be offered to potential franchisees as part and parcel of the invitation to tender for franchises.
  The price that Railtrack will receive for franchise train paths will be agreed with the franchising director according to economic principles developed by our advisers, Coopers and Lybrand. Those will be set out in the detailed document that we shall be publishing. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I have already said that it will be published soon—in advance of discussion in Committee—I hope, early next week.
  The prices for franchised trainpaths will be guaranteed by the franchising director—[Interruption.] I am covering an important part of the proposals, which I am sure many people will wish to study.
  Mr. John Prescott: We are discussing an important issue. Many people have demanded information on the criteria to be used for track costs. Am I to understand from what the Secretary of State is saying that the report is ready, in his hands, and will be published before the Committee meets, which is likely to be next Tuesday—within days of today's debate? Why could not the Secretary of State produce the report in time for today's debate?
  Mr. MacGregor: We have produced a great deal for today's debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am outlining the principles in my speech now. We shall have the detailed document ready. We are moving as fast as we can, and hope to have it published and ready next week.
  The task of bidders will be greatly simplified, as they will have only one bid to make, for the franchise. Therefore, if bidders cannot afford the access price, it will be subsidised by the franchising director.
  The proposals give priority at the outset to franchises. I make no apology for that. If we are to change the culture, which I have stressed throughout is vital, it will be through introducing private sector disciplines or attitudes into as many passenger services as possible. That means not just a few indvidual services on particular lines—although I do not wish to underestimate the importance of such competition where possible—but introducing disciplines into whole franchised sectors. If competition has to be moderated in the early stages to achieve the successful

  169
  launch of franchising, some exclusivity may be necessary. On some crowded lines, there may also be technical reasons for doing so initially.
  Finally, I should explain the significance of Railtrack's financial objectives for the access arrangements.
  Mr. McAllion: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has made a number of important announcements this afternoon that would normally form the basis of a ministerial statement, which would have allowed many Opposition Members to ask questions. He has effectively hidden his announcement in his speech on Second Reading and refused to give way to Opposition Members who have tried to raise important constituency issues. Is that not an abuse of the orders and procedures of the House designed to protect Back Benchers?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a Second Reading debate, in which the Secretary of State chooses what he wishes to speak about.
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) made a ludicrous charge. I have been—
  Mr. McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been present since the beginning of the debate, and have been trying to intervene. The Secretary of State has three times said that he was taking his last intervention. I wish to pose questions on the issue of ScotRail. Do we have to occupy Conservative Benches before the Secretary of State will give way to us?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State gives way to whom he chooses.
  Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did not the Secretary of State mention my constituency not once but three times in the debate? I am the only representative of that constituency in the House, and I am not complaining at all about the fact that my right hon. Friend did not give way to me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order—I heard some cheers earlier on.
  Mr. MacGregor: This is unlike a statement: we have made announcements in several debates and documents of our policy on this important issue, and shall continue to do so. We are today debating the Bill's Second Reading. The Bill will go into Committee and there will be many months in which to consider all the aspects. I am mindful of the need to get on so that other hon. Members may speak.
  I should explain the significance of Railtrack's financial objectives for the access arrangements. We have deliberately chosen to provide subsidy to operators, not to Railtrack. That is because subsidy is best directed at its intended purpose—the continued provision of socially necessary passenger services which might otherwise disappear.
  Therefore, Railtrack will operate on commercial lines, making an appropriate rate of return, which the Government will fix nearer the time that Railtrack goes live. But franchisees will have to pay only the track charges that they can afford. The proposals for charges for freight operators are specifically designed to maintain flexibility to protect marginal operators while charging more to those who can afford it.
  170
  Many people talk about level playing fields—it is a big debate. The House will recall that, last autumn, I announced that later this year I would produce a Green Paper on road user charging. The principle of that is that the costs of infrastructure should be covered by users. Therefore, one other element of the policy will be the Green Paper on road user charging.
  Before I turn to the Bill's main provisions, I shall say a word about the ticketing and other facilities that will be available to rail passengers under our proposals. We believe that the injection of private sector marketing skills will increase the range of flexibility of the benefits on offer. Private operators will have the freedom and incentive to get more customers on to the railway, which will mean giving passengers convenient and flexible ticketing arrangements. It will also mean offering discounts to boost patronage on certain services and ensuring that all relevant information about services is available to the public. With the private sector in the lead, we expect that most network benefits will be promoted, either individually or collectively, by the operators, but fallbacks will be available.
  The Bill will give general powers to the regulator and the franchising director to ensure that key network benefits are maintained. For example, we shall require through ticketing to be provided at all major ticket offices.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Only major ones?
  Mr. MacGregor: Through ticketing is not provided at all ticket offices at present, which shows how ignorant the hon. Gentleman is.
  We shall guarantee the publication of a national timetable. No less important, we shall require franchisees, as part of their contract, to provide common discount facilities for the disabled. I am sure that that commitment will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I am sure that his answer to my question will be listened to with great interest by people both inside and outside the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to guarantee the continuation of a national network railcard for the elderly and for young people?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have made the position clear on the disabled. There is no statutory obligation on British Rail to provide the railcard at present, and we do not propose to change the system. However, I have made it clear that I believe that it will be in the interests of franchisees to offer such facilities.
  I shall turn now to the Bill's main provisions. Part I covers the provision of railway services under the new regime. It deals broadly with licensing, franchising and access, and the organisations to be set up to make those possible and effective.
  Clause 1 and schedule 1 empower the Secretary of State to appoint the regulator and the franchising director. Other clauses impose duties on those office holders. The present consumer organisations need to be updated to play a similar role in the new railway. Clauses 2 and 3 achieve that, and various other aspects of clause 1—which I shall not go into in detail now, due to the pressure of time—cover licensing, franchising and access aspects.

  171
  Clauses 35 to 44 cover the important closure procedures. The existing procedures have to be amended to fit the new circumstances of the railway. They have not been weakened.
  The remainder of part I contains a wide range of other measures needed to underpin the provision of railway services in the new regime.
  Mr. McAllion rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: Part II provides for the restructuring of BR. There is a crucial point here, because immediate and uninformed comment—including, typically, from the Opposition—suggested that we were taking covert powers to privatise London Underground among the transport undertakings. That is wholly wrong. It is this part of the Bill which covers privatisation as such. It does not apply to London Transport or any undertaking other than BR. The Bill gives no power to privatise London Underground.
  Part II makes it possible for companies to be formed out of BR. Those companies will form the basis of key players in the future railway. Thus the freight businesses to be sold to the private sector will first be formed as companies, as will the passenger franchise units. Railtrack will also be created as such a company and transferred to the direct ownership of the Government under those powers.
  Clause 82 contains a particularly important provision. It confirms, for the avoidance of doubt, that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply to transfer schemes under clause 75. That will make employees' rights clear in respect of every transfer.
  Part III contains a number of miscellaneous, general and supplemental provisions, some of which are of great importance. Clause 107 applies part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to the railways. That will allow the new system for railway safety proposed by the Health and Safety Commission, endorsed by the chairman of BR and accepted by the Government, to be implemented by regulations under that Act.
  Other clauses cover board pension schemes, the British Transport police, concessionary travel facilities for employees, and clauses 118 to 123 cover financial provisions to allow the continued provision of subsidies and grants in the new railway, including the improved arrangements for freight facilities grants to which I referred earlier.
  I come now to some of the points that have been raised, including those raised in earlier debates, which enables me to deal with them briefly. I start with the interim report of the Select Committee on Transport. There is much common ground between us. For example, we are agreed that there should be a regulator. We have included provisions in the Bill for independent consumer committees. We agree that freight should be privatised. We are committed to continuing subsidy for passenger services. We have already clarified, as I have again today, other issues about which the Committee was concerned, including network benefits, pensions and access charges.
  One concern that was raised in the early months in particular was safety. I spoke about that in the House the other day when I announced the publication of the Health and Safety Commission's report on safety. The safety concerns have now been fully dealt with. It is noticeable
  172
  that they are not now being commented on. The Government accepted in full the 38 recommendations, and the chairman of British Rail agreed that the safety aspects of the new regime were fully satisfactory.
  Pensions is the second area to be raised, naturally and understandably, with me, and in many other ways, by the railway unions. I fully understand their concerns about pensions for existing employees and for retired British Rail pensioners. We have produced a consultative document on that which makes it clear that we shall make available an industrywide pension scheme for which the unions particularly asked. I believe that that deals with all the key questions on pensions.
  There will be controls on railway operators' freedom to increase fares where they might otherwise be able to take advantage of having significant market power to exploit passengers—for example, on London commuter services. Those will be exercised by the franchising authority for franchise services and by the regulator for fully privatised services.
  Mr. Tim Renton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I must get on—I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me.
  Mr. Renton rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. friend and I have already corresponded on fares.
  Mr. Renton rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Renton: I appreciate my right hon. Friend giving way.
  I agree with much that he has said this afternoon, but it would be helpful if, before he finishes, he would explain why he is so confident that the combination of regulator and franchising director will solve the conundrum that we have had for so long on the commuting lines out of London. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, how can there be substantial investment in the infrastructure without excessive increases in fares? My right hon. Friend must realise that thousands of my constituents depend on his answer. They have to get to work every day in London, Crawley, Gatwick or Brighton—punctually, and at a price that they can reasonably afford.
  Mr. MacGregor: I have already corresponded with my right hon. Friend on that. I see no reason why fares should increase faster under the new system then they do under the present nationalised industry structure. In many cases, they will be more flexible and will be reduced. I have already described how, through the franchising authority or the regulator, controls will continue on commuter lines.
  There has been substantial investment in many areas of BR in recent years. For example, I know that it does not help my right hon. Friend, but, as I have mentioned, the Networker line has just received an investment of £800 million. That has been possible as a result of the increase in subsidies to British Rail despite the problem of declining revenue. Such support will continue. [Interruption.] It will be for Railtrack to decide its priorities. In addition, franchisees will be able to take advantage of the leasing

  173
  market and of private capital. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend will know that we now have a £150 million facility scheme.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a vital debate, and it is almost impossible to hear the Secretary of State. If the Minister does not intend to give way, will you at least encourage him to address the Chair?
  Mr. MacGregor: I am happy to repeat what I have just said, because I know that it is important to the hon. Lady.
  We shall be enabling and encouraging private sector capital. The £150 million leasing arrangement, introduced in anticipation of privatisation, is part of that. The prospects for increased investment are undoubtedly greater under the proposed system than under the present system.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I come briefly to closures, which is a matter of great concern to many hon. Members. I see no reason why privatisation should lead to a reduction in passenger services. I have made it clear that we shall continue to pay subsidies to support socially necessary railway operations on unprofitable lines. The availability of public subsidy will mean that the private sector can earn a reasonable return on services that currently make a loss.
  In return for public subsidy, franchisees will sign legally binding contracts with the franchising director which will specify the quality and frequency of the services that they will be running. Franchisees will not be able to close down loss making lines. Where proposals for closures come in the future as they have in the past, the Bill makes it clear that we shall continue with the current strict statutory procedures.
  Mr. McFall rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: Finally, a point that has frequently been raised concerns what is described as the bureaucracy under the system. When the new system is up and running, it will be more streamlined and less bureaucratic than the present system. The reason for that is straightforward. The new system will have an independent safety authority. We have an independent safety authority now, and no one is suggesting otherwise. It will have consumer committees—the rail users committees. We have them now, and no one is suggesting otherwise.
  It will have the franchising authority, which will carry out a function of the distribution of subsidy which at present is carried out between my Department and British Rail and so already exists. However, in future it will be more transparent and open for everyone to see, whereas now it is sometimes difficult to know where the subsidy goes. Therefore, that function basically exists at present. We shall have Railtrack, whose function exists now. The only new element is the regulator, which the Select Committee has said is necessary.
  Therefore, there is no increase in bureaucracy. At the moment, British Rail has a heavily structured bureaucracy, and the new arrangements will move in the opposite direction. It is rich for Opposition Members to talk about bureaucracy when they are now proposing a new independent railway commission.
  That brings me to the Labour party. Yesterday morning, I heard that Labour was launching that
  174
  afternoon its 10-point plan for the railways. What an impact it had. I had to scour this morning's newspapers with a magnifying glass for even a mention. Then, courtesy of The Guardian, I found seven of the 10 points. No wonder the plan was ignored: apart from the usual more staff, more costs, and more subsidies to run the present system, only two points said anything new. I say this for the benefit of my right hon. and hon. Friends, because I am sure that they did not spot that report in The Guardian this morning.
  The two points were a new independent railways commission with wide-ranging powers to oversee British Rail—who is talking about bureaucracy?—and powers for British Rail, still wholly in the public sector, to borrow from private funds free of all Treasury constraints, just as the French railways do.
  What is the consequence in France? It is a total debt of £14 billion, compared to British Rail's £2 billion; an annual interest payment of £1.3 billion—[Interruption.] No wonder the Opposition do not like to hear this. That annual interest payment of £1.3 billion—a colossal burden on French taxpayers and rail users—compares with British Rail's £80 million. The result is that 20 per cent. of SNCF's annual costs are debt interest payments, compared with British Rail's 1.5 per cent.
  If that is Labour Members' prescription for British taxpayers and rail users, I tell them to beware—it would be a total disaster. That would be the consequence of Labour's proposals—just throw more taxpayers' money at it; run the railways for the railwaymen; ignore completely the lessons of other privatisations and the benefit that they can bring to customers by better systems, greater motivation, innovation, and enterprise.
  There are benefits to the customer. British Telecom's prices are down 27 per cent. in real terms since privatisation, with much better services, more choice, and further innovation. British Gas prices are down by 20 per cent. in real terms. There are the benefits of investment: in all the major industries, there was greater investment after privatisation than before. And there are the benefits to the taxpayer.
  Each and every time that we embarked on the privatisation of an industry, the Labour party opposed it. Time and again on Second Reading, it said that it would reverse our proposals—as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will no doubt do today. Each and every time the Labour party predicted disaster, and each and every time we proved it wrong.
  We proved—by the success of the British Airports Authority, British Airways, National Freight Corporation, National Express, British Telecom, the regional electricity companies, and British Gas—that the involvement of the private sector works, and works well, for the customer.
  Each and every time, the Labour party had to admit that it was wrong—because one does not hear it say today that it will renationalise any of those ventures. So it will be for British Rail. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East or his successor will be forced to admit that our proposals, as outlined in the Bill, are the right way forward for our railways of the future in the interests of passengers, freight, and employees alike. That is why I commend the Bill to the House for a Second Reading.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: The Secretary of State said a considerable amount, much of which was of interest, and gave information and facts that we have wanted for a long time. However, it is extremely difficult to make a proper judgment on the right hon. Gentleman's statements without the documentation relating to complicated aspects—as I am sure he would be the first to concede.
  The right hon. Gentleman followed exactly the same procedure in respect of the health and safety document, which he introduced in his speech but which was already in the Vote Office, ready to be distributed. The right hon. Gentleman could have paid the House the courtesy of distributing that document, so that we could have formed some judgment on his later claim that the railway system will be much safer.
  We shall find the same with track charges. The Secretary of State has the track costs document printed and ready—is that not right? I ask the Secretary of State: is that document ready now? It is ready, printed, and available—we all know that. The right hon. Gentleman could have produced that document on an issue that is essential—as was pointed out by the Select Committee and by all who criticise the privatisation proposals. The right hon. Gentleman introduced it in his speech, which makes it difficult for us to reach a proper judgment. No doubt that document will be produced before the Committee meets, which will probably be on Tuesday. We could have had it in time for this debate. That shows the contemptible way in which the Secretary of State introduces material to the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman could have been a little more sympathetic in respect of his new proposals on franchising and allowed hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies to intervene, particularly as he is subjecting Scotland's entire railway system to this experiment. That is one reason why the House is angry about statements in the Secretary of State's speech.
  Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend very much for allowing me to intervene. Last week, I spoke to commuters and concerned individuals in Inverness. They pointed out that the Ness bridge in Inverness was dismantled in 1989 but, because of floods, had to be rebuilt last year at a cost of £3 million. Scotland has 2,200 bridges. We saw the damage done by the Perth floods, which cost British Rail £1 million. The Secretary of State said that with the introduction of the private sector there will be private sector discipline. What guarantees can be given about those bridges and Scotland's social subsidy? It seems that the Secretary of State has no guarantees. That is no comfort to the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Prescott: Clearly, we shall want to question the Secretary of State on that essential point in Committee. It is important to know where the money for the rail track costs and the necessary safety investment that he mentioned is to come from. I shall return to that point later.
  The Secretary of State began his remarks by speaking of a historical change, and one is certainly being made. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it will be for the better, but that is not proven—certainly not by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The Bill's provisions seem to change from day to day. It has changed tremendously,
  176
  from privatisation to commercialisation, due to one or two cherry-picking ventures. The Secretary of State stated today where they will be: they are the profitable routes—not a railway system. As was said by a Conservative Member, the Government should be more concerned about who is to run the railways than who is to run one or two lines.
  The Secretary of State said that privatisation had produced better results, whether it be in respect of gas, electricity, or water. That is disputable, but we can have that argument on another occasion. I cannot use the hour that the Secretary of State has taken, because that would deny a number of Back Benchers an opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan rose—
  Mr. Prescott: No, I will not give way.
  A comparison has been made between British Rail and the privatisation and deregulation of buses, which it was said would provide better services, lower fares, and investment. Instead, there is clear evidence that passengers pay a lot more, fewer services are available, buses run only on profitable routes, and there are no service cross-subsidies. The bus manufacturing industry has collapsed from 7,000 orders per year to none. It is plain that deregulation and privatisation destroyed our effective, modern bus industry.
  Sir David Mitchell rose—
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim rose—
  Mr. Prescott: No—I am not giving way to Tories.
  At last we have the Second Reading. Never has a Bill changed so many times. Never has a Bill been so universally condemned. Never has a Bill lost its essential justification—that private competition and privatisation would provide the means by which to change the service. All that the Secretary of State seemed to claim was that there will be a change in the culture. That was his essential point. He is to replace public management with private management, and there will be fundamental changes. Of course there will—one of them will be the pay inceases for the bosses at the top who will be running the system. That will happen straight away.
  We shall have to wait to find out whether privatisation will lead to improvements, but I do not believe that it will. Essentially, the Bill is an enabling measure—
  Mr. Milligan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: In a second.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Weakness!
  Mr. Prescott: All right, I will give way now.
  Mr. Milligan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. He mentioned the gas, water and electricity industries. In the last Parliament, he said that if the Labour party took power they would renationalise those industries. Is that still his view?
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman should be more concerned about the state of the Eastleigh and Southampton railway services. He should be intervening on that subject.
  I firmly believe that a publicly owned railway system can provide a better service than one that is privately owned. According to the Secretary of State, this is not privatisation but commercialisation. It will lead not to

  177
  competition in the provision of services, but to competition for the taxpayer's money for the payment of subsidies. That is the only competition that there will be. Instead of the public monopoly about which the Government are so concerned, we shall have what the Secretary of State called "exclusive services"—in other words, a private monopoly. We shall be replacing a public monopoly with a private one.
  The process will not, however, be completed under the present Government. According to the Secretary of State, it will not be completed until the next century. Nor will it reduce bureaucracy. As the Secretary of State has been forced to admit, there will be more quangos. I note that he drew a distinction between the present employment of civil servants by British Rail and their future employment by quangos. One of the Tory party's essential arguments has concerned the growth and proliferation of quangos in the civil service, and in bureaucratic organisations. Now the Secretary of State is establishing quangos and claiming that they will not increase bureaucracy. The evidence is against the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe him, and neither did the Tory party at the beginning of the decade, which spent all its time abolishing quangos, for the very reasons that I have cited.
  The Bill offers no guarantee that the existing network of 11,000 miles will continue. That was the justification for the public service obligation payments made by the European Community. Despite what the Secretary of State said, there is no guarantee of protection from closures, especially in rural areas. Let us consider the reasons currently given for such closures. Perhaps British Rail wants to run a train from Yarmouth, in the Secretary of State's area, to Peterborough; it wants to speed up the journey, so it begins to cut the number of rural stops.
  I must emphasise the importance of network services, whether in rural or urban areas. Often people who live in rural areas want to drive to the station and then travel into town by rail to avoid the congestion on the roads. The Secretary of State has an answer to that: the introduction of road pricing. That is another proposal that he has slipped in. Clearly, huge charges for road freight and passengers will be needed to subsidise the policy, and they will apply not to taxpayers but to road users. That is what the Secretary of State has told us.
  There is no guarantee, either, that we can sustain the £1 billion investment which, according to the chairman of British Rail and everyone else concerned, is the minimum that will be necessary. The Secretary of State has talked of a record level of investment; what he means, of course, is the actual amount put into the channel tunnel. The chairman of British Rail has told the Select Committee that, after two years, investment in the tunnel will fall to an average of £600 million a year. That is less than the average in the late 1980s, and it is not enough to maintain the support that Network SouthEast requires.
  The Secretary of State plainly has not convinced Conservative Members with seats in Network SouthEast areas about the source of the money or indeed whether it will arrive. Obviously it will not arrive, although a £1 billion annual investment is needed.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: I certainly will not give way to you.
  178
  Furthermore, the Secretary of State has not guaranteed the maintenance of a proper standard of safety. He has not guaranteed that the railways will retain freight, rather than more of it being transported by road. It is interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he is now convinced of what needs to be done to transfer the traffic from road to rail. He may not know it, but a lot of the ideas that he has announced have been pinched from Labour. The leasing proposals are one example, but three more of his ideas can be found in Labour's transport document, produced at the time of the general election. We suggested that heavy lorries could be taken from certain sites to the railheads, and that subsidies could be made available to relieve motorway congestion.
  All the ideas offered by the Secretary of State were published years ago: he is merely trawling our documents and adding our policies to his. I agree that those proposals will help to transfer traffic from road to rail, and I am in favour of that, but the Secretary of State has just announced that there must be an 8 per cent. rate of return on freight. His present policy is driving a number of private companies to transfer the equivalent of 100,000 lorryloads from rail to road in the south-east. He need not wait for legislation to change the position; he could change it now. Select Committees have recommended such action. It is arrant nonsense to talk of the need to wait for legislative change. The present Secretary of State seems unaware that he has the powers to introduce change; his predecessor suggested that he would introduce it, but never did.
  I welcome the proposals. I have advocated transferring more traffic from road to rail, and they will help us to do that. My only difference with the Secretary of State lies in the fact that it is unnecessary to wait 18 months for legislation before effecting the policy. There is a specific reason why it is now so important to reverse the policy of driving traffic from rail to road. British Rail has increased its prices to some freight operators by as much as 150 per cent. It is not possible to operate a service on such terms. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that he will allow hundreds of lorryloads of freight to travel by road when he could stop it? Will he reverse that stupid policy, which has arisen directly from the track charges required to meet the 8 per cent. rate of return that he has imposed on British Rail? I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman because a good many people would like to hear the answer.
  Mr. MacGregor: In fact, the rate of return which British Rail is being asked to achieve, and which it is not achieving, is a good deal less than 8 per cent. Some services are making substantial losses; those losses must be addressed, in view of the heavy losses currently being incurred in rail freight.
  Mr. Prescott: I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman's logic. Has he not announced that he is prepared to subsidise those companies to deal with the track charges because of the difficulties of marginal costing? Legislative change is not needed for that; as I have said, these are just Treasury rules, which are absurd. The Secretary of State clearly does not understand what he is doing with the railway system. He could reverse the policy if he wished, but he appears not to know what powers he has. He is not competent to understand what is involved in transferring freight from road to rail.

  179
  The Secretary of State spoke of passengers' rights, and protection through the passenger transport consultative committee. The committee has issued a report saying that the Bill will not improve the position, and that it will reduce the committee's powers. I do not know whether the Secretary of State reads the documents that are sent to every Member of Parliament, but that is what the committee says.
  Certainly, the Secretary of State has not inspired us with any confidence about concessionary travel. He said that it was guaranteed, but according to clause 117 such travel "may" be provided. As every hon. Member knows, "may" is not the same as "shall". Anyone who doubts what I am saying should consider what happened when the bus service industry was deregulated. Concessionary travel was one of the first things that went, along with through ticketing, the fare structure and the timetables. The evidence is clear.
  Mr. Mans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a specific point. Is it right for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), as Opposition transport spokesman, not to declare his interest as a member of a railway union?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Prescott: I think that it is acceptable to record such an interest in the Register of Members' Interests. So far, no one has doubted my union connections. Let me add that I do not receive a penny in sponsorship—unlike Conservative Members with banking and other interests.
  The overwhelming criticism of the Bill, especially on Second Reading, relates to the fact that it is rejected overwhelmingly by people outside the House. The Secretary of State constantly tells us about the people who support it. The evidence is clear—
  Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: Yes, I shall give way in a moment to the Chairman of the Select Committee.
  The Independent on Sunday reports quotations from people who know, people who have a lot of experience—Tories, of course. Lord Ridley said:
  "I do not believe it is possible to privatise the railways".
  He was supported enthusiastically by Lord Young and Lord Whitelaw. In its editorial, the Daily Express said that
  "the Government … would be wise to rethink this risky undertaking."
  Mr. MacGregor rose—
  Mr. Prescott: Let me complete the list, and then the right hon. Gentleman can give a full answer for once.
  The National Opinion Poll found that the system would get worse if it was privatised. The Central Transport Consultative Committee, the statutory watchdog for the industry, said that it would be the passengers
  "who pay the price as operators seek to maximise profits."
  Let us consider what the experts said. The Select Committee made it absolutely clear that few of the people who gave evidence to it have endorsed the Government's specific proposals. Jane's World Railways says that the proposal cannot be viewed as
  "better than a dogma-driven exercise, utterly irrelevent to national need."
  The banker who advises on the privatisation said:
  180
  "The economics of railways may not attract private-sector investment".
  He should know. A lawyer who dealt with the Clapham crash said that the difficulty—[Interruption.] Yes, it is speeding up a bit because of the amount of time involved, but it is a serious point. A lawyer involved in suing on behalf of a number of people involved in the Clapham tragedy said that
  "it would be impossible … for the traveller to know whether to sue the train operator, Railtrack, who run the signals, or the owner of a sold-off Clapham station."
  That is a serious point.
  Many others have pursued the issue, including rail bosses. The chairman of British Rail has made his views clear. He said:
  "My view is that a railway should meet the social needs of the country as well as the economic needs."
  Lord Marsh, who I think was one of yours and one of ours at some stage, but who was also the chairman of British Rail, said:
  "Logic has been abandoned a long time ago … Why are we doing this?"
  The Swedish rail chairman, who I should have thought would know about this, said:
  "I don't see any commitment in your Government's proposal to modernising the rail network."
  Howard Davies, the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, said that
  "there is a real danger that privatisation will be a blueprint for bureaucracy."
  He should know. The list goes on and on.
  Across the country, all groups in the community, including the industrialists, are telling the Secretary of State that the privatisation of the railway cannot work in the way he suggests and that it would be disastrous for the railway industry.
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has engaged in some selective quotations. I must put him right on one so as to put the record straight. My noble Friend Lord Young said clearly:
  "I have no doubt that rail privatisation will add to the long line of services successfully enhanced by the addition of private sector skills"
  and made it clear that he was backing the proposals. [Interruption.] I shall be happy to read the whole letter because it is entirely supportive of what we are doing. Many industrialists also support us. I have letters from industrialists saying that it would undoubtedly offer the best service. The hon. Gentleman has quoted from various leader articles on the day the Bill was published. I shall not weary the House by reading a long selective quotation, but the hon. Gentleman might also have seen a list of eight leaders which supported what we are doing.
  Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State is not denying what Lord Young said in January. Clearly, Lord Young has been nobbled since then so that the Secretary of State can quote him. Lord Young is confused, but what I read was exactly what he said. That is a kind of nobbling job. No doubt the Secretary of State has gone to a few more saying, "Can you please say you support this system?" In reality, they do not.
  Mr. George Kynoch: In one debate last year, I understand that the hon. Gentleman said that he did not necessarily believe that British Rail needed to be wholly publicly or wholly privately owned. In another debate he said that it needed to be publicly owned for very good reasons. Which does he believe?
  Mr. Prescott: I see nothing inconsistent in a publicly owned railway having access to private capital and access for private operators to work on some of the lines. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is how it was done with some of the freight systems. It is not new for British Rail. It might shock some Conservative Members but British Rail management, largely because of the freight operations, did not have sufficient resources to put the necessary investment into the track, trains and engines. It basically told private companies that if they would pay for the engines and the rolling stock, it would allow them to operate on the lines. They operate under British Rail's conditions of operation and that is acceptable to them.
  Mr. Adley: On the question of freight and my right hon. Friend's powers to act immediately to implement what he has announced, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) and I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the Secretary of State has the power and we would urge him to use it immediately.
  Does the hon. Gentleman understand what I understood my right hon. Friend to be saying about freight costing? At present freight has access to marginal costs, but under the new simplified system the Government will give funds to Railtrack, which will have to make commercially driven revenue. That will put up the prices and a rebate will be available from Railtrack for operators which will apply for subsidy, presumably to Railtrack. Instead of one management decision, five quangos will be involved. Is that the hon. Gentleman's understanding?
  Mr. Prescott: Precisely—that is absolutely right. Even worse, it means that the costs of Railtrack will be passed on to all operators. When we separate Railtrack from British Rail, as the Secretary of State now proposes, British Rail will presumably operate 95 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the service. Only a minority will be pinched by the private operators, so the 90 per cent. will be operated largely by British Rail. Because the cost of the track will now have to involve a profit element, it will mean a major hike in the cost for British Rail which has to fund it from the public service obligation, which means through subsidy from us. All we shall do is increase subsidies. Anyone who knows anything about the operation of railway services knows that to be true.
  Mr. Oppenheim rose—
  Mr. Prescott: No, I have given way for the last time.
  The central thrust of the Government's case, therefore, is that it would change the culture. By introducing private management and entrepreneurial flair, they intend to achieve a change of culture. They believe that we shall then get the change of culture that will bring about all that the Secretary of State claims will be improvements. There is no doubt that he has a dream and a vision, but I wonder whether he is not merely dreaming and not looking at the practical realities.
  Where is the historical evidence that changing the management brings those improvements? In Britain, pre-1921, there were 120 private railways all begging to be taken over. They were clapped out, so when the first world war came we had to make them into four big rail operators and therefore reduce the idea of competition. Of course, they were still private management led.
  Let us consider the record of that period. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr.
  182
  Benn) for giving me a copy of a speech that he made in 1960. He referred to the record of the Great Western railway, to which I referred in an earlier speech, and which was the only one to make a profit. My right hon. Friend said that in 1929 the GWR was paying 7.5 per cent. on its dividends. A year later, the dividend fell to 5 per cent., the following year to 3 per cent. and, in order to pay the 3 per cent. next year, it dipped into its reserves. It then asked for a 10 per cent. wage cut and said that in order to pay the 3 per cent., it would have to pay out of its reserves. My right hon. Friend said:
  "In 1937, it managed to raise it to 4 per cent. by postponing modernisation. It cut £3 million out of its capital requirement programme".—[Official Report, 13 April 1960; Vol 621, c. 1389.]
  It did that in order to pay 4 per cent.
  The railways were saved by the war. Nobody doubted that what happened was necessary in the national interest. As most of the investment had not been carried out, it was an inadequate system, but it all took place under a private system and, interestingly enough, with the type of quangos that the Secretary of State now proposes. He is talking about regulators and clearing houses, which all existed in the 1930s. Private ownership of the industry did not mean that the investment was made. It did not produce good entrepreneurial flair, so we know that is not true.
  Mr. Oppenheim rose—
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not giving way.
  Mr. Prescott: May I say to the Secretary of State that for someone—
  Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for me to point out that the Opposition spokesman has given way only three times?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. That is not in order.
  Mr. Prescott: It might be only three times, but it seemed like 33.
  Mr. Oppenheim rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I would not give way to the hon. Gentleman's mother.
  The Secretary of State lacks an awful lot of knowledge about the railway system. His central case is that private entrepreneurial flair was needed and that we must privatise the industry. He should consider British Rail's record. I have been critical of British Rail—make no mistake about that—but it produced some of the best hotels in the world. People know about Gleneagles. Why did they fail or not have investment? The Treasury would not allow them to mortgage their property to continue the investment in the development. It was a Treasury rule; it was nothing to do with private managerial flair.
  The first development of containerisation in any maritime base was done by sealing in the United Kingdom. That development began to fail primarily because the Government were not prepared to invest in more ships and the industry was starved of capital. The tilt mechanism and the advanced passenger train system was first developed in the United Kingdom. It was not completed, but it was done in other countries.

  183
  The fast 125 diesels and the 225 electrics were ahead of their time in technology. It is a credit to the management of that industry that they led the way in the development of technology using conventional track. The evidence is there. Clearly, they were good. The real problem was that, although they produced a safe railway, the lack of resources began to undermine the system. The industry had the best productivity of any railway system in Europe. It was the same in the 1970s and the 1980s. Essentially, the industry was starved of financial resources.
  Who was responsible for the resources of British Rail? It is clear that one cannot take all of the financing from fares. Resources must come in from some form of subsidy. Therefore, Governments must be involved. The Secretary of State may have said that the European railway system had already borrowed a lot. If the British people had the opportunity to choose between the French or German railway systems and our system, I have no doubt that they would pick the system with a higher quality and high technology, which is what everybody in the United Kingdom wants. They appreciate that such a system must be financed, and that resources cannot come out of the fare box. That is the real problem of the railway system.
  The real problem with the British Rail system is that it has not had sufficient resources. The Government believe that a railway system can be run on a financial framework. That means that one begins to cut back the public subsidies, as the Government did during that period.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: No. I have given way quite a lot. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, I have. I cannot take the hour that the Secretary of State's speech took.
  Investment has not taken place. The Government have tried to put a financial framework on our railway system. Clearly, the railway system needs £1 billion a year. On the projections from the Treasury and his Department, the Secretary of State must accept that investment will be cut back in the next two years to £600 million. That is reality, and that is what the Secretary of State must recognise. Therefore, he must get resources from the private sector.
  The Secretary of State knows that I have advocated leasing and bond ideas. Those ideas are used by the publicly-owned railways in Europe. The Secretary of State need look only at those ideas as a way of financing railways. Every railway system does it, and the Government cannot afford not to do it. It is true that one does not have to maintain the level of subsidies at the level to which the Secretary of State referred.
  It is readily recognised that British Rail has been effective in its productivity. Even with the projections which included private finance, experience has shown that the tunnel link collapsed not because the public sector and private sector could not get together—management had good ideas—but because the Government were not prepared to find the financial resources for the public sector.
  It is the same with the Heathrow-Paddington line. All we had to provide was 20 per cent. public money—80 per cent. was to come from a private company, BAA. Why were we not able to endorse that? It was nothing to do with managerial ability; it was a decision by the Government.
  184
  We wait to see what will happen with the Jubilee line fiasco. Experience of private management in British Rail shows that Tiger Rail, Charterail and Stagecoach collapsed. They had private management and problems with track costs. The Secretary of State is addressing that problem at present.
  On the rail side, the Secretary of State has answered the problem by saying, "I will provide more subsidies." That is what he said in the House today. I am not against it. However, when he charges us with wanting to throw money at freight, it is a bit much when his own proposals relate to subsidising freight. It is not acceptable for him to accuse us of throwing subsidies at freight and then to come here with his own proposals to do exactly the same thing.
  Our argument with the Government's approach to the matter is that they are purely ideological. They hate publicly-owned industries. It is not that they do not believe that public sector management cannot do it. They are not prepared to give it the same terms as the private sector had to achieve it. They discriminate against British Rail. In the circumstances, they deny British Rail the opportunity to produce a good railway system.
  One of the Secretary of State's main claims was that it would be a safer railway. On the Health and Safety Executive, he said that they would make it clear that it would be a safer railway. The Health and Safety Executive made an important qualification which hon. Members must learn:
  "Companies with little or no previous experience of operating on the railway, and managers with limited experience of railway safety issues, will enter the railway industry as the BR monopoly is broken. Unless considerable care is taken to set up systems to ensure that new operators are properly equipped and organised, there can be no confidence that risk will be effectively controlled right from the start, and that important matters do not fall between the safety arrangements of various parties."
  The Secretary of State said that he had adopted the 31 recommendations. I wait to see whether that will be the case.
  I refer the Secretary of State to the Hidden report on the inquiry into the December 1988 Clapham rail disaster in which 35 people were killed. The report made an important point about private sector operations:
  "A further concern is that there are signs that the past high safety standards at local level achieved by giving a high priority to a 'safe railway' above other issues are starting to be eroded by the change in railway culture. If continued, this will strike at the root of our structure. I would not like a major disaster with loss of life to be the reason that forced British Rail to invest in modern safety aids."
  The report included a recommendation of the improvements which needed to be made in order to move against the development of a culture which could undermine safety. One of the report's recommendations was to introduce the automatic train protection system. It was felt that the introduction of that system was important to stop trains colliding with each other. The report recommended that the system should be introduced in five years. British Rail have made it clear that it cannot be done in 10 years. Yet it is an important safety provision.
  I note that in the publicity in the press today the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) proposed that it is no longer necessary to introduce the automatic train protection system. He said:
  "The cost of installation throughout British Rail is likely to be some £600 million. It is not clear that this amount of expenditure can be justified …There are now welcome signs that this absurd project is being abandoned."

  185
  That was said at a conference today with the Prime Minister to discuss red tape. One of the essential recommendations of the Hidden report on the Clapham disaster and Network SouthEast that there should be automatic train protection systems is about to be abolished because the Government cannot afford it. The Government have never told us whether the money will be provided. We know that the system will cost £600 million. The Prime Minister is attending a conference not far from Clapham station to discuss, in effect, how to reduce safety on the railway system. That is our main concern.
  We received the Health and Safety inspector's report this week. I was pleased to receive the report, as someone who is always looking for it. Normally, it takes 10 months to come out, but this one has come out in 10 weeks. It is interesting that the report says that railway safety has improved:
  "Serious incidents and fatalities declined from 161 in 1990 to 131 in 1991–92."
  Any improvement in safety is to be welcomed, but that is a snapshot. How can one judge anything if one merely compares one year with another? Why are we not looking to see the reality of the first half of the 1980s compared with the second half? The inspector's report contains a graph for all to see. It is misleading to suggest that there is an improvement in railway safety on those grounds. I looked closely at the graph. When one looks at the figures, it is clear that safety on the railway has deteriorated between the first five years of the 1980s and the second five years. The number of fatalities has increased by more than 22 per cent. Those fatalities were largely due to technical effects brought about following inadequate investment in our track and signalling system.
  What is significant about the increase between the first five years of the 1980s and the second five years is that during that period the Government reduced the amount of subsidies, support and investment levels in British Rail, which had an effect on safety. The emphasis during that period was on reducing costs. Instead of the Secretary of State telling the House that everything on the railways is fine, I suggest that he look at the figures in more detail or get his staff to analyse them. Will he still be convinced? Will the money for the automatic train protection system still be available? Can the Secretary of State tell us that? That is one major decision on safety that he could announce if he wanted to convince us of the truth of what he has said about the future safety of the system. Will he guarantee that that money will be available?
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): British Rail spends some £230 million per annum. The Hidden recommendation in relation to automatic train protection was that it should be applied five years after the development and trialling had been concluded. That has not yet happened.
  Mr. Prescott: Is the money to be provided for the system as soon as it is developed? That is the question that I asked. The remarks of the hon. Member for Havant suggest that it has been decided that the money will not be provided and that the Government are about to drop the automatic train protection system.
  If what the Minister says is true, the decision whether the money should be invested will lie not with the Secretary of State but with the track authority, which will be divorced from British Rail. Will the track authority have to make such decisions? If it does, will not its mind be
  186
  exercised by the consideration that if it spends £600 million on improving safety, track costs will increase for all the franchise and freight operations whose ability to provide a profitable service will have to be judged? Can we not now see the beginnings of the conflict between the commercial culture and what is needed to maintain a safe railway system?
  I note that the Secretary of State and the Minister are not saying that the money will be available to implement that recommendation of the inquiry into the safety of the railways. I can only say that safety is bound to be affected and that that fact will be noted.
  The Government's judgment about the separation of Railtrack will undoubtedly make it much more difficult to operate services. What of the lines that the Secretary of State has made available for the cherry pickers? And it is certainly cherry picking, is it not? No one doubts that it will be possible to make money on the east coast line. Any silly fool, whether in public or private management, can make money on that line; it is making money now. Some £420 million worth of taxpayers' money has been invested to maintain that line. How much will the entrepreneurs now pay for the track? Mr. Sherwood of Overseas Containers has made it clear that, if he has to pay the full price for tracks, he will not be able to operate a commercial service. He is one of the 50 on the list of applicants that the Government keep on about.
  The Tories have always rejected the idea of cross-subsidisation in transport. The French realised the value of the concept years ago, when they were developing the TGV. When the first TGV was built, all sorts of people wanted it to be run privately. Chirac—the mayor of Paris at the time and not a socialist, as the House will be aware—favoured privatisation. People explained to him that, following privatisation, all the profits from the first, profitable route would go to the shareholders, whereas if the profits were allowed to be reinvested in the second stage, a network could be developed as the profitable routes began to finance the less profitable ones.
  Cross-subsidisation is relevant to the future of the east coast line. What will happen with that line is that the branch lines will go first—that means Hull, my own area, and Harrogate. At present 125s have to be used as that part of the line is not electrified and no doubt the Railtrack people will not go ahead with that project. Will the Aberdeen route be retained and electrified to give a through service or will people have to change trains at Edinburgh? Those are the decisions that commercial operators will face. Under a British Rail system, the profit from the east coast network could be reinvested to subsidise the west coast line. Such investment is desperately needed: no entrepreneur is offering to pay £1 billion for the west coast line.
  Will not the entrepreneurs on the east coast line say, "Why maintain a railway up the west coast? We'll take people up the east coast to Glasgow and Edinburgh." The west coast network will then begin to close. It will be maintained as far as Manchester, but no one will undertake the necessary investment thereafter. Then we shall begin to see a reduction in investment in new trains and wagons, which will further undermine the manufacturers. In a few years' time, no doubt the Secretary of State will come to the House and say that the Government are having to close down rail manufacturing because no orders are forthcoming from within this country—exactly what has happened with Leyland DAF, as we heard in the

  187
  earlier announcement. The Government simply do not understand how heavily our manufacturing industries depend on the railways. That is a crucial part of our analysis.
  The Secretary of State referred to the Great Western line to Paddington. Will that line go only as far as Plymouth, or will it be guaranteed to go as far as Penzance? From talks that are already taking place, we are led to believe that it will go only as far as Plymouth. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether it will in fact go further? Who will undertake the necessary investment in the 30-year-old stock of 125s on the Great Western line? We are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds; no private entrepreneur will be prepared to invest that amount.
  Why is the Gatwick line to be kept with InterCity? The books were fiddled to allow the resourses to be given to InterCity and to improve InterCity's accounts so that the Government could sell it to the private sector—although, in fact, they have not been able to do so. Why cannot the profits of the Gatwick line, which is a premium service, be reinvested in Network SouthEast instead of going to a few shareholders who happen to have pinched that particular jewel?
  The Southend line is also on the list. For the record, let me say that the Secretary of State has pinched another of my ideas here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] It is a matter of record. I sold my pamphlet to the Secretary of State for 25 quid; he got it very cheap and pinched most of the ideas. There is no reason why an industry in the public sector cannot use private money. Why cannot private industry be asked to finance the project, as happens with road bridges, with the new stock being returned at the end of the period so that it can still be run by British Rail? There is no reason why the public sector cannot do that. It is ideological nonsense to suggest that it has to be the private sector.
  We believe that there is an alternative. There is no time to go into it now, but our suggestions have been published in pamphlets before today. As the Secretary of State knows, they were embodied in an instruction that I would have given to the chairman of British Rail to implement what I believe to be a far better railway system. We have made clear our view on all those things.
  The Bill will make the railways less safe. It will be a cherry pickers' charter, as we have established from what the Secretary of State said today. Profits will be put before service needs. It will be a reduced network service. Fares will be higher. Investment will be less. More traffic will be chased off rail on to the roads, adding to the congestion and the environmental damage.
  Above all, we shall have a different railway industry, driven solely by the desire to make profit. We shall be going in the opposite direction from the rest of Europe. What we want in Britain is modernisation, not privatisation. What we are getting is the Secretary of State's ideological obsession, which is rejected by every part of the community. I can only hope that the House will join the Opposition in rejecting the Bill.
  5.57 pm
  Sir John Stanley: This is my second speech on the current legislative proposals. When I spoke in the debate on the White Paper on 29 October
  188
  1992, I said that I supported the Government's intention to try to bring the private sector into the railway system but expressed grave concern about the fare implications of the proposals, particularly for middle-distance and long-distance commuters using Network SouthEast, who include a large proportion of my constituents.
  The potential financial implications of rail privatisation for the household budgets of that group of people are of a quite different order of magnitude from those of other privatisations, such as the privatisations of the telephone system, electricity, gas and water. Those items may cost households hundreds of pounds, whereas on this occasion we may be talking about thousands of pounds. That is a critical consideration for those living in the belt around London.
  What the fare implications will be is a matter of judgment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already set out figures for various privatisations whose effect has been to bring about a reduction in charges. My right hon. Friend was right to do that. Equally, however, other privatisations—for example, water privatisation—have been followed by a sharp increase in charges in real terms.
  I suggest that one can discern a general pattern. Where privatisation has taken place following a substantial period of investment in the previously nationalised industry, it has usually been possible for the new regime to bring about a real-terms reduction in charges. By contrast, when a public sector body, following years of under-investment, as in the case of water and, I suggest, in the case of British Rail, has been taken into the private sector, prices have invariably gone sharply upwards.
  I believe that, in the case of this privatisation, the underlying pressures are very firmly in the upward category—a judgment to which I come for one reason only, quite apart from the long history of under-investment in the railway system. The existing nationalised industry requires a rate of return on capital of about 8 per cent. I think that I heard my right hon. Friend say that the industry was not achieving that. One certainty is that when this industry is privatised its owners will require a significantly higher rate of return—probably about double the figure I have mentioned. That in itself will put immediate pressure on fares.
  What happens will be determined critically by two factors. The first is the future of subsidies. In saying that, I am referring in particular to Network SouthEast. The second factor is the type of fare-control regime.
  Those of us who represent constituencies in the Network SouthEast area are very well aware of the critical and direct relationship between the level of subsidy and the affordability of fares. In an attempt to bring home just how critical that relationship is, I put a question to the chairman of British Rail, Sir Bob Reid. I asked him by how much fares in Network SouthEast would have to rise if the current Government subsidy were removed entirely and if Network SouthEast were to continue to achieve the rate of return that British Rail expected of it. Sir Bob Reid's reply was very instructive in that it brought out the key relationship between subsidy and fare levels. It said:
  "The immediate achievement of the scenario you describe would, we estimate, require a fare increase of about 190 per cent. on 'peak' prices. This would principally reflect the high level of assets inevitably required for use only in 'peak' periods: two-thirds of Network SouthEast rolling stock is

  189
  used only during the morning and evening rush hours. There would not be an equivalent 'off peak' increase as this would be self-defeating in business terms."
  Let me emphasise, lest anyone be tempted to misrepresent what I have said, that I am not suggesting that one implication of these proposals is a fare increase of 190 per cent. Nor, as is quite clear from the extract that I have just quoted, is Sir Bob Reid. My purpose is to point up very sharply the fact that unless the subsidy level is maintained at its present level, in real terms, the fares implications for mid-distance and long-distance commuters are likely to be very serious indeed.
  The Government's policy—repeated twice today by my right hon. Friend—is that subsidies will continue in respect of those lines that are socially necessary. But that comment omits the key piece of information. [Interruption.] Someone asks, "How long?". That is one of the key questions, but even more critical is the level of continued subsidy. There is no point in saying simply that subsidy will be continued. It might be continued, but reduced by 95 per cent. More instructive than what my right hon. Friend said was the answer that I received a few weeks ago from his hon. Friend the Minister of State. I asked the Secretary of State:
  "if he will maintain the subsidy paid to Network SouthEast at its current level in real terms, and if he will make a statement."
  The Minister of State replied:
  "The specific allocation of the planned external financing limits for British Railways between 1993–94 and 1995–96 between grant and borrowing has yet to be agreed and will be announced, as usual, in due course—[Official Report, 11 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 824.]
  The implication is that there is no certainty about what the level of subsidy in respect of the Network SouthEast area will be if these privatisation proposals go ahead.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should like to remind the House that application of the 10-minute rule started at 6'clock. In the case of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall not count the 20 seconds that I have just taken up.
  Sir John Stanley: The second critical issue concerns the lines that will be deemed to be socially necessary for the purposes of the continuation of subsidy. Having put that question to the Secretary of State formally. I received the following reply:
  "It will be for the new franchising authority to decide on the appropriate level of passenger services to procure through franchises in line with the overall guidance provided for him by the Secretary of State. Any subsidy required and its level will be determined by competitive bidding."—[Official Report, 14 December 1992; Vol. 216, c. 32.]
  Thus, we have no information as to which lines will be deemed to be socially necessary and will, therefore, attract subsidy. Indeed, we have no more information now than we had when the White Paper was debated.
  On the question of the fare-control regime, I regard this privatisation Bill as conspicuously the weakest piece of legislation in respect of the charges aspect of consumer protection. There are three consumer-protection bodies—the regulator, the consultative committee and the regional body. I do not have time to go into detail, but hon. Members will see that, by the provisions of clause 4, clause 66, and clause 67, these bodies are specifically excluded from involvement in fares on franchised routes.
  So where is the element of consumer protection? Does it lie with the franchising authority? People may look to the franchising authority, but I think that they will do so in vain. The job of the franchising authority is to get
  190
  franchises off the ground. It is concerned with attracting franchisees, not with protecting the interests of the consumer. Therefore, we are left with one person to whom consumers may look for protection in respect of charges —my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has a key role, as was foreshadowed in the consultation document on the franchising of passenger rail services, which says that the Secretary of State can—indeed, will—provide the franchising authority with guidance on a number of matters, including
  "in what circumstances and to what extent fares might be controlled."
  That guidance is centrally important, and this document should be before hon. Members today. Only when it is available will hon. Members be able to make an assessment of the fare implications of these proposals. I tried to persuade Ministers to make it available for this debate, but, as has already been said, they decided that we should receive it only at the beginning of the Committee stage. I greatly regret that decision. Such an important document should be before the House at this time.
  The issue of subsidy from the point of view of quantity is wholly unknown. There has been no information about which socially necessary lines in Network South East will be eligible for subsidy. According to the Bill, all three bodies that are supposed to be responsible for consumer protection are excluded from having any role over the fares that will be charged on the lines that will be the subject of franchises. The key document from the Secretary of State about his fare control policy has been withheld from the House and will not be available until the Committee stage. I am, in effect, being asked to sign a blank cheque on my constituents' cheque book. I am not prepared to do that, and while I shall not be voting tonight with the Opposition, I cannot support the Bill at this stage.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: I shuddered as I listened to the Secretary of State today commending the Bill to the House as the right way forward for the future of the railways. At the equivalent stage of what became the Transport Act 1985, the then Secretary of State said that its purpose was to halt the decline that had afflicted the bus industry for more than 20 years, that it was not about reducing subsidy but about putting life back into the industry and that the effect of competition would be to reduce costs dramatically so that fares would be reduced.
  The then Secretary of State claimed that there was more to the Bill than deregulation and far more than privatisation. It was, he told the House, a full-scale rescue plan for the industry. Given that since the introduction of that measure passenger use of buses has declined by 28 per cent. in metropolitan areas and 16 per cent. in shire areas, may we be assured by the present Secretary of State that this is not to be a full-scale rescue plan for the railways?
  The Bill comprises 132 clauses and 11 schedules and gives massive powers to the Secretary of State and the new regulator. It might have been preferable to have had a Bill of one clause which simply said, "The Secretary of State can do what he likes, how he likes, when he likes, and where he likes." It would have had more or less the same effect.
  It is ironic that it should be clause 4 which gives a Tory Secretary of State enormously sweeping powers of centralised bureaucracy. He can rule by decree from Marsham street, with freedom to set out the parameters

  191
  within which the new rail network will operate. Under that provision he is given guidance on taking into account economic considerations—
  Mr. Barry Field rose—
  Mr. Harvey: With the 10-minute rule operating, I will not give way.
  He is told to consider economic considerations, but there is no suggestion that social or environmental factors should fashion the decisions he takes with his new powers. As well as being unworkable, the Bill contains no form of vision. It is a system set up to run today's, not tomorrow's, railways. As the rest of Europe is integrating and improving its rail networks, we shall be left behind, with an increasingly antiquated hotch-potch of disintegrated services. Whatever the Minister may say to the contrary, the Bill depends on a myriad of legal agreements at every interface in the new structure.
  What will the hypothetical new private sector whizzkid do to rescue the railways? He comes in wanting a franchise, but before he can get started he will have to make at least 10 separate agreements, first with the franchising authority for the allocation of routes; if he requires subsidy, then intrinsically the Department of Transport and the Treasury will become involved; he will have to make an arrangement with Railtrack over charges; if that does not result in an easy conclusion, the matter will probably finally go to the regulator, and it is possible, at least in the early days, that the Secretary of State will become involved at that point. He will already have had discussions with the Health and Safety Executive, with the leasing company over rolling stock and possibly also with two different passenger groups.
  He will then have to make separate arrangements for every station and maintenance depot that he wants to use and that is not under his control. If another operator wants to use any of his track, he will have to negotiate with him. That might end up in the hands of the joint industry body. It may even come back to the regulator or the Secretary of State for decision. Only after he has been through all that appalling rigmarole—and has apparently been told by the franchising authority what the fares and frequency of service must be—he will bring his private sector skills to bear. The whole thing is absolutely mad and will collapse under the weight of its dreadful bureaucracy.
  Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Isle of Wight county council is the only Liberal-controlled county council in the country, is it in order for the Liberal Front-Bench spokesman to try to mislead the House by pretending that his party is against this privatisation measure when the Isle of Wight county council has agreed to it, and in a recent press release—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter of argument, not a point of order.
  Mr. Harvey: The Bill is a lawyer's paradise but will prove to be a passenger's hell.
  Mr. Barry Field: What about the Isle of Wight?
  Mr. Harvey: The Isle of Wight county group is entitled to follow its own policies.
  The franchising director under the proposed agreement will end up making the key marketing decisions. Those
  192
  decisions will not be made by the private sector operators who will be brought in. Despite all we are told about competition and private sector disciplines, there is no guarantee that there will be competition in the bidding for the franchises. If only one bidder comes forward for a franchise, it will try to dictate the terms and seek an inflated subsidy.
  According to the Bill as drafted, British Rail is prevented from bidding. In other examples of competitive tendering—in local government and in the production of television programmes and so on—it has always been permissible for the existing in-house operator to bid. In this case, only managers in their own right, who will have to resign their jobs, find capital and leave the rest of their colleagues to sink or swim, will be invited to join in the process. At least if BR as a corporate entity had been allowed to take part in the process, there would have been a guarantee of some competitive bidding.
  It is interesting, if not worrying, to note that the Bill spends the most time—all of 10 clauses—dealing with the subject of closure. I hope that that is not an omen for the way in which it will operate in practice. Clause 43 envisages the bus replacement of failed franchises. What will happen when the franchising director runs out of money if, for example, bids for subsidy exceed his budget? Will he become the arbiter of the levels of service to be provided? What democratic accountability will there be over his decisions?
  According to clause 111, the remains of BR will be excluded from the responsibility of picking up any failed franchise operations. So what guarantees are there that passengers will continue to receive services?
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in areas such as Cornwall and Devon, it, will not be a matter of failed franchisees because it is clear that branch lines will become bus routes—that is what the only local potential bidder has said—and that inter-city lines are likely to become branch lines? That is hardly the maintenance of services for local people.
  Mr. Harvey: That is indeed a worry. Bus replacement is envisaged and, of course, once rail lines have gone it will be impossible to use them in the future for conveying freight. It is also clear that other network benefits will go. Despite the fact that railcards for the disabled have been guaranteed, there has been no such guarantee for pensioners' or students' cards. It is hoped that the new private operators will consider it in their interests to continue those, but that has not been the lesson of the bus experience.
  It is said that a national timetable will be published. It will be handy to have such a timetable, but we want it to be nationally planned. It is no good having a national timetable which simply informs one that one is missing one's connections by five minutes. The timetable must be co-ordinated.
  We have many other concerns with the Bill as drafted, not least the fact that there is still no sign of the Government having a strategic plan for the railways, unlike every other European country. I note that 44-tonne lorries will have permission to go all the way to the railhead by road. Will that include the channel tunnel? If so, we shall see many more such vehicles on the roads.
  Among our other concerns is the issue of passenger groups not being free to comment on fares, charges or

  193
  standards of performance required under franchise agreements. There is also the question of the bypassing of metropolitan and shire authorities and their having no formal relationship with the franchising authority. There is little to encourage me to believe that the system will produce any significant new investment. It is all rather like giving someone suffering from hypothermia a cold shower to spruce him up. I hope that those and other points will be addressed in Committee.
  This Bill is fraught with dangers, but there are no convincing benefits to passengers. Rarely can a Bill have had such widespread opposition. Even a former Government Chief Whip has been reported as saying that he would not fancy taking it through the House. No one would condemn the Secretary of State if he were to change his mind at this stage and turn back on the very verge or the brink of disaster. We understand that they have to look over their right shoulders and convince everyone that the Thatcherite march goes on, but surely once Lord Ridley of Liddesdale had said that it was impossible, that rather got them off the hook. Surely the Secretary of State could walk away from this experience, if he were to abandon it, with his reputation as a pragmatist intact and the brief period of sanity that he was supposed to have brought to the Education Department between the reforming zeal of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) soundly underlined, but if he ploughs on, despite all the ill omens, his name will go down alongside that of Beeching and he will be regarded as the harbinger of ghost trains on a skeleton service.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. John Horam: There are two things, amid the disharmony, that we could agree on in this House—that a good railway service depends on an appropriate level of investment and on good management. On the question of investment, my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have begun, in the past two years, to hit the right note. The current levels of investment are higher in real terms than they have been, I think, since the late 1950s and early 1960s. I commend my right hon. and hon. Friend on that. In addition, they have now begun to relax the rather narrow Treasury rules governing the financing of public sector infrastructure, and that is all to their credit.
  However, as we know, good investment is totally wasted if it is not accompanied by good management. Eastern Europe is a monument to the follies of huge quantities of investment that have been totally ruined by ludicrously bad management. The problem with British Rail management has been rightly diagnosed by my right hon. Friends—that the culture has been wrong. I do not think that there is a lack of good managers and good staff in British Rail but simply that the framework in which they are forced to operate does not encourage innovation and rigorously high standards.
  They are therefore right to privatise British Rail and right to do it by the method of franchising because that breaks down the system into more manageable units and gives tenderers and frachisees a specific period in which to prove their competence or they, too, will be out on their ears. It is sensible from the size point of view and sensible to introduce that kind of competition.
  I therefore support the basic strategy, and I support the Bill. If that was all there was in the Bill, I would be 100 per
  194
  cent. behind it, and probably would not even be bothering the House by speaking today, but would just be voting in the Lobbies. Unfortunately, that is not all that is in the Bill. In addition to the fundamental change of franchising, the Government have also thought it right to bring in a second major revolution in railway thinking—to separate the operation of the track from the operation of the trains.
  Even if that were a good idea, it would have been unwise to introduce two ideas of that enormous size at once. Governments have habitually underestimated the difficulties they cause to people who manage the systems by bringing in huge amounts of change which they can scarcely cope with.
  We have had that problem in electricity, for example, where the law of unintended consequences has operated with massive effect and we have also had it in other areas in the public sector such as education. The Government should have been wary of that.
  Is separating the track from operating the trains a good idea? I heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said today and I must say to him that it is the first considered justification of separating the track from the trains that I have heard from him. There was not very much in the White Paper, but I will listen and I shall study what he has said.
  My problem is that, for the past 10 years or so, I have not been in the House but have been managing companies. I know from that experience that one of the first requirements of getting a sensible management system is that people should be able to control all their costs. They must have as much as possible of the environment in which they operate within their own sphere of control so that they know what they are doing. That is the right way to release what Keynes called the "animal spirits" of the entrepreneur. He must have confidence that he can control his costs.
  The fact is that, under my right hon. Friend's proposals, because Railtrack exists and will have its own costing regime, about 40 to 45 per cent. of an ordinary operator's costs will be determined by Railtrack—indeed by Mr. Bob Horton, who is a refugee from the private sector, with a reputation as a very hard man. That is not a regime I would be very happy with if I were a franchisee.
  Imagine what would happen if, under these new proposals, there was a drop of revenue of the kind there has been on Network SouthEast over the past two years—of 9 per cent. The franchisee will not then be in a position to defer a bit of investment on a new line, or to defer maintenance, and thereby keep the running of the trains roughly consistent with what they are today. He will not have that option. Therefore, train services will be slashed, customers will be deterred and we shall get into a vicious circle of spiralling decline in services. That is the sort of thing I am concerned about.
  One thing one must do as a good manager is to try and install a "no excuses" regime. By that I mean that one gives a manager responsibility for delivering a service and no excuse for not delivering one.
  Sixty per cent. of the faults or failures in a normal railway system are a product of track and signalling and not a product of the operating of the trains. The first thing that will happen when things go wrong is that they will blame Railtrack. In addition, they have to meet the citizens charter, and are under a legal obligation to do so.
  The second event, therefore, after blaming Railtrack will be to issue a writ against Railtrack for not delivering

  195
  a proper infrastructure service. So we are in to a whole area of legal wrangling. A huge number of legal contracts will have to be introduced as a result of this separation of powers and the number of franchisees. I have been told that there are likely to be 14,000 separate legal contracts as a consequence. That is huge and unnecessary complexity.
  In addition, there is the bureaucracy. My right hon. Friend always makes the point in speeches that the sort of bureaucracy he is proposing to set up is already mirrored inside British Rail, and we cannot see it because it is inside that large organisation. That is not a good argument; it is one thing to reach agreement with somebody in another division of the same company but a wholly different matter to reach agreement over dividing revenue with a totally separate company which is legally separate and when there will be huge competition between the two.
  Mr. Milligan: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the problem, but has he studied the experience of Sweden, where they have done exactly this? The latest issue of the Railway Gazette says that productivity on Swedish railways is three times higher than on British Rail.
  Mr. Horam: I do not think that Sweden is a sensible comparator. It is a huge country, with a small amount of rail track. This is a very complex system we are dealing with, and it is the complexity that concerns me. I am concerned not with the theory but with the practicalities. There are theoretical arguments for separating train and track—I fully accept that. In fact, when I was a Transport Minister from 1976 to 1979, we considered separating track and trains but rejected it for those reasons—on the grounds that it would not work.
  Finally, the other danger is sheer uncertainty. Uncertainty will deter finance, and that will have a bad effect on investment. We are already seeing the consequences of that on the railway equipment industry. It is all very well for the Government to say that they are right behind manufacturing industry and are trying to help, but in other parts of their huge empire they are having a dreadful effect.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins rose—
  Mr. Horam: No, I have already given way once.
  I should like my hon. Friend to consider these matters most carefully. He is already beginning to do that. It is quite clear that many final decisions have not been taken involving the most important parts of the Bill, and one can see that he intends to treat it as a flexible framework rather than something which is cast in stone.
  I also noted what he said about the limitations of open access and the possibility of vertical franchising, but I should like him to go further in that direction. It is right that there should be some franchising, and I have no quarrel with the announcements today, but I should like more to be in the control of the franchisees. I should like my right hon. Friend to give them time—three or four years—to see how it works in practice before making further concessions on franchising. I should also like to see guarantees on investment, so that the railway equipment industry can be assured of a future.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Dr. John Marek.
  6.30 pm
  Dr. John Marek: If the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) really means what he is saying, he should have the courage of his convictions and vote against the Bill. It requires only 12 hon. Members—and I can tell that more than 12 Conservative Members have doubts about the Bill—to put the Secretary of State out of his misery.
  I am afraid that the Secretary of State was gabbling when yet again he talked about the Networker and five-abreast seating instead of four-abreast seating, which is what used to exist on the north Kent line. He talked about investment being at its highest ever level, but he conveniently neglected to say that half of it was for the channel tunnel, that much of it was already committed and that the extra was extremely small.
  The Secretary of State must know that the chairman of British Rail does not agree with privatisation. Before the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) takes me to task, I must say that I am sponsored by the RMT, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. The workers in the industry do not agree with what is proposed in the Bill and nor do the experts. The Secretary of State mentioned leaders of industry such as Mr. Sherwood, but I do not think that the real experts agree with what is proposed.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Marek: I will not give way, as I have only 10 minutes. It is one of the problems of limiting speeches to 10 minutes, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
  The public certainly do not agree with privatisation, and the civil servants in the Department of Transport do not know much about it, as the Department is heavily road-oriented. As an example of that, the document entitled, "Railway Privatisation:—A Voice for the Passenger" has on its back cover a map of the railway system which has completely forgotten the Wrexham to Chester railway. The Shrewsbury to Wrexham part is there, but not the rest. That is typical of what we get, simply because the Government do not rate very highly the railways and railway investment.
  The only ones in favour of privatisation are the Secretary of State, the cheap and cheerful Minister sitting next to him and some right-wing Members who agree with the proposals. So why will the Bill go through? Basically, Conservative Members, with a few notable exceptions, do not use the railway system. They are more interested in claiming 68p a mile and using their 2000 cc cars to get to London. I would be quite happy if the Fees Office published a list of those who claim 68p a mile to get to this place. The country would like to know; then people would be able to judge those who support the Bill. By and large, the people who will vote the measure through this evening are hon. Members who do not use the railway system.
  Let me say what I think will happen. First, it is clear that railcards will disappear. The Secretary of State has as good as said so this afternoon. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) is quite right to say that we need a national timetable with good connections, but I fail to see how we will get that if the demands on making a profit mean that a connection will be missed. Will there be a regulator to say that a train will have to run five or 10 minutes late in the interests of a national timetable with

  197
  good connections? I do not believe that will be the case. We may have a national timetable, but good connections will depend on luck.
  We will have through ticketing, but will that, be at discounted fares? Again, the Secretary of State has as good as said that through ticketing will not be possible at major ticket offices. If a travelling guard can issue tickets, will that guard be able to issue through tickets as at present? I very much doubt it. That is another potential loss to the public resulting from the Bill.
  Will there be a common set of conditions of carriage, or will the Secretary of State vary it for any particular franchisee encountering special difficulties, and apply special conditions? Will train service frequencies be retained, and will we still have evening and Sunday services so that any member of the public can travel anywhere in the United Kingdom, knowing that there will be a reasonable train frequency so that, although it may take a little longer than normal, they can reach their destination? I very much doubt that. I believe that evening and weekend trains will disappear.
  Will there be national information and seat reservation systems? I very much doubt that, if there are to be different franchisees, all varying their timetables without notice, just as occurs in the present deregulated bus system.
  What about access for disabled people? Will the Bill applying to rolling stock include a set of conditions which will guarantee and preserve the advances that have been made in access for disabled people to the railway system?
  What will happen if a franchisee goes bust? If I turn up at the railway system and the franchisee has gone bust, or if that franchisee has only a few wagons or engines, or if the driver has not turned up because he had an accident on the way to work, or if there is a fault with the engine so that my train cannot run, will it be a case of: "Hard luck, mate—come back in three or four hours and we will try to get it repaired"?
  I know that British Rail is not perfect, but, by and large, if I turn up at a railway station, I know that the train will run, or, if it does not, if the delay will be more than an hour or so, British Rail will put on alternative bus services. I do not believe that will happen under the Bill. There will be fewer staff on station platforms securing people's safety, especially at night. Staff cost money, and that eats into profit.
  If the Government privatise rolling stock, will the quality of build be maintained? As we all know, there will be no build in Britain, as the manufacturing industry here is about to go bust, but will the orders and specifications placed for that rolling stock be up to the quality and strength of that which we have today?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was far too kind to the Government when he spoke about safety. Between 1980 and 1985, the Government made conditions applying to level crossings easier, so that British Rail could spend less. The effect was to allow car drivers to kill themselves, until the disaster near Hull when the Government finally saw common sense. The Government deliberately loosened conditions at level crossings to save money.
  As British Rail has been forced into privatisation, there are bound to be arguments about platform space and about whether the platforms are owned by Regional Railways, a franchisee or by InterCity. If there is a delay or something goes wrong, and a train has to use a platform that is not part of the franchisee's domain, extra charges
  198
  will have to be paid, as happens now between Regional Railways and InterCity. The franchisee may say that, as passengers have to wait only 12 minutes or thereabouts, they can wait outside the station to avoid the extra cost. That is what bringing accountants into the service would do.
  Unfortunately, we have the worst Government this century; there is no doubt about that—[Laughter.] Conservative Members are laughing, but only one or two of them. We have the worst balance of payments crisis that I can remember, and the worst public sector borrowing requirement. Indeed, the PSBR is worse than it was in 1976, when we suffered an oil price rise, and now we have the benefit of North sea oil.
  According to the official figures, 3 million people are unemployed, but really it is more like 4 million. We also have a clapped out railway system; time and time again, I am amazed at how it manages to run. We spend 0.14 per cent. of GDP on rail, whereas Germany spends 0.57 per cent. and France 0.61 per cent. The Government are in no position to put it right, and the Bill does nothing to put it right. I appeal to 12 Conservative Members to put the Government and the Secretary of State out of their misery at 10 o'clock tonight.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) mentioned that there were few Members on the Conservative Benches, but 18 Conservative Members are taking an interest in the debate, and only eight Members of the official Opposition are in the Chamber, so perhaps he can learn to count.
  I intend to ask why we should privatise British Rail, comment on how we should do so and on some aspects of the Bill, and refer briefly to freight services to King's Lynn.
  I was taught to subscribe to the dictum "If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it." However, it is broke—the whole culture is anti-consumer and we are talking about attitudes that look back to the 1960s, rather than forwards. That is why the Government could not stand still and do nothing, but had to move forward with the Bill.
  I shall not dwell on the reasons, as they are self-evident. I like the Government scheme and its structure, because it is evolutionary, imaginative and highly flexible. However, I have one or two small nagging doubts, which I shall express briefly. First, the offices of director of franchising and regulator are to be set up. I have studied the Bill carefully, and listened with care to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I do not understand why those two offices could not be combined. Surely that would be a pragmatic and sensible step forward, and I urge the Secretary of State to consider it.
  My second doubt relates to InterCity. British Rail was told to be more responsive to the public's requirements, to be more aware of what the punter wants, and to run a service for the benefit of passengers and not for the benefit of staff. To a certain extent, InterCity has achieved those aims. It has a successful brand name, and I would be sad if it disappeared. I understand the Government's argument, that they do not want to sell a vertically integrated company, but surely we could keep the brand name.
  I would have preferred the option of privatising InterCity outright. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) mentioned the advantages of the

  199
  operator controlling costs, and I think that that has additional advantages. Also, the attractions of vertical integration are obvious if we want to get private sector capital into the infrastructure.
  For example, it is apparent that delays can take place during electrification—the line to King's Lynn was electrified—and a close interface between the track infrastructure and rolling stock is required. If too many factors were outside the control of the operator, there could be disincentives and disadvantages to electrification. We must bear in mind that InterCity has to compete with other modes of transport. An operation that has 8 per cent. of journeys of more than 50 miles has only a very small segment of the market, and we want that share built up.
  So far, we have been talking about two franchises being offered for InterCity. If the same organisation were to bid for both, I should like the Minister to keep open the option of a vertically integrated company, which would also own the infrastructure. It would be sad if that option were not kept open. I see that my hon. Friend the Minister is nodding, and I should like him to comment on that. The most important thing is to allow the very successful InterCity brand name to remain in existence.
  Although I have been critical, I welcome the proposals, and I think that franchising will work. It has been carefully thought out. People say that it has not been given enough thought, but the Department has been considering the proposal for two and a half years, has consulted every possible organisation, has studied the matter carefully and has come up with proposals. Few Bills have had more work put into them. That is why the proposals can and will work, especially for the loss-making lines in Network SouthEast and Regional Railways.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Bellingham: I cannot give way, because of the 10-minute rule.
  Those lines need an injection of private entrepreneurial flair and private investment, and my goodness we will get it.
  Yesterday, I learned—much to my dismay—that British Rail has terminated the link to Boston docks. I do not know the details, but King's Lynn docks uses the railways to shift roughly 150,000 tonnes of coal and 50,000 tonnes of urea a year. Also, Dow Chemicals uses rail freight distribution to shift about three or four wagonloads of hazardous goods each month.
  British Rail and Associated British Ports are in negotiations on the future of train freight haulage of coal from King's Lynn docks, and I understand that the negotiations are not going very well. The manager of the docks has told me that he has come up against a thoroughly negative attitude on the part of British Rail, which has insisted on a 15 to 16 per cent. increase in tariff. The dock operators have said that they will run the shunting loco and take on ancillary operations, but British Rail has a negative attitude.
  If I brought the manager of Associated British Ports in King's Lynn to see the Minister, would he be prepared to discuss the matter with him and explain the impact of today's announcement on freight and how it could present opportunities for King's Lynn?
  200
  I welcome the package of four measures that the Secretary of State announced, because it could save the link to Boston.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Bellingham: I cannot give way, but perhaps we can talk in the Lobby afterwards—[Laughter.]—if the hon. Gentleman comes to our Lobby.
  We must try to ensure that the eight or nine wagonloads of butadiene—a potentially hazardous commodity—that are transported each month remain on the railway. British Rail told Dow Chemicals on 25 January that the service would be terminated. If the negotiations between ABP and British Rail on trainload freight for haulage of coal collapse, the rail freight distribution service to King's Lynn and the link to the docks could be put in jeopardy. Given British Rail's thoroughly negative attitude, I hope that the Minister will agree to meet that delegation, and that the four proposals announced today will have some impact. I am sure they will.
  Mr. Freeman: I hope that I shall be in the same Lobby as my hon. Friend tonight. In case I do not have the chance to talk to him, I assure him that I look forward to meeting his constituents from the docks. Also, I can assure him that I shall shortly be meeting the director of InterCity to talk about the retention and development of the brand name, even within the franchising regime, and to confirm that we have taken no long-term decisions about the future of InterCity.
  Mr. Bellingham: I am extremely reassured by that.
  If the Minister thought that I was being critical, I hope that he deemed it constructive criticism, because what I particularly welcomed in the Secretary of State's speech was his description of the proposals as evolutionary and imaginative. The Secretary of State also said that, if changes were proposed in Committee, he would consider them and listen carefully and, above all, that he would try to ensure consensus throughout the industry to bring these difficult, imaginative and challenging plans forward.
  If the Minister has perhaps sensed today that there is some opposition on the Government's side—my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington made it clear that there were parts of the Bill which he did not like, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley)—I would urge him to stand firm. I am reminded of a quotation that I think came from Lord Jenkin back in the 1960s: "The time when people start to doubt your policy is the very time when you should strengthen your nerve and see it through."
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me, as an hon. Member sponsored by the Transport and Salaried Staffs Association, an opportunity to take part in the debate.
  Sadly, history is not on the Minister's side in the case that he is trying to argue. The private owners could not believe their luck when, in the first world war, the Government took the industry off their hands; and there was an outbreak of mass panic when, after the war, the Government suggested that they should take it back again. The Government had to introduce an Act to set up the old LMS, LNER and GWR to take on the industry, which then tottered through the inter-war period and was on the

  201
  verge of collapse when it was again taken over at the start of the second world war. It is not generally realised that some of the old GWR shareholders are still deriving dividends under the arrangements made for the takeover at that time.
  The Secretary of State asserted that the proposal is in the interests of both the consumer and the taxpayer. He went on to quote precedents from other privatisation measures which he felt proved his case. I point out to the House that in each privatisation measure the Government have used rather different initiatives to ensure that any advantage goes not to the consumer or to the taxpayer but always to the new shareholders.
  In the gas industry prices were put up 10 per cent. a year above the rate of inflation for three years to give a 33 per cent. cushion to guarantee profitability for the industry and higher prices for the consumer. Jaguar was allowed to remain in public ownership by this Administration until the taxpayers' investment programme was completed, and then the profits were privatised. Sadly, it then gradually slipped into its old ways and had to be taken over by Ford.
  In the case of the electricity industry, although the Government claim that they got £8 billion from the sale of the electricity industry, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who served on the Public Accounts Committee will know from the report that we undertook, only £5 billion of that came from the shareholders; the other £3 billion came from an artificially created debt which was imposed on the industry and then taken from the industry which had had prices set at a level that would recoup the debt. So we had the anomalous situation that the customers who had previously owned the industry now had to pay £3 billion by means of their prices to help someone else acquire the ownership of the industry.
  The most outrageous example, however, was the water industry. It demonstrates the sheer nonsense of what the Government are willing to consider in order to favour the shareholder and private enterprise. In this case, £35 billion of public assets were sold for £3.5 billion. Ten companies were sold for the price of one. The Government wrote off £5 billion worth of debt on which the taxpayer was obtaining interest, gave £1.5 billion of public money—which cost the taxpayer interest—as a donation to the industry, and then gave it £7 billion worth of tax write-offs to ensure that it would not have to pay any tax for most of this century.
  The cumulative result of this package—the lost interest on the write-off, the lost interest on the cash injection and the exemption from taxation—is that within about five years all that the Treasury gained from the sell-off will have been given back, and the industry will have been given away for absolutely nothing to people who will go on creaming profits from the public. So while the idea that privatisation is some great initiative on behalf of the consumer is fine on the political platform, it does not bear close scrutiny.
  I wish that the Secretary of State were still here. I have sparred with him for many years and I have a great regard for him, but this is the first time that I have heard him venture into nonsense arguments. It is a new departure for him but one that he undertook with his customary charm and giving the impression of greater experience than we all know he has had in that respect. The thought that worried me towards the end of his remarks was that he might be beginning to believe some of the arguments that he was putting forward. But I know him better than that, and I
  202
  am sure that if he comes to the Committee our old confidence in him will return, because he knows as well as we all do that the railways were always cross-subsidised, even in his good old days of private ownership. The trunk line subsidised the feeder lines. As far back as Beeching, under public ownership, the branch lines cost 40 times as much per passenger mile as the trunk lines. There has always been cross-subsidy.
  I urge hon. Members to consider this matter from their constituents' point of view, particularly those who represent commuter areas. If, instead of that cross-subsidy going into the rest of industry, it goes in dividends, it means that we need not just the same subsidy; we need more subsidy, more taxpayers' money, in order to sustain the present level of services. Yet all we have had is an assurance that subsidies will continue. There has been no indication of the level at which they will continue. It is no good their staying constant because we all know that, with the inevitability of inflation—I am not making a political point; inflation has been a feature of any society for most of the century—if the subsidies were continued but frozen at one level, they would wither in real terms. So either the burden would pass to the farepayer—and it is doubtful whether the market could bear it—or there would be cuts in services or lines.
  All this is ominous for those of us in south Wales who depend on our valley rail services for commuting and those who depend on the central Wales line, the mid-Wales line, the north Wales coast line and so on. Even on the 125 line to my constituency there are doubts about what will happen to the service between Cardiff and Swansea if the proposal put forward by the Minister goes ahead. We are fearful that there may be cuts in that service.
  Safety is of crucial importance to the public. I was pleased that the Minister said that he regarded it as a high priority. The trouble is that Ministers do not last long in the Department of Transport, and one Minister's reassurance might not even be valid by the time the Bill finished its journey through the Committee. They tend to be rather high-speed travellers as they reach the Cabinet via that Department.
  I was somewhat horrified to read in The Independent yesterday the headline:
  "Major urged to halt spending on rail safety".
  A former director of the Thatcherite Centre for Policy Studies, now the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), was quoted as asking,
  "How can you spend over £200 million a year on rail safety and increase transport deaths?"
  He was reported as saying that
  "by forcing higher spending on rail safety, passengers were being driven on to the roads by higher fares, where the risk of death was almost five times greater."
  He also said that the Prime Minister
  "might also call for a moratorium on implementation of all further rail safety requirements".
  That is horrific nonsense. Instead of the train taking the strain, the train will take the risk if the hon. Member for Havant has his way.
  It used to be an axiom of economics that, if one had two competing services, one tried to invest to the point where the marginal rate of return on each was equal, which resulted in optimum investment. Now a right-wing Conservative Member says that we should disinvest to the point where the marginal rate of accident is equal—a peculiar proposition to make. Why did he not suggest that we should invest more in road safety? Why did he support

  203
  the deregulation of the bus services? If the railways are that much safer, why does not the hon. Gentleman come into the Lobby with us tonight? I hope that he will.
  7 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley: I pay tribute to the memory of the late Sir Peter Allen, who will have been known to some of my colleagues in the House. I read in his obituary in The Times that, like me, he was a railway and steam train enthusiast. Like me, he would be described by my colleagues on the Front Bench as eccentric. Unlike me, he was chairman of ICI. Quite a few people are concerned about the Government's proposals—Sir Peter Allen certainly was.
  Where should we start? Why not start at the point that we have reached today. The damage caused by the very threat of the Government's proposals is already evident. Rail freight is haemorrhaging away. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) should ask British Rail why it has vastly increased its prices. He might find that its answer provides the answer to many of his questions. Private sector manufacturers of rolling stock are in crisis because British Rail is unable to place orders. My hon. Friends insist that that has nothing to do with the Government's proposals, but everyone in the private sector knows that it is directly related to them.
  Who is in favour of the proposals? The Centre for Policy Studies is, of course, and the Adam Smith Institute would claim that it invented them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in favour of them and some of my colleagues, particularly new Members of Parliament, have already expressed their enthusiasm. They would probably want to privatise everything—it will probably be the Army next. The prime architect of the Bill, Sir Christopher Foster, has not figured much in our deliberations. He was the director-general of economic planning under Barbara Castle in the Ministry of Transport between 1966 and 1970, and this is largely his Bill. He was the inventor of the freight integration council, among other things. If that does not frighten my hon. Friends, it certainly should.
  Who is opposed to the Bill? We know that millions of our fellow citizens are. Those who use the railways, such as the Confederation of British Industry and its commercial members, oppose it. The transport users consultative committees, appointed by the Government to look after passenger interests, oppose the Bill, as do those who run the railways, those who work on them and those who build the rolling stock for them—to name but five groups.
  In 14 years of Conservative Government we have seen fluctuating investment on the railways, reductions in the public service obligation grant and consequently numerous customer complaints. The Bill has been introduced as a means of alleviating those complaints. There has been a total lack of any coherent transport policy during the past 14 years, which has caused the problem. The hostility of the Government under Lady Thatcher to anything in the public sector forms the background to today's Bill.
  We have had no discussion—nor is there anything in the Bill—about the road versus rail argument. When the CBI appeared before the Select Committee, it gave interesting figures. My hon. Friends who intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might read the statistics in Hansard. On a dollar-per-head
  204
  basis for the latest years for which figures are available, rail investment is as follows: in the United Kingdom, under $7; in Germany, $24; in France, $37; and in Italy, $50. Is it any wonder that complaints are made here about railway services while there are comparatively few complaints among the customers of our continental partners in Europe?
  From where is the investment to come for Railtrack? Who is to finance the new railway? There is no mention of any investment regime in the Bill. Investment is fundamental to the success of a railway. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has already confirmed that there is a direct correlation between new investment and satisfied customers on the Chiltern line. That is how to build a successful railway.
  Some of the similarities between the Railways Bill and the Bill to privatise electricity should provide a warning to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The problems of the coal industry today are the direct result of the way in which the electricity industry was privatised. If one looks at the phraseology of both Bills, one can understand why some of us are concerned about the Railways Bill.
  The Bill contains a fundamental flaw which has been touched on by all those who have spoken so far. It separates responsibility for track and signalling from the operation of trains—a recipe for endless conflict. What would have happened in the recent crash at Borough Market junction if the two trains involved had been operated by two different companies? Each would blame the other for everything—and both would blame Railtrack. Some of my constituents were killed in the Clapham junction rail crash. Within hours, British Rail accepted responsibility. Would a private sector company immediately have accepted responsibility for a crash involving one of its trains? Of course not.
  Vertical franchising is the demand of the private sector and of almost all the companies which came before the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister of State nodded as he listened to the suggestions of some of my colleagues who stated that complete vertical franchising should be considered. It is clear that the creation of a track authority and the surrounding paraphernalia is at the heart of the Bill's proposals. There is no point in pretending that vertical franchising—other than in the Isle of Wight—is for the Secretary of State anything other than a dream.
  Who will provide the long-term funding for all the franchisees? They are being encouraged to invest money for 15-year franchises. Has my hon. Friend the Minister received permission from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to provide guaranteed funding at constant levels for 15 years? Will the Chancellor be in place for 15 years? Will there be a Conservative Government in 15 years' time? Relying on a public sector rail track for infrastructure and the vagaries of the Treasury to provide guaranteed subsidised funding for private sector operators for all those years forms an unlikely scenario—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends must make their own speeches.
  I have heard too much about breaking up. I am not in politics to break things up—I am in politics to build. We are breaking up the national railway system and replacing it with a vacuum. It will be a lawyer's paradise. We are legislating not for deregulation but for reregulation.
  Safety has been mentioned. The more people who are involved in safety, the more safety is jeopardised. The

  205
  proposals contained in the Bill are a recipe for muddle, indecision and conflict. Like everyone else in the House, I want a better railway, but the Bill is a clear illustration of the muddled thinking in the Department of Transport. It illustrates the conflict of private sector ambition versus public sector obligation. To satisfy the former, it will be necessary to diminish the latter.
  Where do my right hon. Friends stand on the conflict between the ambition of the private sector to make profits and the obligation on the public sector to run a full railway system efficiently? The Bill is a laboratory experiment conducted by civil servants in Marsham street with a vital piece of our national transport infrastructure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) talked about Sweden, where the Government are making 45 per cent. additional infrastructure investment a year for 10 years and Sveriges Järnvägen—the state railway—has gained 99 per cent. of the contracts to run trains. Here British Rail is forbidden to enter the competition and there is absolutely no investment regime in the Bill.
  I shall finish with a quotation from an unusual source—the new ambassador from Saudi Arabia, Ghazi Algosaibi, formerly the director of railways in his country. He wrote to me yesterday and mentioned the theory of privatisation. He said:
  "Any service that is deemed so essential that it requires subsidy is, by definition, not suitable for privatisation. Railroads belong in this category. Railroads were in my time, and remain today, heavily subsidised by the government. Under these circumstances privatisation makes no sense. If you stop the subsidy, the service will deteriorate and might terminate. If you continue with the subsidy, the whole thing becomes an exercise in futility!"
  That, I fear, is where the Bill will lead us.
  We all know that BR is far from perfect and there are many ways of improving it. I want to see the private sector brought in, initially by ending the freight monopoly, but it seems that my right hon. Friend has rejected that proposition.
  I just say this to my hon. Friends. If the size of their majorities is bigger than the number of rail users in their constituencies, they should not have too much to worry about. We are here at Second Reading. It is glad confident morning today. The Bill is born of dogma, conceived in theory and adjusted in the Whips Office. I am sad to say that, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), I cannot support the Bill on Second Reading.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Keith Hill: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who has spoken for every informed observer of the Government's proposals. Can any Government have launched a major piece of legislation amidst more general criticism and more misgivings from the professionals who are supposed to make it work than the Government in their rail privatisation proposals? Even the poll tax had its enthusiasts. This poll tax on wheels has no enthusiasts whatever.
  Let us be charitable to the Government in their embarrassment. Let us assume that rail privatisation is not merely, as seems likely, the last confused spasm of a worn-out Thatcherite ideology. What then was the problem that the Government set themselves to resolve in evolving their present proposals? Was it the creation of a
  206
  less bureaucratic railway? Hardly that. The Government are planning a positive quagmire of quangos to run the railways. It will be a bureaucrat's fantasy and an operator's nightmare.
  Was it the creation of a more efficient railway? Not that either. On top of the quangos, the Government are proposing a split between infrastructure and rail operation with cuts across every principle of modern railway practice. It will prove a minefield of day-to-day conflicts between operators and the track authority and a prescription for endless litigation.
  Was it the creation of a cheaper railway? Hardly that either. What hopes for lower fares with no guarantees on subsidy, with Railtrack under instruction to secure a commercial rate of return for every line that it runs and with operators seeking to maximise their profits also?
  Was it the creation of a sharper, more entrepreneurial style? Where would that come from? Would it come from the bus operators who have managed to lose 13 million passenger journeys a year since bus privatisation in 1985? Would it come from Mr. Branson, who wants to spruce up old diesel locomotives to run at lower speeds on a newly electrified east coast main line?
  The deep irony is that the Government's best hopes for a new management appear to lie in buy-outs by the old managers of British Rail—the very last group, I should have thought, that Conversative Members would want to see running the railway for them.
  But, lo and behold, where are the profits to be made by the new thrusting entrepreneurial style? The Secretary of State has confirmed it today—by privatising the very services where profits are already being made. I shall believe the privatisation of the London-Tilbury-Southend line when I see it.
  Was the Government's aim the creation of an expanding railway, better equipped to play a larger part in meeting the environmental, social and economic needs of the nation? Certainly not that. Scour the pages of the multitude of consultation documents flowing from the Department of Transport; listen to the words of the Secretary of State; examine the Bill. Where is the strategy? Where is the thinking about the future role of railways in the nation's transport system? Vision is the last thing that we have heard from the Government in relation to rail privatisation.
  The truth is that the Government's proposals are the wrong answers to the wrong question. The fundamental question is that of investment—investment which is already too low and is in danger of becoming yet lower under the Government's proposals.
  We have become used over the years—we have heard it again today—to a constant barrage of complaint and criticism about British Rail's performance. Yet the most singular aspect of British Rail is not that it all too often performs badly, but that it manages to perform at all. It is about time that Conservative Members recognised just what British Rail has achieved in sustaining the network and in maintaining a service when it has been so grossly underfunded for so many years in comparison with similar railways elsewhere.
  Britain spends a third of the cash spent by France on its railways and a quarter of that spent by Germany on its railways. In subsidy by head of population, we spend one fifth in comparison with France or Germany. No wonder we have higher fares and less reliable services. Yet in all international comparisons of railway productivity, BR

  207
  appears high in the rankings. That is a remarkable achievement, given the low levels of investment in the system.
  The Secretary of State never tires of telling us that investment is currently at record levels, and, of course, he is correct. What he omits to point out is that in the early 1980s under this Government we had the lowest continuous levels of investment in the railways in any period since the 1920s.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hill: I will not give way in view of the strict time limit. I should love to do so in normal circumstances.
  Without the significant increases in the past two or three years, we would not have had a railway in any recognisable form. However, it was too little too late. For all the Secretary of State's protestations, that investment will not be sustained. Next year, investment in the existing railway will fall to half this year's level. It will remain below this year's level to the end of the current programme in 1996.
  Already, InterCity has no rolling stock investment plans or refurbishment plans for the next five years. Already Network SouthEast is operating with an estimated infrastructure budget shortfall of £200 million. The railway supply industry has no orders on its books beyond 1995. Its representatives told the Transport Select Committee that the industry, responsible for 50,000 jobs, faces annihilation. Only last week, Lord Prior, on behalf of GEC Alsthom, a major railway supplier, told the Select Committee that unless more orders are forthcoming no industry will be left in three years' time.
  I say this to the Government in all seriousness: there is an immediate crisis of underinvestment in the railway industry. Even if their privatisation plans succeed in creating new investment demands, which I doubt, they are unlikely to come on stream for several years. Therefore, the Government should urgently undertake to provide at least steady levels of state finance for the first five years of privatisation in order to protect the quality of service and to maintain a rail manufacturing base.
  Of course the Opposition accept that there is a role for the private sector in rail investment. We have looked at the experience of the nationalised French railways where all new major investment since 1990 has been funded by borrowing on the private market, including the City of London. We have looked at the experience of Japan where new capital projects are jointly funded by central and local government and by private finance raised by the still nationalised railways.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has repeatedly put forward proposals for leasing and joint ventures along those lines. The Government have rejected those proposals on grounds of dogma and, as we now learn, a totally antiquated set of Treasury rules. By contrast, the Government's proposals threaten to impede, not favour, the vital need for new investment in the railways. They will create an excessive and costly bureaucracy which can only serve to increase costs for operators and track authority alike.
  The separation of track from operation will create a tangle of operational difficulties. Sensible railways
  208
  investment requires an integrated approach to infrastructure and operation, but that is absent from the Government's proposals. Those same arrangements mean that half the cost of running services—that arising from the infrastructure—will be outside the control of the private sector businesses. Railtrack itself—half the railway system—will anyway remain in the public sector and be subject to the current severe Treasury spending constraints.
  That is not a hopeful scenario for generating new investment in rail. A railway renaissance is taking place throughout Europe. The Government will bear a heavy responsibility if, because of their current policies, this country does not share fully in that rebirth of rail.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I must first declare two interests. I regularly use the national railway system a minimum of five hours a week in travelling to and from my constituency. Sometimes, I use it much more than that. The present InterCity service, combined with a laptop computer, is one of the most congenial working environments available to a Member of Parliament. Also, if 14,000 new contracts are to be signed at the conclusion of our consideration of the Bill, there are several reasons why I, as a lawyer, may be tempted to be the first in the Lobby enthusiastically to support it.
  More realistically, I address the House as the Member of Parliament for the constituency which was the birthplace of the railways and which ran the first successful privately owned railway ever laid down. To this day, one of the largest railway workshops in the country is to be found in my constituency. Furthermore, a regular complaint in my postbag concerns the coal that falls from viaducts in my constituency as it is transported from Durham to the south.
  In his introductory remarks, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the east coast main line will be one of the first services to be franchised. It is instructive to look back at what was said about not only the east coast main line but the fortunes of the London and North-Eastern railway in the nationalisation debate in 1946. The LNER had emerged from the war having been extensively bombed—connecting as it did most of the airfields and industrial areas of Britain—and suffering from a long period of under-investment between the wars due to the recession that set in then. At the end of the war, there were extensive plans to renew the network and to develop new services and branch lines. With that in mind, the then Opposition voted against nationalisation because they anticipated, rightly, that instead of private companies competing for capital on the markets and applying it to worthwhile schemes, the national conglomerate—known as the British Transport Commission—would direct investment in a way that reflected its perception of national priorities, and often not do as good a job as the private sector.
  In reviewing the history of the railways, I believe that I am right in thinking that British Rail has never constructed a new line.
  Mr. Adley: I remind my hon. Friend of those serving Stansted and Manchester airports.
  Mr. Devlin: I stand corrected. Those apart, British Rail has never laid a long line. It has, however, just completed

  209
  electrification of the north-east coast main line, and I would remind the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek)—who is not in his place—that that is one service that gives the lie to the claim that it is apparently clapped out. I fundamentally disagree. The InterCity service is extremely good. That large-scale investment is an important factor in our consideration of the future, after the Bill is passed.
  At the end of that process, the Government will have to demonstrate to the public throughout the country that there has been a significant improvement in the service that they receive. I do not believe that the public care one or two hoots about railway ownership. They care about being provided with a good, punctual service; clean carriages that are kept in reasonable condition; the operation of train services to proper timetables; and the ability to purchase tickets at different prices for various destinations.
  Since the privatisation of the gas and electricity generating industries, both have attracted huge investment. If we want the same for the railways, we must make them as attractive as possible to private sector investors. The fact remains that there is not a railway in the world where competition operates on the same line. There are many places where there is competition between two lines. The history of LNER and of the London, Midland and Scottish railway shows that they competed with each other for passengers travelling to Scotland.
  Today, British Rail competes with the car and, in the case of long-haul journeys, with air travel. The would-be franchise holder will be looking for a service that it can run economically, at a profit, and in competition either with cars or airlines.
  I understand the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), that the business man naturally wants as much control of the resources as possible. In that respect, I urge the Government not to pull back on privatisation but to go further. If we want to attract large-scale investment to the railways, we must offer the commercial opportunities that people want. At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether an operator who wanted to buy and to operate a whole line on a vertical basis would be allowed to do so. So far, significantly, no answer has been forthcoming. That is an important aspect.
  What would happen if an operator came to the marketplace and identified the potential for a new line, better market opportunities if it were to introduce new rolling stock, or more potential if the line were to be electrified? In each case, the operator would have to refer to Railtrack, and that new body—to provide the service that the operator wanted—would have to refer to the Government. That would mean a call on the Government's resources.
  In that way, British Rail is different from previous privatisations, which went straight to the market. The whole rationale for privatising them was to take them out of the Government's expenditure queue. If the Government said no to such an application, or Railtrack had other priorities, a dispute would arise between the operator and Railtrack that presumably would have to be sorted out by the regulator.
  That difficulty could be simply resolved. If the franchise holder that operated, say, the east coast line from London to Scotland decided that it could run the whole track much better than Railtrack, why should it not be allowed to buy it? In the history of the railways, we can find a perfect
  210
  model of private sector investment. When the Darlington and Stockton railway was first engendered in a pub in Yarm in my constituency and an agreement was drawn up, no one had to refer to another authority. Planning permission was granted, the line was built, and all aspects of the line came under the control of the Darlington and Stockton railway company.
  A modern example is provided by British Airways—a loss-making operation that was turned into a profit-making company. It does not have to lease its aircraft from an aircraft authority. British Airways buys the planes that it wants, flies them to the destination it chooses and, apart from air traffic control, has total operational ability to do as it wishes.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that rail freight companies will receive up to 100 per cent. of track costs if there is a good environmental case for switching goods from road to rail. A good example of that can be seen in the Yorkshire dales. Until recently, a loss-making local railway line transported limestone from the dales to British Steel's plant on Teesside. That line—the Redmire line—was a distinct little entity which could have operated all by itself. I do not see why a Railtrack authority should be involved in such circumstances. Why cannot the operator buy the whole line and run it himself if he wishes?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. John D. Taylor.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Although this complicated Bill refers mainly to Great Britain, it is a United Kingdom Bill, some of whose clauses refer specifically to Northern Ireland.
  I do not object to privatisation; I speak on that issue with an open mind. I judge the Bill mainly on the way in which it will affect people and public transport, and the way in which it will affect those of us who live on the periphery of the nation—especially those living in Northern Ireland and western Scotland.
  Listening to the Secretary of State's speech, I could not but conclude that the best routes were being privatised and the worst were being left with British Rail. That is surely a dangerous step. I consider the railway system an important part of the United Kingdom's integrated transport structure, and I think it vital for us to maintain an efficient railway system throughout the nation. That will be particularly important to Scotland and Northern Ireland when the Eurotunnel opens at the end of the year. If we give away, or sell, the better lines—such as the Gatwick express line—British Rail, deprived of the profits, will have less money to invest in the poorer lines that it will retain. That will damage our overall railway structure. We are endangering the country by converting a public monopoly into a private one.
  I am also worried by the Bill's possible implications for major railway projects which are important not only to London and its environs, but to the nation as a whole. What, for example, will be the implications for the new express rail link to Heathrow, or for the new link from the Eurotunnel to London—or, indeed, for the underground Jubilee line link with docklands? Will any of those three capital projects, which were important to us all, be affected by the Bill? Will the Minister also bring us up to date with the timing of the three proposals? So many different

  211
  thoughts are being thrown around by the press that we are now totally confused about whether any of them will proceed.
  When we talk about railway systems in the United Kingdom we must not forget that we are now part of the European Community, which has its own overall transport proposals for the 12 nations. There is a limit to what we in the United Kingdom can do with our railways without the approval and support of the Community. Some of us may not like that, but it is the position; indeed, some investment in railway projects cannot proceed without the approval of the Community, and its investment of European funds.
  The Secretary of State said that he had consulted the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. I noted that he had not consulted the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: to our shame, the Northern Ireland Office had nothing to contribute, and we in Northern Ireland resent that very much.
  Let me conclude by examining the Bill's implications for Northern Ireland and the west of Scotland. As the Minister will know, the European Community has a new combined transport network. A map illustrating the proposals for Europe shows the route to Liverpool, because the intermodal channel tunnel terminal will be at Seaforth. That will have important implications for us in the north-west and Northern Ireland.
  What is the Government's stance on the ferry route between Liverpool and Belfast? British Rail selected it as the main route from Liverpool serving the whole island of Ireland, not just Northern Ireland; yet we now find that the route from Liverpool to Belfast is no longer shown on the map illustrating the European Community's proposals. Have the Government made any representations on the subject, and do they support British Rail's decision to recommend the Belfast-Liverpool route rather than the Dublin-Liverpool route as the main route to the island of Ireland?
  Finally, let me deal with a subject well known to the Minister—the other major rail route serving Northern Ireland: the one that goes up to the west of Scotland, into Stranraer, across to Larne and down through Northern Ireland and the Republic. The route from Larne to Stranraer is the busiest between the whole island of Ireland and Great Britain: one third of freight from the Republic now comes up through Northern Ireland and Larne. That position will improve, because we are investing a good deal of capital in the route from Dublin to Larne. The European Community is helping us to modernise the line from Dublin to Belfast, and the Northern Ireland Office is investing massively in an inter-city link so that it will be possible to travel by train all the way from Dublin to Larne. The ferry system—and the ScotRail system, which is now to be privatised—will have more traffic as a result.
  Back in 1991, we were told that a European Community committee recommended that the Dublin-Holyhead route should become the main route between Ireland and Great Britain, although the Larne-Stranraer route is the most popular with those involved in business and tourism. That was a most unusual decision. The vice-president of the Community, Sir Leon Brittan,
  212
  confirmed that in a letter on 9 January 1992. Later that month, the Minister for Public Transport stated in another letter:
  "the EC working group did not in fact present a further report on the high speed train network by the end of last year"—
  that is, by the end of 1991, as had been intended. The Minister went on:
  "A number of studies have yet to be completed and …the aim is now to produce the report by the end of 1992."
  Have the Government now received that report from the European Community?
  In July 1992, Lord Caithness, Minister for Aviation and Shipping, wrote a letter referring to the
  "interim report produced in December 1990 by the European Commission …that has been considering the development of a European high speed train network".
  He went on to say:
  "The Government would expect that any railway network maps proposed for the new group would show the Larne-Stranraer route as a link between the railway networks of Great Britain and Ireland"—
  that is, the island of Ireland.
  At the end of the year, the director of roads and transportation for Dumfries and Galloway regional council, Mr. Guy, said in a report that there was a reluctance by
  "ScotRail to improve the rail network in South West Scotland."
  The report also highlighted the fact that
  "the West coast rail line within England and Scotland carried more freight than the East coast line, yet the latter had been earmarked by British Rail to receive greater funding to improve the route and to decrease travel times."
  Although the west was busier, it was not getting the funding—that applied right up the west of England and into the west of Scotland. Mr. Guy reminded members of the Committee that
  "the shortest crossing from the island of Ireland to Great Britain was via the North Channel and that the majority of traffic used that route."
  We ask the Government to clarify the confusing situation. Has the European Community working group made its final recommendations, and have the Government made firm proposals to Brussels that the Larne-Stranraer crossing and the railway system in the west of Scotland be preserved?
  7.40 pm
  Mrs. Judith Chaplin: There is one matter on which the whole Chamber seems to be agreed, and that is the need for additional investment in the railways. What is not agreed is how that additional investment can be obtained.
  In my constituency of Newbury, new rolling stock has recently improved the service. There are now also additional stops by InterCity on its way from the south-west to London and back. That has improved the line, but not nearly enough. We all agree that there must be far more investment in the railways. I accept that the Government have recently made a huge investment, and we all know that investment is the highest it has been for 30 years.
  I very much welcome the commitment given by the Secretary of State in his letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). The Secretary of State said:
  "We agree on a need for continuing investment in the railway and a role of strategic investment."

  213
  The question, however, is how to get even more investment than the public sector can supply.
  Some has already been supplied. For example, British Rail has been privatising its non-core activities for a considerable time, including British Transport hotels. It has also allowed private ownership of part of the railway—for example, by allowing people to run their freight wagons or locomotives on the railway or allowing private operators to run their own trains on the track. British Rail has also introduced private sector money by working in joint ventures, for example, using the many railway sites which became surplus to requirements.
  The Opposition's method is always to demand additional borrowing. When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was speaking, I was not able to intervene to ask what level the additional borrowing would reach. I should like to know what he thinks he could possibly rise to, given that we already have substantial public sector borrowing and debt that should not be increased. Also, we should certainly not increase the interest burden on the debt.
  As always, the problem would have to be considered in conjunction with other priorities but, as always, the Opposition say that there must be more spending in every area for which public sector borrowing provides.
  Ms. Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Chaplin: No, not in the 10 minutes available.
  What is vital for an improvement of the railway system is the direct introduction of private sector money. Of course, that is not possible at present because British Rail's borrowing ability is limited by the external financing limit.
  Prior to the autumn statement, British Rail had the theoretical ability to obtain certain fixed assets under leasing agreements. However, under the rules that then applied, it was a theoretical rather than a real possibility because British Rail had to achieve at least good value for money in the public sector as if the assets had been purchased outright. The Government can always borrow more cheaply than the private sector, so that is very difficult to do. Furthermore, the full value of any asset leased before the autumn statement had to be set against British Rail's external financing limit. Therefore, the ability to seek private sector funds was extremely limited, which is why the changes in the autumn statement are so important for investment in British Rail.
  One of the changes is that any privately financed project which can be operated profitably will be allowed to proceed. I see no reason why that should not encompass new lines. If an operator believes that he can provide a new profitable line, I understand that, under the rules announced in the autumn statement, he will be allowed to do so.
  Another announcement made in the autumn statement was that the Government would actively encourage joint ventures with the private sector. Indeed, much of the Bill is in essence a joint venture between the public and the private sectors to improve the railways.
  The third change was that the Government would allow much greater use of leasing with only the leasing payments counting as expenditure. Naturally, that will increase the amount of private sector funding which can take place. That is especially important in the context of more investment.
  Mr. Prescott: A Labour idea.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many sedentary interruptions from members of the Front Bench, who have already had 61 minutes.
  Mrs. Chaplin: Leasing will be especially important for the development of a private market in rolling stock. Eventually, I hope that the private operators will buy direct from the manufacturers or on the second-hand market or that they will lease, but it will take time. The private sector needs to do that because in doing so it will bear the risk, seek innovation and compete. It will do all the things that we want to see introduced to improve the standard of the rolling stock.
  However, there are legitimate questions to be asked not only about the long-term issues but about the transition. At the moment, British Rail has been told that it can lease rolling stock, but the lessor will clearly have much greater security when leasing to British Rail, which is backed, as it were, by the Government, than when a franchisee is running a track. I hope that the Minister can say how the risk adjustment will be dealt with during the transition. Otherwise, there will not be an agreement between the manufacturers of the rolling stock and the current British Rail, and franchisees will not as yet want to purchase rolling stock until they are sure that they have secured their franchise.
  A further risk is a longer-term risk which has been dealt with to some extent in the consultation document. It is that the period of the franchise is shorter than the lifetime of the rolling stock. It has been suggested that there could be longer leases, the use of new rolling stock over two or more periods and some risk-sharing.
  On the issue of private capital coming into the public sector, the Financial Secretary said that private financiers cannot expect conventional, commercial terms and gilt-edged security. Everyone accepts that anyone getting involved in franchising parts of the railway knows that he will be taking on substantial risks. It is important, however, that the risks will not be over-burdensome. I hope that the Minister will restate the fact that he will fight back if the Treasury insists too heavily on a very high degree of risk; otherwise people will not provide the rolling stock in the private sector, which is so important.
  The involvement of the private sector will bring innovation, make effective use of funds and improve management. Benefits will come from the improvements which can be made to the rolling stock. Such improvements will be to the benefit of all our constituents, especially the commuters. It is important for us to examine carefully the genuine risk that is shared between the public sector and the private sector so that we encourage people to invest in a way which will improve the railways.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: I start by examining the political consequences of the Bill. I should thank the Secretary of State because the political consequences of the Bill will mean that I am already elected at the next general election. The Bill has consequences for us all, but it will have serious consequences for the Government and their supporters.
  Effectively, the Bill is destined to fail. It may not fail on Second Reading, in Committee or on Third Reading—it may pass through the House. However, its proposals will

  215
  definitely fail on implementation. I can think of 132 reasons why it will fail. The real reason why it will fail is that the Government have started by asking the wrong question. They ask: how can we privatise the railways? The Bill is the answer to that question.
  The Government could have asked a number of different questions. They should have asked; how do we improve the railways? If they had asked that question, we would have had a different Bill altogether. They should have asked: how can we extend the present network? How can we get more freight on to the rail and off the road? That is the Government's policy. Time and again they have said that they want more freight on the rail rather than on the roads. The figures show that less freight is being carried by rail.
  The Government should have asked: can we attract more passengers away from their cars? That would provide benefits to the environment and our health. There would be fewer accidents on the road, and we would save £15 billion in the cost of congestion on our roads. The Government should have asked those sorts of question. They should have asked: can we make the railways safer? The Prime Minister and others may not have recognised that there is a price to safety. People in the United Kingdom accept that they must pay a price for travelling on safe railways. The Government should have asked: can we increase investment? I am not bothered whether it is public or private investment.
  The Government should have asked such questions because they are sensible and relevant. The question of how we privatise the railways is not relevant to the problems that the railways face.
  I am a former employee of British Rail, so I know a little about the railways. I am probably a rarity in the House because I am a former blue-collar employee of British Rail. I do not claim to be a railways enthusiast. I do not suppose that I had any more enthusiasm than anyone else when I went to work. I know a little about the culture which a few hon. Members have derided today. The Government want to destroy that culture with the Bill.
  Anyone who has worked for, or had any significant involvement in, the railways will know that the concept of fail safe is literally drilled into employees. Every day, fail safe is heard everywhere on the railways. Effectively, if a driver collapses on the train the "dead man" takes over and the brakes are applied automatically. If a driver goes through a red signal without stopping, the advance warning system takes over, the engine is cut and the brakes are applied automatically. If the brake device is cut, an emergency reservoir takes over and applies the brakes automatically.
  It is a shame that the Secretary of State is not aware of the concept of fail safe. If he was aware of it, the brakes might have been applied to the Bill. Throughout the Bill there is nothing about fail safe. I do not mean simply the safety aspect. Everything in the Bill, including finances, the network and the timetable, is not fail safe.
  Railways do not run on "if, "maybe", "possibly", or even "probably"; they run on certainties. Railways run on guarantees. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee in the Bill. The Secretary of State did not give a guarantee to the hon. Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley)
  216
  and for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) because there are no guarantees.
  I am not reassured by what were supposed to be the Secretary of State's reassuring remarks. When he was asked on the BBC programme "On the Record" whether loss-making services would continue to be subsidised, he said:
  "I cannot give a guarantee for all time because, obviously, if no one is actually wanting to go on a particular line, then that would be a candidate for closure."
  I am even less reassured by the fact that in the same interview the Secretary of State tried to play down the fears about the fare increases by saying:
  "I see no reason why, as a result of our proposals, prices should rise any more than they have risen recently."
  I may have been reassured if he had not made that statement in the same month, January, as the headline in the local newspaper which read "BR fare shocks: Passengers reeling". The fares on some routes in my area increased by 140 per cent., from £1 for return journeys to £2.40. In another area the fare increased from £1 to £2.20. If that is the Secretary of State's assurance on fares, I am not reassured.
  During the election campaign I predicted that fares would double in the run-up to privatisation. At that time I was told that I was scaremongering. I was wrong. I predicted that the fares would double; they more than doubled.
  I am not reassured by the Secretary of State's efforts to placate some Back-Bench Members with small majorities by saying that there is no problem because the Government are phasing in privatisation. I think that an hon. Member said that he likes the proposals because they are evolutionary. There is nothing evolutionary about the proposals. Evolution gives the idea that, if something is going wrong with the first seven proposals, the process can be stopped. There is no way that the process outlined in the Bill can be stopped. I do not believe it, the Secretary of State does not believe it, and no one on the railways believes it.
  By the time we get to the point at which something is proved wrong, the railways will be fragmented and broken up. If one does not believe me, one should look at the experiments that have already been carried out. Have any of those failed experiments stopped the drive for privatisation? Everyone recognises that Stagecoach was a failure, but we still have the drive for privatisation.
  On the freight side, Charterail was a failure. It was insolvent. It could not survive and went into liquidation. British Rail owned 22 per cent. of that company. It should have been able to negotiate a better price for the track. That is what will happen with many operators. In the end, they will not be willing to pay the money that Railtrack asks to allow them to run on the track. If one wants an example of that, one need look no further than the present problems with the Heathrow-Paddington link. We are talking about a piece of track which is 11 miles long. The whole network has a track which is 11,000 miles long.
  There is a joint venture between British Rail and BAA which includes negotiations about the charge for use of the track. The project has stopped because British Rail and BAA cannot agree how much should be paid for the track. British Rail is saying £6 million and BAA is saying £2 million. The problem has not been solved locally. The chairs of both those industries have had discussions about

  217
  the matter, but could not resolve it. The matter went further than that. The Secretary of State met both chairs on two occasions recently to try to resolve the problem. No solution has been found. If a problem affecting 11 miles of track cannot be solved, how can we expect to solve problems affecting a network of 11,000 miles of track? The only way is to offer operators a cut-price track. The railway will not run any more by people like me greasing the axles; it will run—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that we have reached the end of the period during which the 10-minute limit applied. Nevertheless, I ask hon. Members to make short speeches, bearing in mind the fact that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to catch my eye.
  8 pm
  Mr. Neville Trotter: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has left the Chamber. I would have been happy to remind him that, a few years ago, I had the honour to open a new main line—the east coast bypass at Selby. I still have the spanner with which I tightened the last bolt.
  I am one of those who have a very high regard for British Rail. Things inevitably go wrong at times, but I am aware of the enthusiasm that many members of the management feel and I think that they have succeeded in improving the motivation of their work force. Can the railways be improved? Yes, they can, and the aim of the Bill is definitely a good one. There is room for a better service.
  It seems to me, however, that opportunities for competition on individual passenger routes are limited. The main competition will come from roads. I warmly welcome the fact that, in his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to announce the new freight grant. Vast quantities of freight have recently moved away from the railways on to over-crowded roads, and that must be wrong. It is certainly in the public interest to prevent that from happening in the future. I am sure that the Bill will seek to ensure that that happens.
  Much could be done to improve the freight side of British Rail. The board member responsible for finance was recently reported as saying at a conference that Trainload Freight ran 500 trains a day with 13,000 staff. He was apparently stunned when a member of the audience pointed out that that meant that there were 24 people to run every train. There is certainly room for improvement there.
  At the same conference, the managing director of Felixstowe port described the rail freight business as lacking any imagination and any understanding of how to create a market. That, too, justifies the suggestion that much could be done to improve the way in which freight is carried on the rail system. This afternoon, I had a meeting with the chairman of British Coal, who, I believe, was not aware that this debate was taking place and who volunteered information about the problems that British Coal suffers because of the very high costs that it now has to pay to carry coal a few miles from the pit to the pier on the Tyne from which it goes south.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has reassured us on a number of the most important worries in people's minds. First, he gave an assurance that socially
  218
  necessary services would continue and that there will be no wholesale closures. I believed that that would be the case, but I welcome the fact that it is now on record. Many passengers on regional railways do not fully appreciate the way in which the services that they use are financed. If the fare for a journey on Regional Railways is £2.20, the cost of providing that journey is on average £10—the remaining £7.80 comes in one form or another from the taxpayer. I believe that it is essential that we should retain a regional network, and I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that we shall. I also welcome my right hon. Friend's assurances that the benefits of networking will continue because I am sure that that is an essential feature of our railway system, as will be self-evident to those operating the rail system in future.
  The Government have sensibly accepted all the proposals of the Health and Safety Commission with regard to the future safe operating of the railway. I should like to raise one issue, which I regard as related to safety—the role of the British Transport police, a force with which I am happy and proud to be connected. The police are responsible for security on the railway and for enforcing law and order throughout the network. They have a well-deserved reputation for dedicated efficiency. At a time of organised terrorist threats, constant security scares and an explosion of vandalism, it is most important that the British Transport police should remain a unified national force specialising in the problems of policing people in the operating environment of a railway. My hon. Friend the Minister has already assured us that the force will continue to play that role in the policing of the rail network.
  The detailed parts of the Bill relating to the British Transport police can perhaps best be dealt with at a meeting with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that, with his customary courtesy and in his customary spirit of co-operation, he will agree to such a meeting. For the time being, however, I seek two specific assurances: first, that franchise operators will not be able to opt out of using the British Transport police, and, secondly, that the future funding of the force will be assured and the costs of the force recovered by one means or another—I suggest through the track authority. I hope that my hon. Friend can give me those assurances.
  Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. I should be happy to meet representatives of the British Transport police with my hon. Friend, as I have done on a number of occasions. In the consultation document, we made it clear that we envisaged a national, independent British Transport police force, and that means funding—one of the options is through Railtrack—which will automatically cover the contributions of all operators, both franchised and open access. I hope that, given the tone of that document, my hon. Friend will feel reassured.
  Mr. Trotter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance.
  A great deal of thought has been given to the Bill. It is a very complicated exercise and it is most important that we should get it right. In the years ahead, this bold move will be judged according to whether or not it achieves its aims of improving the service and of attracting more customers—both passenger and freight—on to the railways. I believe that, freed of the traditional monolithic

  219
  structure of a nationalised industry, and making the maximum advantage of the skills and expertise of their staff, the railways can and must achieve that aim, and that they will remain an essential part of our society.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: Let me say at the outset that I am sponsored by the rail union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, but I speak in the interests of my constituents in York. A number of towns around the country are great rail centres but few, if any, are as vulnerable to the proposals in the Bill as my constituency: 5,000 of the 50,000 people in the local economy work for the railways. That represents one in 10 of the work force—and, on the whole, they are more highly skilled, higher-paid professional workers. If they lose their jobs in York, not only will they and their families suffer, but the city will suffer a hammer blow which will intensify the problems that the recession is causing. It is all very well for the Minister of State to say that there will be plenty of new jobs in the private sector, but they will not be in York. Some of the individuals may go to work for firms of consulting engineers in Croydon, Bournemouth or elsewhere, but they will not be contributing to the economy of the city that I represent.
  The manifesto on the basis of which the Government were elected less than a year ago contained the following promise:
  "Our plans for the railways are designed to bring better services for all passengers as rapidly as possible."
  I do not agree with much in the manifesto, but that is an aim to which I would subscribe. That pledge should be the test of the proposals in the Bill. Will the privatisation proposals mean lower fares for passengers, more frequent and convenient services, greater comfort and reliability? Will they improve safety on the railways? Will they mean better terms and conditions of employment for railway staff? Those are the tests on which the Bill should be judged.
  On 30 Novemberr, I presented a petition to the House urging the Government to introduce legislation to safeguard railcards for pensioners, young people, families and disabled people. This afternoon, the Secretary of State stated that there would be a guarantee to retain the disabled person's railcard. But if we are to have a better service to the public, will the Minister extend that guarantee to the other groups who have benefited from railcards? Why is it wrong to stand up and ask for guarantees that the interests of passengers will be protected? Or have the Government just ripped up the passengers charter and put a privatisers charter in its place?
  What about convenience? At present, 26 trains per day run from London to York on the east coast main line—one of the services that the Government are keenest to franchise off to the private sector—and 27 trains per day run from York to London. Will the service frequency increase or decrease as a result of privatisation? What guarantee can the Minister give me that the people who get private franchises to run from Edinburgh to London will stop their trains in York? Will York end up with a better service or a worse service? We rely on the railway for business and commerce, for social life and for tourism. It is a vital link to our city—more important than the roads.
  220
  As many hon. Members have said, comfort and reliability depend ultimately on the level of investment in trains, signals and track. Yet, as the Railway Industry Association tells us, railway investment is collapsing, blighted by the uncertainty of the privatisation proposals. The Independent of 20 January carried a report from my constituency by Christian Wolmar. It said:
  "In May 1994, the last Network 465 train for Network SouthEast's Kent line will roll off the production line at ABB's modern York works. Barring some unexpected development little short of divine intervention, the plant will then close. And this after a £50 million modernisation was completed last month."
  That modernisation was completed in the expectation of further orders for badly needed trains for London's commuters on Network SouthEast.
  The White Paper refers to a market for second-hand trains. It is not second-hand trains, but new trains, that London commuters need. People from Essex tell us repeatedly that the London-Tilbury line, the Southend line, needs new trains. Why are they not being provided? The report on the Cannon Street crash blamed the level of casualties on the fact that 30 year-old, clapped-out, rotten. "Annie and Clarabel" carriages were being used, and said that they must be replaced. The replacement would be the class 465 carriages, which are currently being built at York. Fulfilling the recommendations of the report on the Cannon Street crash will require 100 of those. When will that order be placed? The Minister has promised two of his hon. Friends that he will visit their constituencies to speak to important local railway interests. Will he come to York to meet the managing director of ABB to discuss the crisis facing the carriage works there?
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has misquoted me.
  I gave an undertaking that I would meet, in my offices in London, representatives of the port of King's Lynn and of the British Transport Police Federation. Likewise, I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I shall meet—for the seventh time, I think—representatives of ABB. I am in frequent touch with them, but through the hon. Gentleman I extend to them an invitation to meet me yet again. We want the manufacturing industry—especially ABB—to take a very active part in the development of the leasing market.
  Mr. Bayley: I thank the Minister sincerely for that undertaking. At a weekend meeting with the managing director, I was told that the problem will start not in May next year, but that he will have to start laying people off in six months' time. If the orders do not come through now, it will be too late to keep the factory going and the work force together to build the trains that are needed. And if they are not built in York, they will be built abroad. Perhaps ABB, which is a multinational company with German and Swedish manufacturing bases, will shift abroad as much of the £50 million worth of equipment as can be moved. Buying from abroad would add to our balance of payments problems. Prices would go up, as the labour component of the cost of building trains in Germany is twice as high as it is in Britain, which itself says a great deal about wage rates in manufacturing industry in this country. We need jobs, and our transport system needs the trains. Again, I thank the Minister for his undertaking.
  The Government say that they have approved leasing as a lifeline to the rail manufacturing industry, but British Rail cannot place orders; the banks will not lend it money,

  221
  because no one knows whether it will be running trains in the future. I hope that the Minister, in his winding-up speech, will tell us that the £150 million for leasing that was announced in the autumn statement will be committed to rolling stock. The Minister nods—I thank him for the undertaking that that seems to imply. But we need a further undertaking.
  If the leasing goes ahead, and British Rail subsequently loses the franchise for the services on which the rolling stock is to be used, will the Government either undertake to underwrite the leasing costs until such time as the carriages can be sold on the second-hand market—that is what the Minister believes will be created as a result of this Bill—or make it a condition of tenders from people bidding for the franchise that they must take over the rolling stock and the leasing costs? If that does not happen, the promise that leasing finance will be allowed will turn out to be a will-ó-the wisp, and the benefits that the Government expect will not come through.
  During the rail debate in January on an Opposition motion, I referred to the United States Hours of Service Act, which stipulates maximum working hours for every grade of railway staff. I am told by senior managers and directors of Amtrack that, in a regime with a mix of public sector and private sector railroads, the statutory regulation of working hours is a vital safety requirement. In the case of a single provider which does not face competition, such as British Rail, it is fine, without statutory backing, to expect the railway management to impose safety limitations of this type. The report on the Clapham crash called for the abolition of excessive overtime, and British Rail has responded. But when British Rail is competing against others, however, will it be able to respond in this way? Will its competitors respond without legislation? The American experience suggests that they will not. I am not thinking just of drivers' hours. The Health and Safety Executive says that the Government will consult about a statutory limit in the case of drivers' hours, but it was the excessive overtime of an electrician which caused the fatal mistake at Clapham.
  Rail privatisation will trigger a haemorrhage of jobs from railway towns like York, Crewe, Swindon, Manchester and Birmingham to private sector firms. It would devastate these towns. I hope that this Bill will not be given a Second Reading, but if it is, it will create a number of quangos, such as the track authority, the franchising authority and the regulator. London is already awash with quangos. Will the Government give a commitment that these new bodies will be based in established railway towns outside London? If they do not have faith in the transport system that the railways will provide, if they do not have faith that an office in Swindon or York or Crewe would be accessible to the centre, they do not have faith in these railway proposals.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: I have listened carefully to everything that has been said in this debate so far. So that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who is no longer in his place, will not be disappointed, I should say that, as a new Member, I am a strong supporter of this Bill, for whose proposals the Secretary of State has made a powerful and persuasive case.
  222
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and the other Opposition Members who have criticised the Government's proposals give the impression that British Rail is the jewel in the public sector crown, flawed only as a result of insufficient public money handed over by a willing taxpayer. Such a description bears no relation to the facts. As several of my hon. Friends have said, far from being starved of money in recent years, British Rail has seen record levels of investment. This year, the expenditure is some £1.4 billion—a figure that has not been reached since 1960, when we had a far more extensive network. In recent years, the service provided by British Rail has undoubtedly improved, but in many areas it is still extremely poor, with frequent and unpredictable cancellations, scruffy trains, poor service, persistent lateness and lack of recognition of, let alone responsiveness to, the needs of the consumer.
  Those failings are the inevitable result of public sector ownership. They were mirrored in all the nationalised industries that the Conservatives inherited before those industries were banished as the result of privatisation. British Rail suffers from all the classic problems of monopoly public sector industry. Until recently, it has had too little investment, as it has lost out to other public sector demands in the annual spending round. Year after year, it has lost money, making little attempt to reduce those losses and relying on the taxpayer to bail it out. It has shown too little interest in improving its service to the customer, as it knows that the customer has nowhere else to go.
  The passengers charter has been a valiant attempt to address those failings, and has led to some improvements. But it is the infusion not just of private sector capital but of the private sector ethos which is the remedy to those problems. In all, 46 businesses have been privatised in the last 14 years. Instead of costing the taxpayer £50 million a week, they are now profitable and contribute about £2 billion a year in tax.
  More important, they are profitable because they are now giving their customers the service they require. They have an incentive to increase efficiency, to stay competitive and to improve the service they offer. That is the discipline which business men in the private sector take for granted but which has been sadly lacking in British Rail.
  Every privatisation is different. British Rail is not a profitable enterprise which can simply be transferred as a whole from the public to the private sector. Some parts will never be profitable and will always require subsidy. On that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, for it does not mean they cannot be made attractive to the private sector. It just means that the Government will have to continue to provide a grant to the operator in recognition of the social need for such a service.
  For some groups, there will be immediate interest and a number of bidders for the franchise. For others, there may be no interest initially, and we shall have to see how the first private sector pioneers get on. I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the routes which he sees as the first that are likely to be franchised. I am disappointed that the great eastern division, which serves my constituency and his, is not among them. In recent years, the service in that division has improved, but there is still a long way to go.
  The recent reduction in the number of trains stopping at Colchester is an example of British Rail failing to listen

  223
  to what its customers want, while at the other end of my constituency the line to Burnham and Southminster seems always to be the first from which services are withdrawn, so that British Rail frequently appears to be running a bus rather than a train service. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider inviting bids for that franchise soon, as I am sure that it would be of great interest to the private sector.
  My right hon. Friend has in general rightly resisted those calling for track and infrastructure on those routes to be franchised also and be transferred to the franchisee. While I understand why bidders might want it, to do so would make it more difficult to have fair competition on those routes, if the possibility should arise. Initially at least, it is essential that there should be a neutral umpire overseeing the signalling and prioritising of all trains on the network. I was therefore pleased to hear his announcement this afternoon that Railtrack will be an independent operator from the residual rump of British Rail.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to consider ways by which the private sector culture which he described can also be introduced into Railtrack. Most of the problems that have occurred in the great eastern division, to which I referred—I suspect that they occur elsewhere throughout the network—have resulted from points failures, signalling problems, overhead power lines down and the ubiquitous leaves on the line. I assume that those will still be the responsibility of Railtrack, and I am sure that that body could benefit enormously from the disciplines of the private sector.
  A number of expressions of interest have already come from potential private sector franchisees, not least from within British Rail. That is an encouraging sign, and I hope that every assistance will be given to management teams from within BR who wish to come together to bid for a franchise. I also hope that private sector operators will eventually be attracted not just to bid for existing services but to introduce new ones.
  I spoke of the great eastern lines which serve Colchester in the north and Burnham in the south of my constituency. In the days before Dr. Beeching, my constituents in Maldon also had the benefit of a rail line. That line was scrapped and despite the rapid growth in population in recent years, many of whom commute, the chairman of British Rail has told me that there are no plans to reintroduce a rail link and that the financial parameters within which BR is obliged to operate mean that the investment finance that would be involved is not available. That is a pity, as I believe that there would be demand for such a service, and I look forward to the day when a private sector operator may make it available.
  There are many details of the Bill still to be worked out. For example, there will need to be complex agreements between the franchisees to allow ticketing, discount schemes and railcards. There may need to be some sort of clearing house operation, as operated by the clearing banks. There will need to be regulations governing the payment of compensation by one company to another in the event of breakdowns or delays to the train of one operator causing a failure and further delay to that of another.
  224
  All those matters will be difficult to resolve. This privatisation will not be straightforward, simple or quick. In many ways, it will once again be breaking new ground. But I am convinced that it is the right way forward and that the overwhelming view of my hon. Friends is that it is the way we should be going. I give it my wholehearted support.
  8.26 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The House will be relieved to hear that I have no intention of reading a central office policy studies pamphlet.
  As we debate the Bill, we should make it clear at the outset that it is sadly lacking in any sense of where the transport policy of Britain should be going in the coming decade. Indeed, it is not clear from the measure where the policy is going in the next 10 months. That is a highly dangerous aspect of today's debate, not least because the Minister produced a large and complex Bill and proceeded to say that one of its basic tenets, the concept of Railtrack, could if necessary be overturned during the passage of the measure and supplemented by a totally different system.
  Much has been said about the customers. Let us be clear that they care about the quality of service that they are given. I am proud to represent a railway constituency, and even prouder to be a member of a rail union. The Government constantly boast about the large sums of money that they are investing in the rail system. If we remove from that calculation the amount of money that is going into the channel tunnel, it becomes clear that British Rail is being squeezed tighter every year.
  Hon. Members who have taken part in the proceedings of the Select Committee on Transport have witnessed that deteriorating position over the years. It was obvious when we discussed the line of the channel tunnel route, the need for electrification and the desperate need for new rolling stock. It was clear from the evidence of witnesses whom we have examined in relation to privatisation.
  Our interim report was a classic example of the best of a Select Committee inquiry. Despite the efforts of some Conservative Members, it did not seek to give a biased view. It took evidence from a wide section of people interested in privatising BR, and we soon discovered that there were some basic problems with the Bill. People do not know what the charging regime will be and they cannot calculate to what extent, if at all, there should be interest in privatisation, because they cannot be sure what is being said. Who will buy a service if they do not know what they are going to be charged or what they in turn will have to charge someone else?
  It is also clear that there has grown up in the Tory party such an obsession about what they call the culture of British Rail that they are not even capable of acknowledging the job that has been done by management whom they themselves appointed. British Rail has modernised over the past five years, has changed the way it operates, and has set up what it calls an organisation for quality. Those are precisely the problems that the Minister and his colleagues pretend that they are interested in.
  That system has not even had a chance to work. It has been in place for less than 12 months and yet now, without any consultation with the people most concerned, a Bill has been introduced which will yet again throw the entire industry into chaos. The result is a loss of morale, a loss of

  225
  commitment and a very deep unease about the future of the railways in general. That does not end just with the railway system.
  As soon as British Rail Engineering Ltd. was privatised, we were told that it was going to be able to provide rolling stock, to be much more efficient and was going to respond to the culture of private enterprise and bring forward much higher quality service to the customer.
  What has happened is something different. The railway rolling stock industry, all privately-owned, all entrepreneurial, mostly with foreign entrepreneurial money because it was handed over not to British companies but to people from outside Britain, has given detailed evidence to this Government about its lack of orders and its lack of ability to get anyone to invest in new rolling stock or new orders beyond the end of the next year. It has done so in such detail that the Government have no conceivable excuse for ignoring the fact that, very soon, this entire industry, like the bus industry before it, will be unable to continue because it has no work on its books.
  Indeed, in my constituency a major company, which is now called ABB, is tendering for many jobs overseas, and has asked the Government for support in financing a supply of rolling stock for a scheme in Chile, only to be told that, while it is in competition with the French, who are offering soft loans and long commitments, the British industry will not get any assistance.
  It is told, as a civil servant said to me yesterday on the phone, that, after all, one has only to look at the size of the deficit of the public sector in France to understand why they have a different scheme from ours. Of course they have, because the French know that, without a transport system that works and carries goods and people around the country, they cannot compete in their internal market, let alone in external markets.
  That is a basic economic lesson which this Government seem totally unable to understand. The reality is that this Bill should be voted down, not by Labour Members but by Conservatives. The reason is simple. Within a short time, their constituents, who do not understand about investment in new rails, but understand that all the trains are getting slower, who do not understand why there is de-staffing of stations or why there have to be fewer and fewer people to provide a service, do understand that it is a direct result of what the Government are doing.
  These people will soon have to have their say, and they will make their views known very directly to all MPs in the south-east, and to MPs in the commuter belt—not just in London, but in Manchester—and even, I suspect, to those rather royal personages from elsewhere outside the great conurbations who have been honouring us today with the extent of their knowledge of British Rail.
  I think that the Government will then find themselves in a very uncomfortable and difficult position, and I look forward to the day when it is the Conservative Members who firmly and definitely and with no compunction vote this Bill into the oblivion that it deserves.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Matthew Banks: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I concur wholeheartedly with what she said about the Select Committee's interim report. There is no doubt that there was a heated discussion within that Committee, but those of us who were involved—a number
  226
  of vacancies had not been filled at that time on the Committee—in the writing of that report were happy to put their names to it.
  The hon. Lady is right to say that it was in the highest traditions of the Select Committee system. That report appeared ultimately in a more constructive tone and asked a number of questions. The answers to some of the questions have already been heard. One or two questions discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) have not been discussed, and I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport commenting on them later.
  I know that the 10-minute rule no longer applies, but I notice that a number of hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall follow your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and be brief.
  I welcome the variety of the franchises announced today by my right hon. Friend. They represent a cross-section of the railways in Britain at present—what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North West (Mr. Bellingham) described as InterCity routes, and also those in urban conurbations in the south-east in particular.
  Now that the Bill has been published and the Government have made it clear that they intend to press ahead with these proposals to introduce new opportunities, the public are rightly asking mundane but nevertheless important questions about whether networking benefits will be continued, about whether the price of tickets will remain the same or go up or down, whether investment will continue and increase and whether the proposals will ultimately lead to a better railway.
  Those are questions which the public rightly ask—and which we also ask. If the railways were working well, there would be no need to change, but unfortunately, as some of my hon. Friends have said already, they are not working as well as they might be. That is why I believe that the sensible, gradual approach by the Government, starting with this Bill, with a step-by-step introduction of new opportunities and new operators, not to mention the opportunities for rail freight, is an approach with which the Government should press ahead quickly and with vigour.
  I should like to pick up two points mentioned in the debate so far. I am delighted that Railtrack will be independent. When I spoke in the supply day debate some time ago, I urged the Minister to look at this, and I know that it is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) feels is very important. I see that he is in his place, and I join him in welcoming an independent Railtrack.
  I hope that privatisation will lead to greater efficiency and to greater transparency of the cost of running the railways. Therein lies a problem, but it is one that we can overcome. I hope that the Minister will once again take the opportunity to make it clear in his reply that there will be continued and sustained investment by the Government in the infrastructure of the railways in future. That is vital if the proposals are to succeed.
  I have no doubt that there will be some broad smiles in the private rail freight industries tonight. I was particularly delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refer to the freight facilities grant scheme. I am particularly pleased that he has also announced that, in many instances, 100 per cent. grants will be available for freight charges, because, if we are to encourage freight off

  227
  the roads and on to the railways and to encourage the freight that is already on rail to stay there, it is vital to address these issues, and I warmly welcome what the Minister has announced in this debate.
  I cannot hide my personal concern at the fact that British Rail in one case has increased by 180 per cent. the charges levied on some rail freight users. However, I balance that comment by welcoming the fact that Trainload Freight has taken on an extra 2 million tonnes of freight. That shows that, although some freight is leaving the railways, it is being replaced by new business.
  The Government and the regulator must take action to promote the rights and priorities of rail operators. Private operators are very much behind the Government and want privatisation to succeed, particularly in rail freight. When the Government do set up regulatory and consultative bodies, those who are involved in running rail freight in the private sector must have the opportunity to have their views represented on those bodies.
  I cannot emphasise enough the importance which I—and, I know, hon. Members on both sides of the House—attach to achieving a more competitive pricing regime with road haulage. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell)—I know that it is something dear to his heart—that we need open competition in rail freight as soon as possible.
  Mention has been made of investment. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister once again to make it clear that, in the next two or three financial years, substantial investment will be made available for the track, signalling and infrastructure schemes which are pending. My hon. Friend knows my particular concern about the west coast main line, but it is important not only to my constituents but to those of other hon. Members on both sides of the House representing constituencies on routes to the north-west, the west midlands, north Wales and, of course, Scotland.
  I am concerned that there has been some distortion of the investment figures in the debtate. In the evidence that he gave to the Transport Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that some £1 billion would be spent in each of the next three financial years. One or two hon. Members have sought to suggest that the investment in infrastructure—I am not talking about the other £1 billion to be spent on running the railways—is already committed.
  In 1993–94, some £450 million of that £1 billion will be required for the channel tunnel; in 1994–95, some £270 million will be required and, in 1995–96, as the channel tunnel nears completion, some £80 million at 1992 prices will be required for it, including deferred interest and payments in advance. While I accept that, in 1995–96, we may have constraints on public sector spending equally as difficult as those we have now—no doubt it will be the same in years to come—I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to make it quite clear that, when we take away the amount required for the channel tunnel, which will decrease over the next three years, some of the investment that my right hon. Friend described to the Transport Select Committee will be spent on the schemes for improving the track and infrastructure of Britain's railways, and particularly the west coast line.
  I believe that the answer will be affirmative, but I hope that my hon. Friend will make it quite clear that, although
  228
  he intends to press ahead with these proposals for new opportunities, he will always recognise the requirement for important Government investment in the infrastructure of our railways.
  My hon. Friend knows that I wholeheartedly support the Government's proposals for bringing in new pilot shadow franchises, and I am pleased that they have announced extra money for British Rail to ensure that they run smoothly. It is vital that we press ahead as soon as possible and do not allow the grass to grow under our feet.
  With one or two honourable exceptions, there is widespread support for the Bill among Conservative Members. No matter what the difficulties—there are always difficulties involved in privatisation—they will be overcome. It is a gradual, step-by-step approach, and I urge my hon. Friend to see the proposals through for the benefit of the consumer, and to do so quickly and with the utmost vigour.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate. As with so many other hon. Members, there is a great rail interest in my constituency, particularly in Holyhead, which has a great tradition on the Irish traffic route and an historical involvement with the Irish mail.
  I should like to make two points about the Secretary of State's speech. It would have been useful if hon. Members could have had copies of the plans for the proposed franchises. It was difficult for many of us to understand what he was saying, and I have never before heard policy made on points of order.
  Perhaps, in his reply to the debate, the Minister could clarify the exact position regarding the proposed franchise for Scotland. Will it go to Inverness? Will it be an InterCity service? Where will the service go in south Wales? Will it stop at Cardiff, or will it go through to Fishguard? We have a right to know whether those services will be InterCity services and whether the franchisees will have an obligation to offer those services.
  Mr. Freeman: The House will wish to know that, in the Vote Office, there are maps which clearly show the precise geographical limitations of the first franchises. The answer is that it will go to Inverness and that it will go to Fishguard as an InterCity service.
  Mr. Jones: I am obliged to the Minister for clarifying that.
  I am sure that he will also have heard the representations made by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) about the European fast train network. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the Minister that I disagree with those representations, because I agree with the first draft prepared by the European Commission, stating that the proper route for Irish traffic is along the central corridor between Holyhead and Dublin bay.
  I urge the Minister to support the European Commission in that view. We have many advantages, particularly in terms of geography, as 50 per cent. of all freight in the Irish Republic comes within a 50-mile radius of Dublin. Therefore, it is clearly more convenient and practical for the freight to go along the central corridor.

  229
  We will be waiting to hear from the Minister about the improvements to be made to the north Wales coast main line as a result of that European network.
  In the Europe of the 21st century, if the single market is to mean anything and if we are to give the business community and the leisure traveller more travel opportunities, people must be able to travel quickly, efficiently and easily. In the 21st century, we are also forced to consider the environmental impact of greater travelling opportunities. It is little wonder that, in the Netherlands, Germany, France and other European countries, investment in railways is seen as a way of transferring traffic from road to rail for environmental and social reasons.
  In the Netherlands, there is a clear policy to reverse the spending balance, which is currently in favour of road building, to rail. As a result, rail travel in the Netherlands has increased by 25 per cent., and the equivalent of £1.5 billion in strategic mainline spending is under way. That would be equivalent to investing about £300 million in Wales.
  We know about the considerable investment that the French are making in their rail services. In no European country with which we trade is there any talk of privatisation or fragmentation of railway services. Indeed, it is the opposite. All our major competitors think that it is vital to have a coherent transport policy and that rail services should be properly planned and resourced. In the drive to ensure a properly integrated European high-speed train network, pan-European planning and co-ordination is essential. Failure to take part in that exercise will have disastrous consequences for our economy.
  A strategic European railway network must be based on through ticketing and integrated services. The present plans for services from the United Kingdom to European destinations have required detailed linking of train operations in Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands on a through-service or direct-connection basis. Any attempt to operate international services on any other basis is fundamentally flawed.
  The high-speed rail link on mainland Europe will transform the economies of the European core area, and those of us on the periphery will effectively be cut off from participating in that transformation. That means that countries such as Wales, which is already fragmented within British Rail's operational structure and outside most of its current core service areas, will be at a double disadvantage.
  The high-speed rail network proposed by the Commission, which includes services to north and south Wales, will be jeopardised by the Bill. In the European context, the philosophy behind it shows that the Government are tackling yesterday's agenda and jettisoning today's requirements. The policy agenda of privatisation is misplaced, misconceived and will harm our long-term economic interests.
  Within British Rail's current operational structure, Wales suffers from fragmentation and the lack of a coherent framework. Under the profit centre approach to franchise allocations, Wales—a small country of 3 million people—will have five operators. The section from Paddington to Cardiff on the Great Western line is regarded as a core service, while all destinations west of Cardiff are regarded as peripheral.
  On the west coast main line, all services west of Crewe are regarded as peripheral. In terms of Regional Railways,
  230
  services west of Cardiff, Wolverhampton and Chester are regarded as peripheral. It is little wonder that we feel under threat as a result of the policies.
  We are told that Railtrack is expected to act in a commercial manner and that it will not be subsidised. It must make an adequate return on assets, but will it be able to secure adequate funding for long-term investment—for example, in the upgrading and electrification of the west coast main line and the Great Western?
  I understand that the Minister has been speaking to local authorities in north Wales and the north-east about the possibility of electrification. I wonder whether he can tell the House the latest state of play on that application.
  Will Railtrack be able to secure adequate funding for long-term investment? Will it be expected to produce a reasonable return on investment? Because Railtrack will have to operate on commercial lines, there will have to be subsidies for the franchisees and other operators. We must be told to what extent and for how long those subsidies will operate.
  Apart from the franchise that the Secretary of State announced, what interest has there been in securing franchise services for the routes in Wales? Will there be any attempt to secure a coherent strategy for the development of the rail network in Wales, or will we for ever remain on the periphery of the United Kingdom rail network, which in turn will be on the periphery of a high speed network on mainland Europe?
  The Government's obsession with privatisation, which is mirrored in the Bill, will have a catastrophic effect on rail services. It will produce fragmentation when what we need is coherence. I fear that, in many parts of the United Kingdom, it will lead to reduced investment when more is urgently needed. It will drive us into a European backwater, while our major competitors are forging ahead with a modern European transport system. For those and many other reasons, I and my colleagues will be in the No Lobby tonight.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I intend to take a few minutes of the House's time to put the record straight on how rail privatisation will affect Aberdeen. I make no apologies for being so parochial. Given Aberdeen's geographical position, I am sure that the House will realise how vital our communications network is.
  On the last occasion that the House debated this subject, on 12 January, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) showed his usual dislike of the truth and displayed his uncanny knack of ignoring the facts if they do not quite fit his argument. He said:
  "the expectation and reality must be the substantial closure of railway lines throughout the country and in particular rural lines which exist for a social as well as a communications purpose.
  Nobody need be in any doubt about this … One has only to read about what Grampian Transport wants to do. It wants to concrete over the rails and create busways."—[Official Report, 12 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 853.]
  I shall focus on the last part of that quote. If, as the hon. Gentleman said, Grampian Transport is interested in rail privatisation because it wants to concrete over the rails, that would be serious and would cast doubts over public transport in Aberdeen. However, it is simply untrue. It

  231
  does not. Its interest is legitimate and genuine. Unlike Opposition Members, its interest in rail privatisation is quite visionary.
  Grampian Transport is a private bus company which has taken advantage of the Government's earlier privatisation policy, and it is a success story. It has a legitimate interest in rail privatisation in two key areas. First, the company wants to involve Aberdeen city to create a partnership between bus and rail services. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North seems to be blind to the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive, but can be complementary with foresight and planning. The company has already commissioned a feasibility study into providing a rail system from one of Aberdeen's growing suburbs in Dyce—a growth area—to get commuters into the city centre speedily. ScotRail refused to do such a study.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has been reasonably offensive, but I shall not reciprocate. Is he telling me that Grampian Transport has not proposed to convert existing rail lines into dedicated busways? If he is not telling me that, I think that he should withdraw his opening remarks.
  Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman listens to me, he will understand exactly what Grampian Transport is trying to do.
  In addition to that feasibility study, it commissioned another study, to use the Oban guided bus system between Aberdeen airport and the city centre. That combines the flexibility of the bus system with rails to produce the maximum utility of the track.
  Those two projects have an exciting potential and are long overdue. They could soon be a reality. By getting the private sector involved, Aberdeen—Europe's oil capital—could get a genuinely first-class commuter service. Those of us who are campaigning to get the Petroleum Engineering Directorate relocated in Aberdeen will welcome the fact that we will be able to tell the seemingly reluctant civil service that people will be able to get from the airport to their offices in the centre of Aberdeen very quickly if the scheme goes ahead.
  Why does the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North seek to prevent that? Why does the hon. Gentleman seek to deny the people of Aberdeen an integrated public transport system which could be the envy of Europe? I will gladly give way to him if he will tell me.
  Mr. Wilson: I do not want to take up the time of hon. Members on either side of the House—I have the opportunity to make a speech—but I will gladly debate with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) the public transport needs of Aberdeen, and I will also explain to him how the transport policies of the Government that he so ardently supports have failed them for many years. However, on this specific matter, he seems to reinforce my point rather than contradict it. He might have investigated the brief before he read it.
  Mr. Robertson: So the hon. Gentleman is not willing to explain to the people of Aberdeen why he will deny them this.
  It is not just in Aberdeen that Grampian Transport has an interest. It is now preparing plans for Aberdeen's links with Elgin and with Inverness, with combined rail and bus
  232
  services, through ticketing arrangements and one timetable. Passengers will be able to go from city centre to town centre with one ticket, on one timetable—bus, train, then bus again. If that is a success, the company is interested in extending the service from the centre of Aberdeen to the centre of Glasgow, to the centre of Edinburgh and even to other areas in the central belt.
  I will end by quoting Moir Lockhead, chairman and managing director of the company:
  "Lines which in the 1960s were unviable economically may have become potentially attractive to the private sector, due to the increase in congestion on the roads, pedestrianisation schemes and parking difficulties and a growing awareness of environmental issues as well as the reduction in costs from advanced technology and greater efficiency. Our approach will underpin the rail system, not undermine it."
  That does not sound to me like a man who wants to concrete over the rails and pull up the tracks.
  In Aberdeen, the private sector is up and ready to go. It wants the green light from this House. What has happened in Aberdeen can happen elsewhere. Tonight, the House must defeat the Luddite tendency of the Labour party.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: In 1981–86, as leader of West Yorkshire county council, I had some political responsibility for the development of a local rail network. During that period, we were responsible for the start of the turning round of the rail network in the area, so we have something to tell the House—a story of success on the railways, something that needs to be taken into account when one is looking at the present proposals. I would judge that success by two factors. The policies that we followed and developed have been practised since, and are still in operation in West Yorkshire. In the 10 years from 1981–82 to 1991–92, we increased the passenger numbers from 6.6 million to 15.3 million—an increase of 130 per cent. At the same time, and as a result of the increase in passengers, there has been an increase in the recovery ratio—that is to say, less subsidy is now required per passenger.
  At the time that I became leader of the county council, many lines produced less than 20 per cent. of their income through fares, with an average in the mid-20s. Now the average is 38 per cent., and that is a reduction from figures in the low 40s before the recession hit our area. But we have no individual line which is less than 30 per cent., and although the actual cash level of subsidy is only a little reduced, it is supporting a far larger rail network and more than twice the number of passengers. It is therefore important to ask what factors have led to those changes, because they are factors which can lead to success in the rail network.
  I can list four: timetabling, pricing, marketing and investment. We have timetables which are designed to suit public use and not simply the convenience of rail operators. We introduced in 1981 a freeze on fares, and that freeze lasted until 1986. Since then, the increases have been modest. The freeze on fares was accompanied by ticketing of an imaginative kind, designed to attract more passengers to the network. The ticketing systems were accompanied by aggressive marketing, using television and posters.
  But as well as that, there was investment in rail. We have invested over the years in new stations. Eighteen new stations have been opened, increasing the number from 47

  233
  to 65, a rise of 38 per cent. New rolling stock has been purchased, and more new rolling stock would be under way at the moment if the money were released for it. Instead, in the present uncertain climate, as I mentioned to the Minister in earlier debates, those orders are held up and the company in Hunslet in my constituency is unable to proceed with their manufacture. The Minister said that he would meet the chairman of the passenger transport authority to discuss the subject. I know that he has met the chairman, but I do not think that he has yet given him or the company involved a guarantee that part of that £150 million will be used on those trains that are currently held up in west Yorkshire.
  Those mechanisms, which have been used elsewhere, have been successfully used to turn around a rail network. I think that the Settle-Carlisle line is an example of a line that the former Minister of State for Transport reprieved after joint action by local authorities and British Rail. Positive marketing of that line significantly increased the number of passengers on it.
  Changes can be made that will improve the rail network. We have all agreed today that we want the rail network in this country to develop, but the proposals in the Bill are the politics of the asylum. If we are to have a successful privatisation, it must be based on potential profit.
  When the Government have been privatising, they have generally taken industries that have clearly been capable of delivering a profit—often monopoly industries, which have been certain to deliver a profit. However, the rail network makes little, practically no, profit on most lines. It is significant that, in order to start work on the system, the Government are having to take selected lines and pull them out of the network to create an artificial profit.
  Through the lines selected and a grant system, the market is being rigged to generate profit. I am not opposed to the grant system as such, but under the system, profit is falsely generated. The rail network is a public sevice and should remain so. The changes will not work unless that remains the case.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful to be allowed to make a short speech before the wind-up speeches.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) made an eloquent speech, but it contained an error. He suggested that the Government and the Conservative party had been considering rail privatisation only for the past two and half years. It has been a subject of much debate for much longer than that.
  Some four and a half years ago in the Chamber, we had a debate on rail privatisation under the Consolidated Fund. In that debate, a number of my hon. Friends and I advocated a track authority, a franchising operation, the splitting up of tracks and trains, and privatisation generally. Since then, the debate has virtually completed a circle. We have considered regional monopolies and various other ways of achieving the movement of British Rail into the private sector.
  Therefore, I am delighted to welcome the Bill whole-heartedly, as it follows on so closely from that debate of four and a half years ago. During that debate, I drew an analogy between what I considered to be the success story of the airways among the airlines and what
  234
  was proposed for British Rail. At that time, the recently privatised British Airways was going from strength to strength.
  It is worth acknowledging the position in Europe, whereby virtually all the railways are in the public sector and are making a loss, and the vast majority of larger airlines in Europe are still in the public sector and are making a loss. However, British Airways, in the private sector, is making a profit, even during the recession, when virtually every other transport company—in both the public and private sectors—is making a loss.
  If it shows nothing else, that illustration shows that, if one gets it right and produces an organisation that is customer not producer-orientated, one can attract passengers and freight, and make a success of encouraging further investment. That is a shining example of what can be done with British Rail when it moves into the private sector.
  Some may consider that certain routes are cherry picked, but we can improve upon even British Rail's good routes, ensuring that they give an even better service to the public, attracting passengers away from other forms of transport and back to the rail network. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the idea of moving even the profitable routes in the public sector into the private sector.
  The Opposition are always of the view that, for a service to be improved, it must have more money poured into it. It is important to measure not the inputs, but the outputs. The success of this legislation will be judged not by the doom-laden prophets of the Opposition but by the British public, in the choice that we shall give them and in the improved rail service that they will get. I am convinced that they will choose by travelling on British Rail, by allowing more investment and by allowing the service to expand during the years ahead in the private sector.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: We have had a good, if fairly predictable, debate for the most part. I was interested to note that paragraph 1 of the Conservative central office brief advised Conservative Members to emphasise that British Rail is not working well, and all the little parrots lined up to oblige on that score.
  It strikes me as cheap and pretty miserable that people who have been in Government for 13 or 14 years—one Conservative Member who spoke held a central position advising Ministers on the policies to be pursued—take no responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Instead, as a political device, all they can do is denigrate the efforts of the people who have worked valiantly over the years to keep the railways going and to create what in many areas of Britain is still an excellent and socially responsible railway system.
  Out of the clutch of press releases today—the Secretary of State managed six—perhaps the jewel in the crown is the one headed
  "First lines to be prepared for franchising".
  We even have a helpful map to illustrate the final selection. That map will be of great interest around the country. It will not be of all that much interest in areas whose lines have been selected, where apprehension might be a better word, but people throughout Britain will notice that their lines are not on the map and it is they who will be asking questions.
  Those lines and sectors that have been selected by the Government as the first to prepare for franchising will,

  235
  during the next year, receive the kind of attention that will presumably make them fit for Mr. Branson, or whoever, to inherit. But people served by the rest of the network will wonder what will happen to their lines. I shall be pleased to give an answer to that tonight.
  If money is to be poured into the Tilbury-Southend line in order to bring it up to the standard to enable it to be sold off, will that come from within Network SouthEast or British Rail's existing capital allowances? If so, will that not inevitably be at the expense of the rest of the network?
  Take note, the lines on the map are the ones that have been selected and in which the Government have a vested interest in promoting as potential franchises. But that can only mean that the fragmentation has begun, along with the rundown of the rest of the railway.
  I want to start with the question of safety, as I do at a high point in every speech that I make on this subject. Since we debated the matter a couple of weeks ago, much attention has been given to the Health and Safety Commission's report. I do not object to political point scoring, but I do object to the gloss that the Secretary of State has persistently put on the report because the subject is of such seriousness.
  The Health and Safety Commission gave no clean bill of health to what is being done: let there be no misunderstanding about that. In case some Tory Members still do not understand what the Health and Safety Commission's report says, I quote it again. It says:
  "The consequences of failing to achieve adequate systems of control will be seen in an increased risk in the railway system and the likelihood of an increase in the numbers and possibly also the severity of accidents."
  I desperately hope that will not prove true and that the number and severity of accidents does not increase. If the Bill is passed, I hope that the Health and Safety Commission's 38 proposals to ameliorate that risk will be sufficient and will be implemented.
  Who in this country asked the Government to put in place a railways system that is inherently more dangerous to the extent that such safeguards must be taken? The answer is, no Member of Parliament, no one who works on the railways, and no one who travels on the railways. As the evidence given to the Select Committee proves, almost no one in the country wants the Government to do that. It is a unilateral act of irresponsibility on the Government's part to put in place a railway system that is less safe than that which exists.
  We are already seeing attempts to rationalise irresponsibility. One of the alleged intellectuals of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), produced a document that is of considerable interest to my right hon. and hon. Friends, though I suspect that there is less concern among Government Members to publicise it. Such is the way that ideas start. Soon, for reasons that we can well understand from today's debate, an explanation will have to be given as to why less money should be spent on safety, because that is the direction in which all the pressure will be applied.
  The hon. Member for Havant's advocacy of rail safety deregulation confirms that the surest way to be hailed as an intellectual and thinker is to say something of such stupidity that no cautious mortal would dare to advance it. The hon. Member for Havant reached the momentous conclusion that railway safety is not cost-effective and
  236
  wants a moratorium on new safety measures. He has a point when he says that safety costs money and that that is reflected in fares. However, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that rail safety costs money and drives passengers away, what does he imagine their perception of danger would do?
  The hon. Member for Havant should say what is the cost-effectiveness of a rail accident—of a Clapham disaster.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), will not the hon. Gentleman admit that my hon. Friend was simply pointing out that there is a statistical quirk in published safety figures—that when fewer people travel on the railways, the per capita safety record worsens, even though more money might have been spent on safety? My hon. Friend was merely making a statistical point. If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) cannot understand that point, that reflects on him and not on my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Wilson: It is not a statistical quirk but statistical drivel. I would have told the hon. Member for Havant that I intended to refer to his article, but I knew that he was around earlier and was capable of being present.
  The hon. Member for Havant should not only come to the House and try to justify a moratorium on safety expenditure; he should stand outside any commuter railway station on Network SouthEast and tell passengers that Tory thinking is that too much money has been spent on saving lives on the railways, and that by some demented ideological device less money should be spent for that purpose.
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents my hon. Friend's argument.
  Mr. Wilson: I am not misrepresenting it but representing it very well. That argument is there in black and white and represents a train of thought in the Conservative party that will be brought into play more forcefully. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") I hear support for it from the Conservative ranks. That thinking will be brought more into play because of the need to force down—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is drivel.
  Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Lady thinks that her colleague's words are drivel, she should so inform him.
  We learnt today of the complete separation of Railtrack from the operators, in the form of a separate company, and of the appointment of Mr. Robert Horton to preside over it—a man too abrasive for BP but just the person to act as the interface between the track authority and rail users.
  The Secretary of State said today that Railtrack should contract out services and that would be vital in keeping its prices down. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say which services he has in mind. Will they be the maintenance services performed by the people who work on the track and who undertake necessary safety work at present? If Railtrack contracts out those services, it can only lead to casualisation—to people working on the railway lines who are not used to that work. It can only lead to cheaper

  237
  labour. The Secretary of State confirmed that when he said that contracting out services will be vital in keeping prices down.
  Then the Secretary of State tells us that track franchisees will pay only what they can afford in charges. What does that mean? Does it mean that a subsidy will bridge the gap between what it costs to maintain a safe railway and what the operators can afford? Does the Secretary of State guarantee that that gap will be fully bridged? The moment that he fails to do so, there will again be pressure on British Rail to keep down spending on safety: that is the inevitable logic of what he is saying.
  Let me now deal with the general subject of network benefits. Last week, a document emerged from the Department of Transport. Its contents have, to a substantial extent, been confirmed by what the Secretary of State has said today. It is a very honest document, and I believe that its contents, and the statements that are emerging from it, will capture the public's interest in the weeks ahead as much as anything that has been said in the debate. The matters involved directly affect the travelling public.
  Let us go through the headline conclusions of the document, as confirmed by the Secretary of State today. According to the Department, discounts and through ticketing "should not be imposed" on private operators. Train operators cannot be expected to sell tickets for services other than their own, because this
  "runs contrary to commercial interests".
  Any scheme to replace railcards should be decided by each private operator on the basis of "their own marketing strategy", and private operators might choose to retain railcards for the disabled, but would do so
  "for the public relations benefit".
  Those are the conclusions in the document, and the Secretary of State confirmed today that the disabled persons' railcard would be retained for public relations reasons. According to the document, only 40,000 disabled persons hold railcards. Financially it is not very significant one way or another. Many operators might consider that the public relations benefits of continuing to offer discounts to disabled people are well worth such a small cost.
  Mr. Adley: Last week, some members of the Select Committee visited the networking office at Euston. We were told that if more than one operator ran trains on a piece of line, the long-hallowed advantage of being able to turn up and get on to a train would probably be lost, because everyone would have to have a piece of paper. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that, in the light of the fact that the east coast main line is to be franchised although part of it will continue to be run by Regional Railways and others?
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is transparently obvious that there will be problems in the whole business of the inter-availability of tickets once the fragmentation of operations has begun. But let me return to the question of disabled people, which, I know, concerns the hon. Gentleman as much as it concerns Opposition Members.
  Let me make it clear that Opposition Members do not see the railcard for the disabled as a public relations benefit for some cheapskate operator. The Department of Transport document make no mention of rights or of social need. Only 40,000 disabled railcard holders can be
  238
  bought off for the benefit of public relations; but the families, pensioners and young people who hold railcards are too numerous, and will therefore be dispensed with. There is no guarantee of a national rail network benefit for them.
  Let me repeat the question that I asked the Secretary of State earlier: will he guarantee the continuation of national railcards for pensioners and for people of 24 and under? Will he also guarantee the continuation of the London travelcard, which at present covers travel on London Regional Transport, London Buses and British Rail, and the continuation of the family railcard? I am not the one who is waiting for an answer; 4 million people, many of them constituents of Tory Members, are waiting for that answer, which will be either a deafening silence or an eventual no.
  Notwithstanding all the other provisions, the sheer vandalism of breaking up InterCity takes a bit of beating. How these ideologues despise anything in the public sector that actually works, and works well—that returns a profit, provides decent working conditions and gives people a reason to take pride in their work. They despise it, and they must destroy it: they cannot just leave it to operate more successfully. That has led to the breaking up of InterCity, and to the hiving off of profitable routes, especially the east coast route, from the rest. When one takes away what is profitable, what is left for that which is unprofitable?
  Within InterCity, the east coast main line route makes a profit of about £60 million. If one adds together the three sections of InterCity which will be put into the shadow franchises, one has a profit of roughly £70 million. The overall profit of InterCity last year was, say, a couple of million pounds. It does not take a mathematician of even Conservative standards to work out that if one takes £70 million out of the equation and sets it against a £2 million overall profit, there will be a deficit of about £68 million left for the rest of InterCity.
  Is the Minister saying that there is to be a subsidy on the parts of InterCity which remain with British Rail? Is a railway which is not at present subsidised going to be subsidised to allow the private sector to make a profit on what has been hived off? If there is to be no subsidy, who is to meet the cost of the deficit which already exists on those parts of InterCity which would remain within the public sector?
  I want the Minister for Public Transport to clarify what is to happen to InterCity. I have already referred to the map which is headed
  "First lines to be prepared for franchising".
  There is no word of shadow franchising or experiments and no sign that it may or may not happen.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) raised the issue of InterCity being retained as a single entity. The Minister told us, helpfully, that he was shortly to meet the director of InterCity about
  "retention and strengthening of InterCity identity."
  That will be an interesting conversation. He will tell the director of InterCity that he is taking away three of his profitable routes to turn them into autonomous businesses within British Rail while, at the same time, he is talking about the retention and strengthening of InterCity identity. How are the two compatible?
  To be fair to the Minister, I believe that in this instance his words reflected his own thinking and wishes. He said that the Government had taken no long-term decisions

  239
  about the future of InterCity. With the authority of the Secretary of State, the Minister must tell us whether this is true or false: are the InterCity routes designated on the map the first lines to be prepared for franchising? Is that a positive categorical statement, or have no long-term decisions been taken about the future of InterCity?
  The Minister should make no mistake, because no one who lives on the sections of the InterCity routes which are not covered by the proposed franchises will be in any doubt about that. If InterCity is fragmented, many of the communities which at present benefit from InterCity services, especially direct InterCity services, will not have them in the future. That message will strike a chord with everyone who instinctively understands it to be the truth.
  Of course we welcome the freight initiatives which were announced today. Of course we would, because we, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), have been arguing for them for many months. We shall make a closer inspection of the small print, but basically, if the measures are designed to get freight on to the railways and off the roads, we are behind them.
  Surely the Minister can say how long we are to wait for the measures to take effect. Is it to be 18 or 8 months? Are we to stand idly by for another six months or one year watching the haemorrhaging of rail freight continue? Are we to watch the cargoes of cement, oil, bitumen and chemicals transfer on to the roads?
  In referring to the central office brief, hon. Members raised the issue of charges being imposed by British Rail for its freight services. There is a problem. I deplore the increase in charges on which British Rail is insisting. There are, however, conflicting statements which the Minister can resolve now.
  The Freight Transport Association and other bodies will say that when British Rail imposes large increases, the reason given is that British Rail is still required to operate according to the financial objectives set down by Cecil Parkinson in 1989. If the Government had any wish to get freight on to the railway and off the roads, instead of driving it at an alarming rate in the other direction, they would have long ago abandoned those objectives. It is no longer tolerable for the Government to tell British Rail that it must pursue those objectives and for British Rail to tell the customer that that is why it is having to impose the increased charges, while Ministers tell the House that nobody has talked about those objectives for years and that there is absolutely no requirement for British Rail to abide by them; and for Tory Members then to abuse not the Government for their objectives but British Rail for carrying them out. There is an opportunity tonight for the Minister to clarify those matters.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Is my hon. Friend aware that such charges have led to the proposed closure of a railway line in my constituency which is used by Blue Circle to transport cement? The proposed closure of that line from 1 April will mean that the cement is carried on a rural, narrow road. The threat to the environment and to the safety of many people in the area, which the Government have established as a tourist area, will be great.
  Mr. Wilson: Let us take that as a test case. The Minister could return to his office tonight and sign a piece of paper which would put an end to that proposal here and now. It is a question of whether the Government will do that. They have stood idly by and brushed aside all such ideas. It is 18 months since the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) got a bit of cheap publicity by talking about transferring freight from road to rail. Since then, nothing has been done and freight has moved at an enormously fast rate in the other direction.
  Today, the Government have tabled proposals which are unexceptional. When will they be implemented? If the Government wait much longer, many more hundreds of thousands of tonnes will be lost by British Rail and many thousands of lorry loads will be transferred to the roads. That is the reality. Let us have a declaration tonight that the proposals will take effect immediately, although belatedly. All Labour Members will then be pleased to support the Government's freight proposals.
  I am interested in the idea that it is possible to subsidise freight. It is possible to accept the idea of no cost being made to the infrastructure by freight. Why was not that proposal accepted six months or a year ago? Why did not the Minister accept that proposal when we discussed it in a television studio less than three weeks ago? Everything in this game seems to have been thrown together at the last minute to put some gloss on the proposals.
  We have had an interesting preliminary debate tonight and we will proceed to an interesting preliminary vote. No hon. Member in the House should believe that it is anything more than that because the real debate is in the country. Today's events have accelerated the debate. The Secretary of State is losing the debate at a rapid rate of knots, even before people really start asking questions. As I said, people will be looking at the map and seeing which services are not on it.
  The west coast line has been referred to frequently tonight. Conservative Members also have an interest in that. Let us have another case study. The Minister should be able to tell us with some authority the future of investment in the west coast main line if the lines on the map are the first to be franchised, and if some gritty entrepreneur races trains up the east coast main line to take advantage of the £700 million or £800 million of public money which has been invested in it. Who will invest the money in the west coast main line?
  The Government must have some idea who will give the money to Railtrack for investment in the west coast main line. If the Minister cannot answer the question, it is fatuous for Conservative Members piously to hope that there will be investment in the west coast main line. The simple answer is that there would be no major investment in the west coast main line. We all know that trains can continue from Edinburgh to Glasgow as a result of development of the east coast main line.
  As a result of under-investment on the west coast main line and the increasing failure rate on that line because of the age of the infrastructure, how long will it be before Railtrack decides that the InterCity line will stop at Preston and thereafter be handed to Regional Railways? A similar pattern will be replicated all around the country. There will be Rolls-Royce lines on which a limited number of services will operate, and the rest will become feeder lines—second-rate and under-invested lines.
  Throughout the months of debate on the matter, I have not heard a satisfactory explanation about where the

  241
  investment in Railtrack will come from. I know the theory of where investment will come from for train operators—entrepreneurs will appear to run trains and merchant bankers will fall over themselves to invest money for the enormous rate of return which will be offered. However, I have never yet heard anyone seriously attempt to explain where the capital for Railtrack will come from—other than from the revenue raised through the operators. The operators will not be able to pay the costs needed to maintain the infrastructure. The infrastructure will diminish and we shall have fewer lines, fewer services and fewer passengers on the railways and more traffic and freight on the roads. That is the formula on offer. There will be no railcards, no national network benefits and a huge bureaucracy—a fact that will be more clearly understood as the debate continues.
  Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman be chivalrous enough to give way?
  Mr. Wilson: Of course.
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman challenges us, saying that there will be a huge bureaucracy. He will be amused to know that I have a little list of his own policy proposals on how to administer the railways in the public sector. He proposes a new transport forum, new regional authorities for strategic planning, a new transport users' body, new passenger safety inspectorates, a disputes ombudsman, a consumer protection commission and a railway commission. How can the hon. Gentleman accuse us of wanting to create a bureaucracy when his policy document calls for far more bureaucracy than our proposals would ever create? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  Mr. Wilson: It does not matter how much Conservative Members baa their approval The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is very weak. I must make an admission: I would not know how to run up a £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement even if I wanted to, and I do not. If the hon. Gentleman reads our document, he will find that our proposals come within the existing frameworks. If he really wants a fright, let him read the Government's policy documents and discover the range and number of quangos that they plan to put in place. The only spiritual and moral consolation that I can offer the hon. Gentleman is that there will probably be a few chairmen's jobs for his friends.
  We shall have more bureaucracy, fewer services, more freight on the roads, higher fares and no railcards. That is the prospectus on offer. The debate is not ending; it is beginning.
  9.36 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Some 22 right hon. and hon. Members have spoken in the debate, and I shall try to respond to all the points that have been made. On those that I cannot cover—in particular, those raised by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Members for York (Mr. Bayley) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones)—I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.
  Let me correct the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who opened his winding-up speech by saying that Conservative Members had sought to denigrate British Rail. No Conservative Member has criticised Sir Bob Reid or the management of British Rail.
  242
  We have merely said that we can get a better quality railway system by bringing in the private sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was right to point out the complicated bureaucratic nature of the proposals published by the Labour party yesterday, and I shall illustrate that point.
  The Select Committee rightly raised a number of unresolved issues. I shall deal briefly with five of the key issues. The first concerns franchising and open access. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has dealt with that by saying that, in respect of the first franchises, there may have to be a degree of exclusivity.
  Mr. Prescott: A monopoly.
  Mr. Freeman: No, not a monopoly. The competition will come from the private sector in the form of competition for the franchises. We do not rule out open access for some services, passenger or freight. We want a coherent railway system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has responded positively on that matter.
  Secondly, on the separation of track and operations—the important matter raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and for Christchurch (Mr. Adley)—there is room for argument on both sides. The Government have reached a clear conclusion. I will put to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch three questions concerning his proposal for large, vertically integrated, regionally-based franchises. First, how does one control access to those railway companies? That would be very difficult. In the late 19th century, when the House sought to legislate to encourage competition on the railway system, it found that railway companies controlling both infrastructure and operations were not keen to allow other rail operators on their tracks. Secondly, there is the difficulty of having a national, coherent track charging regime. Thirdly, infrastructure is extremely expensive. It is a little hard to accept that, in the early years of our reforms, private sector companies could be expected to come in and take responsibility not only for rolling stock but also for infrastructure.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Freeman: I have 22 hon. Members to reply to, and exactly 20 minutes in which to do so, so I shall not give way.
  Fourthly, it is very difficult to contemplate how a national timetable and national control over train paths would be consistent with regional, vertically integrated companies.
  The hon. Member for York rightly raised the question of network benefits. First, we are proposing that Railtrack should be responsible for producing a national timetable, as it will be responsible for controlling train paths. Secondly, we have said that it will be mandatory for rail operators to ensure through ticketing. Finally, on the question of discounts, the disabled card is the only genuinely socially necessary card. All the others were introduced by British Rail for commercial reasons—to increase the number of passengers on the railway network. Ministers do not direct British Rail to introduce railcards, and there is no evidence to indicate that, with the advent of private sector operation, cards will disappear.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Southport (Mr. Banks), for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin) and for Christchurch

  243
  asked about investment, as did the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). On the question of infrastructure, I can confirm that Railtrack, as a public sector body—which is what it will be initially—will be funded in exactly the same way as British Rail. It will have access to the national loans fund for its investment requirements and, in the case of the west coast main line, for tracks and signalling. It will be the responsibility not only of British Rail but of its successor, Railtrack, to ensure that investment is made. British Rail will make a start.
  Mr. John McAllion rose—
  Mr. Freeman: I have made it quite clear that I shall try to answer all the questions that hon. Members have put. I now have 19 hon. Members to reply to, and the hon. Gentleman is taking up time that should be spent on replies.
  Mr. McAllion rose—
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has not been here during the debate.
  The west coast main line infrastructure is badly needed, and I hope that in the next year British Rail will make a start on the resignalling work. That responsibility will continue under Railtrack.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury talked about rolling stock—an extremely important matter. We have asked British Rail, by Easter, to identify the lines—they may well include in the South Yorkshire PTE area the lines that the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) mentioned—on which the £150 million of additional resources for rolling stock procurement will be spent. That money will provide additional orders for the rolling stock manufacturers, and we want British Rail to continue to order rolling stock beyond that point. However, we need to see a private sector leasing market develop. I am convinced that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury indicated, the Government will have to assist that development, as no such market exists at present.
  As I have indicated to the hon. Member for York, I shall be very happy to meet representatives of the large manufacturing company in his constituency, as well as of GEC Alsthom, immediately, now that we have issued our document on rolling stock procurement, to seek their participation in the early development of a leasing market. We must maintain a high level of investment in our railway system, and we are quite convinced that the private sector can come in. As my hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the beginning of the debate, this will be supplemental to very great public sector support.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) asked what steps the Government were taking to develop the rail freight industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made some very important announcements, which were welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House, but particularly by those on the Conservative Benches. He said that for our new regime, when Railtrack is introduced, rail freight operators will be asked to pay as a minimum the
  244
  avoidable track costs—the marginal costs. That regime has applied hitherto in this country and it is favourable to the development of a rail freight industry.
  But the Secretary of State said that we would introduce a grant regime to pay the track costs of rail freight operators where that could be justified, and that was welcomed on the Conservative Benches. We have said that we intend to expand the section 8 grant scheme, including giving benefit to the calculation of motorway and trunk road miles avoided by freight which is carried by rail as opposed to road.
  As for combined transport, we have said that we shall issue a consultation document shortly to give a concession to lorries carrying 44 tonnes on six axles for the carriage of freight to rail terminals. I assure my hon. Friends who represent Kent constituencies that that concession will not apply in Kent because the channel tunnel will not be regarded as a rail terminal. We are directing the concession principally at the nine channel tunnel railheads throughout the country.
  I come to the announcement made by the Secretary of State about the seven lines which are to be prepared for franchising in 1994. They are the InterCity east coast, the InterCity Great Western, ScotRail, the south western division of Network SouthEast, London, Tilbury and Southend, the Victoria-Gatwick express and the Isle of Wight line. I have noted the warm support from Conservative Members for the selection of those franchises. Four specific questions have been asked—
  Mr. McAllion rose
  Mr. Freeman: I am seeking to answer the debate.
  Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister give way?
  Madam Speaker: Order. It must be obvious to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that the Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Freeman: I am doing the House the courtesy of seeking to answer the debate.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr. Day) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) have raised with me, either in the debate or separately, their natural concern about the prospect of a franchising system causing lines to close and services to end. I wish to make it absolutely clear that we intend the franchising director, when he is appointed, to start franchising with the existing timetable and existing services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today published a map showing precisely the routes, which include Penzance, Aberdeen and Inverness.
  Mr. Day: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the points that I raised. May I have an assurance that where passenger transport executives or passenger transport authorities exist the Bill will not affect their existence or in any way affect the structure of subsidies that the regime implies?
  Mr. Freeman: I can give those assurances, and in Committee we can go into those issues in detail. We propose no change to the responsibility of the PTAs and PTEs.
  My right hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) raised their concerns about increasing fares on lines which are franchised, and even those that are not. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and

  245
  Malling has at least suspended judgment on the matter, and I will explain briefly the logic of our position and why we believe that we have adequate controls over railway fares.
  We have said that franchising will be based on the existing timetable. We shall have a competition to see whether the subsidy that we pay to British Rail to run the existing timetable can be provided more cheaply by the private sector. That might well be an advantage. We propose a cap on fares for those services which are a monopoly, and I can confirm that the commuting lines into London constitute a monopoly.
  Network SouthEast fares have risen by an average of 2 per cent. above the retail price index over the last 10 years. In Committee we can go into the detail of how fares on Network SouthEast train services will be controlled.
  I should say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex that extra investment does not necessarily mean higher prices. If one takes airlines or long-distance coaches—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the Minister would use the microphone. I find it difficult to hear and we need his remarks to be recorded.
  Mr. Freeman: I shall address my remarks to the microphone, Madam Speaker. Extra investment does not necessarily mean higher fares. One can have additional investment in transport infrastructure. If it is provided more efficiently, fares are controlled.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) referred to the InterCity lines. We have proposed three initial franchises for InterCity services, but we have not ruled out continued use of the brand name. It is a successful brand name, but we have not ruled out co-operation by all InterCity services using and marketing that name.
  We have taken no decision on the ultimate shape of the transfer of InterCity to the private sector. That is many years in the future. We have begun the process and on the west coast main line urgent decisions about infrastructure and replacement of rolling stock need to be taken and are better taken in the next 12 months, outside the franchising system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) raised the question of management and employee participation. I am glad to tell him that some 20 management-employee buy-out groups have expressed an interest in participating in the reform of the railway system and in franchising. That is welcome and is a vote of confidence by the staff in our reforms.
  Mr. Wilson: What the Minister said about InterCity needs clarification. As I understand it, he said that franchising of all sections of InterCity was far in the future. Does that mean that there will be franchising of sections of InterCity and therefore that retention of InterCity for the foreseeable future is reasonable and logical? Would that be a reasonable interpretation?
  Mr. Freeman: No, it is not reasonable at all. I was talking about sale, which is far in the future. Here we are talking about franchising initially three InterCity services.
  I come now to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his press statement—the three-page news release which constitutes a summary of the Labour party approach to reform of the railways.
  246
  Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said, nor anything said by his hon. Friend who wound up, shakes my belief that the Labour party still believes in total state monopoly of British Railways, even the rail freight industry. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton reminded us, we would end up with even more control, a national plan and a national railways commission. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman talks about nine quangos, but my right hon. Friend said that under our proposals the only new function is for the regulator. All the other functions are already operating. The Labour proposals call for greater state control and no role for the private sector. The core of the proposals is borrowing by British Rail not only for extra subsidy and extra staff, but for additional investment. The hon. Gentleman's document says, essentially, that British Rail should be allowed to borrow from the private sector and implies that that private sector borrowing should somehow be disregarded in the public sector borrowing requirement.
  Mr. Prescott: The Minister must know from the autumn statement that my idea of a proportion of leasing agreement—namely, 10 per cent.—would be the only amount considered for the private sector borrowing requirement. That is exactly what the Chancellor has done. One does not have to count it all in the public sector borrowing requirement to borrow from the private sector.
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has never understood public expenditure accounting rules. I quote from what he said in the supply day debate on 12 January at column 782:
  "The private sector will not participate"
  —that is to say, lend money—
  "without some guarantee from the public sector."—[Official Report, 12 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 782.]
  Any borrowing from the private sector would not only be more expensive than borrowing from the gilt-edged market, but it would be ultimately a public sector responsibility and therefore count as public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to take private sector money when it is ultimately the responsibility of the taxpayer to ensure its repayment, but he does not want the active involvement or management participation of the private sector which will change the culture of British Rail. The hon. Gentleman's approach is disregard for the taxpayer and the consequences of borrowing, disinterest in rail freight and little reference to the passenger. In the Labour party's document I can find only two references to passengers. It is all about state monopoly and making sure that the passenger gets the service that British Rail wants to deliver.
  In the supply day debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch rightly said:
  "I should like the Government to go about bringing in the private sector initiative, energy, ambition and imagination that all Conservative Members recognise are missing from the railway system at present"—[Official Report, 12 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 809.]
  That sums up accurately the view on the Conservative Benches. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East wants the private sector's money but does not want private sector participation. We want to end the British Rail monopoly and bring in the private sector in partnership with British Rail both in terms of finance and in terms of operating the railways sytem so that we can develop the railways system further.

  247
  I find it very hard to perceive a consistent line from the Liberal Democrat party. The Independent on 17 September 1992 stated:
  "Malcolm Bruce, the Liberal Democrat trade and industry spokesman, called on the party to support genuine competition that will increase choice and improve services and argued that co-operation between British Rail and outside is worth looking into, but Beth Graham from Skipton and Ripon told the conference that when she first saw the document she said, 'I thought it had got into the wrong envelope and should have been sent to the Conservative party delegate.'".
  The leader and the trade and industry spokesman of the Liberal Democrat party are at variance not only with their party conference but with some of their colleagues.
  We want to see the development of a modern, competitive railway system which will be competitive because we want the private sector to compete in the franchising process. Already some 50 companies and 20 management-employee buy-outs have expressed an interest in running the services. That demonstrates the degree of interest in our reforms, and we have said that we will support British Rail in providing financial incentives to management-employee groups in bidding not only for parts of the freight industry but for franchises. We want a reliable railway network and a change in the culture—
  Mr. Prescott: Culture!
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman mocks it, but that is what our reforms will bring about.
  We want there to be an attitude of mind that puts the passenger first—a "can do" attitude. My hon. Friends will support Government proposals which put the passenger first and will ensure that with the addition of investment and the participation of the management and employees of British Rail under new leadership, the quality of our railway system will be improved. The Opposition's approach is not to end the state monopoly, to make no change in the ownership of the rail system, but to have increased national planning and extra borrowing from the public sector. I ask all Conservative Members to support the Bill and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 269.

  Division No. 138]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Amess, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ancram, Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ashby, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bowis, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Bright, Graham

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Bates, Michael

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Burns, Simon

  248

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butcher, John

  Harris, David

  Butler, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heald, Oliver

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Hendry, Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Churchill, Mr

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clappison, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Horam, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

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

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Eggar, Tim

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

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evennett, David

  Legg, Barry

  Faber, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Roger

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Malone, Gerald

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marland, Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hague, William

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hannam, Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  249

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Spring, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sproat, Iain

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stewart, Allan

  Norris, Steve

  Streeter, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Sumberg, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sweeney, Walter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sykes, John

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

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

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tredinnick, David

  Redwood, John

  Trend, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Richards, Rod

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Riddick, Graham

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waller, Gary

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Watts, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Sackville, Tom

  Whittingdale, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Willetts, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wilshire, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Wood, Timothy

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Yeo, Tim

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made—[Mr. Prescott]—and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House:—
  The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 303.

  Division No. 138]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Amess, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ancram, Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ashby, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bowis, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Bright, Graham

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Bates, Michael

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Burns, Simon

  248

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butcher, John

  Harris, David

  Butler, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heald, Oliver

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Hendry, Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Churchill, Mr

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clappison, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Horam, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

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

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Eggar, Tim

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

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evennett, David

  Legg, Barry

  Faber, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Roger

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Malone, Gerald

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marland, Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hague, William

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hannam, Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  249

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Spring, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sproat, Iain

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stewart, Allan

  Norris, Steve

  Streeter, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Sumberg, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sweeney, Walter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sykes, John

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

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

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tredinnick, David

  Redwood, John

  Trend, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Richards, Rod

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Riddick, Graham

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waller, Gary

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Watts, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Sackville, Tom

  Whittingdale, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Willetts, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wilshire, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Wood, Timothy

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Yeo, Tim

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Boateng, Paul

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Ainger, Nick

  Boyes, Roland

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, Keith

  Allen, Graham

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Alton, David

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

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

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ashton, Joe

  Burden, Richard

  Austin-Walker, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Barnes, Harry

  Caborn, Richard

  Barren, Kevin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beggs, Roy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bell, Stuart

  Cann, Jamie

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Clapham, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Betts, Clive

  Clelland, David

  Blair, Tony

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Blunkett, David

  Coffey, Ann

  250

  Cohen, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Connarty, Michael

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cousins, Jim

  Keen, Alan

  Cryer, Bob

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

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

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davidson, Ian

  Leighton, Ron

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dewar, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dixon, Don

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dobson, Frank

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McAllion, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McCartney, Ian

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eastham, Ken

  McFall, John

  Enright, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Etherington, Bill

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fatchett, Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marek, Dr John

  Foulkes, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fraser, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Martlew, Eric

  Galbraith, Sam

  Meacher, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Garrett, John

  Michael, Alun

  George, Bruce

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Milburn, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gould, Bryan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Graham, Thomas

  Morley, Elliot

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gunnell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hain, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Hall, Mike

  Murphy, Paul

  Hanson, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Olner, William

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Parry, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Pickthall, Colin

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pope, Greg

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hutton, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Illsley, Eric

  Radice, Giles

  Ingram, Adam

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jamieson, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  251

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Straw, Jack

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rogers, Allan

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rooney, Terry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dennis

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Tyler, Paul

  Rowlands, Ted

  Vaz, Keith

  Ruddock, Joan

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Salmond, Alex

  Wallace, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Joan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wareing, Robert N

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Watson, Mike

  Short, Clare

  Welsh, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

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

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

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

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winnick, David

  Snape, Peter

  Wise, Audrey

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Division No. 139]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Allen, Graham

  Cann, Jamie

  Alton, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Battle, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bell, Stuart

  Corbett, Robin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Benton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cryer, Bob

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Betts, Clive

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

  Blair, Tony

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blunkett, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boateng, Paul

  Darling, Alistair

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Davidson, Ian

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

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

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

  Dewar, Donald

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dixon, Don

  Burden, Richard

  Dobson, Frank

  Byers, Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Caborn, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  252

  Eastham, Ken

  McFall, John

  Enright, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Etherington, Bill

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fatchett, Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marek, Dr John

  Foulkes, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fraser, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Martlew, Eric

  Galbraith, Sam

  Meacher, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Garrett, John

  Michael, Alun

  George, Bruce

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Milburn, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gould, Bryan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Graham, Thomas

  Morley, Elliot

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gunnell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hain, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Hall, Mike

  Murphy, Paul

  Hanson, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Olner, William

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Parry, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Pickthall, Colin

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pope, Greg

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hutton, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Illsley, Eric

  Radice, Giles

  Ingram, Adam

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jamieson, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Janner, Greville

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Keen, Alan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Salmond, Alex

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Leighton, Ron

  Short, Clare

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Simpson, Alan

  Lewis, Terry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Snape, Peter

  McAllion, John

  Soley, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spearing, Nigel

  McCartney, Ian

  Spellar, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  253

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Watson, Mike

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stott, Roger

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Straw, Jack

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wise, Audrey

  Tipping, Paddy

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Tyler, Paul

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wallace, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walley, Joan

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  Wareing, Robert N

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Couchman, James

  Amess, David

  Cran, James

  Ancram, Michael

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Ashby, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dover, Den

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dunn, Bob

  Bendall, Vivian

  Eggar, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Elletson, Harold

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bowden, Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Freeman, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  French, Douglas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Gallie, Phil

  Burt, Alistair

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butcher, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Butler, Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  Gorst, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clappison, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hague, William

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Congdon, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Conway, Derek

  Hanley, Jeremy

  254

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Redwood, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Richards, Rod

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Key, Robert

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

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

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Luff, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spring, Richard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sproat, Iain

  MacKay, Andrew

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maclean, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stern, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stewart, Allan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marland, Paul

  Sykes, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mates, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thomason, Roy

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thurnham, Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

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

  Mills, Iain

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Trend, Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Trotter, Neville

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  255

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Willetts, David

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wilshire, David

  Waller, Gary

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Wolfson, Mark

  Watts, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Yeo, Tim

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Whitney, Ray

  Whittingdale, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Wilkinson, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion relating to the Railways Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  Question agreed to.

  Railways Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the following, namely—

  (a) the remuneration of, and any travelling or other allowances payable under the Act to, the Regulator, the Franchising Director and any staff of the Regulator or the Franchising Director, any other sums payable under the Act to or in respect of the Regulator or the Franchising Director and any expenses duly incurred by the Regulator or the Franchising Director, or by any staff of the Regulator or the Franchising Director, in consequence of the provisions of the Act;

  (b) any sums required by the Regulator for the payment of the remuneration of the chairman of a railway users' committee, any travelling or other allowances payable under the Act to such a chairman or to other members of such a committee, any sums payable by way of reimbursement of travelling or out-of-pocket expenses to members of a sub-committee of such a committee and any expenses incurred by such a committee;

  (c) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants—

  (i) to the Board or any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board, towards the expenditure of the Board or the subsidiary, as the case may be;

  (ii) to any successor company which is for the time being wholly owned by the Crown, towards the expenditure of that company;

  (iii) towards the provision of facilities which are to be provided by any person for or in connection with the carriage of goods by railway or inland waterway or the loading or unloading of goods carried or intended to be carried by railway or inland waterway;

  (d) any sums required for the making by the Franchising Director of grants or other payments under or by virtue of the Act;

  (e) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants or loans to a company in relation to which a railway administration order has been made;

  (f) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making any payment in respect of an indemnity given under the Act to a person appointed to achieve the purposes of a railway administration order;

  256

  (g) any expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Secretary of State in acquiring securities of a successor company;

  (h) any compensation payable by the Secretary of State in respect of compliance with directions given under the Act in time of hostilities, whether actual or imminent, severe international tension or great national emergency;

  (i) any sums required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling guarantees given under the Act;

  (j) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Treasury in consequence of the provisions of the Act;

  (k) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act;

  (2) the charging on, and issuing out of, the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling guarantees given under or by virtue of the Act;

  (3) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act for making loans to—

  (a) any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or

  (b) a successor company which is for the time being wholly owned by the Crown;

  (4) the reduction of the assets of the National Loans Fund by amounts corresponding to such liabilities—

  (a) of the Board, in respect of loans made to the Board under section 20 of the Transport Act 1962, or

  (b) of a successor company which is for the time being—

  (i) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board, or

  (ii) wholly owned by the Crown, in respect of any loans,

  as the Secretary of State may by order extinguish.— [Mr. Lightbown.]
  10-25 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: This is a desperately important point—a small point, but one that the Government must answer. My railway line has been privatised. As other hon. Members will know, the Secretary of State said that, for the first time on a privatisation issue, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 would apply. That means that a private undertaking will have to keep every employee whom it takes over, and will have to guarantee the wages of every existing employee. That is being done only because of the regulations, which are a direct consequence of a European directive that the Government were obliged to accept, against their wishes. Hon. Members who become excited about the social chapter should appreciate that, for the first time, we are saying to any privatised firm, "You must keep"—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would identify the part of the motion to which he is referring.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am referring to paragraph (2), which refers to the extra cash that will be involved. It is a simple point on which we must receive an answer. The Government will be faced with an enormous additional cost.
  As you will know, Madam Speaker, infraction proceedings were taken against us because formerly this applied only to commercial undertakings, but it now applies to local services and privatisation ventures. According to the proceedings, we had to agree that transfers not involving the transfer of property were covered, that non-commercial undertakings were covered, and that compensation for failure to consult could not be offset against wages or presented in lieu of notice. The only point not accepted by the Government is that those rights

  257
  should apply to all employees. I think that that is amazing. Here we have a Conservative Government saying that rights forced on us by the European Community against our wishes should apply only to trade unionists. What that means to the Southend line—
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that everyone who works on the railways in his constituency should join a trade union?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman must accept that this is a serious point. We are being forced, whether we like it or not, for the first time to use extra public funds to ensure continuity of employment and guaranteed wages for a privatisation venture, and it is relevant to paragraph (2) of the motion.
  Although we have no social chapter, the Government are saying that the only people to whom they will not give the money are those who are not members of trade unions. What do I tell the workers on the Southend line in my constituency? Presumably I am to tell them, "If you are a trade unionist, you need not worry about your job; it is guaranteed. You need not worry about your wages either. But, if you are not a trade unionist, we will kick you out of the door and offer you nothing"—and that will be that.
  Mr. Martlew: I repeat the question: is the hon. Gentleman telling his constituents that if they are not members of the rail trade unions, they should join—and quickly?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: This is not funny but desperately serious. We are talking about a new law that is being forced on Britain against our wishes. Instead of what happened under previous privatisations, which allowed the new employer to employ whom he wanted and to introduce new techniques, the employer is now being forced to take existing workers and to guarantee their wages.
  What am I to say to my workers on the Southend line? Because of a statement made in Committee last Thursday by the Minister of State for Employment, I must tell them that if they are trade unionists, their jobs will be guaranteed with the new employer and their wages guaranteed, but if they are not trade unionists, we can offer them nothing. Am I therefore to tell my workers that, under paragraph (2) of the money resolution, the Conservative Government are saying that we shall pay for them if they are trade unionists but that if they are not trade unionists, they have no rights or prospects.
  This is a desperately serious point. Public funds are involved. The Government are saying that, with these funds, they will subsidise the guarantee of employment and wages if workers are trade unionists but that they will not give the same rights to people who are not.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall not take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who merely wants to make trouble and is not interested in people or rights.
  How much money will be involved in guaranteeing the jobs, wages and conditions of my trade union members working for the Fenchurch Street line? How much money will be saved by telling people who are not trade unionists that the Conservative Government will do nothing for them and are not prepared to accept the final proposal?
  258
  In my 28 years in the House, I never thought that I would live to see the day when a Conservative Government would say that they will guarantee everything to trade unionists and pay extra cash, but that people who are not trade unionists have no rights or future. While I accept that the Bill will probably do some good for the Fenchurch Street line and that the Minister of State is a conscientious and sincere Minister who is doing his best, how can we, as Conservative Members, agree that trade unionists will have rights but that people who are not have no rights at all? That is wrong and completely contradicts everything that the Conservative party stands for. Why on earth should we agree to pass a law which goes against all that we stand for?
  The Secretary of State passed over the issue with one sentence, saying that the transfer of undertakings regulations will apply. The Minister of State must deal with this matter. How much money is involved, and why should we, as Conservative Members, give rights to trade unionists but none to people who think that they can protect their employment in other ways?
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: If the assertions made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) are correct, I am sure that my party will welcome the proposal. However, I suspect that they are not true. They sound superior to the provisions of the social chapter in the Maastricht treaty. I shall look forward with great interest to the Minister's response.
  I shall make four brief points. First, paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) of the money resolution relate to the financial provisions of the rail regulator and the franchising director. The Government's extraordinary position is that they will be paying out up to £15 million a year on an increase in bureaucracy. The money resolution and the explanation at the beginning of the Bill mean that the Government will be paying up to £15 million a year and employing 300 extra people but no additional benefits are specified for the passengers about whom the Minister spoke when winding up.
  It is worth considering the £15 million per year that the Government are so lightly casting away. The Minister of State refused to provide a guarantee for the leasing of rolling stock on the electrified section from Leeds to Bradford and the Aire Valley. As a result of that lack of guarantee, the Minister knows full well that the rolling stock on the electrified section will be not second-hand but ninth or tenth-hand. The threat of privatisation means that financial institutions are not prepared to provide finance for the building of the electrified rolling stock on that section of railway. The lack of finance means that the first job losses are in the offing at the Hunslet Engineering Company, which would have built the rolling stock if the privatisation proposals had not been forthcoming and the Treasury had provided a guarantee. The Bill that the Minister is supporting tonight is the means whereby jobs will be lost in the railway industry at Leeds and, as was shown clearly during the main debate, throughout the rest of the rolling stock and locomotive-building industries. The £10 million to £15 million provided for in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) of the money resolution for the rail regulator and the franchising director is real money.
  As outlined by the Secretary of State, the east coast main line will be one of the first lines to be franchised. The

  259
  electrification of the east coast main line has cost the taxpayer about £500 million. It is no wonder that it is on the first list of sections of railways to be franchised. It is the most modern and most invested section of British Railways and provides an excellent service. It is doing perfectly well. There is no need to franchise it, unless the friends of the Tory party want to line their pockets from increased passenger fares. [Interruption.] There is no other rational explanation. The service cannot be improved. The Minister of State made it clear in his speech that the Government had no criticisms of British Rail. The service on the east coast main line has received investment of £500 million and is first rate. We are talking about extension of a service which could not be financed because of the threat of privatisation. The money provided for in the money resolution is being thrown away on increased bureaucracy in the offices of the rail regulator and the franchising director.
  My second point relates to clause 122 in the Bill, which covers financial assistance to employee buy-outs. That financial assistance covers a wide range of activities, including the preparation of an employee buy-out. I have no doubt—the Minister of State may confirm this—that when employees get together they will employ consultants. Consultants are a growth industry. Some consultants want fees of £250,000 or £500,000. Such fees will be paid by the taxpayer. Clause 122 covers the whole cost of financial assistance to employee buy-outs. Such financial assistance might well cover vertical buy-outs such as buying the track, the rolling stock, the maintenance depots and all the infrastructure complete.
  What sort of money is envisaged under clause 122? Will it be £10 million, £20 million or £30 million, or even £100 million, £200 million, £300 million or £400 million? What sort of limit is being set? There is no indication of that in the money resolution. Where an assisted bidder is successful, the money will be recoverable, but where an assisted bidder is not successful, it will be lost in a big black hole of expenditure financed by the taxpayer. That is the position. I am very concerned about taxpayers' money—more so than the Government, it seems—and I want to know what sort of limit is to be set on expenditure under clause 122 and the associated provisions of the money resolution.
  Mr. William Cash: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that, under clause 118, which relates to financial provisions, the power to give directions with respect to public service obligations would enable payments of up to £3,000 million
  "or such greater sum not exceeding £5,000 million as the Secretary of State may by order specify"
  to be made under those directions?
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for raising that matter, to which I was coming but with which I shall not now deal in detail. It is a matter of great importance. First, the directions should come before Parliament—there is no provision in the Bill for that—and should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That would at least provide some degree of parliamentary accountability. Instead of that, the Government are granting a huge open-ended sum of money on the basis of a money resolution which, in the ordinary course of events, would go through on the nod.
  260
  Most Conservative Members were hoping that that was exactly what would happen tonight. There were the usual moans and groans when I rose to exercise some degree of scrutiny. Conservative Members talk about wanting to protect taxpayers' money, but in reality they are prepared to let billions of pounds go through on the nod. The hon. Member for Stafford has made a perfectly good point, but will his name be on the list in Hansard tomorrow of those who voted against the Bill? That is the acid test of an hon. Member's determination to protest at the flaws in a Bill.
  My third point concerns railway administration orders made under clause 53 and covered by paragraph (1)(e) of the money resolution. Railway administration orders are the result of recognition by the Government that competition implies a race: the losers are the companies which are forced into liquidation and the winners are those which pick up the small companies, take them over, close them down or force them to the wall. That is the system that the Government appear to like, but in this instance things will not work in quite the same way. The Government know full well what competition means and, in the ordinary course of events, they do not mind. They do not mind if DAF goes to the wall, with 5,000 engineering jobs and a further 10,000 associated jobs at stake. That is part of competition. People will pick up the pieces. The company will be bought. The President of the Board of Trade told us that some jobs will be recoverable, but the rest will go to the wall.
  In the case of the railways, however, such circumstances would result in a break in service. That does not happen with British Rail, which is bound to provide services. There has been continuity of service. If British Rail wants to close a line—even a link line on which a passenger service operates perhaps half a dozen times a year—it must use the long-established procedure and go through the Transport Users Consultative Committee. BR cannot close a line without the approval of the committee and the Secretary of State. So far, the system has worked pretty well, but the Government know that they are introducing a system under which a guarantee cannot be given, so railway administration orders are to be introduced. If a company cannot carry out its franchise—in other words, it is broke—the Government will provide loans and grants to enable the services to continue. It is a very curious system, and a complex negation of the philosophy that the Government apply outside this highly complex, difficult and crazy situation. The system that was applied to Leyland DAF is not to be applied to British Rail, where the Government are to give guarantees.
  I hope that the Minister will reply comprehensively to the points raised at this stage. The ways and means motion has still to come and, as the Ministers knows, it is open-ended as regards time. If we decide that it should be examined in detail, the Government may have to resort to a closure motion. It depends entirely whether the Minister gives comprehensive answers at this stage. I hope that he has some idea of how much he is going to spend. The House of Commons is giving him authority to spend money. I do not believe that Governments should be given open-ended authority to spend. We should be told just what sort of expenditure the Government have in mind.
  Mr. Barry Field: The hon. Gentleman has said that things have been run fairly well so far. He might be interested to look at the reply to a parliamentary question that I received last Friday, which reveals that

  261
  more than 500,000 people are entitled to concessionary travel on British Rail by virtue of present or past employment. I was told that British Rail does not know the cost of that scheme. If the cost of each journey were £5, £6 or £10, that would represent many millions of pounds per annum. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that things have been run fairly well so far, or that there has been proper accounting.
  Mr. Cryer: It is very interesting and curious that the hon. Member is so concerned about expenditure by British Rail. No doubt he, like me, wants to know the expenditure involved under all the headings in the money motion—but neither is there any doubt that if there is a Division the hon. Gentleman will go into the Aye Lobby as instructed by the Whips. We do not need the hon. Gentleman's lessons about control of expenditure and whether British Rail is subject to such control, as it ought to be. Has the hon. Gentleman ever tabled a question about the mileage that Ministers cover each year in their concessionary cars? That would be a very interesting figure, but it might be too costly for the Minister to find out. Ministers like to hide information of that sort, whereas I am all in favour of rooting it out. I hope that, in this respect, the hon. Gentleman's zeal is as extensive as mine.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
  Mr. Cryer: I do not want to be dragged too far down these byways, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) gave the impression that British Rail did not know the cost of a scheme. I hope that it was not the hon. Gentleman's intention to give an impression of inefficiency. Does he agree that, as trains are running anyway, it is likely that the actual cost of additional passengers is impossible to calculate? The accountant on the Front Bench may be able to confirm that, while an estimate is possible, an exact computation is not. That is the economy of British Rail.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his elucidation.
  I should like now to refer to the fact that the board's business is to be taken over by successor companies. The money motion gives the Minister power to provide, from the national loans fund, loans that the Secretary of State may then extinguish. That is a matter for concern. If the successor companies receive significant amounts of money by way of loans, the taxpayer will yet again have to foot the bill for realisation of the ideological fantasies of the railway lunatics on the Treasury Bench. Assets will be improved. The successor companies will take them over in pristine condition, not because of private investment—the wonderful icon of the Government—but by virtue of taxpayers' investment through the concession authorised by this money resolution.
  Before the House is one of the longest money resolutions that I can recall seeing. Because this is a complicated Bill designed to apply a complicated, not to say daft, set of organisational attitudes, the Government have been anxious to cover every eventuality. I hope that the Minister will give a proper reply because we are not here just to cover the Government's idiosyncratic views. We are also here to ensure that they are not running away
  262
  with taxpayers' money. Because the Government are accountable, albeit to a limited degree, the Minister must answer the questions that hon. Members have asked.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I wish to raise a few points for clarification, or consolation. Will the railways, as a result of the Bill and the money resolution, be freed from the tyranny of the annual accounting which has made it difficult for investment? I recall the chairman of British Rail saying that the biggest change from the private sector, from which he had come, was that whereas if, for whatever reason—even the weather—it did not suit a private company to invest, that was all right, but if he could not make an investment when he was running BR, he stood a chance of losing the money because of the way in which the Treasury did its accounting. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
  There is much reference in the resolution to assets. The asset that worries my constituents most is that which is involved in keeping their local stations open. May we be assured that large numbers of local stations will not be closed because of the company's intention to maximise the use of the assets in non-railway ways?
  There is power under the resolution to provide subsidy, which is essential to the commuters of Kent. On the other hand, there is anxiety locally lest we become a subsidy Cinderella and be an unglamorous part of the railway system, as we are at present. Does the Minister see better times ahead in that connection?
  I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State take what I hope will be the first bold steps towards levelling the playing field between railways and motorways. Life for my constituents is almost intolerable just now because we have works on every road and on railways throughout the county. Hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent by BR on the railways and equal amounts are being spent by the Department of Transport on the motorways. The difference is that BR's money comes out of the total stock of BR's money—and the railways must choose between spending it that way or buying rolling stock—whereas money for the motorways comes from the taxpayer. In the latter case, people do not have to choose between buying motor cars and buses.
  I think I heard the Minister say that the freight facilities grant will now take account of a notional sum for the number of lorries removed from the roads. That is an enormously welcome development, if it is true, and it is regrettable that it was not available when RailEurope's plans for the Kent rail link were under discussion. It would have had a considerable effect on the sums in that case. It is essential to Kent to have this equalisation of the playing field. We desperately need to take lorries off the roads. Some 70 per cent. of United Kingdom trade will pass to mainland Europe and by the end of the century the great majority of that will pass through Kent.
  Finally, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether some of the money under this resolution will be made available to engineer the channel tunnel rail link, when it comes to environmentally protected standards. I understand that there is a good chance that the Kings Cross low-level station is about to be removed from the agenda. If that is so, there will be a massive saving, and I hope that I can be assured that some of that saving will be spent on making the channel tunnel rail link environmentally

  263
  friendly, because all the rumours I have heard suggest that the link will be anything but environmentally friendly because it will be stripped to the bone.
  I hope that under this resolution no more money will be given to Union Rail, whose chairman has produced what is probably the most insulting remark that even the arrogant British Rail and its subsidiaries have been able to produce over the past few months: they have said that their project is so important that no parish council should be allowed to have an effect upon it. That is the kind of contempt for democracy that means that Union Rail should cease to have any money from the Government.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like to put several questions to the Minister. One was asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe): whether the Government will undertake, if they are to authorise by this money resolution the expenditure or borrowing of so much money, to guarantee in every case that the highest environmental requirements will be met. The hon. Member referred to reports that, for example, on the channel tunnel rail link and elsewhere on these routes, there would not be the environmental safeguards originally proposed. If we are to commit so much money additionally, and to give the opportunity to borrow it, there is no excuse for not having the highest environmental standards.
  There is an even shorter point which Ministers will anticipate from me. If it is expedient to spend so much money on doing something that most people in Britain do not want, and to borrow so much money for a proposal that they do not support, why is it not expedient either to give or to borrow money to make up the £70 million necessary to give the go-ahead for the Jubilee line?
  If we are asked to authorise this expenditure, it seems to me mere peanuts to ask the Government to put their hands in their pockets for the money to give the Jubilee line extension the green light. It is a mere bauble. I will reserve my position on the money resolution until I have seen that green light and heard the chinking of cash from the Government. It could be a loan, if necessary. This money resolution provides an opportunity for the Minister to be popular in one bound.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. William Cash: First, I should like to endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) about the employment provisions. There is absolute absurdity in a Conservative Government, in a nutshell, ending up protecting trade unionists at the expense of those who are not trade unionists.
  I cannot for the life of me understand, even if one wanted to protect trade unionists, the idea that, with these liabilities contained in schedule 6 to the Bill, and under clause 118, in the transfer of undertakings provisions that go right to the heart of the money resolution, we should be protecting one kind of worker as compared with another. It does not make any sense. If it is going to be done at all, it should be done equally.
  Having said that, I should like to refer to the way in which the subsidies will operate in relation to the money
  264
  resolution. I have already raised the issue with my hon. Friend the Minister. Although we have become used to not getting answers on Maastricht, perhaps we can have an answer on the money resolution about the implications of the new privatised rail system for the subsidies from the European Community under the European regulations.
  My hon. Friend knows that the arrangements which are made through the European Community go back to the Transport Act 1968 and the European Council regulation of 1969, which was amended in 1991. They raise the question of the public service obligation, which is at the heart of the financial status of the privatised rail system.
  I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that directions given by way of compensation under the relevant clause would enable sums of between £3 billion and £5 billion to be given not merely by the Secretary of State, as has been the case so far, but also by the franchising director. That is a new dimension.
  It struck me as interesting, to say the least, that the amount that the British Railways Board is allowed to borrow at the moment under the British Railways Board (Finance) Act 1991 is precisely the same as the amount of money that the franchising director is able to give by way of directions—the limit being £3 billion at the lower level and £5 billion at the upper level. If the franchising director is allowed that degree of power, we need to know how accountable the system will be. It is not simply a question of whether the Secretary of State has the power; the franchising director has it too.
  I should also like an answer on what the European Transport Commissioner had to say about the privatisation of our rail system. I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not going outside the money resolution, because the question of moneys payable to us through the European Community arises not only by way of borrowing but also by way of grants. Grants can come from the European Community to fulfil our public service obligations.
  As I understand it, the European Transport Commissioner issued a threat that, if we privatised our rail system, we could not expect the same subsidies as other member states. That is an intolerable state of affairs. I may not be an enthusiast for subsidies, but I am damned if this country should receive an unfair allocation of its share of European moneys when the French, the Germans and the other countries in the European Community are receiving subsidies, and we, as a result of going down this route, are put in an unfair and unreasonable position vis-a-vis the other member states. I raised this point in the trans-European networks debate, and I received no reply. The Minister was on the Front Bench on that occasion, and I would like some clarification.
  We are not talking about peanuts but about the payment of a massive amount of money from the European taxpayer, which is directly related to the manner in which the privatised rail arrangement is being worked out.
  I take something of an interest in such matters, not least because my great great grandfather founded the London to Brighton railway in 1830—a great privatised railway, in the days when we did not have to unscramble the situation. Just as he inquired into the finances of George Hudson, the railway king and great monopolist, I should like to be sure

  265
  that we are going to make everyone, whether in the House or in the European Community, accountable for the vast sums of money that are being used in relation to the Bill.
  I shall reserve my decision on the vote on the money resolution until I have heard the answers to those questions. I am as interested as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) in the Jubilee line, because my constituency is equally—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. If the hon. Member wants to hear answers, he will have to give the Minister time to give them.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have concluded my remarks.
  11.5 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked about the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which deal with the transfer of conditions of employment. I can confirm that British railways are in exactly the same position as any other industry or employer. The regulations apply to the franchising of railway operations in the same way as they apply to changes in the private sector—for example, when one company is reorganised or merges with another. The provisions apply to all staff, whether or not they are members of trade unions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is right when he draws a distinction between those staff who have a right to consultation and those who have not. I understand that the Minister responsible in the Department of Employment has recently made it clear that, in the Government's judgment, those consultation rights should only be extended to the recognised trade union.
  As far as the Railways Bill is concerned, the railways are no different from any other enterprise, industry or business. The regulations apply across the board. I have noted carefully what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East had to say on the matter. If he will permit me, because it is important, I shall correspond with him after I have discussed the matter with my colleague in the Department of Employment.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke about four issues. I shall see if I can answer him in the order that he mentioned them.
  First, he pointed out that the £15 million for the cost of the franchising director, his staff and the regulator would cover approximately 50 per cent. of the cost of the new rolling stock. He and I both agree that new rolling stock is needed for the Leeds-Bradford electrification system. He may not have been in the Chamber when, in response to the speech by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), I gave an undertaking that I would meet the chairman of the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority, because it is possible that British Rail could use part of the new £150 million leasing facility to lease new rolling stock to come on to the electrification system. That is a matter for BR.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South asked about management and employee buy-outs. I confirm that the limit is £100,000 per management-employee group interested in organising a bid. Obviously, the total expenditure, which must come out of British Rail's
  266
  external financing limit, depends on the number of groups, but I said earlier—the hon. Gentleman may not have been here—that about 20 groups had expressed interest. Whether they will all move to the stage of requiring financial assistance for professional advice remains to be seen.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South also asked me about the budget under the railway administration orders. That will fall to the franchising director's budget, which is essentially the total of the passenger service obligation grant. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is approximately £1,000 million. We shall shortly set the sum for 1993–94. The franchising director—distributing public subsidy and accountable to this House through the Secretary of State—will have to find all the moneys that he provides for subsidised services, and he is accountable for them.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about loans to British Rail. There may be occasions when it is necessary to consider extinguishment. The channel tunnel preparations are an example. For various reasons—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) knows this better than anyone—British Rail has been engaged during the past three or four years in some abortive work. Debt moneys have accumulated because British Rail has had to spend money on acquiring properties and preparing for routes that are not being taken forward. It may be sensible under this Bill—I give no guarantees—to extinguish that debt because it carries interest and is a burden on the railways. British Rail itself made a decision about properties purchased and preparations made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent asked me specifically about the freight facilities grant. I can confirm to him that what we have announced tonight is the extension of the grant to cover the removal of freight from the roads, motorways and trunk roads, so it is a valuable addition. At the moment, as my hon. Friend knows, it covers only urban and rural roads, but if it is extended to motorways and trunk roads there is a possibility that more shippers of freight will be persuaded to ship by rail rather than by road.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) talked about the highest environmental standards.
  It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the following, namely—

  (a) the remuneration of, and any travelling or other allowances payable under the Act to, the Regulator, the Franchising Director and any staff of the Regulator or the Franchising Director, any other sums payable under the Act to or in respect of the Regulator or the Franchising Director and any expenses duly incurred by the Regulator or the Franchising Director, or by any staff of the Regulator or the Franchising Director, in consequence of the provisions of the Act;

  (b) any sums required by the Regulator for the payment of the remuneration of the chairman of a railway users' committee, any travelling or other allowances payable under the Act to such a chairman or to other members of such a committee, any sums

  267
  payable by way of reimbursement of travelling or out-of-pocket expenses to members of a sub-committee of such a committee and any expenses incurred by such a committee;

  (c) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants—

  (i) to the Board or any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board, towards the expenditure of the Board or the subsidiary, as the case may be;

  (ii) to any successor company which is for the time being wholly owned by the Crown, towards the expenditure of that company;

  (iii) towards the provision of facilities which are to be provided by any person for or in connection with the carriage of goods by railway or inland waterway or the loading or unloading of goods carried or intended to be carried by railway or inland waterway;

  (d) any sums required for the making by the Franchising Director of grants or other payments under or by virtue of the Act;

  (e) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants or loans to a company in relation to which a railway administration order has been made;

  (f) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making any payment in respect of an indemnity given under the Act to a person appointed to achieve the purposes of a railway administration order;

  (g) any expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Secretary of State in acquiring securities of a successor company;

  268

  (h) any compensation payable by the Secretary of State in respect of compliance with directions given under the Act in time of hostilities, whether actual or imminent, severe international tension or great national emergency;

  (i) any sums required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling guarantees given under the Act;

  (j) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Treasury in consequence of the provisions of the Act;

  (k) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act;

  (2) the charging on, and issuing out of, the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling guarantees given under or by virtue of the Act;

  (3) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act for making loans to—

  (a) any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or

  (b) a successor company which is for the time being wholly owned by the Crown;

  (4) the reduction of the assets of the National Loans Fund by amounts corresponding to such liabilities—

  (a) of the Board, in respect of loans made to the Board under section 20 of the Transport Act 1962, or

  (b) of a successor company which is for the time being—

  (i) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board, or

  (ii) wholly owned by the Crown, in respect of any loans,

  as the Secretary of State may by order extinguish.

  Railways Bill (Ways and Means)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the inclusion in licences granted under the Act of conditions requiring the rendering of payments to the Secretary of State or the Rail Regulator;

  (b) the inclusion in franchise agreements, within the meaning of the Act, of conditions requiring the rendering of payments to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising;

  (c) the inclusion of provisions under which monetary penalties may be imposed on persons who contravene or fail to comply with conditions or requirements imposed by or under the Act;

  (d) the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions relating to the taxation of persons who are transferors or transferees in relation to transfer schemes under the Act;

  (e) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.— [Mr. Chapman.]

  11.10 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On this not very usual motion for receipt of moneys it is clear that the Secretary of State intends to receive moneys for licences and a good many other issues. I wish to speak on three relatively short matters and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me a reply. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is also here.
  The first matter may not be strictly in order. The question is whether it is. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) mentioned Union Rail. I take it that in the ambit of the Act-to-be there will be some arrangement between the Government and Union Rail and that the latter will be paying some money into Government funds in respect of licences issued. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent mentioned the fact that Union Rail will be funded by public and private money. He also expressed some dissatisfaction about the relationships between Union Rail and its senior staff and the people in the area. He mentioned a parish council in Kent.
  If this money is coming back from Union Rail when it becomes a private, floated firm under the Act, as I presume that it will, can the Minister use his powers to persuade those officials to liaise more courteously with the people on the route of the railway? When it is running, it will be paying money to the Government. At present the route has still to be decided, but I have heard from my local borough council that Union Rail officials are unwilling to go through the usual consultation procedures in a few weeks' time when the route has been made public.
  I wish to express the grave dissatisfaction of the people in the Newham and Stratford area about this because it would be a major feature of the area and the Union Rail officials appear not to be very much concerned about the financial arrangements that they would make for such consultation. They will have to deal with the matter ultimately through a statutory instrument rather than a private Bill, which makes public relations on the spot even more important.
  The second matter that I wish to raise—I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is here for it—is the question of payments of franchises into the Government funds in respect of this order. The Secretary of State comes from Norfolk. His local depot is, I think, Crown Point, Norwich. I received an answer from the Minister on 28 January which could well apply to that local depot of his.
  270
  I asked him what would happen when various franchisees of existing services shared maintenance depots and stabling yards, and what arrangements would be made; they would all have to pay money to the Government. The Minister courteously replied:
  "Where the depot concerned is dedicated to a passenger service which is to be let as a single franchise, the depot will usually be leased for the period of the franchise to the incoming franchisee. Where one franchisee will be the predominant user of the depot, he will usually acquire the lease subject to conditions requiring him to make facilities available to other operators. In some cases, it may be feasible to divide a depot into separate parts for use by different operators, or to lease a depot to a third party maintenance operator."—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 800.]
  All those involved will be paying money to the Government.
  I ask the Secretary of State, who is present today and who represents an important part of East Anglia, what will happen if Crown Point depot, Norwich has no fewer than two or three franchises? It is difficult enough to run as it is, as are those at Cambridge and Ilford. Years ago, they were all run under the single administration of the former Great Eastern railway. The finances and arrangments for lessees, sub-letting, and all the operational problems that will arise under the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, the Bill and the ways and means motion could cause grave difficulty and disrupt the former Great Eastern railway services between InterCity and Regional Railways. Those services are already disrupted and already cause difficulties, as the Secretary of State's constituents know.
  My next question on payments is more important than the others put together. As I understand it, under the motion, payments in respect of licences will be made to the Secretary of State or the rail regulator. That money has to come from somewhere. It will come from charges made by the franchiser for the traffic, whether freight or passenger, plus any money that the Secretary of State receives for necessary public services—he currently receives money for the buses. We shall start with the existing timetable, but that could be adjusted. An amount will be paid to Railtrack and an amount to the Secretary of State.
  The Secretary of State and the Minister have repeatedly said, publicly and in answer to questions, that the franchiser will be more effective and efficient in his operation than existing British Rail. That is a hope rather than a proven fact. I asked a question, which was again courteously answered by the Minister. I asked him to identify
  "those services or operations which can be made more effective or efficient consequent to the enactment of the Railways Bill"—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 799.]
  As a consequence of the ways and means motion, more money will be paid from those services—I see the Minister nodding. I received no precise answer, but was told:
  "All passenger and freight services should be capable of more effective or efficient operation as a result of our reform proposals."—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 800.]
  I am a little foxed by that. It is a matter of hope and faith —not accountancy, on which the Minister is a known expert.
  I want to ask the Minister an important question about efficiency and the income from which the money will be paid. An experienced railway person recently said to me, "Nigel, they will cut the wages and make the conditions more difficult—that is how they will improve efficiency."

  271
  According to that experienced person, the only scope for major efficiency increases and the only source for the funds was the efficiency that would result from reductions in labour costs and changes in the conditions of work and service. I do not know whether that is in the minds of the Government or of those currently preparing the franchises. I wondered whether it was, and I asked the Minister a question which he has not answered today.
  I asked the Minister what consideration had been given to maintaining a single conciliation service consequent upon the implementation of the Railways Bill and what assessment had been made of the desirability of maintaining a single structure of training and qualifications for various grades of personnel—other than the funding, I said in qualification, of the internal training and supervision which will be required anyway. I presume that that will be done on some railway association basis because one would expect grades of personnel in training and matters of safety to be on a national basis. We would expect there to be a single national bargaining arrangement for those grades of skill, experience, knowledge and training, particularly for people in crucial positions such as signalmen and drivers on whom the lives of others depend.
  Otherwise, one railwaycompany—one franchisee—might begin to undercut another. There would be a market, just as there is informally inside British Rail, but on a single level of payment qualification and returns.
  That is an important financial matter because the payments which will have to be made to the Secretary of State, Railtrack and all the others, will be crucial to the financial profits that the franchisers are expected to earn. We all know that in railways—my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will correct me if I am wrong—by far the largest expenditure, other than for Railtrack which is being dealt with separately, will be staff wages and salaries.
  At this point, I conclude with a matter which both the Secretary of State and the Minister for Public Transport should bear in mind. In today's debate they have constantly used the word "culture". They are not particularly well informed on railway matters, although the Minister for Public Transport has learnt quite a lot in the past year or two, and I pay tribute to the personal care and attention that he has taken. There is and will be a railway culture. A railway requires those who operate it to have a particular way of life. I speak as a Member who has represented people working in two large railway depots—Old Oak Common on the Great Western, and Stratford on the former Great Eastern. Many of my former constituents and present constituents work in those areas.
  Railway workers have 24-hour cycle. The railway is like a factory strung out over hundreds of miles where operatives are not in an office or workshop. They keep it going almost every day of the year except Christmas. That creates the sort of culture that is found among people who work together, sometimes in dangerous conditions, and who depend on one another for their own and their passengers' safety. They often come from families with the proud traditions of those who serve the railways.
  There is a railway culture, and I put it to the House that it is a good, proper and useful culture which serves the passeners. I use the word "passengers" because they are
  272
  passengers and owners, not just customers, as they are referred to on the tannoy. The idea of being customers of a public service that we currently own is one that jars.
  Conservative Members mistakenly believe that some of the things that they would like to see—which we would all like to see, but which do not always happen—are the fault of some trade union or Labour plot to hold up progress. There may have been some tiny grains of truth in that in the past, or even in the present, but it is largely a myth and a miasma. As to the culture among the conciliation grades—I use that word advisedly—before the public ownership of railways, the Association of Railway Companies got together and agreed with the National Union of Railwaymen historically as to the conciliation grades. A national machinery existed to deal with such matters.
  In my experience—and, I am sure, in that of virtually all right hon. and hon. Members—if one meets railwaymen and their families, one knows of the attitude that railwaymen bring to their jobs. If there is a negative culture, it is with management, who have been forced into adopting certain attitudes and ways which have not been entirely healthy in the past few years. If there has been a negative attitude, it has been found among management, not in the conciliation grades.
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give an assurance that neither he nor the franchise holders to whom he will grant licences are seeking greater efficiency not through better services but through lower costs, by providing lower returns to those who give their lives—often to the inconvenience of their families, because of non-social hours—to the service of the public in our great railway industry.
  11.25 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport on offering to franchise the dreadful line that goes through my constituency. It could not possibly be run more inefficiently or unreliably than it is at present, so therefore—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Lady continues. I remind her that the resolution's subject is fairly narrow and does not allow for debate on general policy.
  Mrs. Gorman: I was coming to the important point, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that the Government have already promised £50 million to update that line. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I would like him to confirm that that money is still on the table and will be in addition to any other moneys allocated to that line.
  As to through ticketing—which is another financial issue—will my hon. Friend confirm that the proposal will not in any wary harm bus companies that want to take on a franchise, and that they will not find themselves falling under the auspices of the Office of Fair Trading, which might otherwise consider that a monopoly was being developed?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That issue is beyond the scope of this debate.
  Mrs. Gorman: I understand, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have concluded my remarks.
  11.27 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I have two questions about the charges that can be imposed under the ways and means resolution. The first relates to the exceptionally large number of small concerns—many of them run voluntarily—embraced by the Bill.
  It is not generally appreciated that clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill apply to every railway any description whatsoever—not just to British Rail but to the Tyne and Wear Metro; London Underground; the Ffestiniog railway; the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch railway; the Tanfield railway; the Heatherstane Law railway; and the Keighley and Worth Valley railway—with which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is well associated. For that matter, clauses 6 and 7 apply also to the 9in gauge railway capable of carrying passengers that runs through a park or one that is erected on a temporary basis for a particular event, such as a model railway exhibiton. That still constitutes the running of a railway.
  It follows that all railways embraced by clauses 6 and 7 can be the subject of charges imposed as part of the licence conditions by the Secretary of State or the regulator. Voluntary railways had no idea until the day that the Bill was published that it would embrace them, and they are concerned to know the charges and licence arrangements to which they will be subject.
  From the day of Royal Assent, it will be an offence for those railways to run unless they have an exemption certificate or licence granted by the Secretary of State or the regulator. We do not know the charge that will be imposed for that certificate or licence. Will it be nominal—50p, say—or will it be related to the scale of operation of a big franchise holder, such as that which takes on the east coast main line and be many thousands of pounds? How is a small organisation such as the North Yorkshire Moors railway to find the money to pay such a charge, if it were that kind of figure?
  Is it certain that, on payment of the charge, the exemption or licence will be issued immediately? These are railways that organise for the tourist trade each season, and will not necessarily know—even if they have paid the charge specified in the motion—that they will be free to operate when the operating season starts. What will be the position of voluntary model railway organisations that pay the charge but do not know whether they will receive a licence in time for children to ride on their trains on the day of the fete?
  Although all that is embraced in the Bill, nothing said by the Minister has explained why all those railways are involved, or why they are to be subject to charges. In fact, I know why they are all involved: they are all involved in the Government's desperate attempt to prevent the Bill from becoming hybrid. The Government have taken every inch of railway track in the country into the scope of the Bill, and said, "Never mind; there will be licences and exemptions. You will be all right." The ways and means resolution, however, allows charges to be imposed with those licences.
  In my view, none of those organisations should be charged a penny. What have they done to deserve it? They have simply set up trusts to run railways, often taking over railways abandoned by British Rail. They provide a popular and attractive tourist facility which is much admired by visitors to this country. Now they are being
  274
  told that they cannot operate unless they obtain the necessary exemption or licence from the Secretary of State or the regulator.
  We are not talking here about light railway orders or safety provisions; those are covered separately in existing regulations. We are talking about an Act that will prevent operators from running any such railway unless they have satisfied the Secretary of State that they should have exemptions or licences—and, under this motion, he may impose a charge for a licence. Moreover, for all we know, he may take months to grant it.
  The Minister may think that that is no problem. He may say that the Government had to include the provision to prevent the Bill from becoming hybrid. But he should know bureaucracies well enough to realise that that could become a significant obstacle to a great many organisations running the railways to which I have referred.
  My second question about the charges that will be imposed under the ways and means resolution relates to operators who take on franchises for the main routes—for example, the east coast main line. Will the imposition of charges and the monetary penalties mentioned in paragraph (c)—penalties
  "imposed on persons who contravene or fail to comply with conditions or requirements imposed by … the Act"—
  be used by the regulator as a means of maintaining quality of service? That is an important question.
  We understand that Mr. Richard Branson is willing to take on the east coast main line if he can run a non-stop line from London to Edinburgh. That may be fine for people who wish to travel from London to Edinburgh, or vice versa; but it is not much consolation to the inhabitants of Berwick-upon-Tweed, Alnmouth, Newcastle, York, Northallerton, Durham or anywhere else between the two cities.
  This afternoon, the Secretary of State made an important and relevant statement: he said that the franchises would be based on the existing timetable. From that we must conclude that all the stops that now exist at such places as Alnmouth and Berwick must be maintained by the franchisee. But what happens if the franchisee says, "I have had enough of this; I do not want my trains to stop at these places. I think that I might be able to get some more Edinburgh passengers if I go flying through all these stations"? Will he incur a monetary penalty under paragraph (c)? If not, has the regulator any other way of controlling a franchisee who starts to depart from the existing timetable?
  I an not arguing that existing timetables are sacrosanct; indeed, the best argument for bringing private contractors on to the railways is the possibility of their adding services that are not on the existing timetable. We all know, however, that the reverse could easily happen: under these arrangements, stations that now have services may lose them. I want to know whether Ministers see the penalties referred to in the motion as a way of ensuring that franchisees provide services to all the stations that now have services on the line. If not, what will be the mechanism for ensuring continuing compliance with the responsibility to maintain the existing timetable?
  11.33 pm
  Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend the Minister be good enough to deal with some of the matters that I raised on the previous motion, as they apply to the ways and means resolution?
  11.34 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I too want to deal with the private railways established from the 1960s onwards. Some Tory Members may not think that the legislation is needlessly bureaucratic or that it will impose another layer of administration, but they are wrong.
  The Keighley and Worth Valley light railway in which I happen to own five £10 shares, which have never paid a dividend—and I should reject it if they ever did—was established as a preservation society in 1962. It obtained a light railway order in 1967 and a transfer order in 1968. An inspection of the operation and rules of operating the railway was carried out under the chief inspecting officer, then Colonel J. R. H. Robertson. From 29 June 1968, that five-mile branch of railway has been operating safely in the metropolitan borough of Yorkshire. Over the years, it has developed a relationship with British Rail which gives it access to traffic that it obtains via the British Rail network. For example, it sometimes runs excursions from the Worth valley to various destinations, hauled in part by steam trains which are attractive and delight many people.
  What will happen under these arrangements when the Rail Regulator will be responsible for administering railway licenses and approving access agreements? Clause 6 states:
  "No person shall … provide or operate any services for the carriege of passengers or goods by railway … own a network, a station or a light maintenance depot, or … provide any network services, station services or light maintenance services … unless he is authorised to do so by a licence or is exempt, by virtue of section 7".
  The railway to which I referred has been operating for many years, largely on a voluntary basis. It will have made 25 years' of payments this year and will finally be purchased from British Rail. It would have been an abandoned line if it had not been taken over, and that is true for many railways, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said.
  I cite as examples the railway that runs from Sherringham to Holt, the North Yorkshire Moors railway, the Severn Valley railway and a dozen others. Incidentally, those railways followed the form of agreement negotiated between the Keighley and Worth Valley railway and British Rail way back in the early 1960s in order to bring to a successful conclusion the aim of reopening the lines.
  All those railways are now subject to a licence. Will they operate as they do now? What if they have access to part of another railway? What does "access" mean? Does it mean running into goods yard as happens at Keighley and picking up wagons or coaches which have been transferred from British Rail to the Keighley and Worth Valley railway? That is access of a sort. It means that a separate licence will have to be given unless, under clause 7, the Secretary of State, who must consult the regulator, by order grants
  "exemption from the requirement to be authorised by licence to carry on such activities falling within section 6"
  to which I referred earlier.
  It is fair to ask the Minister to say whether the Secretary of State is minded to produce an order once, or if, the Bill
  276
  is passed, to grant exemption for all the existing privately operated railways which have been established for a long time and after a struggle.
  The Bill establishes an administrative superstructure which the privately operated railways can do without. They do not need the superstructure, because they come under the Health and Safety Executive. Any accidents must be reported.
  The rules and operation of the railways are to the highest standards. There are no other standards. Railways cannot afford to be 50 per cent. safe. They must be 100 per cent. safe when they deal with passengers, four or five coaches weighing 120 tonnes and a locomotive weighing 50, 60 or 70 tonnes. They cannot afford half-measures. They have passed the test.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister announced today his wish to reduce the amount of bureaucracy? Are not the proposals a clear case of increased bureaucracy?
  Mr. Cryer: I was about to make that point. Hon. Members might be interested to know that the Government produced 3,359 statutory instruments in 1992. The Government are supposed to be lifting regulations off the backs of people, although they produced more regulations in one year than any other Government in parliamentary history.
  Will this ways and means motion, which is the ways and means of raising revenue for which the legislation provides, extract money from private railways which are run on a voluntary and democratic basis, in the case of the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway and many others, for the pleasure of those who run them and those who see them? I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that they are reasonable organisations. They are run properly and have the best aspirations. Why then should they be burdened?
  Even if the Secretary of State makes an order, such an order is still highly qualified. The whole of page 7 and half of page 8 of the Bill relate to the qualifications which apply to the exemptions. I hope that the Minister can give an unequivocal guarantee tonight that, if the Bill is passed and the order-making powers are granted to the Minister, he will produce another instrument. Such regulations are required only under the terms of the Government's legislation. As a result of the ideological perversity of the Government, more regulations will be produced to keep the bureaucracy off the backs of railways which do not need it.
  Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the matter can be disassociated entirely from the general attitude on both sides of the House to the Bill? It is conceivable that such a proposal would result in British Railways staying intact.
  The Association of Railway Preservation Societies is made up of charitable, educational and heritage organisations. There is no political difference across the House about them. I suggest that we all want to encourage them, within reason. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether there has been much consultation between the Association of Railway Preservation Societies and the Government, who pride themselves on consultation, before the matter was dealt with in the way he has described.
  Mr. Cryer: So far as I am aware, there has been no consultation on the ways and means motion. That contrasts very much with the Transport and Works Act 1992. One of the curiosities of the proposals in the ways and means motion is that, according to the Government, the Transport and Works Act 1992 was designed to simplify the position for light railways—small railways with a gauge up to 4 ft 8½ in. Railways now have a gauge of about a metre or whatever.
  I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the licensing and the revenue that derives from that. How can the Government reconcile this legislation with the Transport and Works Act 1992, which was designed to provide the Secretary of State with order-making powers to simplify the procedure and avoid private Bills being promoted to secure the operation of minor railways?
  I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that point. I am not referring to the kernel of the Bill, the whole of which remains objectionable, but it would be valuable if the Minister gave an indication that it was not the intention to use the fee-levying power to impose an additional burden on the light railways.
  I emphasise that many people have struggled hard to get the railways operating; they are not rich men and women's playthings. People have worked their guts out in their spare time—sometimes without much enthusiastic support from British Rail or anybody else. That was certainly true of the Keighley and Worth Valley railway. Local people thought that the idea of a group of people taking over a railway was barmy, but now everyone thinks that the whole thing is marvellous.
  I hope that the Minister shares the view those railways are marvellous a chievements, that he will strive to the best of his ability—the Secretary of State can nod his head while the Minister is saying this—to avoid putting any further burdens on them, and that an order will be forthcoming.
  11.46 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I wish to draw the attention of the House to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the motion. It seems legitimate to draw attention in particular to the absurdity of paragraph (b)—which deals with the rendering of payments to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising—as it relates to at least one of the prospective franchises that were announced by the Secretary of State earlier today. I refer to the Tilbury-Southend line, in which my constituents have some considerable interest.
  I say that that part of the motion is absurd because there will be no prospect whatever of payments being made to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising by the people who are successful in landing—or who receive as a gift from the Government—the franchise for the line. It is, by general agreement, a totally clapped-out line which cannot generate revenue. To all intents and purposes, the Government will have to give it away. They will dress up the exercise, of course. They will no doubt find someone to take it off their hands.
  Mr. Spearing: Public money.
  Mr. Mackinlay: As my hon. Friend says, they will have to make public money available to keep the line ticking over. The tragedy is that it needs major public investment on a scale that the Government are not prepared to fund.
  278
  The consequence is that commuters from Essex to London will continue to have a totally inadequate form of transport for their recreation and to get to their work.
  It should be made clear that a fraudulent prospectus is being offered to commuters on the Essex line. Their line cannot generate moneys to be paid to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising. A public asset is to be given away so that the Government can shed their responsibilities and hide their failure to fund that railway line over a decade or more.
  Both the Bill and the ways and means resolution disguise the fact that the Government are probably already scurrying around trying to cobble together something that they will describe as a management buy-out so that they can shed the line. The Director of Passenger Rail Franchising will not receive money as a consequence of the franchising of the Tilbury line—far from it. It is clear that the Government intend to exercise the right, provided in the Bill, to make money available to the managers of lines—including this one, I suspect—so that they may put together a cosmetic buy-out.
  Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman know that at least three organisations have expressed an interest in taking over this line, which I understand makes £60 million a year?
  Mr. Mackinlay: The second part of the hon. Lady's news is breathtaking. If the line makes so much money, the commuters will ask where it is all going and why some of it is not being invested in the line to provide a modern system of transport from Southend, via Tilbury, into Fenchurch Street. Clearly that is not happening.
  The hon. Lady alleges that three bodies are interested in taking over the line. It remains to be seen, but I expect that the interested parties will turn out to be of the James Sherwood variety—people interested in franchising lines provided that they can do so on their own terms. I shall be very surprised if anyone, other than managers, is prepared to take on this line. No one could fund it to the extent required by the commuters. It is a matter of simple arithmetic.
  While I am thinking about Sir James Sherwood and others, I should say that there are people who are interested in privatisation of the railway network but make it abundantly clear that they are not interested in the Government's proposed methods. Only time will tell, but I believe that the hon. Lady will find—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is wide of the ways and means resolution, the scope of which is fairly narrow.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I succumbed to temptation following the hon. Lady's intervention.
  Paragraph (c) of the ways and means resolution refers to penalties that may be imposed on franchisees who fail to comply with conditions or requirements imposed on them. It seems to me that, in terms of ensuring that franchisers fulfil their obligations, the Bill is fatally flawed, and the motion is inadequate. It is time the Minister told the House how he intends to guarantee the continuation of services when a franchiser fails. Monetary penalties will not get people home from a central London station if a company fails at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The passengers will be stranded. There is no indication that

  279
  there will be any system of bonding, any guarantee that money will be available for continuation of the franchise should there be a failure.
  The Bill contains explicit requirements regarding safety. It is clear from the Bill, as well as from replies to parliamentary questions that I have received, that there is no mechanism to ensure compliance with safety requirements in the event of a train failure or crash. It seems to me that the Government intend to reply on some cosmetic monetary penalty to give the impression that there will be sufficient sanctions to guarantee continued service and safety standards once a line is franchised or privatised. This is wholly inadequate. As several of my hon. Friends have said, there is great danger in this respect. Much more needs to be done. Monetary penalties will be wholly insufficient to guarantee safety and quality of service on the lines that are franchised.
  11.55 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I shall be concise but clear in responding to what has been a brief debate.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised a number of points. I assure him that, when Union Rail, with permission from the Secretary of State for Transport, goes out to consultation on the rail link, there will be thorough consultation with his local authority. If there is not, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will let me know.
  He asked about depots in Norfolk where there are more than two or three franchisees. That seems most unlikely, but as my right hon. Friend said when moving the Second Reading, he will publish a map in due course showing the nature of the franchises throughout Great Britain, and I am sure that any problems will then be identified.
  Mr. Spearing: It was an example.
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he was giving an example. That is why I have answered in general terms. The map will show where the franchises overlap.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South next asked about franchisees paying money back under the resolution. That is the way in which, on profitable lines, the state will receive money on an annual basis for running a franchise, and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred to the east coast main line. That will, in essence, enable the public sector to cross-subsidise, for example, InterCity lines that lose money.
  I was then asked about the industrywide conciliation and training service. The Health and Safety Commission report on safety recognised the importance of staff qualifications and training. It recommended high level core standards set on an industrywide basis, possibly by the Railway Training Council.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South went on to speak about what he called a danger of wage-cutting. I think that the reverse is true, that we will see greater wage flexibility and the introduction of performance and bonus pay. I would expect to see an industry with better trained and better paid staff.
  280
  My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was out of order for part of her remarks, but in respect of the beginning of her comments that were in order, the re-signalling contract has been signed and is going ahead. We would welcome the bus companies bidding for franchises. If there is concern about anti-competitive legislation, we invite the bus companies to talk to the Director General of Fair Trading.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to preservation railways. I was fascinated to read of the authorship by the hon. Member for Bradford, South of a document entitled "Steam in the Worth Valley," volume 1 of which he wrote in 1969 and volume 2 in 1972. We now know where his sympathies and interests lie, and I am delighted to learn it.
  I have a simple answer to the points that were made at considerable length, although I appreciate the need to express them in that way. The Secretary of State intends to exempt preservation railways from the licensing system under the provisions of clause 7. That is a clear assurance.
  In relation to franchising, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked about penalties for failure, and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised essentially the same point. If a railway train run by a franchisee fails in the technical sense, Railtrack is responsible. That is the safety authority, and it will ensure that the train is removed from the station or tracks.
  Mr. Mackinlay: How?
  Mr. Freeman: Because Railtrack will have the necessary equipment. Obviously, as the safety authority, it will have to do that. If a franchisee loses financial standing and credibility, the franchising director shall step in and ensure that service continues. If the franchisee fails to meet the performance standards, financial penalties will be incurred and there may be receipts by the franchising director.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) asked about the European Transport Commissioner and an alleged threat not to support with European money the privatised system. We are not aware of such a threat, but in any case, Railtrack, which will be the consumer of large amounts of public sector money, will still qualify to receive money from the European investment bank and from other Commission sources.
  We are determined to ensure that this country receives its fair allocation of funds that are contributed by the taxpayers of this country, and I commend the resolution to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the inclusion in licences granted under the Act of conditions requiring the rendering of payments to the Secretary of State or the Rail Regulator;

  (b) the inclusion in franchise agreements, within the meaning of the Act, of conditions requiring the rendering of payments to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising;

  (c) the inclusion of provisions under the monetary penalties may be imposed on persons who contravene or fail to comply with conditions or requirements imposed by or under the Act;

  281

  (d) the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions relating to the taxation of persons who are transferors or transferees in relation to transfer schemes under the Act;

  (e) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.

  Customs and Excise
  12.1 am
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that, after motion No. 5 on the Order Paper, we read that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has not considered the instrument. Since that was printed, it has considered it, but I suggest to you that one of the duties of the Chair is to protect the rights of Back Benchers. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs if that Select Committee produces a report—and I understand that there are copies on the Table and in the Vote Office—indicating that there is a defect in the drafting of the order if Members do not have a reasonable amount of time to look at it.
  I ask you at least to consider drawing to the Government's attention the fact that it is not satisfactory for them to table an order like this until the Statutory Instruments Committee has had an opportunity to consider it and to make a report to the House on which hon. Members can form an opinion so that there may be an informed debate. You will be aware that the Select Committee receives a large number of orders during a year and the whole purpose of the Committee considering them is to produce reports and to inform the House. I hope that you will rule that it is not satisfactory that the Committee should consider a matter like this at half-past four in the afternoon, with the House considering it late the same evening.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The ordering of business is not strictly a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has made his point and no doubt it will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.
  12.3 am
  The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I beg to move,
  That the Customs and Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs for Goods Permanently Imported) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3193), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
  That the Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) (Amendment) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3192), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  Sir John Cope: I shall come in a minute to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
  These two orders concern personal reliefs for people coming into this country. They are both made necessary by the start of the European single market and both have the effect of continuing the reliefs which concern travellers from outside the European Community. They both replace orders which previously applied to all countries, including the Community. However, under the single market, we do not need reliefs on the same basis because travel within the EC is covered by other regulations.
  The two orders basically continue the old reliefs for travellers from outside the Community. The first, No. 3193, primarily continues relief on the personal belongings of people who come to live here. The second order, No.

  283
  3192, provides for continuation of the familiar duty-free and duty-paid allowances for those arriving from outside the EC. As we have discussed on other occasions, travellers from within the Community now have different rules under different legislation, but for those arriving from outside the European Community the allowance for other goods has also been increased by this order to £36—not a large increase, but nevertheless a small improvement.
  As the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned on a point of order, the Select Committee has put before the House today a report drawing the attention of the House to the instrument, because there is an argument as to whether the drafting is correct. It is all to do with the definition of "third country", as hon. Members will have seen from the note on the Table. The Customs and Excise says, as is clear from a memorandum which it submitted on the point, that it considers that the legal effect of the present order is clear. Evidently there is room for argument.
  It is an extremely abstruse point of parliamentary drafting, but I am advised that it is clear. We will try to persuade the lawyers on both sides of the argument to reach agreement, and, if it is necessary to do so, I shall bring a further order before the House to amend the existing provision.
  12.4 am
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I shall not detain the House long, but I should like to echo the point raised by my hon. Friend the member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It is clearly important that the drafting of the orders is right and we are indebted to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments for drawing the error to our attention. I take the Paymaster General's assurance that the matter will be put right.
  As I understand the orders and what the right hon. Gentleman said, they amend the personal reliefs from customs duty to remove from relief those goods purchased by travellers from other European Community member states who will now be catered for in another order, but leave in place the previous allowances for travellers arriving from outside the Community.
  The orders are part of the general change that we welcome, opening up opportunities for members of the public to derive some personal benefit and enjoyment from the operation of the single market. For many millions of our citizens, such changes do more in an immediate sense to give meaning to the European Community and the freedom of movements of people and goods than many of the economically and constitutionally grander principles and declarations of the Maastricht treaty.
  The second order, which applies to permanently imported goods, has the same effect on people importing belongings when moving house, honorary decorations, awards, goodwill gifts, inherited goods and certain goods ancillary to specified visiting forces. It also reflects the commendable achievement of the Community in making it as easy as possible for people to move home from one Community member state to another, thereby rendering the old reliefs redundant except for those moving to the United Kingdom from beyond the European Community.
  284
  We welcome the orders, but I wish briefly to press the Paymaster General on the staffing consequences for Customs and Excise services, which we touched on briefly in last week's Maastricht debate on the harmonisation of indirect taxation.
  It is generally accepted that the creation of open border crossings for EC citizens and the fact that excise goods will no longer be taxed at the frontier enormously increases the scope for smuggling. I am talking not about cross-border shopping, which the Paymaster General has already estimated could cost £250 million per year, but about smuggling for resale on the black market. Given the relatively high excise duties on some items in the United Kingdom, the potential financial gains to smugglers are enormous. For example, I have heard that one container shipment of Spanish cigarettes alone could net £30,000 or more in profit.
  In regard to the numbers of excise staff, I understand that the board's management plan for 1991 made an allocation of an additional 248 staff for the extra inland work arising from the single market, but following the 1991 autumn statement, this was reduced to 178 staff. That is not many staff, given the potential scale of the problem and the shift to inland scrutiny that the single market necessarily involves. There must be literally hundreds of thousands of potential outlets for smuggled goods.
  Secondly, the small increase in staff for inland scrutiny must be set against an overall reduction in staff in the service. I understand that the projected outturn for Customs and Excise staff for the current financial year is 27,800 staff years, of which 2,200 are on excise work, as compared with 28,400 for 1991–92 in the board of management report, of which 2,300 were on excise work. Notwithstanding the allocation of 178 staff to which I referred, the excise department has fewer staff to undertake what is undoubtedly a far more difficult job. The same arguments apply to customs staff, for whom the 1992–93 projected outturn is 9,900 staff, compared with 11,000 for 1991–92.
  Those are serious issues and I want a clear assurance from the Paymaster General that they will be kept under the closest review, that staff numbers and the extent of smuggling will be carefully monitored, and that, if it becomes apparent that additional staff are needed, the Government will not hesitate to appoint them, for the public would have it no other way.
  12.10 am
  Mr. Michael Stern: I have three brief comments to make on order No. 3193. In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall be happy if my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General wishes to write to me about them, rather than attempting to answer me now.
  First, paragraph 13 contains two references to a person becoming "normally resident" in this country. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are a number of slightly differing definitions within the tax Acts of what is normal or ordinary residence. It would have been helpful if the appropriate statutory reference had been given in the order to show which definition is to apply, or whether the definition which will apply is to be included in the Government's domicile Act, when that appears.
  Secondly, I am slightly worried about the reference in paragraphs 13 and 15 to the registration of property brought in and given relief in the order, which is wholly

  285
  laudable. A favourite way to explain undeclared income used to be to suggest that it arose, in the case of someone coming to this country to marry, from property brought in before the marriage. I notice that under the order such property would have to be declared. I want an assurance from my right hon. Friend that, under the parallel order—under the single market—there will be some way to check on what might otherwise be a false claim to explain otherwise unexplainable income.
  Thirdly, paragraph 16 of order No. 3193 deals with relief for scholastic equipment. I notice that students coming into this country are entitled to bring with them normal scholastic equipment,
  "including calculators or typewriters."
  There is no relief for computers, although some students might be coming here to attend a course requiring their use. It would seem odd if they had to pay duty on second-hand computers with no great value when they do not have to pay duty if they bring in a separate calculator and typewriter. I should be grateful for reassurance from my right hon. Friend on that.
  12.13 am
  Mr. A. J. Beith: A fair amount of confusion will flow in the public mind from the orders. That is no fault of the Minister's, but he must be aware that he may have to take some steps to deal with it. Some of the confusion probably arises because, with all the publicity about the new arrangements for moving duty-free goods across frontiers within the Community, people have got used to the idea that they can buy large quantities of alcohol and other goods and have nothing to pay, so long as they are importing it for their own use.
  However, people coming from outside the Community—as many people returning from holiday will be—are still subject to stringent restrictions. For example, even with the revalorisation, the allowance amounts to only £36 in respect of gifts. Officers at the ports will have quite a difficult time, at least initially, explaining to people coming from non-Community countries that they have grossly overestimated what they are allowed to bring in.
  There will also be a problem at some of the ports which have both Community and non-Community traffic. Take a port such as North Shields or Harwich, where the morning boat will come from Denmark and the evening boat from Sweden. I am not quite sure how Customs and Excise will manage the now very different requirements for staff in that situation, because the morning boat from Denmark will require only the sort of overview that customs officers will now take of people coming from a Community country, whereas the boat from Sweden will require the full application of all the provisions to which these orders refer, with the very strict limits that they include.
  Since one of the consequences of the changes has been a considerable transfer of staff to landward duties—with some argument about whether enough staff are available for those very different duties—I wonder how Customs and Excise will manage this very different pattern of operation at the ports, where some vessels will come from Community countries and some not.
  Something else that people may not realise but which is underlined by the orders is the extraordinary range of exemptions and mystifying allowances which exist, like the allowance of up to £800 for a wedding present, or the fact that someone coming back as an official visitor—I am not
  286
  sure how far that category extends beyond Ministers to other office-holders—can bring back without paying duty a gift from some oil sheikh who has very kindly bestowed it on him, as well as the scholastic items mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern).
  A wide and mysterious range of exemptions already exists in our legislation and presumably will now be carried over into the new system, but I envisage considerable confusion. Confusion at the port of entry, when it gives rise to arguments with customs officers, can lead to frayed tempers in rather unhappy circumstances, not to mention considerable queues building up behind as other people wait to go through customs. I hope very much, therefore, that the Minister has these problems in mind.
  12.16 am
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I raised on a point of order the question of the report from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the Minister conceded, perhaps a little grudgingly, that he was prepared to meet the point that the Committee had raised; but he did not refer to the problem of the House having to scrutinise the order tonight, having only just had the report from Committee put before it. I accept that it is a very minor report, but I am concerned about the principle. It seems to me totally wrong that the Government should put an order down before scutiny by a Select Committee has taken place and before the Government can anticipate whether it will be an important or a minor report.
  I simply ask the Minister to look at this problem. Repeatedly, the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), other members of the Committee and I have argued that we should have the same Standing Orders in the House as in another place and that the Government should not be able even to put the order down until scrutiny by a Select Committee or a Joint Committee has taken place. If the Government are not prepared to accept that as a new Standing Order, however, it is incumbent on Ministers to try to ensure that instruments are brought forward by their Departments in a way which helps rather than hinders scrutiny by the House.
  It is very odd that this set of orders came forward on, I think, 17 December, which makes it most difficult for the House to carry out its scrutiny. It seems to me that it was all done for the convenience of people in the Department, to get the order laid before Christmas, with no thought for the possibility of scrutiny by the House. I hope that the Minister will say that, in future, his Department at least will try to make sure that orders are not put down for debate in the House until scrutiny by a Select Committee has been completed.
  12.19 am
  Sir John Cope: As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the order was laid on 17 December. We would like to have laid it before the House earlier, but as he will probably know, negotiations on the single market continued until late last year, into December. That meant that we were unable to lay the order as early as we would wish. However, as soon as we could, we laid all the orders and others involving the single market, as we were anxious for them to be known about and in operation as soon as possible—on 1 January where possible.

  287
  The issue that gave rise to the worries of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is—as I said, and as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish acknowledged—a small and highly technical point on legislative drafting, about which there is room for disagreement. Had it been a significant issue that went to the heart of the order, I would have hesitated to lay it before the House until the matter had been cleared up. However, I thought that it was a highly technical issue. If it turns out to be necessary for us to correct it, we shall do so. Obviously, I hope that it is not—it is an abstruse point.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke of the possibilities of confusion under the new arrangements. Any such major change is likely to cause problems for the public, and we have also had to carry out training for the customs officials and others to ensure that the new arrangements are understood. It will take some time for the public to take them on board.
  We have produced and, I think, sent to hon. Members, a small guide for travellers that has been widely distributed on aircraft and by travel agents. It assists people with the changes. It is intended for the ordinary reader and does not go into nearly as much detail as the order on matters such as what one can bring to the UK after marriage, which is not necessary in such a leaflet. If the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else finds the categories listed in the order mystifying, I can assure them that, I think without exception, they are the same as before. They are almost identical to the previous categories. Most of us do not have cause to use the provisions at any time in our lives, let alone regularly, and I do not think that the measures will cause too much difficulty.
  The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) drew attention to the staffing considerations that will arise. The remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford, East went much further than the review, and I cannot confirm his figures off the cuff. Clearly, considerable differences have been required in the deployment of staff by customs. I can readily undertake to keep matters under the closest review, particularly in the early stages of the single market— indeed, we are already doing so. As I have told the House before, we are determined to ensure that smuggling, bootlegging and the resale of goods brought back without UK duty having been paid are pursued with the utmost vigour of the law by all the customs officers that it requires.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's commitment. Will he add to that an assurance that he will appoint additional customs and/or excise staff should it appear necessary in the light of that monitoring?
  Sir John Cope: Yes. The customs and the Government must determine how we define necessary, but we shall keep the position under review and see what we determine to be necessary in order to police such matters firmly. It is extremely important, particularly in the early stages, that we do our best to counter the opportunities for smuggling that might occur.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) raised three points, starting with the definition of "normally resident" for the purposes of the order. He will find that paragraph 3 of the statutory instrument, No. 3193, to which he referred, sets out the rules for determining where a person is normally resident. They are not precisely the same as some in other parts of the taxing statutes, but those are the ones that apply in this case.
  My hon. Friend also asked about the bringing into this country of property on marriage by people coming from other countries within the EC. The order deals with people coming from outside the Community. People coming from within the Community can bring with them, not only on marriage but at any other time, any property on which the normal duty has been paid within the country from which it is brought.
  Mr. Stern: The point that I was making concerned not so much the ability to bring in property as the laudable provision in the order that property should be declared on being brought in. There is some concern that within the EC no such declaration will be required.
  Sir John Cope: That is true. As far as I am aware, no such declaration will be required, because we are in the process of getting rid of the fiscal frontiers, so that people can travel as freely as possible from one part of the EC to another.
  My hon. Friend also asked about instruments usually used by students, particularly computers. If he looks, he will find that that part of the order refers to instruments normally used by students, including calculators and typewriters, but it does not exclude computers. If a computer is regarded as the sort usually used by a student, I believe that it will be covered, but I shall check that. If necessary, on that or on the other technical points that my hon. Friend raised, I shall write to him. He kindly gave me the opportunity to do so, but I hope that I have given him sufficient answers on the points.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Customs and Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs for Goods Permanently Imported) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 393), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) (Amendment) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3192), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

  Value Added Tax
  12.27 am
  The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I beg to move,
  That the Value Added Tax (Flat-rate Scheme for Farmers) (Designated Activities) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3220), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
  That the Value Added Tax (Flat-rate Scheme for Farmers) (Percentage Addition) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3221), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  That the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3222), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  That the Value Added Tax (International Services and Transport) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3223), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  Sir John Cope: The first two orders, No. 3220 and No. 3221, concern the flat rate scheme for farmers introduced in the Finance Act 1992. The first order specifies the agricultural activities that the scheme covers and the second order fixes the flat rate percentage at 4 per cent.
  The House will have seen that the agricultural activities covered are wide-ranging and that the percentage is in the range that we forecast last summer and is calculated to compensate farmers overall for the VAT that they have spent on business purposes.
  The third order, No. 3222, makes arrangements to continue into the single market the tax arrangements for blocking input tax deduction on business entertainment and motor cars and second-hand goods which are taxed only on the gross profit margin.
  The order makes no substantive change in the arrangements. It may appear rather complex, because the opportunity has been taken to consolidate a series of existing orders, as well as making the changes necessary for the single market.
  The last order, No. 3223, is about services, including transport. For exports to and imports from countries outside the European Community, there is no change—no VAT will be chargeable in such cases. For other services, there will be no charge to tax where, in future, the system provides for treating them outside the scope of United Kingdom VAT.
  Input tax will still, subject to the usual rules, be recoverable if supplies would have been taxable if made wholly in the United Kingdom. If they would have been exempt, another order that is not before us—the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Special Provisions) Order 1992—provides for the recovery of input tax. Again, it is a slightly complex order but, without making major changes, it will help to implement the single European market.
  12.32 am
  Mr. Andrew Smith: The orders are Fairly unobjectionable, but I have a few observations and questions. On the value added tax flat rate scheme for farmers, the Paymaster-General will be aware that we did not oppose the insertion of the scheme into last year's Finance Bill, and we acknowledge that its introduction as
  290
  an option will be welcomed by those concerned with farming and related activities, who may derive some potential benefit from its provisions.
  The scheme is optional, and some farmers on the margin may get a headache calculating whether or not to join it, but at least they can choose what best suits them, given the nature of their business and customers, and the volume of paperwork in which they want to become involved.
  The flat rate addition has been set at 4 per cent., which is at the lower end of the 3 to 6 per cent. band that the right hon. Gentleman indicated in our deliberations on last year's Finance Bill. The method of calculating that 4 per cent. and its selection remains something of a mystery. When the Paymaster-General replies, perhaps he can explain the basis of that calculation and reveal the outcome of his discussions with the European Commission.
  The House should be told the Government's estimate of the scheme's costs to the Exchequer. I know that will depend in large part of the level of take-up, but it would be useful to know the assumptions used by Customs and Excise. It would be interesting to know also how many farmers have registered under the scheme so far and their response to it.
  Can the Paymaster-General assure us that data relating to the scheme's operation will be comprehensively maintained, so that in future it will be known how many farmers fall within how many bands, in terms of the total amount they have levied under the scheme over the year? That will be especially relevant when the scheme is reviewed.
  I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will say how often the scheme and the rate will be reviewed. Article 25(3) of the sixth VAT directive states:
  "Member States shall fix the flat-rate compensation percentages, where necessary, and shall notify the Commission further before applying them. Such percentages shall be based on macro-economic statistics for flat-rate farmers alone for the preceding three years."
  Will the Government apply that by reviewing the percentage every year, with a rolling three years' macro-economic statistics, or by reviewing the rate every three years or some other interval? I shall be interested to know the Government's decision, as will flat rate farmers involved in the scheme.
  My next point relates to the bloodstock industry. When the Minister of State, Treasury announced the introduction of such a scheme in October 1991, she explained that one of the Government's intentions was to help to put United Kingdom horse breeders on a more equal footing with the rest of the European industry. Since then, in correspondence with me, the Paymaster General has again pointed to the flat rate scheme as one of the measures taken by the Government to assist the bloodstock industry.
  Yet it is clear from reaction in the industry, and in particular from the decision by Tattersalls to transfer this year's Houghton yearling sales to Fairyhouse in Ireland, that the introduction of the scheme as such falls far short of the industry's needs. In last week's debate on indirect taxation in relation to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, I referred to what Tattersalls had said in a new release on 24 November last year:
  "Additionally in the last few days an unexpected change has emerged from discussions with Customs and Excise. Previously we had been assured by HM Government that all

  291
  horses coming to Newmarket from Ireland and France and being sold by UK Flat Rate Farmers would be sold free of all
  UK VAT"—
  as Tattersalls had stated in a previous press release.
  "Customs have now changed their previous interpretation so that all Yearlings, previously purchased with Irish or French VAT charged in either of these two countries, would have to be sold by Flat Rate Farmers with VAT in Newmarket or VAT would have to be charged on entry into the United Kingdom."
  In his otherwise fairly comprehensive reply last week, the Paymaster General did not touch on that point. Will he tell us tonight whether Tattersalls was given the assurance that I have just quoted—that all horses from Ireland and France being sold by United Kingdom flat rate farmers would be sold free of all United Kingdom VAT—and whether Customs and Excise has changed that interpretation, so that even yearlings on which Irish or French VAT had previously been charged would have to be sold by flat rate farmers with a United Kingdom VAT charge, either at Newmarket or on entering the country? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can make the position clear, because it seems that the flat rate scheme cannot meet the concerns expressed by the industry.
  As I understand it, horses brought to the United Kingdom for sale which have previously been purchased in other member states, subject to VAT in those states—either by way of normal sale, or following dispatch, acquisition or distance selling arrangements—would be treated as acquisitions in the United Kingdom, and the flat rate farmer would be required to register for VAT in the United Kingdom once his acquisitions exceeded £36,000 in any one period of 12 months. Accordingly, virtually all the breeders at the important Houghton sale would not find it viable to sell as flat rate farmers.
  Another supposed potential benefit of the scheme was the option for United Kingdom vendors to deregister for VAT, and to become flat rate farmers themselves. That, too, is unlikely to prove an attractive proposition for bloodstock businesses: if they became flat rate farmers, they would lose the ability to recover input VAT on their expenses, and would have to finance an additional overhead. They would be better off staying registered, continuing to reclaim their input VAT and selling in Ireland or France, at the price of sending their horses to the sale rather than selling them here.
  I appreciate that discussions with the industry are continuing, not least about the important question of allowing owners to register for VAT; but I wish to emphasise that there is more than a little urgency in the present position. People in the industry, and those whose livelihood depends on it, are understandably concerned. I should be grateful if the Paymaster General would tell us when he expects to present new proposals.
  I understand that the practical effect of the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) Order 1992 is essentially to change the application of the exclusions of input tax from being reclaimed on the goods listed by the Paymaster General at the point of importation to being reclaimed at the point of acquisition in the case of goods from other member states. I should be grateful if the Paymaster General could confirm that my understanding is correct and that no significant change is being made which does not result directly from the operation of the single market.
  292
  I understand that the changes made under the Value Added Tax (International Services and Transport) Order 1992, cover transport and associated services and result essentially from the application of the place of supply rules under the sixth VAT directive, so that activities are counted for tax purposes as happening, as far as possible, in the state or place where they in fact occur.
  However, there is a complication, in that, where the customer of a transport or ancillary service is registered for VAT in the same member state as the transport provider, VAT is charged and deducted under normal procedures, but where the customer is not registered in the same member state, VAT is not charged but is treated as reverse supply on the customer's VAT return, so that it appears there as both input and output tax. What is more, if the transport provider serves a customer who is not registered for VAT, he must charge and account for the VAT in the member state from which the goods departed.
  That may or may not be more straightforward in practice than it sounds in theory, but it seems bureaucratic nonsense in what is supposed to be a simpler VAT regime for trade within the single market to have essentially two systems of VAT operating alongside each other.
  There is particular room for confusion where the destination of cargoes is switched en route or where the customer for part of the consignment is registered for VAT in the same member state as the carrier and the customer for the rest of the consignment is not. I should be grateful for the Paymaster General's comments. Would it not have been simpler to stick to a zero-rating system, at least for as long as the present transitional destination system for VAT lasts, as I envisage complications arising from the operation by business of the terms of that order?
  We do not oppose the orders, but it is important that the House receives answers to the questions that I have asked.
  12.42 am
  Mr. James Paice: I shall not detain the House for long, but I want to take up the points raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) about the bloodstock industry, which, as the House may know, is very dear to my heart.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the flat rate scheme was heralded as the salvation of the bloodstock industry, given the widely varying rates of value added tax which would face the industry after the advent of the single market. In fact, they existed before then, but their significance was greatly enhanced by the introduction of the single market at the beginning of January.
  The flat rate scheme will not work, partly because of the confusion over the status of horses sent in from Ireland and France, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. It also will not work because the fundamental requirement of getting back one's input tax is that one charges the 4 per cent. flat rate—the rate that has now been decided—to the purchaser of one's horse, if he or she is registered for VAT. Of course, we know that the vast majority of purchasers are not registered for VAT. Putting one's horse into the auction ring at Tattersalls is quite a lottery—one does not know whether the successful bidder will be registered. Therefore, the scheme was not the salvation for which we had wished.
  Registration is now the most important issue facing the Government. I realise that the hon. Gentleman might not

  293
  have caught up with the written answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to a question tabled by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). The question dealt with registration. The answer stated:
  "Customs and Excise has drawn up a technical memorandum of understanding to be agreed with the industry as soon as possible."
  I welcome that step forward. It moves forward my proposition that racehorse owners should be able to register for VAT. I raised that proposition on 19 October when I initiated an Adjournment debate on the subject. I still believe that there is no reason why all racehorse owners should not be able to register under the sixth VAT directive. I know that the Government are not prepared to accept that position.
  We must remember that we are trying to get round the problem of the differentials in VAT. The solution which we come up with must nullify that effect. As today's written answer suggests, it is clear that a solution which helps only some owners—we do not know the definition or proportion of "some"—is unlikely to solve the overall problem. Unless the vast majority of owners are able to go to Tattersalls and buy a horse without being concerned about the implications of VAT, they will not buy. If they do not buy, Tattersalls will have its principal sales at Fairyhouse and vendors will want to sell in Fairyhouse or at Deauville in France.
  We must have a system of registration which deals with the vast majority of racehorse owners. I should like a system which covers all racehorse owners. The fundamental problem is that we need a system which is designed to help the industry and which is not so hedged with restrictions and criteria for registration that it rules out the vast majority. I fear that we may find that that is the case under the memorandum. I have not yet seen the memorandum, so I cannot comment in detail on it.
  Our system contrasts with the position in Europe. France has a system of restriction on registration, but the effect of it is that almost all owners can register. The restriction may be couched in words which are a double entendre, but the vast majority can register. I hope that my right hon. Friend will address those points.
  We must ensure that the blodstock industry, which is pre-eminent in the United Kingdom, can compete with the rest of Europe, continue to have a sound basis in its stud farms and sell its stock at Newmarket and Doncaster. If the industry starts to consign abroad, the studs will soon follow. We know that that is beginning to happen, and the trend will accelerate dramatically.
  The VAT order is the first bite at the cherry. The flat rate scheme is the first bite which the Government took. My right hon. Friend's initiative of distance selling—great credit must go to him for it—was the second bite at the cherry, and registration was the third bite. We cannot expect a fourth bite. We must get it right this time. The two earlier bites failed to solve the problem. I hope that we will succeed this time.
  We should avoid a bureaucratic approach that so constrains registration that the vast majority are ineligible or feel that it is simply impossible to register because of bureaucratic nonsense. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that the technical memorandum of understanding which is referred to in the written answer given only this afternoon provides ample opportunity for almost all racehorse owners in the United Kingdom to register for
  294
  VAT. If it does not happen that way, the memorandum will not have the effect that we all want, which is to offset the differential that so besets our industry.
  I am grateful that a few of my hon. Friends have come into the House after seeing my name on the screen. I am surprised that most of them did not go home. It demonstrates the significant concern on both sides of the House about this vital issue.
  12.54 am
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate.
  The Paymaster General will recall that my colleagues and I warmly welcomed the introduction of the flat rate scheme for farmers. We continue to do so, not just because we believe that it may be helpful in particular cases. In that respect, I endorse wholeheartedly the comments made by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), whom we should really call the hon. Member for Newmarket. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the bloodstock industry, and we hope that the Paymaster General will find a way to meet the proper anxieties that have been expressed.
  The flat rate scheme was introduced partly because the industry felt that it could be helped significantly by the removal of the piles of paper that seem inevitably to be generated by the normal VAT scheme. The scheme was introduced to try to educe the bureaucracy.
  I know that the industry has been widely consulted and is very enthusiastic about the scheme, but I want to express one or two misgivings about the way in which it has been presented to us. We know that schemes are available to farmers in all the member countries of the Community except Denmark, so we are taking a step forward in terms of harmonisation. It is, however, important to learn the lessons of the other member states. The critical issue with any exemption is to ensure that it is so easy to claim that there is an effective take-up. Without an effective take-up, there is not much point in trying to produce a scheme in the first place.
  That brings me to the critical question of the selection of 4 per cent. As the Paymaster General will recall, there was much discussion, in the House and outside it, about that figure. During our debates in the Committee that considered the Finance Bill, it was suggested that the figure would be in the band 3 per cent. to 6 per cent. Clearly it is within that band. It is important, however, that the Paymaster General should tell us where that precise figure has come from. Has it been plucked out of the air? Is it a firm figure on the basis of which we can be clear that enough farmers will take up the scheme to make it really worthwhile and of real help?
  It is by no means certain at this stage that there will be an effective take-up. The National Farmers Union and other organisations in the industry have no notion whether 4 per cent. is the figure at which the measure should be pitched, and so far there is nothing to suggest that the Government have undertaken a survey to establish whether there will be an effective take-up.
  How will the scheme be reviewed? What mechanism will be used to monitor take-up and to try to ensure that, over the years of its operation, the scheme operates at optimum level so that we effectively produce for the farming industry a real concession with real take-up and real impact?

  295
  I am sure that the Paymaster General will be able to answer those questions and satisfy me on those points. In the meantime, I know that the agricultural community will welcome the scheme.
  12.53 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My first question relates to statutory instrument No. 3220—the designated activities order. Can my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General confirm what he said in his reply to me regarding my constituent, Mrs. Anne Jenks—that the flat rate scheme will apply to stud farming? Paragraph 1 of part I of the schedule refers to "General agriculture, including viticulture." Can my hon. Friend confirm that that description and the reference to "general stock farming" in part II of the schedule include stud farming, as he told me in his letter about my constituent?
  I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). Although in principle the scheme is welcome to one or two very small horse owners, it is so limited in scope that it is totally inadequate. It seems to me absolutely crazy that horse owners can send their horses over to the Republic of Ireland or France, sell them and bring them back again and so avoid paying VAT. The southern Irish and French Governments help their industries to a considerable extent by having a rate of VAT significantly lower than ours.
  I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of my right hon. Friend's civil servants to find a way round this problem so that this industry, which has been pre-eminent here since the 17th century, may retain its position. Otherwise, the studs and the rest of the business will simply go to southern Ireland and France. I cannot see in European law any reason why owners should not be allowed to register for VAT in the same way as any other trade and thereby be enabled to reclaim all the input taxes. Of course, output taxes would also have to be taken into account.
  I urge the Paymaster General to consider these points carefully. Otherwise, this industry will just disintegrate, to the country's great detriment.
  12.55 am
  Sir John Cope: I should like to deal first with what the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said about matters unrelated to the flat rate farming scheme. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could confirm that there is no change that does not arise from the single market. I can. Indeed, I believe that in my opening remarks I said something along those lines.
  On the question of transport—services and so on—everything is related to the place-of-supply rules. The matter is very complicated, and, while I hesitate, after a single hearing, to confirm the hon. Gentleman's summary. I can say that it sounded broadly correct.
  The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the difficulty arising from individual countries having different VAT schemes and from travel between countries. As he said, it would be simpler if every member state were prepared to zero-rate all transport and other related services. However, we come back to the question whether it is desirable to have identical VAT systems in all countries. No doubt that idea appeals to the tidy-minded, but this country and the
  296
  other countries in the Community have expressed the view that the finance Minister of each state should enjoy flexibility. Matters are, of course, discussed, and there are many agreements. Indeed, these orders take account of harmonisation agreements. Nevertheless, we retain the right to flexibility. While that leads to some complications, it is right in principle.
  Most hon. Members have referred to the flat rate scheme for farmers and to related matters—in particular, registration in the context of horses, especially racehorses. I was asked how the 4 per cent. had been arrived at. The VAT-carrying goods and services purchased by farmers have been examined, and it is estimated that the figure that has come out will give back to the farmers who choose to become flat rate payers the VAT that they spent on business purchases—what, in ordinary circumstances, would be the input tax. As this is a brand-new scheme, we have had to do much estimating.
  I was asked when the rate of 4 per cent. would be reviewed. It should not be necessary to review it annually. As the hon. Member for Oxford, East said, when we are in a position to do so we shall have to consider how the scheme has worked out over a period of three years and whether it is working in the way I set out. I hope that we shall not need to alter it frequently, though we shall have to monitor the scheme in the early years. The figure will not rise and fall with inflation, and it is dependent on the working of the parameters over the years. I hope that 4 per cent. will prove to be a stable figure.
  Not many farmers have so far registered for the scheme. As hon. Members have pointed out, it is desirable that registration should be optional. Indeed, that is an important feature of the scheme.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: How many is "not many"?
  Sir John Cope: I cannot give the figure offhand. I will find out. It has not been very high so far.
  It has been suggested that I thought, or some people thought, that the flat rate scheme was, by itself, the solution to the problems of VAT and the horse racing industry. I cannot recall claiming that or others making such a claim. When the present Secretary of State for Employment was doing my job, there was not much enthusiasm for the scheme. By the time I took over, a certain amount of enthusiasm for it had built up.
  It was not announced in the Budget, but it was introduced in the Finance Bill last year at the request of people involved in the horseracing industry, particularly on the sales side. I recall pointing out at the time that part of the exercise was to reassure Irish flat rate farmers—breeders and so on—who seemed remarkably reluctant to register for VAT in the conventional manner, that they could make use of such a scheme if they came here.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: The Minister said that the scheme was introduced at the request of the bloodstock industry. I have with me a letter from Tattersalls, which says of the scheme:
  "It has to be stressed, first of all, that contrary to certain statements that have been made, the flat rate farming scheme was not introduced at the request of the industry. The industry in fact turned the scheme down in January 1992 when offered it by the then Minister of State, Mrs. Gillian Shephard."
  Sir John Cope: I said that. I was requested to introduce it, which is why it was brought in at a later stage. I do not

  297
  want to get into a wrangle with Tattersalls or anybody else over the matter. I am aware of the press release from which the hon. Gentleman quoted and in which Customs was accused, in my view wrongly, of having changed its interpretation of the scheme. There were some misunderstandings at that stage, and I do not want to exacerbate them.
  I say that because, as hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) said, we are in the middle of trying to agree a memorandum of understanding with the industry, particularly with the new board, about the registration of at least some racing owners. The problem is not the registration of breeders and trainers. They have been registered all the way through. The question is whether the racing owner—the person who owns a horse or a number of horses or part of a horse for the purposes of racing, or the person with a different type of business but who does some racing as well—can be registered for those activities.
  That is what the memorandum of understanding is about. It is still at the draft stage. We have given it to the industry, and the industry first gave us some proposals two or three weeks ago, which involved some changes to the rules of racing. Our memorandum of understanding responds to that and takes the whole matter forward in what I hope hon. Members will think is a positive way.
  But there has been too much difficulty, for which we must take responsibility as well as other people. There has been too much argument and bad feeling between the industry and Customs and Excise and ourselves and I do not wish to add to it by going into too much detail on something which is in any case not relevant to the order.
  I reassure hon. Members that the intention of the memorandum of understanding is to be as positive as we possibly can be and to seek to solve the problems not solely by the flat rate scheme, but by going as far as we can on the registration point.
  Mr. Paice: The House will understand why my right hon. Friend does not wish to go into the detail of the scheme he is trying to agree with the industry, but I wonder whether he will accept the fundamental point that I was trying to make, and have tried to make before, that unless the majority of owners are able to register, under whatever scheme his Department comes up with, it will not have the effect we seek of circumventing the differential in VAT rates.
  Sir John Cope: I understand the point which my hon. Friend has made. He has made it before. We want to be as positive as possible and to get as near his position as we possibly can.
  298
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked whether a stud farm is included in the scheme under the definition of stock farming. It includes it.
  I do not claim that the flat rate scheme solves the matter. Otherwise we should not be bothering to talk about registration or anything else, but we are taking the discussions with the industry positively forward. This flat rate farmers scheme is a contribution to the problem. For that reason, I commend the orders to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Value Added Tax (Flat-rate Scheme for Farmers) (Designated Activities) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3220), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Value Added Tax (Flat-rate Scheme for Farmers) (Percentage Addition) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3221), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3222), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Value Added Tax (International Services and Transport) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3223), dated 16th December 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

  PETITION

    Pit Closures
    1.7 am
    Ms. Ann Coffey: The petition I am about to present contains 13,000 signatures of Stockport people opposing the pit closures programme. Although there are no pits in Stockport, people are outraged by proposals which will result in yet more unemployment. The ever-rising numbers of people who are unemployed, particularly young people who can see no future for themselves, is of great concern to my constituents.
    I was asked by people who attended a meeting at Stockport Labour club last Saturday when presenting the petition to ask the Government to tackle the problem of unemployment before it spreads like a cancer and destroys the very lifeblood of our nation.
    The petition reads:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will instruct the Government to reverse the pit closure programme at once, to stop the importation of subsidised coal from abroad, and to put the employment of people before profit to ensure a healthy community where all people can share in the wealth of the nation.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  1.8 am
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I welcome this brief but timely debate on the swiftly flowing events and spiral of violence in Bosnia. The House will look forward to learning from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State the Government's latest estimation of the problems and future plans and, above all, the safety of our 2,400 troops there.
  I am not of the school of thought which considers that the western response to the horrendous happenings in the former Yugoslavia has been indifferent and inadequate. Frankly, I am at the other end of the spectrum from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who is strong on describing the horrors but weak on telling the country precisely what should be done. We have yet to learn from him how many brigades of British troops at present in Germany should be tipped into the cauldron. I tend to think of the 70 potential flashpoints in the world and the 25 substantial conflicts. I recall and regret the reduction of our British contingent with the United Nations in Cyprus—where we have historical ties and direct responsibilities—in order to make way for further roles.
  The conflict in Bosnia has lasted for 10 months, it has claimed 18,000 lives and we are told that 100,000 people are missing. That conflict results from centuries-old ethnic feuds which are bound to continue. Essentially, there is a bitter and bloody civil war which the United Nations can seek to damp down but which in reality it is incapable of controlling. We should concentrate on making sure that the flames do not spread to neighbouring homes—one thinks particularly of Macedonia.
  I have sought this debate to raise two specific military matters, which I have brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend beforehand, and I hope that he will concentrate his reply on them. First, there is the danger of blurring a United Nations peacekeeping role with that of a conventional military response. Secondly, there is the possibility of the United Nations calling on the United Kingdom to assume a more direct role in Bosnia which could include separating the warring factions and, no doubt, trying to control their heavy weapons.
  I have taken the opportunity presented by no fewer than three Adjournment debates over the years to give the House my views on United Nations peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping has become an essential part of the work done by the United Nations for international harmony and, above all, security. My right hon. Friend will know that while I fully supported the dispatch of medical personnel, engineers and signallers to the United Nations forces in the former Yugoslavia, I had reservations about the dispatch of the Cheshire Regiment—a fine professional unit with an outstanding commanding officer—and the role that has been allocated to it. After all, the carrying of humanitarian aid is normally left to United Nations agencies and civilian transport. That said, the Cheshires have done a magnificent job. The Times, in an editorial on 26 January with which I largely disagreed, said:
  300
  "Britain has responded to Bosnia's suffering by sending in troops whose logistical skills and determination have set them in a class of their own."
  I certainly share those sentiments.
  The Cheshires may have saved the lives of thousands of men, women and children this winter, mainly Muslims, but the risks that they run hour by hour are very great: If, God forbid, 20 of these fine soldiers should be killed by random shelling in the interfactional fighting, or perhaps by mines, it is not hard to imagine the response of the British people. Frankly, they would want them to be withdrawn. The Government know only too well how easy it is to commit troops and how difficult it is subsequently to withdraw them. I should make my own position perfectly clear: at this stage our troops should not be withdrawn, but I expect the moment to come before long if the fighting continues to intensify—and the Cheshires should not be replaced at the end of their six months period of duty.
  Following an increase in the number and seriousness of the attacks on our forces, the Secretary of State for Defence announced further deployment on 14 January. He told the House that the additional forces
  "will be available to provide additional protection to British forces while they are involved in humanitarian operations."—[Official Report, 14 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1057.]
  The use of the word "while" worries me. The brief from the Conservative research department—having worked there for five years, I know that such briefs should be taken like tablets of stone—said:
  "The provision of artillery in particular will enable British forces to respond to the kind of attacks faced at Tomislavgrad."
  I detect that Ministers have wisely shifted their stance in recent weeks, but I emphasise that our humanitarian relief effort in Bosnia, under United Nations auspices, relies on the support of all parties to the civil war. it would be a disaster to seek to get relief convoys through with artillery and air support. That would change the entire nature of the operation.
  I understand that the Secretary General of the United Nations has made known his views on the subject. It is good sense to have the additional forces available to cover a withdrawal of British forces if needed, but it is nonsense to believe that the additional forces could support the relief effort. The House would welcome a clear assurance from the Minister on that. It might become a crucial issue for the Government, and we must know their intentions when the lives of British soldiers are involved.
  Secondly, last Wednesday The Daily Telegraph reported:
  "United States pressure for greater military involvement in Bosnia Hercegovina is developing into a key test of Anglo-American relations in the Clinton era. There is concern in Whitehall that President Clinton will press for a substantial contingent of British ground forces to become involved in separating the warring sides."
  The report rings true, and the issue presents real difficulties for the Cabinet. There have indeed been calls from across the pond for Britain to take a European lead in resolving the Balkan crisis, and of course the Conservative side of the House in particular is anxious that Britain should continue to be seen as a reliable ally of the United States. We are aware, too, that pressure for Britain to give up its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council would be increased by a clear refusal to take a more active role in the former Yugoslavia—but the arguments on the other side are stronger.

  301
  I quote from the Foreign Secretary's thoughtful and distinguished speech at Chatham house last week:
  "We must make it clear that however good the institutions, however robust our decision, it is impossible to guarantee order and good government everywhere … Where we act, our action must be proportionate. For example, to impose and guarantee order in the former Yugoslavia would take huge forces and huge risks over an indefinite period—which no democracy could justify to its people. British troops there have a humanitarian, not an enforcing role".
  My right hon. Friend will know of the disquiet on the Conservative Benches, especially among those of his colleagues with knowledge and interest in defence matters, about the lack of clear political and strategic objectives in the former Yugoslavia. Escorting food convoys can be understood, although the risks are understood as well, but a wider role in such a hopelessly confused and complex political situation would not be understood. The difficulties of military action, especially involving armoured vehicles in such a heavily wooded and mountainous country, require little imagination. There are already sizeable armies there, and new and more sophisticated weapons, including missiles, arrive every day. It is a perfect setting for guerrilla activity—a form of fighting at which the Yugoslavs excel.
  Colonel Michael Dewar, deputy director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, has estimated that effective military intervention in Bosnia, including the defeat of the Serb militias and military occupation, would require something like half a million men, and it is almost certain that regular Serbian forces would become involved. Every city, town and village in Bosnia would require a garrison. More important, they would require a garrison for the foreseeable future. There is no clear or possible cut-off date.
  My view, and that of many supporters of the Government, is that military intervention is not the answer and should be discounted. It could even be counterproductive and suck other countries into the conflict. For example, Russia might be sucked in on behalf of the Serbs. We would be wise to understand that, however horrific and intolerable the situation there is, when the inhabitants of any country are determined to fight each other and bring about mass rape, starvation, ethnic cleansing, misery and ruin, there are real limits to what can be performed by the United Nations on behalf of us all and of the civilisation that we hold so dear.
  1.21 am
  Mr. Harold Elletson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me the opportunity to participate briefly in this debate, which he will be aware, as I am sure the Minister is aware, is the subject of great concern to many of my hon. Friends and to hon. Members in all parts of the House who share our worry about the dangers of greater British military involvement in Bosnia and in the former Yugoslavia.
  I was one of an all-party group which visited Bosnia just before Christmas. With my hon. Friends and hon. Members from the Liberal and Labour parties, I saw something of the complexities of the conflict in Bosnia and visited positions in and around Sarajevo. The problem at present is that the western response to the crisis is being substantially dicated by the emotional attitude of the press and other media in this country and, to a greater degree, in the United States and in Germany. It has largely dictated our response so far. We must be wary of allowing
  302
  ourselves to be pushed by the Americans or by the Germans into military intervention in the Bosnian civil war, which could easily escalate into a general Balkan war, with incalculable consequences for this country and for the whole of Europe.
  Two issues concern me. The first is the no-fly zone. I am glad that the threat of Britain's being pushed into enforcement of the no-fly zone appears for the moment to have receded; nevertheless, it is still there, and it would be military folly and extremely unwise politically for us to be pushed into any attempt to enforce the no-fly zones in Bosnia Herzegovina.
  The other question that we are likely very soon to face because of substantial American pressure, particularly if there is a negotiated settlement as a result of the initiatives of Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen, is United Kingdom participation in a peacekeeping force. Even on that issue, many of my hon. Friends would feel extremely concerned about the United Kingdom putting troops into a peace-keeping force unless there had been a clear settlement, which had been adhered to by all the parties in the conflict for a considerable time.
  Will my hon. Friend be extremely careful about giving any commitment of British forces in a peacekeeping role unless it is absolutely clear that there is a workable, negotiated peace settlement which can stick? Otherwise, we shall find that we are embroiling British troops in a Balkan quagmire, with terrible consequences for this country and the whole of Europe.
  1.25 am
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on securing this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to be able to respond to the points that he has raised. I also appreciate the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), who speaks with much knowledge on the subject.
  The House knows that Britain has been at the forefront of international efforts to restore peace in Bosnia and to bring relief to the suffering civilian populations. The first priority in Bosnia and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia must be a lasting political settlement which respects the legitimate concerns of all the people involved. The international conference on the former Yugoslavia in Geneva, under the chairmanship of Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance, is working hard to resolve each of the different aspects of the crisis. We and our European partners have given those negotiations our active support, both by diplomatic persuasion and by exerting political and ecomomic pressure, notably through United Nations sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro.
  We have never had any illusions that the talks would be simple or quick. The issues to be resolved are extraordinarily complex and sensitive, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, sooner or later there must be a negotiated settlement. The only question is whether it comes now or following further suffering.
  For the time being, in spite of the pressures which President Milosevic has apparently exerted—not before time—on the Bosnian Serb leader, neither the Bosnian Serbs nor the Muslims have accepted the comprehensive

  303
  proposals which Lord Owen and Mr. Vance have put forward for a peace settlement. The Bosnian Croats alone have done so.
  Although all three factions have agreed to the proposed constitutional arrangements, the division of territory on the map presented by the co-chairmen remains a point of contention between the Serbs and Muslims. The co-chairmen have asked the United Nations Security Council to support the proposals and to encourage, and if necessary bring pressure to bear on, the parties to negotiate seriously on the basis of them. We must hope that the talks continue and achieve a successful outcome, as the plan—with whatever refinement is necessary—represents the only real chance for peace.
  In the meantime, the position on the ground in Bosnia-Herzegovina is, of course, a matter of serious concern. The military position remains unpredictable, as fighting continues along the Posavina corridor, where the Bosnian Serb army and the Muslims battle to control what is a vital supply route for the Serbs. Fighting has also continued in and around the areas of Bratanac in eastern Bosnia. In central Bosnia, there is continuing tension between the Croats and Muslims, despite the recent signing of a ceasefire.
  While we are doing all we can to promote a political settlement, the Government have also had as a high priority the provision of aid to alleviate the appalling suffering which the conflict has caused. I shall speak in a moment about our battalion group. On the civil side, Britain has contributed more than £70 million to date, which includes, for example, a £3 million programme to provide winter shelter in central Bosnia to house up to 20,000 displaced people, £2.75 million-worth of medical supplies, and 60 civilian drivers and support staff, who have now run about 150 convoys carrying over 10,000 tonnes of relief supplies. We are also maintaining heat and power supply for a million people in central Bosnia by ensuring that coal mines and power stations continue to operate.
  Turning to the military involvement in humanitarian relief, 4,545 tonnes of aid have been flown into Sarajevo by the RAF Hercules since the humanitarian airlift began last July; and the British infantry battalion group, which has been deployed since November, has now escorted a total of some 15,121 tonnes of aid.
  The Government naturally understand and share the concerns of the House about the safety of our infantry battalion group. The battalion is deployed in Bosnia-Herzegovina for a purely humanitarian purpose—helping, as part of the United Nations protection force, to provide protective support for relief convoys operating under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The aim is to proceed by negotiation and with the co-operation of the Yugoslav parties. That picks up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North—that it is not our business to take on one side or another in some form of battle. Our troops are not there to take sides in the conflict or to fight the convoys through, against opposition.
  As yet, the fighting has not significantly affected the battalion group's task, although it has caused some disruption to the convoys. But the risks to our troops, and
  304
  to all involved on the ground, are clear. The tragic killing of Lance Corporal Edwards on 13 January brings them home all too sharply.
  I can assure the House that the safety of the British contingent and of others on the ground is kept under continuous review. The Government remain committed to sustaining our participation in the humanitarian effort as long as conditions on the ground permit, but not at unacceptable risk to our people.
  It is against that background that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence informed the House on 14 January, we have deployed to the Adriatic, as a precautionary measure, a carrier group led by HMS Ark Royal, with a number of capabilities embarked, including fixed wing Sea Harrier aircraft and light artillery. The purpose, as my right hon. and learned Friend explained, is to have them available for deployment ashore should the need arise, either to provide additional protection for our personnel or to assist with a withdrawal of United Nations personnel if it were to come to that.
  The Government will not allow any blurring of the distinction between a humanitarian effort and the use of force. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on 14 January, there is no suggestion on the part of the Government that it would be appropriate or sensible to contemplate a humanitarian operation that could take place only through the use of force. What we have in mind is that there may be occasions when the availability of additional protection will enable individual convoys to proceed safely. But if it became clear that the convoys could proceed only with the constant use of force, that would be totally incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations task in Bosnia.
  The Government remain clear that military intervention does not offer a solution to the problems of Bosnia. It would make an already serious situation worse and would compromise the humanitarian relief operations on which hundreds of thousands of lives now depend. Massive military intervention might suppress the conflict for a time but, in the absence of a negotiated settlement, the withdrawal of the intervening force would be the signal for a resumption of fighting. I can assure the House that the Government have no intention of being drawn into a peacemaking role of that kind.
  We of course recognise that there will be a role for peacekeeping forces in Bosnia as and when the international conference in Geneva has achieved a negotiated settlement, to help the settlement stick, on the basis of a ceasefire and the co-operation of the parties. There is no reason, however, at this stage to think of changing the role of United Kingdom forces, as the likelihood is that they will be required for some time. Further contributions will therefore be mainly a matter for others.
  I can assure the House that the Government are in no danger of losing sight of the distinction between a humanitarian and an interventionist role in Bosnia. The Government will continue to play their part in helping the international community to work with the parties to try to find peaceful solutions to the political problems that are the root cause of the fighting.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EC Official Languages
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to reduce the number of languages used within the European Community as official languages.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  None.

  Philippines (Visas)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications were received for settlement visas for spouses from the Philippines during 1992; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This information is not available in London. I have asked the British embassy in Manila to provide the answer and I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office shortly.

  Security Council (United Kingdom Seat)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on discussions he has had on the United Kingdom's permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Reform and revitalisation of United Nations institutions and the United Nations secretariat is a current subject of discussions in New York and in various bilateral and other meetings. The United Nations special committee on the charter regularly discusses Security Council reform at its meetings. Cuba and Libya have been active in recent years in pressing the case for abolition of the veto. The wish of Japan, currently a Security Council member, to become a permanent member is well known. At Maastricht, we agreed that Britain and France, as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, will in the execution of their functions ensure the defence of the positions and the interests of the union without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations charter.

  Mr. Sheikh Riaz Ahmad
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the United Kingdom post in Paris has received from the French authorities concerning the case of Mr. Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, a British citizen, of Bradford, about whom the Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member for Bradford, West, on 4 January last; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British Consulate-General at Lille has received a report from the French frontier police 82
  on their refusal to allow Mr. Ahmed to land. This indicates Mr. Ahmed was refused entry because he was not able to prove his nationality. Since this explanation is less than satisfactory we are seeking clarification from the French authorities. I am in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman about this case and will write again when I have a further report.

  Yugoslav Republics (Embargoes)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the terms of each of the arms embargoes and arms export restrictions currently in force in respect of each former Yugoslav republic.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations Security Council resolution 713 (1991) imposes a complete embargo on deliveries of weapons and military equipment to the republics of the former Yugoslavia until the Security Council decides otherwise. Additionally, United Nations Security Council resolutions 757 and 787 (1992) prohibit any trade with Serbia and Montenegro.

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

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The following is the information:

  COUNCIL OF MINISTERS BUSINESS FOR FEBRUARY 1993

  1. The following meetings are planned:

  ½ February: Foreign Affairs Council

  8 February: Internal Market Council

  9/10 February: Agriculture Council

  15 February: Economic and Finance Council

  (a) Foreign Affairs Council—½ February

  Open debate on Danish Presidency work programme

  Enlargement

  EEA

  East/Central Europe

  Israel

  Former Yugoslavia

  GATT

  Commercial Defence Instruments

  Cocoa

  (b) Internal Market Council—8 February

  Completion of the Internal Market including follow-up to Council resolution on making the Single Market work

  Sutherland report

  Abolition of frontier controls

  Regulation of control of conformity of third country imports

  Regulation on Community trade mark [poss]

  Directive on medical devices

  Scientific co-operation in food

  Additional control measures (food)

  Regulation laying down Council procedures for contaminants in food

  Fruit juices and similar products (consolidated version of Dir. 80/181)

  Regulation on business registers for statistical purposes

  Public Works Directive (amendment and consolidation [poss]

  (c) Agriculture Council–9/10 February

  Commission presentation of 1993/94 price fixing proposals

  83

  Common organisation of the market in bananas (8372/92; 4064/93)

  GATT agriculture (10534/92)

  Transitional measures for Portugal (10181/92; 4064/93)

  Aid for durum wheat producers (4305/93)

  Aid for sheepmeat producers [poss] (4307/93)

  Limit to the production aid for processed tomato products (10495/92)

  (d) Economic and Finance Council—15 February

  The Danish Presidency work programme (open debate)

  National actions to promote economic recovery in Europe and review of convergence programmes

  7th VAT directive

  Follow-up to Edinburgh conclusions on future financing of the Community

  3. The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 1–2 February. It will commence with an open debate on the Danish Presidency work programme. On Enlargement, the Council will approve arrangements for the opening session of accession negotiations, and on EEA, the Council will be asked to approve a mandate for the Commission to negotiate with EFTA an additional protocol to the EEA agreement. Ministers will then discuss Irael; East/Central Europe; Former Yugoslavia; the GATT and Commercial Defence Instruments. Cocoa will also be discussed.

  4. The Internal Market Council will meet on 8 February and will discuss completion of the Internal Market; the Sutherland report and Abolition of frontier controls. Regulation of control of conformity of third country imports will also be discussed. Other agenda items are for clearance as points only.

  5. The Agriculture Council will meet on 9–10 February. Ministers will discuss the price-fixing proposals for 1993–94; banana market regime; agricultural aspects of the GATT negotiations; transitional measures for Portugal; aid for durum wheat producers and aid for sheepmeat producers. They may also discuss production aid for processed tomato products.

  6. The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 15 February to discuss the ECOFIN work programme and continue discussions on actions to promote economic recovery and to follow up the agreement of the Edinburgh European Council on the future financing of the Community. There will be an open debate on the Danish Presidency work programme and the proposal to amend the 7th VAT directive (special VAT regime for second-hand goods, works of art, antique and collectors' items) is also scheduled for discussion.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken and is proposing to take in response to the letter of Commissioner Van Miert of 23 December 1992 concerning the implementation of directives 75/440/EEC and 79/869/EEC.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  In our response we shall set out what has been done in the United Kingdom to implement these directives. In accordance with the usual practice of the Commission, we treat such correspondence as in confidence between the Commission and ourselves.

  Environmental Claims
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to bring forward his proposals to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 in relation to environmental claims.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have been asked to reply.
  84
  Many environmental claims are already within the scope of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. We intend to amend the Act to put it beyond doubt that all such claims are covered as soon as parliamentary time permits.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Administrative Work
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress he has made regarding the location of his Department's administrative work in Cardiff; what influence the market testing procedure will have on such progress; what representations he has had from local authorities, the legal profession and others regarding the ultimate location of this work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor and I have decided that the court procedures for enforcing the payment of unpaid parking charges, arising under the Road Traffic Act 1991, will be carried out at a parking enforcement centre attached to Cardiff county court. About 20 additional staff will eventually be required.

  We envisaged that the Lord Chancellor's Department's pay and superannuation unit, consisting of some 40 staff, might be centralised and located in Cardiff. However, the position has been considered again as part of the market testing exercise in this area, and centralisation is now likely to take place in London. No representations have been received on this.

ENVIRONMENT

  KPMG Management Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to KPMG Management Consultants over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Howard
  KPMG Management Consultants have been awarded four contracts by my Department over the past 12 months. These are:

  Relocation of Department of the Environment headquarters staff in London (awarded 15 April 1992);

  Planning Inspectorate executive agency independent business advisor (awarded 13 May 1992);

  Department of the Environment Relocation: Consultancy on Advanced Office Support System (awarded 21 May 1992);

  Proposal for the Wirral Business Enterprise Centre (awarded 1 October 1992).

  Radioactive Discharges
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to take account of the representations received by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution before the consultation period on discharges licences for the Sellafield site began; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution received approximately 38,000 representations shortly before the statutory public consultation period began on
  85
  16 November 1992. The comments made will be taken into consideration by the authorising departments in their determination of BNFL's applications.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters of objection to the application for new discharges licences for the Sellafield site have been received by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution from(a) statutory consultees, (b) local authorities and (c) individual members of the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has received approximately 75,000 letters concerning this matter of which it is estimated that more than 50,000 are objecting to the proposals. Of the total received by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution there have been eight representations by statutory consultees and over 100 local authorities have written in.

  Footpaths
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the procedure for extinguishing footpaths; what simple or local appeal or arbitration procedure exists to deal with requests for diverting or extinguishing footpaths; and what arrangements are made for the legal costs involved.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities have powers to make orders to stop up or divert public paths. Any order made must be advertised since it affects public rights. Although some 70 per cent. of orders are confirmed locally, if there are objections which cannot be resolved, the order may be passed to the Secretary of State for confirmation, and a local inquiry may be held. We are introducing regulations to enable authorities to recoup their administrative expenses from an applicant for an order; otherwise, parties are generally expected to meet their own costs.

  Lambeth Council
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance he has offered to Lambeth council to deal with matters raised by the report of the chief executive under section 5 of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. The primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud lies with the management of local authorities. They should have good systems of internal control and effective internal audit. The auditor has the responsibility of checking the financial control systems of a local authority.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many submissions were received by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on 25 January, in response to British Nuclear Fuel's application for authorisation for the new thermal oxide reprocessing plant, and associated facilities, at Sellafield; how many of these submissions were in support of BNFL applications; and what proportion of the total submissions came from abroad.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 25 January, HMIP received some 16,000 representations, the majority of which appear to support the proposals, but at present HMIP does not have a detailed breakdown of these figures.
  86
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account his decision on the authorisation for the licensing of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield will make of the letter sent to him in October by the chairman of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee on the British Nuclear Fuels plc proposals to implement a curie equivalence substitution plan for the management of nuclear waste arising from reprocessing of foreign spent fuel at Sellafield.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 January, at column 769.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 30 October 1992,Official Report, column 859, if he has yet received the report of the nuclear waste borehole public inquiry in Cumbria.

  Mr. Baldry
  There will be no report to the Secretary of State in this case. The planning appeals concerned will be decided by an inspector. That is a matter for the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency, and I have arranged for the chief executive to reply.

  Letter from Mr. H. S. Crow to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 1 February 1992:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to provide the reply to your Parliamentary Question about the nuclear waste borehole inquiry in Cumbria, as this is a matter for the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency.
  The planning appeals by British Nuclear Fuels, relating to proposed exploratory boreholes near Gosforth, are to be decided by the Inspector who held the inquiry, as arranged, in November. The Inspector, Mr. P. Burden (who was appointed following the illness of the Inspector originally appointed, Mr. P. Rosser), is concluding his consideration of the case, and I expect his decision to be issued shortly.

  Housing Associations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consideration he has given to the ability of people in low-paid employment to meet the level of rents for housing association properties implied by the proposed reduction in housing association grants by 1995–96;

  (2) if he will undertake a full assessment of the consequences of the proposed reduction in housing allocation grant rate to 55 per cent. on the financial viability and viability of the housing association movement and the ability of individual housing associations to attract private funding.

  Mr. Baldry
  No decision on grant rates for 1995–96 has been taken yet. That decision will be taken in the light of a full consideration of a number of factors, including the likely impact on rents and the ability of housing associations to attract private finance.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to preserve and sustain the current scale and diversity of the housing association movement and to ensure that the housing allocation grant funding levels set by his Department will reflect and further this objective,

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's expenditure plans announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement more
  87
  than meet the commitment in our manifesto to spend nearly £6 billion through the Housing Corporation over the three years to 1994–95. The value of diversity is certainly one of the factors which we will take into account in making decisions about future levels of housing association grant.

  Planning Appeals
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the mechanism for challenging planning appeal decisions and costs thereof; and what proposals he has to change it.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no recent representations about the mechanism for challenging planning appeal decisions. Decisions on the award of costs resulting from a planning appeal may be challenged by seeking leave of the High Court for an application for judicial review. My right hon. and learned Friend has received two recent representations in favour of a simpler procedure, but has no proposals to change it.

  Rural Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his consideration of the desirability of any changes to the legal and financial framework for the provision of rural water and sewerage services.

  Mr. Maclean
  We expect to complete our consideration in the course of this session.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land has been affected by opencast mining in the last 10 years; how much of such land was green field and how much despoiled or derelict; and of the despoiled or derelict land, how much was subsequently returned to useful purposes.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally. According to statistics compiled by the County Planning Officers Society's committee No. 3, however, during the last four years 6,490 hectares of land received planning permission for opencasting in England, of which 1,309 hectares was derelict. The equivalent figures for Scotland and Wales are respectively 2,525 hectares of which 563 was derelict and 635 hectares, of which 364 was derelict. The 1988 minerals survey shows that between 1982 and 1984 4,041 hectares of land granted permission for opencasting was reclaimed satisfactorily and only 39 hectares reclaimed unsatisfactorily. All permissions for opencasting carry a requirement fully to restore the land.

  Housing Benefit Subsidy
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each housing authority the amount of housing benefit subsidy paid to the authority and the amount of housing benefit paid from the housing revenue account; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have deposited in the Library of the House a copy of a table showing the information requested by the hon. Member. The table shows for 1992–93 each 88
  authority's estimated expenditure on rent rebates debited to the housing revenue account, the amount of that expenditure which is not eligible for subsidy, the estimated contribution from the HRA towards the cost of rent rebates granted and the estimated amount of HRA subsidy claimed on rent rebates.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that community care homes, which are occupied exclusively by severely mentally impaired adults, qualify for 100 per cent. rebate under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978, after 1 April 1993; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he is taking to exercise his powers under section 13 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to make regulations reducing the council tax payable in respect of persons resident in registered charitable residential care or nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Rating (Disabled Persons) Act ceased to apply to domestic accommodation when domestic rates were abolished, and is of no relevance to the council tax.

  There are no special council tax provisions for occupied dwellings owned by charities. It is right that charities should continue to receive relief from non-domestic rates, because these are a tax on the premises which a charity needs to conduct its own business. But the council tax is a tax paid by residents, whether directly or through their landlord. There is no reason why some residents should be specially treated simply because their landlord is a charity. Instead we focus help by reference to individuals' needs through the discount and benefit systems.

  Registered care and nursing homes will benefit from a number of council tax reliefs. Care and nursing home patients, like severly mentally impaired people, are not counted towards the personal element of the tax. Many registered care and nursing homes will therefore get a 50 per cent. discount. Most will probably have their bill reduced by one valuation band in respect of facilities for disabled residents, and very many are likely to qualify for substantial amounts of transitional relief. Care homes, like other large dwellings, will also benefit from banding arrangements which mean that the bill for the most expensive property in an area is limited to three times that for the cheapest.

  European Environment Agency
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the latest developments regarding the establishment of the proposed European Environment Agency; and if it is his intention to bid for the agency to be located in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  During our presidency of the EC Council of Ministers, we made strenuous efforts to overcome the blockages which have prevented the establishment of the European Environment Agency, and at the December Environment Council, 11 Council member states agreed to press the Commission to speed up preparatory work. As a first step, the Commission have called a meeting of senior officials on 9 February.
  89
  The United Kingdom has bid for the agency to be located in Cambridge.

  Marine Pollution Control
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the whole area of marine pollution control, as recommended by the second report of the Environment Committee of 1991–92 (HC17) on coastal zone protection and planning, in the light of the grounding of the supertanker MV Braer.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government response (CM 2011 July 1992) to the Environment Committee report stressed the need for different agencies to deal with various marine pollution control functions and pointed to their good record of close co-operation, particularly over oil and chemical pollution from ships. Lord Donaldson's inquiry will no doubt be considering whether the MV Braer incident should lead to any changes in these views.

  Urban Priority Areas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking in his review of urban priority areas to ensure that local authorities which have both prosperous areas and areas of acute deprivation do not lose priority status as a result of the existence of the prosperous areas.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In considering information about the incidence of urban needs, we will study results from census and other data at three levels—local authority areas, wards and census enumeration districts, the last covering about 500 persons.

  Tyneside Clinical Waste Incinerator
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne. Central of 15 July 1992,Official Report, column 836, if he is now in a position to announce his decision on the Tyneside clinical waste incinerator application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The inspector's report on this application, which is the subject of an appeal by Northumbrian Water Group plc, was received by the Secretary of State on 24 September 1992. Together with the report of the assessor, who advised the inspector on technical issues, the report runs to some 200 pages. It raises a number of complex issues, all of which have to be carefully considered before a decision can be issued.

  Good progress is being made and the decision will be issued as soon as it is practicable to do so.

  Architects (Registration) Acts
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take following the review by Mr. John Warne CB of the Architects (Registration) Acts; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I have today published the report of the independent review of the Acts, which was undertaken following a request by the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom. I am grateful for the full co-operation which had been given to the review by ARCUK and the profession generally, and to those who responded in the public consultation on this matter.
  90
  The review's conclusion is clear: that statutory registration of architects has brought no added benefit to the public, to consumers, or to the profession itself and that there is no reason why architects uniquely amongst the construction professions should be regulated by statute. The established arrangements for self-regulation through the chartered professional institutions provide for satisfactory protection of the public interest, and of consumers. The Government accepts the report's conclusions. I have therefore decided that statutory registration should be abolished at the earliest legislative opportunity.

  Until such time as the Acts have been repealed, the legal restriction on the use of the title of architect will remain and ARCUK will continue to perform its registration, enforcement and other functions in the usual way.

  International Development and Co- operation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policy initiatives he is planning to undertake to promote international development and to-operation in the next six months; what meetings he is planning to attend; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: My right hon. Friend will continue to play a full part in the work of the European Community and other international fora. We welcome the establishment of the Sustainable Development Commission as envisaged at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio last year. My right hon. and learned Friend is also taking forward the initiatives announced by the Prime Minister at UNCED: the Darwin initiative for survival of species and preparations for an international conference of non-governmental organisations to exchange experience on the practical implementation of sustainable development to be held later this year. He will attend the global technology partnership conference in Birmingham in March, which was also announced by the Prime Minister at UNCED.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what review OFWAT is making of flexibility in infrastructure charges.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: The Director General of Water Services has announced his intention to undertake a fundamental review of infrastructure charges as part of the overall review of water company charges in 1994. He will shortly be issuing a consultation paper which will set out the options for change to infrastructure charges.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the funding from urban partnership he intends to provide to projects aimed at benefiting the ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Each bid for urban partnership funding will be assessed on its merits against the criteria set out in our guidance to local authorities.

  Council Debts, Gloucestershire
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the indebtedness of(a) Gloucestershire county council, (b) Tewkesbury borough council, (c) Cotswold district council and (d) Cheltenham borough council in each year since 1980.

  Total external debt (temporary and longer-term)

  Year end

  Gloucestershire £000

  Tewkesbury £000

  Cotswold £000

  Cheltenham £000

  1979–80

  16,100

  19,900

  22,000

  26,600

  1980–81

  20,300

  20,500

  23,000

  28,100

  1981–82

  21,400

  19,900

  20,700

  26,600

  1982–83

  25,300

  18,600

  20,400

  n/a

  1983–84

  23,900

  15,300

  16,300

  n/a

  1984–85

  23,800

  18,200

  13,900

  n/a

  1985–86

  45,900

  14,900

  13,900

  n/a

  1986–87

  53,384

  11,740

  19,651

  n/a

  1987–88

  66,763

  11,720

  22,994

  n/a

  1988–89

  92,371

  13,522

  n/a

  30,269

  1989–90

  104,426

  12,727

  n/a

  29,582

  1990–91

  121,114

  9,327

  23,051

  33,977

  1991–92

  124,537

  9,327

  20,497

  40,092

  Figures for 1985–86 and earlier have been rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  Source: 1979–81 CIPFA Return of Outstanding Debt.

  1981–90 CIPFA Capital Expenditure and Debt Financing Statistics.

  1990–92 Local authority returns.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further guidance he is giving to the Local Government Commission for England in relation to sections 17, 18 and 19 of the policy guidance notes published last June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We do not propose to issue further guidance on these matters at present.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he will make to transfer assets and liabilities from local authorities which cease to exist as a result of the Local Government Commission's review to existing or new authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Local Government Act 1992 provides for the Secretary of State to establish one or more residuary bodies if necessary to take over any property, rights or liabilities, and any related functions from local authorities which cease to exist as a result of the Local Government Commission's recommendations.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from councils in Oxfordshire concerning disparities in the proportion of local authority budgets funded by Government grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Neither of the representations which I received from councils in Oxfordshire addressed the question of disparities in the proportion of local authority budgets funded by Government grant.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the outcome of the consultation on the local government finance settlement for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.
  92
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 January 1993, column 854]: I regret that the tax base information listed in the exemplifications for Manchester, Stockport, Trafford, Salford, Barnsley, Wakefield, Crawley, Tandridge, Bolsover and Ashfield does not properly reflect boundary changes. Surrey, West Sussex, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire county councils are also affected. There are consequent changes in the authorities' revenue support grant entitlements and, because the tax base is used to apportion certain levies, in the authorities' standard spending assessments. In most cases the changes are not significant. I shall publish revised figures as soon as possible. My Department has today written to the authorities affected explaining the position to them.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines the Commonwealth Development Corporation has developed to minimise the environmental impacts of tobacco plantations or processing.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: Assessment of the environmental aspects of proposed investments is an integral part of the Commonwealth Development Corporation's project appraisal and approval procedures. CDC has agreed that it should make no new investments in tobacco plantations or processing. Past investments were made in accordance with CDC's environmental guidelines which are currently under review.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Autumn Statement
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish(a) the working assumptions on outstanding central Government debt and average interest rates underlying the entries for central Government debt interest in table 2A.3 of the "Autumn Statement", Cm 2096, (b) a ready reckoner of the effects on such expenditure of increments of £1 billion in outstanding central Government debt and of increments of one percentage point in average interest rates on such central Government debt, (c) the working assumptions on outstanding local authority debt and average interest rates on such local authority debt underlying the entries for local authority debt interest in table 2A.11 and (d) a ready reckoner of the effects on such expenditure of increments of £1 billion in outstanding local authority debt and of increments of one percentage point on average interest rates on such local authority debt.

  Mr. Portillo
  The debt interest projections shown in tables 2A.3 and 2A.11 of the "Autumn Statement" were based on the working assumption that the public sector borrowing requirement is £37 billion in 1992–93, 7 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1993–94, and then falls as the economy recovers.

  It is not conventional practice to publish projections of interest rates.

  The effects of increments to the stock of debt or to interest rates on payments of debt interest will depend upon the composition of the outstanding debt and upon the average cost of funding.

  Ready reckoners for local authority debt interest payments will similarly depend on the composition of local authority debt and the cost of funding.

  Antiques
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the VAT revenue in 1991 under the special scheme; what estimate he has made of the sum which would be raised from the proposed 5 per cent. extra VAT on imported antiques under the new EC proposals; what was the estimated cost of raising the VAT under the special scheme; and what is the estimated cost of raising the additional 5 per cent. VAT on imported antiques.

  Sir John Cope
  There is insufficient information on which to base an estimate of the revenue or the cost of administration of the special scheme.

  Applying VAT at a rate of 5 per cent. to imported works of art, antiques and collectors' items would probably raise less than £20 million.

  Fuel (Tax Differentials)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of(a) the environmental and (b) the fiscal effects of his policy on tax differentials between diesel and other fuels.

  Sir John Cope
  Duty is charged on road fuels at rates which not only raise sufficient revenue but also take account of environmental considerations.

  The environmental benefits of diesel rather than petrol consumption are not entirely clear cut. Diesel engines are
  94
  more efficient than petrol, so they emit less carbon dioxide per mile travelled. But this advantage has to be weighed against higher emissions of nitrogen oxide and particulates (soot/smoke) than from a petrol engine fitted with a three-way catalytic converter.

  It is estimated that ending the diesel duty differential with unleaded petrol would yield around £65 million in 1993–94; ending the differential with leaded petrol would yield £555 million in 1993–94.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the decision at the last Budget to widen the tax differential between diesel and other fuels on(a) the use of diesel fuel and (b) on the levels of revenue generated from diesel use.

  Sir John Cope
  The last Budget increased the duty on diesel and unleaded petrol by 4.5 per cent., in line with inflation. The 7.5 per cent. increase on leaded petrol widened the tax differential between diesel and leaded petrol (duty and consequential VAT) from 4.7 p per litre to 5.8p per litre. The impact of this on diesel consumption is very difficult to quantify. In the short run, however, few motorists will have had time to respond to the wider tax differential by switching to vehicles with diesel engines so the impact on diesel consumption is likely to have been insignificant. Accordingly, we do not expect the real increase on the leaded petrol duty to affect the yield from diesel duty from the present financial year.

  Departmenal Employees
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people over the age of 60 years began employment in each Government Department in 1992.

  Mr. Portillo
  Approximately 150 people aged 60 and over began employment in the non-industrial home civil service during the period 1 January to 30 September 1992. Information for the final quarter of the year is not yet available.

  Details of the numbers recruited into individual Departments could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Premium Savings Bonds
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to maintain the minimum payment for purchases of premium savings bonds for persons under the age of 16 years at £10 after 1 February.

  Mr. Nelson
  As announced on 12 November 1992, the minimum purchase for those buying premium bonds on behalf of children under 16 rose from £10 to £100 on 1 February. There are no present plans for further changes.

  VAT
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what repayments of VAT in respect of VAT relief for bad debts were made in the last financial year for which figures are available; and what sum he estimates will be repaid in respect of subsequent financial years.

  Sir John Cope
  In order to keep burdens on business to a minimum, claims for bad debt relief are included with all other amounts of tax entered in traders' VAT returns and separate figures are not available.
  95
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the 12 month delay on repayment of VAT in respect of bad debts was decided; what representations he has received on this point; and whether he has the matter under review.

  Sir John Cope
  Section 11(1)(c), Finance Act 1990, provided for a period of two years, beginning with the date of the supply, to elapse to qualify for bad debt relief. Following representations, that waiting period was reduced to twelve months by section 15(1), Finance Act 1991.

  Representations regarding the length of the waiting period are received from time to time and the matter is kept under review.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what ruling HM Customs and Excise has made on the VAT liability of controlled circulation magazines mailed to other member states of the EC with a positive rate of VAT; and what are the reasons for this decision.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 27 January 1993]: Since 1 January 1993, under the 6th EC VAT directive as amended the tax treatment of goods supplied by VAT-registered traders to non-VAT registered customers in other member states under the distance selling arrangements, including mail order, has been dependent on thresholds. Each member state has adopted a threshold of either 35,000 or 100,000 ecu. If sales to a member state arc beneath that member state's threshold then VAT in the member state of origin is chargeable; in the case of supplies of magazines from the United Kingdom, this would be zero. If sales exceed the threshold laid down by a member state, then all sales to that member state are chargeable at the appropriate rate of VAT in that member state and the trader will need to register for VAT or appoint a tax representative in that member state.

  Where supplies are made to customers who are VAT registered in another EC member state, the removal from the United Kingdom may be zero-rated if the VAT registration number of the consignee is shown on the tax invoice, and tax will be due on acquisition by the customer.

  These arrangements follow the normal rules that goods are subject to VAT in the member state of destination. Until 31 December 1992 tax was supposed to be paid in accordance with the law in the state where the purchaser was. Since 1 January 1993 the thresholds are a simplification measure so that distance sellers supplying small quantities can apply VAT at the rate applied in the country of origin.

  Clearing Banks
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current clearing banks' base rate in the United Kingdom; what information he has about the nearest equivalent in the other member countries of the European Community; and what the equivalent figures were on 7 September 1992.

  Mr. Lamont
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: The clearing banks' base rate in the United Kingdom on 29 January was 6 per cent. compared with 10 per cent. on the 7 September 1992. Commercial bank rates and official rates in other countries are not strictly comparable, so the talble compares three month market interest rates on the dates specified.
  96

  Short-term (three months interest rates)

  7 September 1992

  29 January 1993

  United Kingdom

  10.3

  6.3

  Belgium

  9.8

  8.4

  Denmark

  11.2

  13.0

  Spain

  13.7

  14.0

  France

  10.5

  12.6

  Germany

  9.8

  8.5

  Greece

  20.0

  24.0

  Ireland

  10.8

  24.0

  Italy

  17.5

  12.2

  Netherlands

  9.8

  8.2

  Portugal

  14.8

  16.0

  Importers and Exporters (Complaints)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to set up an independent complaints procedure for those importers and exporters who have complaints about administration by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: Customs and Excise reviewed its complaints procedure in 1991. As a result it has improved its internal system for handling complaints. Details of how to complain are given in the leaflet "Complaints against Customs and Excise" (Notice 1000). It is intended to introduce an independent tribunal system for customs matters by 1 January 1995, in line with EC agreement.

  Bloodstock (VAT)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Prime Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe on 18 January,Official Report, column 21, in regard to the level of VAT on bloodstock in the United Kingdom and the rates levied in France and Ireland, what submission the Paymaster General has had from the Jockey Club on this subject; and when he expects there to be a ministerial statement on the outcome of his consideration of their submission.

  Mr. Lamont
  [holding answer 28 January 1993]: Representatives of the horseracing industry have made proposals for changes to the rules of racing intended to make ownership more of a business activity and therefore allow some owners of racehorses to register for VAT. Customs and Excise has drawn up a technical memorandum of understanding to be agreed with the industry as soon as possible.

  International Co-operation and Development
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policy initiatives he is planning to undertake in the next six months to promote international co-operation and development; what meetings he is planning to attend; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: Over the next six months, my right hon. Friend will continue to work to strengthen international co-operation, in particular with EC and G7 colleagues. He will continue to press for a satisfactory conclusion to the GATT Uruguay

  97
  round and to seek to improve the terms of debt relief available to the poorest countries. In the EC, my right hon. Friend will press for progress in implementing the package of measures agreed at the Edinburgh summit to promote economic recovery and in making the single market work effectively. With G7 colleagues he will be working to reduce obstacles to sustainable growth and hence foster employment. My right hon. Friend plans to attend meetings with EC colleagues as well as the EBRD annual meeting in London, the G7/IMF/World Bank meetings in Washington and the Economic summit in Tokyo.

  Income Distribution
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to publish data on the distribution of income which follows on from the 1984–85 analysis published in "Economic Trends", November 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: There are no plans at present to update the 1984–85 analysis.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Wiliam O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of state for Northern Ireland if he intends to introduce the sale of water services in Northern Ireland in the same manner as in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  No decision has yet been taken on how the sale will take place. Options for the method of sale are currently being addressed as part of a consultancy study into a range of major privatisation issues.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he intends to publish the feasibility study currently being undertaken by private consultants into the privatisation of water in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to have the results of the feasibility study into the privatisation of water in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is expected that the consultancy study will be completed by the end of March 1993. The study was commissioned on a confidential basis because of the commercial sensitives of the issues involved. I therefore have no plans to publish it.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the future employment of people working in the water services industry in Northern Ireland is included in the feasibility study at present being undertaken by consultants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The future employment of staff does not fall within the terms of reference for the consultancy study.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for a period of public consultation following the acceptance of the report by private consultants into the privatisation of water in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Water privatisation will require primary legislation and the proposal for a draft Order in Council will be published for consultation in the normal way.

  Trade
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has for the value of trade in each direction between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland for the whole of 1992, or for as many months as information is available.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is not available from United Kingdom Government sources. However, I refer the hon. Member to table E of "External Trade" (September 1992) published by the Central Statistics Office, Dublin, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Education Reforms
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received regarding the implementation of the Government's education reforms; and what plans he has to meet representatives of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have received a large number of written representations on a wide range of topics related to the education reforms from a variety of sources: boards of governors, teachers, principals, teachers' unions and parents. These have been mainly concerned about the pressures created by the implementation of curriculum and assessment changes and I have taken measures, where necessary, to ease these pressures. I have also met a number of groups on reforms-related matters.

  I will be meeting the CCMS in the near future, and as part of the present wide consultation about aspects of implementation I will study carefully any representations which the council or any educational interests wish to make.

  Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much European regional development fund expenditure there has been in Northern Ireland in each year since 1984–85(a) at current prices and (b) at 1984 prices.

  Mr. Mates
  The following amounts were received from the European regional development fund.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Current prices

  1984 prices

  1984–85

  17

  17

  1985–86

  18

  17

  1986–87

  23

  21

  1987–88

  46

  40

  1988–89

  47

  38

  1989–90

  40

  30

  1990–91

  49

  35

  1991–92

  50

  33

  1992–93

  1120

  176

  1 Estimated outturn.

WALES

  School Governors
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many school governors there were in Wales on 1 April 1989.
  99
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally.

  One-stop Shops
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on one-stop shops for business and technology information dissemination; what proposals he has to grant-aid such one-stop shops; and what arrangements he will make to monitor and evaluate their progress.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  An enterprise and business support working group has been set up to consider how the delivery of business and technology advice and support, including information, can be improved. The group includes representatives of training and enterprise councils, local enterprise agencies, local authorities, the development agencies, chambers of commerce and other members of the business community in Wales. Their advice will cover the operation of one-stop shops and arrangements for monitoring and evaluation.

  Business and Technology Information
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the local dissemination of business and technology information; and when he expects to announce pilot projects to further such local dissemination.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government attach great importance to the dissemination of business and technology information. Consequently, my Department is directly involved in the dissemination of business and technology information, along with many other organisations in Wales which do so with my support. These include local enterprise agencies and business advice centres, the training and enterprise councils, colleges and development agencies.

  Specific initiatives include the Euro info centre set up with EC support. In addition, the Welsh Office, in collaboration with the DTI and local organisations, is involved in a number of technology transfer and awareness programmes. This work has covered a range of technology in special projects in areas such as expert and open systems; new materials and sensors together with programmes covering world-class manufacturing and best management practices.

  These services are being further strengthened by Government and European support. Currently, my Department is supporting technology audits designed to identify commercially viable technology in five Welsh colleges and, through the EC STRIDE programme, support totalling £800,000 is being provided to three colleges and the WDA to enhance the services they provide to industry. Information on European research and technology developments will be disseminated through the relay centre project led by the WDA, which became fully operational throughout Wales in January 1993.

  We have set up an enterprise and business support working group to advise us on how the delivery of these services to businesses in Wales can be improved.

  Incineration Plants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to give specific financial assistance to local authorities in Wales to monitor emission levels from incineration plants.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, operators of almost all incinerators with a capacity of under one tonne per hour require authorisation from their district council. The associated fees and charges are intended, in line with the "polluter pays" principle, to recover the reasonable administration, monitoring and inspection costs of local authorities.

  A similar system applies in relation to larger incineration plant subject to the control of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many householders in Wales received home improvement grants during 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92; and how many have been paid to date in the current financial year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Home improvement grants under the 1985 Housing Act were replaced in July 1990 by a new renovation grant system. Grants completed under the earlier arrangements are detailed in the table.

  Total number of grant completions under the Housing Act 1985

  Number

  1989–90

  19,818

  1990–91

  24,866

  1991–92

  6,394

  11992–93

  233

  1 April to September 1992 only.

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Welsh Office Contracts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answers of 22 January,Official Report, column 454, what representations he has had from the British Printing Federation regional office covering Wales in relation to the routeing of responsibility for placing printing of Welsh Office contracts via the Central Office of Information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Certificate of Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pupils sat the certificate of education in each year since 1985.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers of candidates who sat the Certificate of Education from 1985 to 1992 are given in the table.

  Number of candidates1

  Number

  1985

  2,611

  1986

  3,859

  1987

  6,252

  1988

  7,514

  101

  Number

  1989

  8,612

  1990

  8,336

  1991

  8,038

  1992

  8,379

  1 Includes a small number of candidates sitting examinations in centres other than in schools.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the replacement of the certificate of education in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This proposed change is an integral part of wider arrangements for the assessment of 16-year-olds, at the end of key stage 4. The changes are being made on the basis of advice which I sought from the School Examinations and Assessment Council. All pupils will in future be required to study each of the relevant national curriculum subjects in accordance with statutory programmes of study to the end of key stage 4. SEAC advised that the certificate of education does not meet those requirements.

  Around 7,700 pupils in Wales are currently entered for the certificate of education. Most of those pupils should, in future, be well capable of achievement under the new GCSE arrangements. The minimum attainment level on the national curriculum 10 level scale for the award of a GCSE will be level 4-the performance expected for a typical 11-year-old. Pupils who are entered for the GCSE and who narrowly miss the GCSE award at level 4 will still be awarded a level 3, provided they have displayed evidence of that level of attainment in their examination.

  The remainder of pupils expected to achieve levels 1 to 2-level 2 is the performance expected of a typical seven-year-old—in each of the national curriculum subjects will be assessed by teachers' own assessment. These pupils will represent a small minority at age 16 and teacher assessment is considered to be the most appropriate way of meeting their special and individual needs.

  Clwyd

  Speculative floorspace—Direct

  Speculative floorspace—Joint ventures

  Bespoke floorspace—Direct

  Number of units

  Area m2

  Area m2

  Number of units

  Area m2

  1979–80

  29

  13,192

  —

  —

  7,750

  1980–81

  11

  16,258

  —

  2

  3,678

  1981–82

  135

  66,800

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  19

  27,975

  —

  —

  1,785

  1983–84

  12

  1,858

  —

  —

  198

  1984–85

  5

  4,645

  —

  —

  96

  1985–86

  9

  13,305

  —

  —

  2,492

  1986–87

  18

  6,317

  —

  —

  1,448

  1987–88

  10

  13,623

  —

  —

  456

  1988–89

  23

  15,497

  —

  —

  2,069

  1989–90

  16

  21,646

  —

  1

  9,290

  1990–91

  30

  13,053

  5,946

  —

  2,880

  1991–92

  9

  3,252

  929

  —

  3,530

  11992–93

  25

  21,535

  1,858

  —

  1,207

  1 To end January 1993.

  102
  All performance at every attainment level will be recognised and recorded on an individual pupil's national record of achievement. The record is being developed by schools to reflect a pupil's total achievement, both academic and non-academic. The NRA is recognised by employers and colleges of further education in their selection of candidates for employment, training and further education courses.

  The certificate of education will not be fully phased out until 1996. This phased programme will allow teachers maximum flexibility to manage the adjustment with sensitivity and in accordance with individual pupils' needs.

  The full range of approved qualifications under Section 5 of the Education Reform Act 1988 for use by schools in Wales in 1995 will be listed as part of the annual consultation exercise with examining groups and LEAs. This consultation, administered through SEAC, is due to take place very shortly.

  Disability (Schools)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered disabled teachers are employed by each local education authority; and what proportion of total teacher numbers this accounts for in each authority.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the numbers of registered disabled teachers is not held centrally.

  Advance Factory Building
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures in terms of(a) units and (b) square metres to show advance factory building by the Welsh Development Agency by county for each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The amount of factory space provided either directly or through joint ventures by the Welsh Development Agency in each county since 1979 is as follows:
  103

  Dyfed

  Speculative floorspace—Direct

  Speculative floorspace—Joint ventures

  Bespoke floorspace—Direct

  Number of units

  Area m2

  Area m2

  Number of units

  Area m2

  1979–80

  10

  3,530

  —

  —

  734

  1980–81

  5

  1,579

  —

  —

  584

  1981–82

  62

  16,400

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  14

  5,025

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  44

  14,516

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  4

  6,503

  —

  —

  536

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  1

  273

  1986–87

  4

  465

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  389

  1988–89

  8

  2,638

  —

  —

  396

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  24

  7,432

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  41

  7,989

  2,973

  —

  —

  11992–93

  10

  7,711

  —

  —

  —

  1 To end January 1993.

  Gwent

  Speculative floorspace—Direct

  Speculative floorspace—Joint ventures

  Bespoke floorspace—Direct

  Number of units

  Area m2

  Area m2

  Number of units

  Area m2

  1979–80

  35

  32,887

  —

  1

  2,730

  1980–81

  35

  20,346

  —

  1

  14,683

  1981–82

  82

  53,900

  —

  2

  9,150

  1982–83

  35

  22,750

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  11

  6,745

  —

  2

  10,910

  1984–85

  1

  1,104

  —

  1

  7,662

  1985–86

  23

  6,689

  —

  2

  9,932

  1986–87

  9

  13,053

  —

  1

  12,084

  1987–88

  8

  8,573

  —

  2

  4,419

  1988–89

  22

  27,434

  —

  1

  8,375

  1989–90

  22

  11,055

  —

  1

  24,897

  1990–91

  20

  22,482

  4,180

  —

  6,224

  1991–92

  12

  17,698

  9,011

  2

  18,254

  11992–93

  5

  5,853

  8,361

  1

  16,936

  1 To end January 1993.

  Gwynedd

  Speculative floorspace—Direct

  Speculative floorspace—Joint ventures

  Bespoke floorspace—Direct

  Number of units

  Area m2

  Area m2

  Number of units

  Area m2

  1979–80

  17

  3,623

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  16

  4,088

  —

  —

  202

  1981–82

  41

  9,400

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  43

  8,350

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  20

  1,174

  —

  —

  215

  1984–85

  18

  1,301

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  7

  1,022

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  8

  1,208

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  5

  1,842

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  10

  1,812

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  33

  8,826

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  8

  6,085

  —

  1

  9,290

  11992–93

  23

  5,945

  —

  —

  —

  1 To end January 1993.

  104 105

  South Glamorgan

  Speculative floorspace—Direct

  Speculative floorspace—Joint ventures

  Bespoke floorspace—Direct

  Number of units

  Area m2

  Area m2

  Number of units

  Area m2

  1979–80

  31

  20,810

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  81

  1981–82

  40

  40,500

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  46

  7,225

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  4

  1,858

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  3

  3,252

  —

  2

  3,479

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1,110

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1,835

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  —

  4,645

  1

  12,077

  1991–92

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8,175

  11992–93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 To end January 1993.

  Mid Glamorgan

  Speculative floorspace—Direct

  Speculative floorspace—Joint ventures

  Bespoke floorspace—Direct

  Number of units

  Area m2

  Area m2

  Number of units

  Area m2

  1979–80

  14

  10,870

  —

  1

  7,880

  1980–81

  26

  15,236

  —

  4

  67,828

  1981–82

  55

  20,100

  —

  —

  1,423

  1982–83

  37

  30,200

  —

  —

  1,599

  1983–84

  23

  8,640

  —

  —

  274

  1984–85

  4

  2,787

  —

  1

  3,030

  1985–86

  6

  557

  —

  2

  7,505

  1986–87

  3

  5,110

  —

  1

  4,316

  1987–88

  22

  12,018

  —

  4

  25,134

  1988–89

  7

  7,590

  —

  2

  27,633

  1989–90

  47

  40,738

  —

  2

  10,824

  1990–91

  35

  35,112

  24,805

  —

  1,022

  1991–92

  29

  16,815

  35,488

  1

  1,858

  11992–93

  10

  6,596

  13,656.5

  —

  —

  1 To end January 1993.

  West Glamorgan

  Speculative floorspace—Direct

  Speculative floorspace—Joint ventures

  Bespoke floorspace—Direct

  Number of units

  Area m2

  Area m2

  Number of units

  Area m2

  1979–80

  4

  1,115

  —

  2

  5,451

  1980–81

  3

  4,181

  —

  —

  268

  1981–82

  41

  22,800

  —

  —

  1,897

  1982–83

  10

  1,350

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  27

  27,871

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  591

  1986–87

  7

  3,057

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  11

  11,202

  —

  —

  28

  1988–89

  12

  2,770

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  21

  17,881

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  12

  7,200

  2,880

  —

  —

  1991–92

  1

  929

  —

  1

  16,722

  11992–93

  85

  7,896

  —

  —

  3,530

  1 To end January 1993.

  Help Helpline
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the Welsh health helpline will be operational outside normal office hours on(a) an answerphone and (b) an operational basis; and what proposals he has to monitor its effectiveness.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since its inception on 30 November 1992, Health Line Wales has been manned from 9 am to 5 pm every weekday, and an answerphone service operates outside those hours. All calls are monitored, and this information will be part of the evaluation of the service.

  Health Service (Catering)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further progress he has to report on guidance to South Glamorgan health authority in relation to the suspended catering contract awarded to Gardner Merchant.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Further guidance will be issued to South Glamorgan health authority as soon as possible.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish an independent environment agency in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  108
  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 15 July 1992,Official Report, column 857–58.

  Offshore Emergencies
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are currently being undertaken by his Department to secure access to night-time helicopter coverage to deal with offshore emergencies off the coast of Wales and in the Irish sea between 1994 and 1996.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Sea King SAR flights at RNAS Prestwick and RAF Chivenor will provide night-time search and rescue helicopter coverage off the coast of Wales and in the Irish sea for the period in question.

  Welsh Economy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what representations he has had for public funding of Cardiff Business School Welsh economic research unit's proposed input-output model of the Welsh economy;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the south Glamorgan training and enterprise council regarding public funding for the Cardiff Business School Welsh economic research unit's proposal for an input-output model of the Welsh economy.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A request for the Welsh Office to contribute to the funding of the model is being considered.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Professional Boxing
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to place statutory controls on professional boxing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no plans to place statutory controls on professional boxing. The responsibility for the management of individual activities rests with the governing bodies of sport.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will set up an inquiry into the management of professional boxing and its medical control; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no plans for such an inquiry. The British Boxing Board of Control has considerably enhanced its medical safeguards over the past year.

  Tourist Bodies
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether, at the end of the term of office of the present incumbent, he will separate the posts of chairman of the English tourist board and chairman of the British Tourist Authority.

  Mr. Key
  The present arrangement, whereby the chairmanship of the British Tourist Authority and the chairmanship of the English tourist board are held by the same person, has worked well for the past eight years. The bringing together of these two posts has increased the effectiveness and efficiency of the two bodies, which complement each other's efforts on behalf of the tourism industry. I therefore have no plans to separate the posts.

  Public Swimming Pools
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the council-owned public swimming pools which have been closed in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Great Britain Sports Council estimate that the number of council owned swimming pools in the United Kingdom increased from around 1,100 in 1982 to 1,300 in 1992. In addition it is estimated that there are another 200 pools available with an element of community use. Closure figures are not readily available.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to set the regime for tax and money for good causes for the national lottery so that the combined total is the same as that for the football pools; and if he will estimate the total of tax and money for other good causes from football pools.

  Mr. Brooke
  Taxation regimes are a matter for the Chancellor. The amount of pool betting duty paid in 1991–92 was £319.46 million. The pools companies contributed over £20 million to the Football Trust in 1991–92, following the reduction of 2.5 per cent. in pool betting duty introduced in the 1990 Budget. A further 110
  reduction of 2.5 per cent. in the 1991 Budget, combined with the 5p levy on every £1 staked by players, yielded over £60 million for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts in the same year.

TRANSPORT

  InterCity
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what expectation for surplus revenue has been set down for British Rail's InterCity operations for the next five year planning period.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is currently reviewing the financial projections of all its businesses.

  Shipping
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ships were classified in the British Register of Merchant Ships as(a) general cargo, (b) tanker including ore bulk, oil, (c) container ship, (d) roll-on roll-off ferry and (e) offshore supply vessel in each of the years since 1969.

  Mr. Norris
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many United Kingdom registered vessels had crews of which(a) over 25 per cent. and (b) over 50 per cent. were non-EC nationals in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details for each of the last five years of the number of port state control inspections of(a) British registered ships, and the percentage of those failing to meet safety standards and (b) foreign ships, with the percentage of all foreign ships entering United Kingdom ports that figure represents, and the percentage of those failing to meet safety standards.

  Mr. Norris
  The number of inspections of British-registered ships (excluding fishing vessels), and the percentage of those detained for failing to meet safety standards, for each of the last five financial years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  Percentage detained

  19871

  1,086

  0.8

  1988–89

  956

  0.2

  1989–90

  23,894

  0.2

  1990–91

  3,414

  0.2

  1991–92

  3,954

  0.2

  1 Calendar year.

  2 Following the Marchioness disaster it was decided to both increase numbers of inspections of United Kingdom ships and revise the statistical basis of their calculation. The figure for 1989–90 onwards reflects this change in policy.

  The number of port state control inspections of foreign registered ships, the percentage of all foreign registered ships entering the United Kingdom that this represents, and the percentage of those detained for failing to meet safety standards, for each of the last five financial years is as follows:
  111

  Year

  Number

  Percentage inspected

  Percentage detained

  1987–88

  2,188

  34.0

  0.8

  1988–89

  1,830

  29.7

  2.5

  1989–90

  1,783

  27.7

  3.0

  1990–91

  2,197

  31.1

  3.8

  1991–92

  2,397

  133.8

  5.3

  1 Provisional figure.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vessels excedding 100 NRT were on the British Register of Shipping in(a) 1965, (b) 1970, (c) 1980, (d) each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Steven Norris
  Information is not available for vessels of 100 NRT or above. The table gives data for vessels of 100 GRT or above.

  Vessels on registers of United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man

  100 GRT or more

  Mid-year

  Number of vessels

  1965

  4,437

  1970

  3,822

  1980

  3,181

  1985

  2,378

  1986

  2,256

  1987

  2,165

  1988

  2,142

  1989

  2,053

  1990

  1,998

  1991

  1,949

  1992

  1,747

  Source: Lloyd's Register of Shipping Statistical Tables.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British registered vessels, at the last available date, had crews of which more than 50 per cent. were Polish nationals; and how many of these ships were(a) tankers and (b) roll-on roll-off ferries.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available.

  Tyne and Wear Metro
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to alter the ownership and control of Tyne and Wear Metro.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Radioactive Materials
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that the transport by air of radioactive materials and waste from nuclear installations should not take place over the north-east of England.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No: there are no safety reasons for adopting a policy of avoiding such transport over particular areas of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the current regulations which govern(a) the transport of radioactive material and (b) the movement by air of radioactive waste from nuclear installations.
  112
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The regulations governing the safe transport of radioactive material by all modes are:

  Internationally recommended regulations
  International Atomic Energy Agency's Safety Series No. 6: Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials 1985 Edition (As Amended 1990).

  National regulations for the transport of radioactive materials based on the IAEA safety series No. 6

  Road

  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Great Britain) Regulations 1974 (S.I. 1974, No. 1735);

  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Great Britain) Regulations 1985 (S.I. 1985, No. 1729);

  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1983 (S.R. 1983, No. 344);

  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1986 (S.R. 1986, No. 61).

  Sea
  The Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1990 (S.I. 1990, No. 2605); Merchant Shipping Notice No. M1432, "The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants in Ships, the 'Blue Book' and the IMDG Code".

  Air
  The Air Navigation Order 1989 (S.I. 1989, No. 2004); The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No. 1939); The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) (Amendment) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986, No. 2129); The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) (Third Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I. 1990, No. 2531).

  Ports
  The Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 37).

  Rail
  British Rail List of Dangerous Goods (L.D.G.) and the Conditions of Acceptance by Rail on Freight Services and Parcel Services (BR 22426 (1989 Edition)) (Class 7) —British Railways Board.

  Inland Waterways
  British Waterways Board Terms and Conditions: Dangerous Goods BWB 1981, and Schedule of Dangerous Goods ("The Green Book"), BWB 1981 (Class 7).

  International agreements and codes for the transport of radioactive materials based on IAEA safety series No. 6 Road in Europe
  European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) (Class 7).

  Rail in Europe
  Convention concerning the International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) Appendix B, Uniform rules concerning the contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Rail (CIM) Annex 1, Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID) (Class 7).

  Sea
  International Maritime Organisation (IMO) International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) (Class 7).

  Air

  International Civil Aviation Organisation's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Class 7).

  The regulations for air transport cover all types of radioactive material.

  Oil Spills
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many oil spills of over 2 tonnes were recorded for waters around the United Kingdom in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norris
  The published survey of the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea shows that in 1991 there were 95 spills of oil over 1 tonne in United Kingdom waters from all sources (ships, rigs, land-based etc.). Figures are not available for spills in excess of 2 tonnes.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many oil spills requiring clean-up operations by the marine pollution control unit occurred in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of all clean up treatments in that year took place in the Bristol channel and south Wales coastal region.

  Mr. Norris
  None. In 1991, all ship-related pollution incidents reported to the marine pollution control unit were assessed by them and monitored where appropriate (including aerial surveillance). In no case was it necessary to mobilise MPCU's clean-up resources.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many oil spills were reported for waters around the United Kingdom (i) between 1980 and 1990 and (ii) in 1990; and how many successful prosecutions were carried out in 1990.

  Mr. Norris
  The survey of the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea shows that (i) in the period 1983–1990 there were 4,170 incidents of oil spills reported in United Kingdom waters from all sources (ships, oil rigs, land-based etc.). No figures are available prior to 1983. (ii) In 1990 there were 791 incidents. In 1990, there were 22 successful prosecutions.

  Radiation Emergencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has made to implement in his Department the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Norris
  These regulations, in so far as they embrace transport, apply to employers who conduct undertakings from which a radiation emergency is reasonably foreseeable, and first-tier local authorities: the Department therefore has no direct responsibility for their implementation.

  MV Braer
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects(a) the marine accident investigation branch inquiry into the MV Braer and (b) the public inquiry to complete their investigations.

  Mr. Norris
  It is far too early to give any completion dates for either the comprehensive marine accident investigation branch inquiry into the cases of the Braer accident or the complex Lord Donaldson inquiry on the protection of the United Kingdom coastline from merchant shipping.

  Birmingham Relief Road
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has for consultation in relation to the Birmingham northern relief road in the area of North Warwickshire borough.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The formal non-statutory public consultation has been undertaken for the Birmingham northern relief road. I expect liaison to continue, however, between my Department, its concessionaire Midlands Expressway and those in North Warwickshire borough, as elsewhere.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the line orders in respect of the Birmingham northern relief road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Within the next few months.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many duplicate vehicle registration documents have been issued by the DVLA in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The application form for a replacement vehicle registration document serves either as an application for a duplicate of the original document or, if the vehicle has changed hands without it, for a registration document in the name of the new vehicle keeper. About two thirds of all applications are in the latter category.

  The number of applications made in both categories in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Number

  1988

  1,546,678

  1989

  1,757,121

  1990

  1,871,290

  1991

  2,033,694

  1992

  2,027,970

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has received from British Rail for the electrification of the Manchester-Preston-Blackpool railway lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received no investment submission from British Rail for the electrification of these lines.

  Road Lighting
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when(a) the M6 between its junction with the M1 and junction 3 and (b) the Coventry eastern bypass will be provided with lighting.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There is no case yet for lighting either of these roads. However, a scheme to widen the M6, including the stretch between the M1 and junction 3, is in the Department's road programme, and as part of that scheme we will he reassessing the case for lighting any of the unlit stretches.
  115
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has drawn from the use of plastic lighting shields fixed to the central barriers of part of the M6 between Coventry and Birmingham; and what plans he has to extend their use to other motorways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The plastic vane type anti-glare screen on the section of the M6 in Warwickshire above the central reserve safety fencing was erected as a trial in the mid–1970s. The trial showed that, while the screen was effective in cutting off light from oncoming vehicle headlights, the installation had no significant effect on the number of injury accidents along this length of motorway.

  The results of the trial are reported in report No. SS 1058:1976 published by the social survey division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys; TRRL report No. SR 327:1977 and TRRL report No. 955:1980. Copies of these reports are in the House Library.

  I have no general plans to install anti-glare screens on other motorways. However, should a specific problem of headlight glare be identified due to the alignment of a section of road then the provision of an anti-glare device might be considered.

  M6
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the southbound access to the M6 at junction 1 to re-open; and what work is currently being undertaken.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The southbound access slip road is expected to re-open on 11 February. Some further overnight closures will, however, be necessary before the works are fully completed in mid-March. The closure of the slip road is to allow strengthening works to be carried out on both carriageways of the M6 between junction 1 and the M1.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the effect on road accident figures of a new junction on the M6 west of Corley services.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Secretary of State has no plans to build a junction on the M6 west of Corley services. Consequently, no such estimate has been made.

  Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the report, "Guide to Environmental Best Practice for Company Transport", produced in November 1992 by the Government's Advisory Committees on Business and the Environment.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment is to be congratulated on producing this timely and practical advice. Getting the best from company transport fleets will save money, save energy and help save the environment. The guide rightly stresses the importance of companies making the environment a major concern in formulating their transport policies. I urge both businesses and public bodies to do what they can to adopt the best practice approach set out in the guide.

  Rail Passengers (Compensation)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to seek to extend compensation payments for railway passengers to cover overcrowding, unavailability of seats and lack of cleanliness on trains.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that British Rail has no plans at present to extend the compensation arrangements introduced by the passengers charter. The current arrangements relate mainly to punctuality and reliability which are the factors passengers say are of most importance to them. Where passengers book a seat, compensation may also be available if the seat is not provided.

  Young Drivers
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to publish a Green Paper on possible restrictions on young drivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am considering various options for reducing the high accident rate associated with young drivers. We hope to issue a consultation paper in the summer.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the result of comparisons of injury crashes of drivers aged(a) 17, (b) 18 and (c) 19 years in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The available information for injury accidents involving drivers aged 17, 18 and 19 in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England is shown in the table for 1991. Estimates of accidents within each of the specified age groups are not currently available for Northern Ireland but they are being produced for future reference.

  Accidents

  Northern Ireland

  Wales

  Scotland

  England

  Involving drivers aged:

  17

  —

  508

  704

  8,663

  18

  —

  744

  971

  12,294

  19

  —

  715

  1,117

  12,195

  TOTAL (17 to 19)

  955

  1,967

  2,792

  33,152

  Disabled Parking Places
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the action taken in respect of persons who park in spots reserved for disabled people.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Legislation already exists to control the use of parking places reserved for disabled badge holders, both on-street and in local authority car parks, which have been designated by an Order made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. In both circumstances the police and local authority have powers to prosecute offenders and those parked on-street can be issued with a fixed penalty notice. If prosecuted, able-bodied people who misuse such spaces face a fine of up to £1,000. The level of enforcement given to these offences is a matter for individual chief constables and local authorities to determine.
  117
  In privately owned and operated car parks, it is for individual operators to take whatever steps they consider necessary to see that reserved spaces are not misused.

  M1
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has so far been made on widening the M1; what are the anticipated start and finish dates for the work; and what is the likely cost.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Proposals to widen the M1 between the M25, junction 6A and the M18, junction 32, were added to the road programme by the White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity", in May 1989. The estimated works cost, at November 1987 prices, was given in "Trunk Roads, England: Into the 1990s" as approximately £1 billion. The work is being carried forward under a number of consultant commissions. We expect to let a construction contract shortly to add a fourth lane northbound between junctions 9 and 10, and work should be completed by the end of the year. Other commissions are at earlier stages. Public consultation has been carried out for two sections between junctions 6A and 15 and the results will be announced later this year. Other consultations are in prospect. Subsequent progress will depend on the outcome of the statutory procedures and the availability of funding.

  Liberian-registered Ships
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Liberian Government as to the level of expenditure on inspecting the condition of foreign vessels registered in Liberia in each of the last five years and the frequency with which ships are required to be inspected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  None. The Liberian registry is managed on behalf of the Liberian Administration by an American company, International Registers Incorporated, which operates from Reston, Virginia, USA. Details of International Registers Incorporated's expenditure on surveys are not available. We understand that Liberian vessels are inspected at least once a year by classification societies or independent surveyors appointed by International Registers Incorporated.

  Company Cars
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the relative accident rates for company cars and for privately owned cars and of the proportion of road accidents in which company cars are involved.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Company-owned cars were involved in 17 per cent. of injury road accidents in 1991. An assessment of the relative accident involvement and casualty rates for company-owned cars is contained in the publication "Car and Driver: Injury Accident and Casualty Rates: Great Britain 1990", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is his policy to offer land(a) equally advantageous and (b) with comparable public access where land is compulsorily purchased as a result of his Department's roads programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 1 February 1992]: Where my right hon. Friend is authorised to acquire certain special types of land, such as an open space or common, he is required to follow the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The compulsory purchase order is the subject of special parliamentary procedure, unless the Secretary of State for the Environment certifies either that equivalent land has been or will be given in exchange; or that the land does not exceed 250 square yards in extent.

  British Rail (Redundancies)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many employees British Rail is seeking to make redundant; how many have so far been accepted for redundancy; and how many of those accepted are(a) management, (b) clerical, (c) supervisors, (d) drivers and (e) guards.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 28 January 1993]: British Rail expects that some 7,000 staff will be accepted for redundancy as a result of the response to the voluntary severance offer made last November. Final decisions have yet to be made on those to be accepted.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what forecast has been made of the number of movements of plutomium by air out of Carlisle if the Thorp and Nirex proposals are granted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: The current usage of Carlisle airport by British Nuclear Fuels (12 to 24 flights per year) is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.

  Seat Belts
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what resources have been allocated to provide advice to(a) pregnant women and (b) parents on the installation and wearing of seat belts and restraints for children.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department provides information of a general nature on the installation and wearing of seat belts and child restraints. Specific advice concerning the installation of particular products is best obtained from the manufacturers or a competent installer.

  Road Safety
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance has been issued to road safety officers in the past 12 months; and what discussions and consultations there have been with road safety officers prior to their publication.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department offers frequent guidance and advice to road safety officers on relevant
  119
  developments in road safety education, training and publicity. We also alert them in advance to particular road safety campaigns, and hold regular liaison meetings with road safety officer representative bodies to discuss matters of common interest.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent publications have been made available, and to whom, relating to road safety.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The following publications have been issued in the last three months.Circular Roads 1/93 Local speed Limits
  "Killing Speed and Saving Lives—The Government's strategy for tackling the problem of excess speed on our roads"
  The Highway Code

  Copies were sent on publication to local authorities, local authority associations, police, interested professional organisations, lobby groups, motoring organisations, and individuals who have requested copies. I also sent copies of the first two documents to Members who have written to me on the subject of speed in recent months.

  In addition, a number of leaflets and posters have been issued to road safety officers, the police and motoring organisations dealing with winter driving, drinking and driving, including rehabilitation courses for drink-drive offenders; and seat belts.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the statutory duties of local authorities in respect of road safety.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Local authorities have a statutory duty to prepare and carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety and make contributions towards the cost of measures for promoting road safety taken by other authorities or bodies. They also have duties in regard of speed, pedestrian crossings, street furniture and other safety aspects.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local authorities which do not employ road safety officers.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. It is for individual local authorities to assess their own requirement for road safety officers, having regard to the needs of the local community.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what advice he has issued to local authorities on the appointment of road safety officers;

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the numbers of road safety officers required per 1,000 population.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is for individual local authorities to assess their own requirement for road safety officers, having regard for the needs of the local community.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Race Relations
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider the proposed reductions in section 11 funding.
  120
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government remain firmly committed to the reduction of racial disadvantage, and section 11 grant continues to play an important role in our programme. My right hon. and learned Friend and I regret, however, that in the present economic circumstances it is not possible to sustain throughout the next three years the level of expenditure that had earlier been planned.

  Persistent Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the full results of his Department's recent survey of police forces, designed to identify the number of persistent juvenile offenders;

  (2) how many persistent juvenile offenders were identified by his Department's recent survey request to police forces for details of juveniles known or alleged to have committed 10 or more offences between 1 April and 30 June 1992;

  (3) if he will place in the Library full results of the recent survey of social services departments, designed to identify the number of persistent offenders;

  (4) how many persistent juvenile offenders were identified by the recent request to social services departments for details of juveniles known or alleged to have committed 10 or more offences between 1 April and 30 June 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  I intend to place a full report of the results of the survey in the Library as soon as it has been completed. The report will show that the survey, in which all police forces and local authority social service departments in England and Wales were invited to take part, was intended to improve our knowledge and understanding of the extent and nature of the problem of persistent juvenile offending. For this purpose, respondents were invited to provide information about juveniles who were known or believed to have committed ten or more offences in the period between 1 April and 30 June 1992.

  Although the results of the survey have improved the level of our knowledge and understanding of the problem, not all respondents (including two of the largest police forces) held their information in a way which allowed them to produce precise numerical data. It is, therefore, evident that the total figure of 106 juveniles identified by this exercise considerably underestimates the extent of the problem.

  Seat Belts (Prosecutions)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions there have been in the last 10 years for breaches of the regulations on the wearing of seat belts in cars.

  Mr. Jack
  Findings of guilt at magistrates courts for not wearing a seat belt in England and Wales are shown in the following table. From 1 October 1986, the police have been able to issue fixed penalty notices for these offences as an alternative to prosecution and estimates of the number of such notices are also shown.
  121

  Year issued

  Findings of guilt

  Fixed penalty notices

  1983

  6,909

  —

  1984

  10,935

  —

  1985

  14,115

  —

  1986

  19,211

  18,100

  1987

  7,504

  58,400

  1988

  6,837

  71,700

  1989

  7,275

  89,100

  1990

  8,466

  127,200

  1991

  9,856

  122,800

  Convicted Murderer (Television Broadcast)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of how the interview with a convicted murderer broadcast on television on 26 January was(a) arranged and (b) supervised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It would not be appropriate for me to discuss matters which are awaiting trial.

  Prisoners (Cell Occupation)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners shared(a) three to a cell, (b) two to a cell and (c) occupied a single cell at the latest available date; and what proportion of each category were (i) convicted and (ii) remand prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The following table shows how many prisoners shared three and two to cells certified as normal accommodation for one person on 18 December 1992. Information is not available for the proportion of convicted and remand prisoners held three or two to a cell, and instead the table provides a breakdown of figures by type of establishment.

  Information is not available on the number of prisoners occupying single cells.

  Establishment type

  Three to a cell

  Two to a cell

  Local prison

  201

  4,072

  Remand centre

  3

  570

  Adult training prison

  6

  118

  Young offender institution

  0

  228

  Female establishment

  0

  34

  Total

  210

  5,022

  Prison Education
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, columns 715–16, how many existing providers of education have responded to his request; and when he expects to be able to indicate how many and which organisations will be contracted to provide education in prisons between 1 April and 30 September.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  By 1 February 1993, the Prison Service had received responses from 42 local education authorities and 61 colleges and institutions of further education. Existing providers have been offered the option of continuing to provide education services on the present terms until 31 August 1993. Where they are unable or 122
  unwilling to do so, contracts will be awarded under the current competitive tender. Decisions are expected to be reached within the next two weeks.

  Channing's Wood Prison (Education)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to respond to the letter of 29 December from the hon. Member for South Hams about the tendering for the provision of prison education at HM Prison Channings Wood by Chris Brimecombe and colleagues directors of Vygo, of 42 Churston Way, Brixham, South Devon.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I expect to reply to my hon. Friend this week.

  Prison Cells (Capital Cost)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average capital cost of a new prison cell in 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average cost per place for new prisons opening in 1992 was £130,000. This includes both living accommodation and the other facilities needed.

  Wolds Remand Centre
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average weekly cost in 1992 of keeping a person in(a) the Wolds remand centre and (b) a state-run prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average weekly cost of keeping a person in Wolds remand prison from April 1992, when 1 he prison opened, until December 1992 was £626. This compares with an average net operating cost for 1991–92 for all prisons run by the Prison Service of £442 per prisoner per week. This comparison is misleading, since unit costs are higher in the period during which a prison opens and is filling with prisoners, as Wolds was doing in 1992. Wolds is now more than 95 per cent. full.

  Seat Belts (Regulations Enforcement)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been issued to police forces concerning enforcement of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1983.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. The enforcement of road traffic law, which would include the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982, is a matter for individual chief officers of police.

  Anthony Charles Jeffs
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will intervene in the planned release of Anthony Charles Jeffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. I took the decision in accordance with normal policy and practice for the release of mandatory life sentence prisoners.

  Police (Audit Commission Reports)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the changes effected by police forces in England and Wales to
  123
  the recommendations made in each of the Audit Commission police papers published since 1988; and if he will give details of the main changes implemented by the police service.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The 11 reports which have been published so far are addressed primarily to police authorities and police forces and offer thematic guidance for auditors who review the work of the authorities.

  Many of the changes recommended in the reports have been introduced by forces. They are also actively promoted in forces by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and progress in implementation is reflected in published inspectorate reports.

  Main changes include:

  (a) Increased use of civilians which has released officers for operation duties;

  (b) The implementation of a standing offers scheme for the purchasing of police vehicles which has identified substantial savings;

  (c) Improvements to police communications rooms through: further civilianisation, more flexible shifts, better technology and increased centralisation;

  (d) Introduction of enhanced performance measures including activity sampling;

  Number of Graduates in police in England and wales in 1981 and
  1991

  Force

  1981 graduates

  1981 strength

  Percentage

  1991 graduates

  1991 strength

  Percentage

  1991 graduate appointments

  Avon and Somerset

  89

  3,066

  2·9

  225

  3,072

  7·3

  13

  Bedfordshire

  10

  995

  1·0

  42

  1,090

  3·9

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  30

  1,135

  2·6

  75

  1,239

  6·1

  4

  Cheshire

  37

  1,875

  2·0

  117

  1,867

  6·3

  1

  City of London

  11

  878

  1·3

  54

  809

  6·7

  7

  Cleveland

  29

  1,497

  1·9

  81

  1,477

  5·5

  3

  Cumbria

  32

  1,135

  2·8

  66

  1,183

  5·6

  6

  Derbyshire

  35

  1,805

  1·9

  109

  1,706

  6·4

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  58

  2,736

  2·1

  181

  2,876

  6·3

  15

  Dorset

  11

  1,191

  0·9

  47

  1,280

  3·7

  4

  Durham

  24

  1,387

  1·7

  100

  1,378

  7·3

  5

  Dyfed Powys

  15

  943

  1·6

  45

  944

  4·8

  5

  Essex

  37

  2,653

  1·4

  115

  2,878

  4·0

  4

  Gloucestershire

  19

  1,144

  1·7

  62

  1,178

  5·3

  4

  Greater Manchester

  159

  7,010

  2·3

  535

  6,975

  7·7

  21

  Gwent

  15

  982

  1·5

  54

  995

  5·4

  1

  Hampshire

  46

  3,093

  1·5

  198

  3,177

  6·2

  18

  Hertfordshire

  46

  1,590

  2·9

  102

  1,679

  6·1

  6

  Humberside

  34

  1,985

  1·7

  112

  2,016

  5·

  6

  Kent

  45

  2,919

  1·5

  119

  3,039

  3·9

  8

  Lancashire

  73

  3,213

  2·3

  239

  3,205

  7·5

  20

  Leicestershire

  39

  1,749

  2·2

  97

  1,808

  5·4

  8

  Lincolnshire

  16

  1,199

  1·3

  57

  1,198

  4·8

  5

  Merseyside

  107

  4,748

  2·3

  323

  4,605

  7·0

  23

  Metropolitan

  684

  25,103

  2·7

  1,592

  28,126

  5·7

  91

  Norfolk

  14

  1,278

  1·1

  51

  1,419

  3·6

  5

  Northamptonshire

  17

  1,019

  1·7

  84

  1,156

  7·3

  3

  Northumbria

  93

  3,378

  2·8

  268

  3,460

  7·7

  0

  North Wales

  17

  1,309

  1·3

  89

  1,343

  6·6

  4

  North Yorkshire

  27

  1,370

  2·0

  79

  1,382

  5·7

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  50

  2,295

  2·2

  180

  2,334

  7·7

  14

  South Wales

  59

  3,132

  1·9

  228

  3,142

  7·3

  12

  South Yorkshire

  61

  2,922

  2·1

  158

  2,989

  5·3

  3

  Staffordshire

  25

  2,122

  1·2

  89

  2,185

  4·1

  2

  Suffolk

  13

  1,126

  1·2

  45

  1,203

  3·7

  5

  Surrey

  36

  1,620

  2·2

  97

  1,681

  5·8

  8

  Sussex

  76

  2,869

  2·6

  192

  2,969

  6·5

  15

  Thames Valley

  63

  3,131

  2·0

  216

  3,722

  5·8

  17

  Warwickshire

  23

  943

  2·4

  74

  1,005

  7·4

  2

  West Mercia

  18

  1,959

  0·9

  114

  2,028

  5·6

  7

  West Midlands

  180

  6,792

  2·7

  479

  6,893

  6·9

  42

  West Yorkshire

  127

  5,210

  2·4

  342

  5,143

  6·6

  2

  Wiltshire

  13

  1,071

  1·2

  52

  1,212

  4·3

  5

  Totals

  2,613

  119,577

  2·2

  7,584

  125,066

  6·1

  441

  124
  (e) Improved management structures—more than three quarters of all forces have undergone, or are in the process of carrying out reviews of their management structures, including shift systems.

  Police (Education)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list for each police force in England and Wales in 1981 and 1991(a) the number of graduates recruited and (b) the percentage of officers who are graduates;

  (2) what was (a) the number and (b) the percentage of police officers in each police force in England and Wales in 1981 and 1991 who had (a) no GCE or GCSE grade A-C passes, (b) four or fewer GCE or GCSE grade A-C passes, (c) more than four GCE or GCSE grade A-C passes but no A level passes, (d) one A level, (e) two or more A level passes and (f) a degree.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Much of the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information which is available is given in the table. The total number of graduate recruits who began initial training in 1981 was 468. The number of graduate appointments in 1991 was 441, a breakdown of which is shown in the table.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which companies are being considered to assist in the project to convert criminal records on to the police national computer; and what is their country of ownership;

  (2) what stage has been reached in the project to load United Kingdom criminal records on to the police national computer; and when the project is likely to be completed;

  (3) what steps are being taken to seek bids for British companies to put criminal records on to the police national computer;

  (4) who are the consultants advising on the project to load United Kingdom criminal records on to the police national computer.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Work is in hand to assess the likely costs and practicality of converting the information contained in the criminal records held on microfiche at the national identification bureau into electronic form for inclusion on the police national computer. Hoskyns Group plc supported by Expert Systems Ltd., is assisting the Home Office in this work. When it has been completed my right hon. and learned Friend will consider how and where the back record conversion process can best be undertaken.

  Force

  Days lost due to assault-related sickness 1990

  Days sick non-assault 1990

  Days lost due to assault-related sickness 1991

  Days sick non-assault 1991

  Avon and Somerset

  1,402

  29,714

  840

  30,357

  Bedfordshire

  582

  13,206

  831

  12,719

  Cambridgeshire

  213

  14,518

  589

  12,518

  Cheshire

  1,109

  19,027

  921

  22,041

  City of London

  37

  9,986

  6

  8,899

  Cleveland

  731

  28,232

  610

  23,384

  Cumbria

  169

  13,256

  358

  12,125

  Derbyshire

  648

  18,675

  1,135

  23,358

  Devon and Cornwall

  865

  26,337

  986

  28,131

  Dorset

  406

  9,259

  325

  13,749

  Durham

  1,191

  14,685

  1,129

  15,825

  Dyfed Powys

  622

  9,703

  223

  10,801

  Essex

  629

  35,889

  454

  32,540

  Gloucestershire

  259

  11,531

  338

  13,148

  Greater Manchester

  3,708

  95,986

  3,618

  86,936

  Gwent

  330

  10,607

  126

  13,627

  Hampshire

  2,170

  30,986

  930

  43,295

  Hertfordshire

  650

  21,668

  640

  22,647

  Humberside

  895

  26,164

  856

  20,096

  Kent

  542

  28,917

  190

  20,324

  Lancashire

  1,371

  51,136

  2,422

  47,516

  Leicestershire

  644

  23,580

  678

  24,466

  Lincolnshire

  670

  15,691

  758

  17,206

  Merseyside

  4,086

  75,330

  4,264

  87,094

  Norfolk

  381

  17,307

  157

  15,314

  North Wales

  623

  17,695

  810

  22,055

  North Yorkshire

  274

  16,047

  419

  18,948

  Northamptonshire

  132

  14,188

  65

  15,276

  Northumbria

  4,296

  32,013

  3,993

  30,281

  Nottinghamshire

  1,302

  2,6934

  1,081

  26,879

  South Wales

  2,422

  40,948

  2,874

  46,868

  South Yorkshire

  1,297

  35,065

  600

  36,728

  Staffordshire

  1,120

  31,696

  1,096

  34,892

  Suffolk

  443

  8,888

  333

  8,649

  Surrey

  811

  14,608

  641

  18,644

  Sussex

  1,026

  29,138

  1,708

  38,921

  Thames Valley

  1,144

  25,848

  761

  35,728

  Warwickshire

  438

  11,919

  275

  13,874

  West Mercia

  487

  24,449

  405

  25,873

  126
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sets of microfiche hold the records on the police national computer.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The police national computer database includes an index of the names of all those for whom there is a record at the national identification bureau. These records, which relate to some 5.25 million individuals, are held on microfiche. There is at least one microfiche for each individual.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many names are held on the police national computer records.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The names database on the police national computer holds 5,292,439 records (excluding aliases). The PNC also holds records of 42,480,704 vehicles, including the name of the registered keeper.

  Police (Sick Leave)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days per officer for each police force in England and Wales were lost due to(a) assault-related sick leave and (b) sick leave not due to assaults, in 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested for 1990 and 1991 is shown as follows. The figures for 1992 are not yet available.
  127

  Force

  Days lost due to assault-related sickness 1990

  Days sick non-assault 1990

  Days lost due to assault-related sickness 1991

  Days sick non-assault 1991

  West Midlands

  —

  48,785

  1,279

  64,594

  West Yorkshire

  2,455

  55,160

  2,880

  61,815

  Wiltshire

  456

  9,829

  400

  9,293

  SUB TOTAL

  43,036

  1,094,600

  43,004

  1,167,454

  Metropolitan Police

  7,598

  353,091

  10,564

  310,343

  TOTAL

  50,634

  1,447,691

  53,568

  1,477,797

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to introduce a common methodology for the reporting of manpower requirements, crime statistics and clear up rates by police force in England and Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Each of these matters is dealt with by a methodology which is common to all police forces.

  Mr. Allan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the percentage change in levels of recorded crime since 1979; and what has been the percentage change in the total establishment of the police since 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales rose by 108 per cent. between 1979 and 1991. Over the same perion, the

  1981

  Police force

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Resident population1 ?000s

  Authorised establishment2

  Total police expenditure3 (£)

  Population per police officer1

  Expenditure per resident

  1981 prices (£)

  current prices4 (£)

  Avon and Somerset

  1,344

  3,020

  48,099,044

  445

  35.79

  63.88

  Bedfordshire

  503

  975

  16,909,020

  516

  33.62

  60.01

  Cambridgeshire

  584

  1,140

  18,088,165

  512

  30.97

  55.29

  Cheshire

  929

  1,845

  29,723,727

  504

  32.00

  57.11

  Cleveland

  567

  1,474

  23,187,854

  385

  40.90

  73.00

  Cumbria

  468

  1,128

  17,013,559

  415

  36.35

  64.89

  Derbyshire

  900

  1,767

  29,428,613

  509

  32.70

  58.37

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,378

  2,734

  46,538,966

  504

  33.77

  60.28

  Dorset

  595

  1,176

  19,323,275

  506

  32.48

  57.97

  Durham

  603

  1,355

  20,869,896

  445

  34.61

  61.78

  Essex

  1,389

  2,633

  41,825,130

  528

  30.11

  53.75

  Gloucestershire

  500

  1,131

  16,266,919

  442

  32.53

  58.07

  Greater Manchester

  2,635

  6,941

  111,677,941

  380

  42.38

  75.65

  Hampshire

  1,584

  3,084

  48,798,089

  514

  30.81

  54.99

  Hertfordshire

  812

  1,568

  25,497,169

  518

  31.40

  56.05

  Humberside

  850

  1,972

  32,384,102

  431

  38.10

  68.01

  Kent

  1,463

  2,871

  48,829,581

  510

  33.38

  59.58

  Lancashire

  1,366

  3,158

  50,924,265

  433

  37.28

  66.55

  Leicestershire

  839

  1,727

  27,538,409

  486

  32.82

  58.59

  Lincolnshire

  538

  1,182

  19,972,458

  455

  37.12

  66.27

  Merseyside

  1,518

  4,607

  78,120,172

  330

  51.46

  91.86

  Norfolk

  693

  1,265

  19,903,862

  548

  28.72

  51.27

  Northamptonshire

  526

  1,006

  15,990,957

  523

  30.40

  54.27

  Northumbria

  1,443

  3,355

  53,591,955

  430

  37.14

  66.29

  North Yorkshire

  663

  1,368

  22,684,511

  485

  34.21

  61.07

  Nottinghamshire

  974

  2,259

  35,952,785

  431

  36.91

  65.89

  South Yorkshire

  1,302

  2,872

  44,972,800

  453

  34.54

  61.66

  Staffordshire

  1,004

  2,099

  32,304,078

  478

  32.18

  57.43

  Suffolk

  603

  1,124

  19,478,036

  536

  32.30

  57.66

  Surrey

  726

  1,602

  25,581,395

  453

  35.24

  62.90

  Sussex

  1,306

  2,823

  43,746,202

  463

  33.50

  59.79

  Thames Valley

  1,779

  3,107

  50,747,135

  573

  28.53

  50.92

  128
  authorised police establishment rose by 7 per cent. whereas the actual police strength, including civilians, rose by 17 per cent. to a total of 172,014.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police force area in England and Wales in 1971, 1981 and 1991(a) the resident population, (b) the police officer establishment, (c) total police expenditure, (d) the police officer-population ratio and (e) expenditure per resident expressed both in current and at 1971 prices.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The requested information for 1981 and 1991 is set out in the following tables.

  The local government rearrangements of 1974 mean that it is not practicable to provide comparable information for 1971. Expenditure per resident is, between 1979 and 1991. Over the same period, the therefore, expressed in current and 1981 prices.
  129

  1981

  Police force

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Resident population1 ?000s

  Authorised establishment2

  Total police expenditure3 (£)

  Population per police officer1

  Expenditure per resident

  1981 prices (£)

  current prices4 (£)

  Warwickshire

  470

  920

  14,956,560

  511

  31.82

  56.80

  West Mercia

  993

  1,921

  31,057,520

  517

  31.28

  55.83

  West Midlands

  2,686

  6,684

  102,556,453

  402

  38.18

  68.16

  West Yorkshire

  2,066

  5,154

  77,772,868

  401

  37.64

  67.20

  Wiltshire

  522

  1,035

  16,342,216

  504

  31.31

  55.88

  Dyfed-Powys

  433

  934

  13,709,012

  464

  31.66

  56.51

  Gwent

  435

  975

  15,013,752

  446

  34.51

  61.61

  North Wales

  613

  1,313

  20,060,165

  467

  32.72

  58.41

  South Wales

  1,295

  3,105

  49,634,021

  417

  38.33

  68.41

  City of London

  5

  1,022

  17,738,644

  5

  3,547.73

  6,332.74

  Metropolitan

  7,323

  26,577

  552,223,788

  276

  75.41

  134.61

  Total

  49,222

  120,008

  2,047,035,069

  410

  1 Details obtained from HMCIC annual report 1981.

  2 Authorised establishment at 31 December 1981.

  3 Expenditure in financial year 1981–82.

  4 Current is taken to mean
  1991.92 prices.

  1991

  Police force

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Resident population1 (thousands)

  Authorised establishment2

  Total police expenditure3 (£)

  Population per police officer1

  Expenditure per resident

  1981 prices (£)

  Current prices4 (£)

  Avon and Somerset

  1,416

  3,085

  111,509,219

  459

  44.12

  78.75

  Bedfordshire

  535

  1,117

  39,147,522

  479

  40.99

  73.17

  Cambridgeshire

  664

  1,231

  47,115,875

  539

  39.75

  70.96

  Cheshire

  959

  1,900

  66,959,764

  505

  39.12

  69.82

  Cleveland

  552

  1,502

  54,802,204

  368

  55.62

  99.28

  Cumbria

  492

  1,183

  45,080,152

  416

  51.33

  91.63

  Derbyshire

  933

  1,825

  66,048,347

  511

  39.66

  70.79

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,497

  2,880

  117,436,426

  520

  43.95

  78.45

  Dorset

  658

  1,287

  52,005,892

  511

  44.28

  79.04

  Durham

  599

  1,389

  48,588,804

  431

  45.44

  81.12

  Essex

  1,465

  2,892

  115,540,004

  507

  44.18

  78.87

  Gloucestershire

  531

  1,183

  44,611,445

  449

  47.07

  84.01

  Greater Manchester

  2,590

  7,057

  248,807,274

  367

  53.82

  96.06

  Hampshire

  1,676

  3,202

  124,970,146

  523

  41.77

  74.56

  Hertfordshire

  842

  1,680

  62,868,458

  501

  41.83

  74.67

  Humberside

  859

  2,025

  77,395,755

  424

  50.48

  90.10

  Kent

  1,525

  3,054

  128,733,936

  499

  47.29

  84.42

  Lancashire

  1,395

  3,225

  122,019,273

  433

  49.00

  87.47

  Leicestershire

  897

  1,827

  67,195,772

  491

  41.97

  74.91

  Lincolnshire

  591

  1,206

  47,235,365

  490

  44.78

  79.92

  Merseyside

  1,443

  4,706

  178,883,939

  307

  69.45

  123.97

  Norfolk

  750

  1,421

  54,100,423

  528

  40.41

  72.13

  Northamptonshire

  580

  1,167

  45,498,974

  497

  43.95

  78.45

  Northumbria

  1,432

  3,586

  132,826,369

  399

  51.96

  92.76

  North Yorkshire

  726

  1,414

  51,679,282

  513

  39.88

  71.18

  Nottinghamshire

  1,017

  2,344

  82,628,633

  434

  45.52

  81.25

  South Yorkshire

  1,296

  3,016

  103,166,171

  430

  44.60

  79.60

  Staffordshire

  1,041

  2,211

  82,162,596

  471

  44.22

  78.93

  Suffolk

  643

  1,216

  48,068,954

  529

  41.88

  74.76

  Surrey

  747

  1,670

  63,420,572

  447

  47.56

  84.90

  Sussex

  1,417

  2,982

  106,177,607

  475

  41.98

  74.93

  Thames Valley

  1,983

  3,725

  149,413,760

  532

  42.21

  75.35

  Warwickshire

  483

  1,016

  39,841,685

  475

  46.21

  82.49

  West Mercia

  1,081

  2,024

  77,230,104

  534

  40.02

  71.44

  West Midlands

  2,615

  6,958

  250,815,603

  376

  53.73

  95.91

  West Yorkshire

  2,070

  5,295

  197,225,852

  391

  53.38

  95.28

  Wiltshire

  561

  1,114

  46,214,702

  504

  46.15

  82.38

  Dyfed-Powys

  471

  944

  35,149,805

  499

  41.81

  74.63

  Gwent

  447

  1,009

  36,682,297

  443

  45.97

  82.06

  North Wales

  653

  1,352

  50,700,394

  483

  43.50

  77.64

  South Wales

  1,309

  3,168

  118,537,290

  413

  50.73

  90.56

  City of London

  5

  798

  40,820,059

  5

  5,717.05

  10,205.01

  Metropolitan

  7,260

  28,439

  1,339,605,000

  255

  103.37

  184.52

  Total

  50,718

  126,325

  5,018,921,704

  401

  130 131
  1 Details obtained from HMCIC annual report 1991.

  2 Authorised establishment at 31 December 1991.

  3 Expenditure in financial year 1991–92.

  4 Current is taken to mean 1991–92 prices.

  Police (Flexible Shifts)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police forces in England and Wales which are introducing a flexible shift system.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Many forces are examining the possibility of introducing alternative shift systems following the introduction of the appropriate amendments to the Police Regulations 1987. The following forces are currently holding experiments with alternative shift systems:

  Avon and Somerset

  Merseyside

  Bedfordshire

  Northamptonshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Northumbria

  Cleveland

  Nottinghamshire

  Derbyshire

  South Wales

  Devon and Cornwall

  Sussex

  Dorset

  Thames Valley

  Durham

  West Mercia

  Greater Manchester

  West Midlands

  Hertfordshire

  Wiltshire

  Kent

  Safer Cities Projects
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reinstate the previous level of the safer cities budget for Birmingham to help fund projects for youth and community resources in areas with high juvenile crime rates.

  Mr. Jack
  No. As part of our crime prevention strategy, the grants budget of the Birmingham safer cities project, together with those of the other 15 longer established projects, has been set at £100,000 in 1993–94 enabling funds to be released for work to be started on a new phase of safer cities projects elsewhere.

  Having seen the value demonstrated by Safer Cities, we hope that local communities and interests will be willing to take over the projects and continue their work after Home Office funding for the 16 projects ends in March 1994. Some additional funding from a central budget of £500,000 will be available to Birmingham and the other 15 projects to assist work aimed at leaving in place satisfactory continuing arrangements for the maintenance and development of local multi-agency crime prevention work.

  Through the safer cities project, the Home Office has supported a wide range of work in Birmingham focusing on juveniles including schemes providing football coaching and other sporting activities, tackling bullying, promoting junior crime prevention panels and tackling graffiti. These illustrate what can be done often with modest funding. In addition, the Home Office provides funding for three projects in Birmingham organised by the probation service in partnership with the voluntary sector to provide programmes of supervision for young offenders.

  Youth Crime
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take to deal with car crimes committed by young people and other youth crime in Birmingham and the west midlands.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have encouraged the police and other agencies in the development of effective crime prevention programmes aimed at tackling youth crime and has funded a number of initiatives. The Home Office safer cities projects set up in Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton in 1989 have all funded schemes aimed at diverting the young away from car crime and other types of crime. We have also established local drugs prevention teams in Birmingham and Wolverhampton with the aim of tackling the spread of misuse, particularly among the young. In addition the probation supervision grant scheme provides funding for nine projects in the West Midlands probation area which, in the main, provide programmes of supervision for young offenders. Three are based in Birmingham, one of which specifically tackles car crime.

  The Department of Education announced last month that Coventry and Dudley are to receive £147,000, Solihull £99,000 and Wolverhampton £73,500 under its grants for education support and training (GEST) programme for youth crime prevention schemes in 1993–94. The Department of the Environment's city challenge programme in Wolverhampton is providing funding for activities for young people including a vehicle project to divert juveniles from car crime. In addition Birmingham propose to tackle youth crime, amongst other things, under the city challenge programme once their action plan has received approval.

  As part of its programme of action on youth crime for 1993, Crime Concern is planning a series of regional seminars, including two in the midlands, on best practice in diverting young people from crime.

  The Government are also considering what means might be needed to reduce offending by the small group of persistent juvenile offenders.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Badgers
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for licences were received in the last year for terrier men to send dogs into badger setts; how many were granted; and to whom.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry received seven applications in the last year for licences to permit terrier men to enter dogs into badger setts for the purpose of fox control. No licences were issued.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost of introducing CAP reform to(a) the activities of his Department and (b) the British farming industry.
  133
  Mr. Curry
  The total estimated cost to the Ministry for the introduction of the CAP reform measures is £25 million in 1993–94, falling to £20 million in subsequent years. This represents a small proportion of total programme costs.

  There will be higher costs to the British farming industry in the first year, when the Community anti-fraud rules require the submission of a good deal of basic information relating to the farm, but we hope to reduce the costs to farmers in subsequent years.

  Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate of the costs of enforcing the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government have made provision for the cost of enforcing days at sea and extending licensing to vessels of 10 m overall length and below. The estimated cost of these operations is £1.5 million a year for the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the allocation of fishing days to individual boats under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992; and whether the allocation in 1993 will be retrospective from 1 January.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government will shortly be laying before Parliament an order which will set out principles governing the allocation of days at sea. This order will clear the way for the issue of provisional allocations to fishermen, and subsequently for the attachment of days at sea conditions to licences. Such conditions will not be retrospective.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to issue 1993 licences to the British fishing fleet.

  Mr. Curry
  The 1993 fishing licences have been, or are currently being, issued for vessels which require licences.

  Agriculture Returns
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 January,Official Report, columns 393–94, what is the reason for the replacement of acres by hectares as the only acceptable measurement on most returns.

  Mr. Curry
  Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to units of measurement No. 80/181 EC as amended by Council Directive No. 89/617 EC requires the phasing out of acres by the end of 1994 for these returns.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current number of full-time equivalent jobs, including family labour, on every 100 acres on farms of(a) under 100 acres, (b) from 100 to 200 acres, (c) from 200 to 300 acres, (d) from 300 to 500 acres, (e) from 500 to 1,000 acres, (f) from 1,000 to 2,000 acres and (g) over 2,000 acres.
  134
  Mr. Curry
  The number of full-time equivalent jobs, including family labour, on every 100 acres on farms in England for the categories requested is shown in the table.

  Number of full-time equivalent jobs1 per 100 acres of total area on agricultural holdings2

  Total area of holding (acres)

  Number

  Under 100

  3.7

  100 - <200

  1.4

  200 - < 300

  1.0

  300 - < 500

  0.9

  500 - <1,000

  0.7

  1,000 - <2,000

  0.6

  2,000 and over

  0.4

  All holdings

  1.3

  1 Includes all workers on the holding ie farmers, partners, directors, spouses, managers, regular family and hired workers, seasonal and casual workers with the exception of persons engaged as trainees under an official scheme and not paid AWB rates or more.

  2 Minor holdings are excluded.

  Source: June 1992 Census of Agriculture and Horticulture.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the current total labour force employed in agriculture and the equivalent figures for 1991, 1990, 1985, 1980, 1975 and 1965.

  Mr. Curry
  The total agricultural labour force on holdings in England as at June for each of the years requested is shown in the table:

  Total agricultural labour force on holdings in England as at June each year

  Year

  Total labour forec1 (thousands)

  2 31965

  421.4

  41975

  503.0

  1980

  523.8

  1985

  495.3

  1990

  455.9

  1991

  445.0

  1992

  440.2

  1 Includes all workers on the holding i.e. farmers, partners, directors, spouses, managers, regular family and hired workers, seasonal and casual workers with the exception of persons engaged as trainees under an official scheme and not paid AWB rates or more.

  2 Data for 1965 exclude occupiers or principal partners and their wives.

  3 Workers on holdings of less than 1 acre are excluded.

  4 Data for 1975 exclude spouses (doing farm work) of farmers, partners and directors on main holdings.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his estimate of the amount of set-aside in the current growing season in each county of England and Wales.

  Mr. Curry
  The table gives the latest available figures for the amount of land currently set-aside under the five year set-aside scheme in each county in England. Information on land set-aside under the new arable area payments scheme will not be available until growers have to declare the area later this year. Figures for Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  135

  Country

  Area (hectares)

  Avon

  1,390

  Bedfordshire

  1,774

  Berkshire

  2,503

  Buckinghamshire

  5,392

  Cambridgeshire

  3,855

  Cheshire

  907

  Cleveland

  24

  Cornwall

  1,421

  Cumbria

  393

  Derbyshire

  847

  Devon

  1,595

  Dorset

  1,565

  Durham

  970

  East Sussex

  2,672

  Essex

  4,067

  Gloucestershire

  5,552

  Greater London

  261

  Greater Manchester

  126

  Hampshire

  2,750

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,804

  Hertfordshire

  2,135

  Humberside

  1,564

  Isle of Wight

  57

  Kent

  4,546

  Lancashire

  243

  Leicestershire

  1,517

  Lincolnshire

  3,354

  Merseyside

  259

  North Yorkshire

  2,505

  Norfolk

  3,126

  Northamptonshire

  3,986

  Northumberland

  663

  Nottinghamshire

  777

  Oxfordshire

  5,758

  South Yorkshire

  418

  Shropshire

  591

  Somerset

  1,821

  Staffordshire

  1,177

  Suffolk

  3,625

  Surrey

  1,665

  Tyne and Wear

  414

  West Yorkshire

  317

  Warwickshire

  1,751

  West Midlands

  132

  West Sussex

  2,449

  Wiltshire

  3,850

  Total

  88,565

  European Court
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions matters under his jurisdiction have been referred to the European Court; and if he will give details in each case.

  Mr. Curry
  All European Court of Justice cases since July 1985 involving the United Kingdom are listed in the White Papers on Developments in the European Community published bi-annually. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Fishing Days (Allocation)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he is giving to producer organisations on the management of their quota pending the introduction of days at sea restrictions.

  Mr. Curry
  The management of quotas allocated to producer organisations (POs) is, in general, a matter for them, operating within a framework of rules which 136
  Fisheries Departments lay down in the interests of the United Kingdom fleet as a whole. Days at sea will not have retrospective effect from the date of their introduction. Management of days at sea will be entirely up to the individual fishermen, since the allocations are to individual vessels not to POs.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce details of individual days at sea allocation transfer and any possible licence aggregation.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government will shortly be laying before Parliament an Order which will set out principles governing the allocation of days at sea. This order will clear the way for the issue of provisional allocations to fishermen, and subsequently for the attachment of days at sea conditions to licences. Such conditions will not be retrospective.

  Conifer Plantations
  Mr. Cynog Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to amend guidelines on conifer plantations in the United Kingdom relating to(a) siting, (b) species composition and (c) felling regimes.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 29 January 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans at present to amend the existing guidance on the establishment and management of conifer plantations.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many successful claims were made for family credit since April 1992 by lone parents who are employed between 16 and 24 hours a week.

  Mr. Burt
  Between 7 April and 30 September 1992, the latest date for which information is available, about 35,000 family credit awards have been made to lone parents working between 16 and 24 hours a week.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents in receipt of income support in March 1992 became ineligible, following the changes to the definition of full-time work from 24 to 16 hours a week in April 1992; and what is this figure as a proportion of the total number of lone parents claiming income support.

  Mr. Burt
  No one who was working between 16 and 24 hours a week and receiving income support at the point of change has had that benefit withdrawn simply as a consequence of the change in the hours threshold. Many lone parents will be better off because of their decision to claim family credit. Those who chose not to claim family credit may remain on income support under special provisions giving them indefinite protection.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what grounds British subjects who retire to one of the old dominions do not receive the annual uprating of their state pension.
  137
  Miss Widdecombe
  Regulations prevent the payment of annual pension increases to United Kingdom pensioners living abroad. There are exceptions to this rule under social security agreements with some countries. Our agreements with Australia, Canada and New Zealand do not alter this. We have no social security agreement with South Africa. In view of the substantial additional cost—about £275 million at April 1992 rates—involved in paying pension increases to all United Kingdom pensioners abroad, there is no prospect of allowing further unfreezing in the present financial climate.

PRIME MINISTER

  India
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had during his visit to India concerning human rights abuses in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I raised British concerns about human rights in Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister. He assured me of his Government's commitment to respect human rights and determination to take firm action against wrongdoers.

  Democracy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward proposals for an elected second chamber.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's progress towards improving democracy in the United Kingdom since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  We have implemented policies approved by the electorate in four general elections.

  Lord Chancellor's Powers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward a transfer of functions statutory instrument under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 to transfer the legal powers of the Lord Chancellor to a Secretary of State for Justice in a Department of Justice; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Transfer of Functions Orders
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1975 Her Majesty's Government have used transfer of functions orders to abolish, create or amalgamate Government Departments.

  The Prime Minister
  Twelve. They are:

  1976/1775 Established the Department of Transport

  1979/907 Created the Office of Arts and Libraries

  1979/1451 Dissolved the Ministry of Overseas Development

  1981/207 Office of Arts and Libraries merged with Department of Education and Science

  138

  1981/1670 Civil Service Department changed into Management and Personnel Office

  1983/879 Office of Arts and Libraries became a separate Office

  1983/1127 Departments of Trade and Industry amalgamated into Department of Trade and Industry

  1987/2039 Management and Personnel Office changed into Office of the Minister for the Civil Service

  1988/1843 Department of Health and Social Security split into Department of Health and Department of Social Security

  1992/1311 Department of National Heritage established

  1992/1314 Department of Energy dissolved

  Family Policy
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he proposes to co-ordinate family policy across those Government Departments actively concerned with family policy.

  The Prime Minister
  We already have proper and adequate co-ordination of family policy across Government Departments. There is frequent consultation between Departments about a range of issues which touch upon the family. In addition an interdepartmental working party—the family law and administration working party—oversees a rolling programme of work directed at improving family law and business.

  Moscow (Communications)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions between his security officials and Russian officials over the installation of a secure communications line to Moscow during his recent visit to India.

  The Prime Minister
  Given the close proximity of the two visits and the fact that we were both staying in the President's residence, it was necessary to discuss Mr. Yeltsin's communications requirements with both the Indians and the Russians. Arrangements acceptable to all concerned were agreed.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for submission to the 1996 intergovernmental conference.

  The Prime Minister
  It is too early to say. The first priority is to ratify the Maastricht treaty and put it into practice. Then we will be able to build on the gains won at Maastricht—subsidiarity, inter-governmental co-operation, codification of competences—in the years between now and the next treaty revision.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
  139
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Financial Assistance
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list, by industrial sector, the firms and projects which applied for financial assistance under section 8 of the Industry Development Act 1982 in(a) 1991–92 and (b) the current financial year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A number of assistance schemes, including assistance for exceptional projects, are operated under the powers of section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. Only in the case of AEP is comprehensive information recorded centrally.

  AEP applications by industrial sector have been submitted as follows:

  Sector

  Number

  1991–92

  Engineering

  2

  Newsprint recycling

  1

  Pharmaceuticals

  1

  1992–93 (to end January)

  Computer hardware/software

  3

  Waste disposal

  2

  Metal manufacture

  2

  Newsprint recycling

  1

  Medical research

  1

  Entertainment/leisure

  1

  Commercial property development

  1

  Details about the individual firms and their projects is commercially confidential.

  Teaching Company Partnership Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many projects have been established under the teaching company partnership scheme in each region; and how many students will be placed under the scheme in the financial year 1992–93.

  United Kingdom imports of denim1

  Value (£000)

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  21992

  United States of America

  1,581

  916

  722

  846

  678

  India

  434

  214

  307

  786

  2,187

  Hong Kong

  1,453

  655

  572

  343

  409

  Italy

  5,507

  3,275

  2,499

  1,564

  2,603

  Germany

  8,218

  4,775

  2,971

  4,636

  4,348

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  3,914

  817

  564

  1,146

  1,524

  Irish Republic

  684

  2,229

  5,654

  423

  70

  Other European Communities

  7,963

  8,699

  6,565

  5,484

  6,832

  Quantity (thousand square metres)

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  21992

  United States of America

  929

  574

  472

  592

  372

  India

  496

  220

  311

  667

  2,426

  Hong Kong

  1,625

  834

  835

  414

  322

  Italy

  1,842

  1,156

  813

  483

  949

  Germany

  3,971

  2,174

  1,225

  1,950

  1,687

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  1,590

  392

  243

  540

  669

  140
  Mr. Leigh
  The regional and territorial distribution of live teaching company scheme programmes is:

  1 April 1992

  31 December 1992

  +/-

  Northern Ireland

  28

  38

  +10

  Scotland

  35

  30

  - 5

  Wales

  24

  27

  +3

  North West

  57

  50

  - 7

  North East

  64

  90

  +26

  West Midlands

  48

  54

  +6

  East Midlands

  30

  41

  +11

  South West

  29

  37

  +8

  South East

  65

  78

  +13

  London

  13

  17

  +4

  Total

  393

  462

  +69

  Two hundred and twenty-nine graduates began participating as teaching company associates between 1 April and 31 December 1992. By the end of March 1993 a total of about 300 new associates will have been placed in this financial year.

  News Distribution
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission 1 was asked to report on news distribution; and when he expects it to report.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading referred the supply of newspaper distribution in England and Wales to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in August 1992. The commission was asked to report back to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade within 12 months.

  Denim Cloth
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the quantity and value of denim cloth imported into the United Kingdom from(a) the United States of America, (b) India, (c) Hong Kong, (d) Italy, (e) Germany, (f) Belgium, (g) Ireland and (h) other European Community countries for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Needham
  The available information on quantity and value of denim imports is given in the table.
  141

  Quantity (thousand square metres)

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  21992

  Irish Republic

  566

  1,485

  3,416

  424

  47

  Other European Communities

  5,105

  5,568

  3,034

  2,308

  2,600

  1 Denim is defined as headings 652.42 and 652.63 of the Standard International Trade Classification (revision 3).

  2 January to November.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Ship Building
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce new legislation or proposals to stimulate investment in new ship building to augment the United Kingdom register of merchant ships.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have no plans for additional assistance to shipbuilders. The shipbuilding intervention fund and the home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme are already available to help shipbuilders construct vessels for any register.

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many tonnes of methyl bromide have been(a) produced within the United Kingdom and (b) imported in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is not available. Methyl bromide is not separately identified in United Kingdom statistical classifications.

  EC Regional and Social Funds
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will discuss with the European Commission the possibility of upgrading Merseyside from objective 2 to objective 1 status within the framework of EC regional and social funds.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government are currently considering which regions, including Merseyside, should be put forward, for special reasons, for eligibility under objective 1 of the EC structural funds.

  State Aid for Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the Competition Commissioner Karl van Miert about the proposed softer line on state aid for industry in EC countries; and what representations he has made.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has met Mr. van Miert to discuss the coal review. He is looking forward to discussing other issues with Mr. van Miert over the coming months.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to make representations to the GATT to secure that clear and explicit commitments to(a) the environment, (b) the promotion of sustainable development and (c) to raise incomes of the poor in third-world countries are written in to the preamble and articles of the Multilateral Trade Organisation.
  142
  Mr. Needham
  It is not open to the United Kingdom to negotiate directly on the text establishing the proposed Multilateral Trade Organisation (MTO). The European Commission, which negotiates in the Uruguay round of GATT on behalf of the European Community and the member states, has made proposals to include language on sustainable development, including environmental protection, in the preamble of the proposed MTO text.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recommendations have been made by his Department to GATT concerning(a) revisions to the disputes procedures of the Multilateral Trade Organisation and (b) the accountability of MTO panel members.

  Mr. Needham
  It is not open to the United Kingdom to negotiate directly on the text establishing the proposed Multilateral Trade Organisation (MTO), which is being negotiated in the Uruguay round in GATT. The European Commission acts as sole negotiator on behalf of the EC and the member states. Dispute settlement is not, in any case, part of the MTO proposal, but is covered by a separate draft understanding. No proposals have been made to change this understanding since the draft Final Act was tabled in December 1991. Under the terms of this understanding, dispute settlement panel members would act for, and be accountable to, the Governments who are members of the MTO, acting collectively through a special dispute settlement body.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria he has used in reviewing the assisted areas map.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The criteria to be used in the review of the assisted areas map were set out in the consultation paper issued in June last year.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for a capital moratorium on payments of regional selective assistance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to adjust the cost-per-job limits on maximum regional selective assistance in line with inflation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are no such proposals. The scheme is kept under continuous review to ensure the scope for encouraging worthwhile and efficient investment in the assisted areas remain unimpaired.

  Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much European regional development fund expenditure there has been in the United Kingdom in each year since 1984–85 at(a) current prices and (b) 1984 prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  European regional development fund allocations to the United Kingdom since 1984 are as follows:

  £ million

  (a) Current prices

  (b) 1984 prices

  1984

  367

  367

  1985

  344

  326

  1986

  342

  308

  1987

  445

  386

  1988

  373

  311

  1989

  343

  273

  1990

  330

  253

  1991

  410

  301

  1992

  482

  332

  Coal Industry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that coal production is resumed in the 10 pits currently subject to the court judgment detailing that the modified colliery review procedure should be followed.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: The resumption of coaling at the 10 pits is a matter for British Coal. However, I do not understand there to be anything in the judgment which either makes the cessation of coaling in these pits unlawful or requires this to re-commence while consultation takes place.

  The judgment does not require the modified colliery review procedure to be followed. It requires that British Coal shall not reach a final decision on the closure of any of the 10 pits until a procedure substantially to the same effect as the modified colliery review procedure, including some form of independent scrutiny, has been followed.

  I have placed a copy of the approved transcript of the Lord Justice Glidewell and Mr. Justice Hidden's judgment of 21 December 1992 in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward proposals for a statutory extension of the redundancy payment scheme for the miners in the 10 pits scheduled for closure until the consultation and review procedure has been completed.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade assured the House on 21 October that no miner at these pits will be disadvantaged as regards redundancy terms. That holds good both during and at the end of the current consultation process, and both before and after the end of March.

  Insolvency
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the application of the insolvency laws to Gallidoro Trawlers of Lowestoft.
  144
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) wrote about this matter on 22 September 1992; 1 replied on 18 October 1992.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the insolvency laws; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: No. Officials in the insolvency service continue to monitor the operation of the insolvency legislation.

  Warship Builders
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), 10 December,Official Report, column 752, if he will now make representations to the European Commission that agreement be modified to permit subsidy to those companies which were privatised as warship builders.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: Not at present, but I am keeping the situation under review.

  Export:Import Ratios
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has concerning the export:import ratios in each member country of the European Community in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 January 1993]: The figures required are shown in the following table.

  EC countries ratios of exports to imports 1991

  Country

  Export:Import ratio 1991

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  0·98

  Denmark

  1·11

  France

  0·93

  Germany

  1·03

  Greece

  0·40

  Ireland

  1·17

  Italy

  0·93

  Netherlands

  1·06

  Portugal

  0·62

  Spain

  0·64

  United Kingdom

  0·88

  Source: OECD series C.

  Note: Export:import ratios relate to total visible trade.

EDUCATION

  English
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will meet the National Association of Teachers of English to discuss key stage 3 of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  The National Association of Teachers of English has not asked to meet my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received concerning standard attainment tests in English at key stage 3.
  145
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the implementation of key stage 3 of the national curriculum in English.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations he has received complaining about or asking for changes in the key stage 3 English tests.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Members to the oral answer that my right hon. Friend gave earlier to the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and to my hon Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan).

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have indicated that they will not carry out the key stage 3 English tests in the current year.

  Mr. Forth
  Head teachers and school governors are under a statutory duty to implement the national curriculum and its assessment arrangements. I expect all maintained and grant-maintained schools with 14-year-old pupils to administer the English tests to their pupils in June this year as they are required to do.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of four-year-olds have a local authority nursery place.

  Mr. Forth
  Eighty-one per cent. of all children in England who were aged 4 on 31 August 1990 and still below five at the end of the year were in maintained nursery or primary schools in January 1991.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from local authorities cutting budgets to avoid capping in 1993–94 and the implications on the position of education.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received in the last three months from the Association of County Councils on the funding of education services.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from the Association of County Councils about the funding of education services.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he received a copy of the annual survey of the grant-maintained schools centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend received a copy of the GSMC survey on 30 November. The survey demonstrated clearly the benefits of grant-maintained status, which enables schools to manage their own affairs and gives them the flexibility to target funding at classroom level. Copies of the survey are available in the Library.
  146
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest figures for the number of grant-maintained schools in both the secondary and primary phases.

  Mr. Forth
  To date, there are 262 secondary schools and 75 primary schools operating as grant-maintained. A further 49 secondary schools and 14 primary schools have been approved for grant-maintained status; 161 secondary schools and 61 primary schools have applications in the pipeline after voting in favour of applying for grant-maintained status.

  NNC and Ofsted Reports
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what actions he has taken following the recent presentation of reports by the National Curriculum Council and the Office for Standards in Education.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has sent to primary schools a five-point strategy designed to promote good teaching practice and improved curriculum management in primary schools. He also proposes to ask the new Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority to advise him on the institution of a rolling review of national curriculum subjects.

  Students Unions
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations he has received about the future of student unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on student unions in the course of the Department's consultations.

  Newspapers (Essex)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education from which Essex newspapers his press cuttings services provide cuttings for his office.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's press cuttings service is not asked to monitor Essex regional newspapers automatically. However, the Department has other arrangements enabling it to receive press cuttings from all regional papers on request.

  National Curriculum
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he next plans to meet the chair of the National Curriculum Council to discuss the progress being made in the implementation of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State have regular meetings with the chairman of the National Curriculum Council. Progress in the implementation of the national curriculum is a normal part of the agenda of such meetings.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest information he has about English local authority budgets for the youth service in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.
  147
  Mr. Boswell
  Separate information on youth service expenditure for these years is not yet available.

  Teacher Education and Training
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for the reform of teacher training.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for the reform of teacher education and training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend announced last June a decisive shift to more school-based training for secondary teachers, which is being introduced over the period up to September 1994. He is now considering reforms to the training of primary teachers in the light of the recent advice from the National Curriculum Council and OFSTED on primary education; and he intends that they should be introduced in September 1994. The quality of teacher training is critical to our school reforms and the raising of educational standards. My right hon. Friend will keep under review the possibility that further reform of teacher training is needed to this end.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from voluntary organisations during the last three months; and what were their major concerns.

  Mr. Boswell
  Over the last three months we have received a number of representations from voluntary organisations on a range of issues. These included the ending of the Department's initial three-year interim grants scheme to education voluntary organisations in London, and the funding of courses which fall within schedule 2 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to extend the system of local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  We issued the consultation paper, "Local Management of Schools: the Future Framework", on 11 January. This seeks views on proposals to extend local managment of schools. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Truancy
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance regarding the connection with bullying has been given to local authorities when using extra money to combat truancy.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the "Reducing Truancy" component of the grants for education support and training scheme for 1993–94, local education authorities (LEAs) could, if they so wished, include in their bids an element designed to promote whole-school action on bullying. A number of authorities have done so on the basis of schemes designed to meet local needs. Practical advice on bullying was contained in the "Action against Bullying" pack distributed by the Department to all LEAs and schools in July 1992.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to increase the number of young people entering higher education.

  Mr. Boswell
  Government policies have led to substantial increases in the number of young people participating in higher education. More than one in four young people now enter higher education compared with only one in eight in 1979. As explained at the time of the autumn statement, the Government's funding for the next three years reflects our assumption that the participation rate of young people in higher education will be maintained at a record 28 per cent. over the next three years, and will rise to about one in three by the year 2000.

  School Governors
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice and assistance is being made available to school governors in order that they can effectively carry out their responsibilities.

  Mr. Forth
  All LEAs arrange for training and support for school governors. Authorities either provide this themselves, or may commission it from other organisations. Central Government grant towards LEAs' expenditure is available through the GEST (grants for education support and training) programme. Nationally, expenditure of £10 million is being supported in the current year. This increases to just over £15 million in 1993–94. In addition, department for Education has funded several governor support projects run by diocesan bodies and governor organisations.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will publish the results of his Department's survey of the membership of school governing bodies conducted in autumn 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  The results of the survey will be published as soon as possible after they have been received.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provisions have been made governing the conduct of first governors of grant-maintained schools elected parent governors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The instrument of government of a grant-maintained school makes provision for serving governors who become bankrupt, are convicted of certain crimes or who do not attend governors meetings to be disqualified from holding office. Clause 56 of the Education Bill will, if enacted, provide additional power for the Secretary of State to replace any or all of the first governors in circumstances where there is a serious failure of duties, the school has had a bad inspection report and is unable or unwilling to put matters right or where the behaviour of governors has damaged, or appears likely to damage the education of pupils.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what requirements are laid on parent governors in reporting back to parent electors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  There are no specific requirements on parent governors to report back to parent electors. The governing
  149
  body as a whole must produce a report and hold a meeting for parents in every school year to inform parents of the governing body's actions over the previous year and to give them an opportunity to discuss these actions.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to monitor changes in articles and instruments of grant-maintained schools' governing bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Changes to the instrument or articles of government of any grant-maintained school can be made only if an amendment order is issued by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what requirements are imposed concerning changes to the membership articles and instruments and the removal of parent governors of grant-maintained school governing bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Amendments to the instrument of government of a grant-maintained school to reflect changes in the composition of the membership of the governing body can be made only if an amendment order is issued by the Secretary of State.

  The instrument of government makes provision for serving governors (including parent governors) who become bankrupt, are convicted of certain crimes or who do not attend governors' meetings to be disqualified from holding office. Clause 56 of the Education Bill will, if enacted, also provide power for the Secretary of State to replace any or all of the first governors in certain circumstances. These circumstances are: a serious failure of duties, a had inspection report coupled with the inability or unwillingness of the school to put matters right, or where there is behaviour by governors such as has damaged, or appears likely to damage, the education of pupils.

  Grants (Gwynedd)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the reasons why his Department(a) did not reimburse Gwynedd county council with the sum paid by way of mandatory education grants, following the completion of form UG 8/91 on 5 October by that authority, (b) indicated that provisional payments would be made soon after 9 October and (c) delayed payments until January 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Form UG 8/91 is a certificate of each local education authority's spending on mandatory student awards in 1991–92, and is used as a basis for adjustments to the specific grant already paid for that year by the Department. Provisional adjustments may be paid after scrutiny of authorities' pre-audit forms due in October, and final adjustments after receipt of audited certificates due on 31 December. Last autumn, however, many authorities' pre-audit forms contained errors, and the Department deferred all adjustments until audited certificates had been received and reconciled. The adjustments will be paid in full shortly.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for what reason his Department has not yet replied to the letter from the treasurer of Gwynedd county council of 30 November and 10 December.
  150
  Mr. Boswell
  The Department telephoned the county treasurer, and also wrote on 22 December and again on 19 and 29 January.

  Secondary Schools (Inspections)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many secondary schools will be inspected over the next four years.

  Mr. Forth
  Every publicly funded secondary school will be inspected over four years starting this September; nearly 4,000 reports will be published as a result.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the availability of professional services to children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Forth
  I have this last week, in the Committee stage of the Education Bill, tabled a new clause which puts beyond doubt the ability of local education authorities to continue to provide a range of professional support services to all pupils with special educational needs.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what specific action is currently undertaken by his Department to assist parents who wish to move their child with special education needs from the special school sector to the integrated mainstream school sector.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Act 1981 and the Education Bill presently before Parliament place local education authorities under a duty to secure that a child with special educational needs is educated in a mainstream school, so long as certain conditions apply and such integration is compatible with the wishes of the child's parents. Both that Act and the Bill provide for the annual review of statements of special educational needs. Part of the purpose of such reviews is to consider whether the school placement remains appropriate. As a result of a Government amendment the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations governing those reviews.

  Schedule 9 of the Bill provides a new right for parents of children with statements, subject to certain timing conditions, to ask the LEA to substitute a particular named LEA-maintained or grant-maintained school of their choice for the one named in the statement. Subject to certain conditions, the authority will have to comply and regulations may set time limits within which the authority must take action. If the authority do not comply, the parent will have a right of appeal to the tribunal.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the number of INSET courses and the numbers of teachers completing training from them, for teachers of young people with special learning difficulties for 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and that projected for 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  All the figures requested are not held centrally. However, this Department provides funds to LEAs under the grants for education support and training (GEST) programme to support them with the costs of such training. In 1992–93, funds were allocated to support the INSET training of 296 teachers of children with severe learning difficulties (SLD). Of these, 206 were teachers beginning new courses.
  151
  In 1993–94, the eligibility for grant under the GEST programme has been extended to support teacher training in all areas of special educational needs. As a result, the amount of eligible expenditure to be supported has been increased by nearly 40 per cent. to £10 million in order to meet the expansion in training activities. It is too early to say with certainty how many teachers of children with severe learning difficulties will be trained by LEAs under GEST in 1993–94, but preliminary indications suggest that figures will be comparable with those for previous years.

HEALTH

  Smoking
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients were admitted to NHS hospitals for smoking-related diseases in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) how many hospital beds, on average, on a daily basis, were occupied by patients being treated for smoking-related diseases in the last year for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is available only for 1988–89, as given by the Health Education Authority, in its 1991 publication "The Smoking Epidemic". This estimated that 226,000 patients were admitted to hospital in England for treatment of smoking-related diseases and these cases occupied an average of 7,000 beds each day.

  Limited List Drugs
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations were received by her Department between 9 April 1992 and 12 November 1992 seeking assurances on behalf of companies in the pharmaceutical industry that there were no plans to extend the limited list regulations; and what was the response.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A number of representations were received and the companies were informed that there were no plans at that time to extend the selected list scheme.

  Psychiatric Patients (Deaths)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 540, what timetable is proposed for the inquiry of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

  Mr. Yeo
  The inquiry will produce an initial report later this year.

  GP Fund Holders
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the general practices which are fund holding in the area covered by(a) the Mid-Staffordshire health authority and (b) the South East Staffordshire health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The West Midlands regional health authority is responsible for the management of the general practitioner fund holding scheme in these areas. The hon. Member may wish to contact, Sir Donald Wilson, the RHA chairman, for details.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the number of (i) male staff, (ii) female staff and (iii) staff working in wards/units caring for patients suffering from cancer employed at(a) University College hospital, (b) Middlesex hospital, (c) St. Bartholomew's hospital, (d) Royal London hospital, (e) St. Thomas's hospital, (f) Guy's hospital, (g) Charing Cross hospital, (h) St. Mary's hospital and (i) Queen Charlotte's hospital on 25 January;

  (2) how many (i) in-patients and (ii) out-patients were receiving treatment for cancer at (a) University College hospital, (b) Middlesex hospital, (c) St. Bartholomew's hospital, (d) Royal London hospital, (e) St. Thomas's hospital, (f) Guy's hospital, (g) Charing Cross hospital, (h) St. Mary's hospital and (i) Queen Charlotte's hospital on 25 January; and what kind of cancer treatment is given at each hospital.

  Dr, Mawhinney
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Nurses
  Ms. Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to increase opportunities for all enrolled nurses to convert to first level registration.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for regional health authorities, in consultation with employers, to plan for enrolled nurse conversion as part of their responsibility for identifying the level of demand for qualified nurses and for allocating appropriate budgets.

  In addition, we are committed to increasing the number of places available for enrolled nurse conversion as part of the Project 2000 reforms. Central funding has been made available to facilitate this.

  The English National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting has been encouraged to develop flexible options which have made it possible to reduce both the length and cost of conversion courses.

  Plastic Surgery
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards there are to ensure that all surgeons carrying out plastic surgery are suitably qualified, and to protect those individuals undergoing plastic surgery; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Plastic surgeons securing consultant appointments in the national health service have to meet the requirements of employing authorities' advisory appointments committees. These include representatives of the Royal College of Surgeons who ensure that the experience and training of a candidate is appropriate to the particular appointment.

  Self-governing Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the chairpersons and non-executive directors of all self-governing trusts and the annual remuneration paid to each.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A list of all trust appointees has been placed in the Library. All non-executive directors are paid
  153
  at the rate of £5,000 per annum. The remuneration for trust chairmen is paid in three bands according to the unit turnover in 1988–89.

  £

  Band 1 (Turnover in excess of £50 million)

  19,285

  Band 2 (Turnover in between £20-£50 million)

  17,145

  Band 3 (Turnover less than £20 million)

  15,125

  Accidents (Children)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children received hospital treatment following road accidents who had been(a) wearing and (b) not wearing seat belts, in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) what are the assessed costs to the national health service for treating children injured by (a) accidents in the home, (b) as the result of motor vehicle accidents where they were passengers and (c) suffered as the result of road traffic accidents where they were pedestrians.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. In the "Health of the Nation" White Paper we indicate that the development of information systems in accident and emergency departments is a key measure in our strategy for reducing accidents. From this April a new minimum data set will be introduced in A and E departments which will record both the cause and the nature of patients' treatment, thus enabling such costs to be assessed. In further developing this data set we will consider whether seat belt usage in road accidents should also be recorded.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed by the health education authority to promote(a) the installation and wearing of child seat belts and restraints and (b) child safety in the home.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Several staff are employed by the Health Education Authority on child accident prevention, but none exclusively. The authority produces information for parents and the public, and support for health professionals in their role in accident prevention. This includes information on the installation and wearing of child seat belt restraints.

  Home Safety
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what allocation of funds exist for accident prevention in the home.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No information is held centrally about the cost of the continuing efforts and special initiatives by people working in health and social services which help combat home accidents. Direct expenditure by central Government on home safety is by the Department of Trade and Industry whose consumer safety unit allocate about £1 million per annum to home safety campaigns targeted at the general public and at high-risk groups and in addition funds the home and leisure accident surveillance systems.

  Chlamydia
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has regarding the links between the development of pelvic inflammatory disease and abortions on women infected with chlamydia.
  154
  Mr. Sackville
  We are aware of medical discussions on the nature and extent of the link between infection with chlamydia and pelvic inflammatory disease in pregnant women including those who undergo a termination of pregnancy.

  Articles on this topic have appeared in professional journals in this country and abroad.

  Community Care
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the local authorities who have been offered free consulting time prior to the introduction of community care; what was the basis for their selection; which local authorities have accepted; what was the cost to the Department of this initiative; and which consultancy firms were used in this initiative.

  Mr. Yeo
  Since September 1992 the community care support force has provided practical assistance to local and health authorities in their final preparations for implementing the caring for people reforms. As part of its programme, it has visited individual local and health authorities, by invitation. The support force has offered authorities assistance, including, consultancy support and expects to have committed, by the end of March when it finishes work, about £250,000 in this form of help to authorities. The support force has used a number of consultancy firms and its work also includes: the production of practical guidance and working seminars on key implementation tasks, an implementation helpline and a regular newsletter.

  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the original estimate of expenditure of the Royal Victoria infirmary, Newcastle, new ward block when the project began; and what is the total expenditure incurred so far.

  Mr. Sackville
  Based on actual building costs and standards prevailing at the start of construction, the original estimated cost of the new ward block was £23.3 million excluding fluctuations. The contract was com- pleted on time in July 1991 and the cost incurred was £27.2 million including £3.4 million for fluctuations. Fluctuations are the sums paid to reimburse the contractor for increases in labour, plant and material costs as the work proceeds. Four small additional contracts have since been let to provide additional facilities on site.

  Maternal Deaths
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 536, what provisions exist for identifying maternal deaths following complications after abortions which occur after the notification form has been passed to his Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  As with all maternal deaths, district directors of public health assemble confidential information regarding deaths following legal abortion. This information is collected by the Chief Medical Officer and published anonymously in the "Reports on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths", copies of which are
  155
  available in the Library. This information is collected independently of the system for notification of abortions under the Abortion Act 1967.

DEFENCE

  High Energy Beam Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests are either currently conducted or planned to be conducted by his Department at his Department's site at Dundennan in Scotland into high energy beam weapons in conjunction with the United States Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. A. R. Chisholm to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 2 February 1993.
  In today's written answer the Secretary of State for Defence informed you that I would be replying directly to your question regarding tests on high energy beam weapons at Dundrennan, Scotland.
  The tests to which I think you are referring are part of a DRA research programme into the feasibility of using electromagnetic energy for the propulsion of a solid projectile to enhance the armour penetrating performance of tank gunnery. This is a collaborative research programme between the United Kingdom and the United States which has nothing to do with so-called high energy beam weapons. The tests will be carried out at a facility that is still in the process of construction on the MOD range at Kirkcudbright; it is due to be completed by the end of May 1993.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the source of the biological and chemical nerve agents used in prophylactic research at Porton Down chemical research establishment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 2 February 1993:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what is the sourse of the biological and chemical agents used in prophylactic research at Porton Down Chemical Research Establishment (Question 6. Order Paper 25 January 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures (including prophylactic measures) against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work it is necessary to investigate the effectiveness of protective measures against the range of potential chemical and biological agents. This involves the use of small quantities of chemical agents which are largely synthesised as required. Some of the chemical agents are provided from residual stocks originally prepared at Nancekuke and on occasion it is necessary to obtain compounds from external suppliers. In respect of biological agents, these are usually produced from cultures held at CBDE Porton Down although again on occasion it is necessary to obtain culture samples from external sources.
  156
  3. The Chemical Weapons Convention which recently opened for signature in Paris allows States Parties to carry out work on protective measures and permits each State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention to have a single small scale facility in which small quantities of Schedule I chemicals for protective purposes can be prepared or stored. The United Kingdom small scale facility will be at CBDE Porton Down.

  Reservists (Annual Reporting)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many army reservists have not been able to undertake an annual reporting exercise during the last 12 months due to the inability to their units to fund such events; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The annual reporting exercise for army reservists was funded centrally by the Ministry of Defence and not by units, but the exercise has been suspended since autumn 1991 as a result of the restructuring of the reserve forces. The suspension will be reviewed once the restructuring is complete.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given by his Department to the level of investment in specialist training and equipment undertaken to date by Dyfed county fire brigade to deal with offshore emergencies in tandem with the search and rescue helicopter squadron at RAF Brawdy within his Department's review of the search and rescue service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The level of investment in specialist training and equipment, by Dyfed county fire brigade is a matter for that brigade.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consideration was given to the overlapping of circles of coverage in his Department's review of the search and rescue service in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what assessment has been made by his Department of the impact of a withdrawal of the search and rescue helicopter squadron from RAF Brawdy upon response times in dealing with coastal and offshore emergencies in and around the Ceredigion and Pembroke, North constituency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the open government document "The Future Provision of Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Helicopters", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the average response time taken by Sea King helicopters from RAF Brawdy to reach the scene of a coastal or offshore emergency in and around the Ceredigion and Pembroke, North Constituency in each of the last three years; and if he will publish estimated response times for helicopters from(a) RAF Chivenor and (b) RAF Valley to reach future coastal or offshore emergencies in or near the constituency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information on average response time taken by Sea King helicopters from RAF Brawdy for the area and period in question can be provided only at disproportionate cost. For future estimated response times from RAF Chivenor and RAF Valley, I refer the hon. Member to the open government document "The Future Provision of RAF Search and Rescue Helicopters", a copy of which is in the Library of the House and which shows that the civil search and rescue criteria will be met.
  157
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what research has been conducted by his Department on the effect of withdrawing the search and rescue helicopter squadron from RAF Brawdy upon established contingency plans drawn up by the Dyfed fire brigade to deal with offshore emergencies;

  (2) what assessment has been made by his Department into the effect of withdrawing the search and rescue helicopter squadron from RAF Brawdy upon the training needs of local county fire fighters in tackling offshore emergencies.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. The RAF search and rescue helicopter flight will continue to assist fire brigades in their training for dealing with offshore emergencies when this flight is transferred from RAF Brawdy to RAF Chivenor.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of lives saved in and around the Ceredigion and Pembroke, North constituency in each of the last five years, as a result of the response of the search and rescue helicopter Squadron at RAF Brawdy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Such estimates are not made. For information on the number of call-outs involving the rescue of people I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 2 November 1992 at column 51–2.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long a person could be immersed in water at(a) 6°C and (b) 7°C before experiencing at least a 50 per cent. chance of becoming unconscious; and how rapidly, in percentage terms, their chances of survival would thereafter diminish.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the 1986 report of the United Kingdom civil rescue helicopter coverage working group, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment (Accidents)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the unclassified reports of inquiries into accidents and incidents which occurred at the atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston on 15 May 1961, 19 December 1976, 23 July 1978, 29 November 1978, 2 December 1987 and 19 February 1991.

  Mr. Aitken
  It would neither be appropriate nor practicable to place in the Libary unclassified versions of reports into accidents and incidents which occurred at the atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston over the last 30 years, nor could this information be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Landing Platform Helicopter
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place an order for the landing platform helicopter.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 15 January to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) at column 840.
  158
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which firms have been invited to tender for the main engines for the landing platform helicopter.

  Mr. Aitken
  Tenders for the main engines form part of the tenders for the landing platform helicopter currently being evaluated by my Department. Details of these tenders are commercially confidential.

  Crossley Engines, Manchester
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD contracts have been placed with Crossley Engines of Manchester in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department's direct contracts with the Crossley Engines division of NEI Allen Ltd. are for spares and repairs only. Complete engines would normally be supplied on a sub-contract basis through a prime contractor such as a shipbuilder.

  To minimise administrative effort, both by my Department and the company, one enabling arrangement was set up in July 1990. This permits nominated officials to order spares from Crossley Engines as and when required, without having to negotiate separate contracts each time. Since July 1990, we have also placed 15 small contracts for special requirements outside the scope of the enabling arrangement.

  Data on contracts before 1990 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  B Flight 202
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of call-outs flown by B Flight 202 squadron RAF Brawdy in 1986 and 1992; and how many operations in each year were in response to military incidents.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table. The figures in brackets show the number of call-outs that involved the rescue of people, including incidents such as the transfer of sick or injured people from ship to hospital.

  Year

  Total Call-outs

  Military Call-outs

  1986

  98 (46)

  11 (4)

  1992

  158 (50)

  7 (2)

  St Anne's Head and RAF Brawdy
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which bodies, organisations or individuals he has received objections to, or statements of concern about, the proposed removal of search and rescue helicopters from RAF Brawdy; and how many objections or expressions of concern he has received in total.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department has received a number of representations from a variety of sources on the withdrawal of the RAF search and rescue flight from RAF Brawdy.

  NATO Status of Forces Agreement
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in the renegotiation with the German authorities of the
  159
  supplementary agreement to the NATO status of forces agreement; when he expects the negotiations to be concluded; and when he expects a new agreement to come into force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 December 1992, col. 718]: The negotiations on the review of the supplementary agreement to the NATO status of forces agreement have now been concluded. The outcome is a good one from the United Kingdom's point of view. The agreement ensures that our forces in Germany will be able to train effectively and that the quality of life of the forces involved has been preserved. Signature of the agreement is likely in the late spring.

EMPLOYMENT

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will re-open the jobcentre in Barnoldswick, Lancashire; and if she will make a statement on the criteria used in deciding whether to re-open jobcentres

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 2 February 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the Employment Service office in Barnoldswick. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The decision to close the office at Barnoldswick in April 1991 was taken only after a full consultation process. The representations we received were considered very carefully and all the relevant factors were taken into account. The office at Barnoldswick had offered only a limited service and did not reflect the full range of services available at our nearby fully integrated office at Colne. It was mainly for this reason that it was decided to close the office.
  There are no plans to re-open the office. However, to ensure that local clients have ready access to job opportunities we have provided two vacancy display boards and a freephone facility in the local library.
  You also asked what criteria are used when considering the re-opening of offices. A number of factors are taken into account when such decisions are taken and these would apply equally to the initial siting of offices. Such factors include:

  —levels of business to be generated.

  —number of clients to be served.

  —the level of service offered to our clients.

  —the proximity of other offices.

  —availability of suitable premises.

  Other factors may be taken into account when looking at specific locations but the overriding consideration is to provide the best possible service to our clients within available resources. We cannot, I am afraid, provide an office in every location.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which employers' associations or employers have asked for trade unions to be required to review members' written authorisations to deduction at source of union subscriptions every three years.
  160
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no such representations. Under proposals in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill it is employers who will be required to seek renewed consent to check-off deductions from their employees every three years.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many individual claimants have registered as unemployed since(a) April 1990 and (b) November 1990.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the period April 1990 to December 1992, and on the unadjusted basis, about 354,300 people on average per month joined the claimant unemployment count and 313,900 people on average per month left the count. The corresponding figures for the period since November 1990 are 371,600 and 321,600 respectively. Of those becoming unemployed about a quarter leave unemployment within the first month; a half leave within the first three months and two-thirds within six months.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list for the last five years the number of employers whose applications for a work permit are refused who ask for a review; and what percentage of those reviews result in a reversal.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research and data collection are carried out by her Department to assess which skills are in short supply to inform decisions on work permit applications.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department draws on a range of labour market information and consults employer and professional bodies and other relevant organisations to inform decisions on work permit applications.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average time taken to inform(a) tier 1 applicants for work permits and (b) tier 2 applicants for work permits whether their applications have been successful.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. During 1992 more than 80 per cent. of work permit applications were decided within eight weeks of receipt.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what has been the average administrative cost to her Department of a place on the employment action scheme;

  (2) what has been the average administrative cost to her Department of a place on the employment training scheme;

  (3) what will be the average administrative cost to her Department of a place on the training for work scheme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of reportable accidents in the north-west resulted in a visit by an inspector from the Health and Safety Executive in each of the last 10 years.

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

  Unemployment Benefit Disqualification
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information is available regarding the lengths of periods of unemployment benefit disqualification imposed by adjudication officers in the area which includes the constituency of Newcastle under Lyme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mrs. Llin Golding, dated 2 February 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the length of periods of unemployment benefit disqualifications in the Newcastle-under-Lyme area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  All decisions on claims for unemployment benefit are made by the independent adjudicating authorities.
  Information about the length of disqualification periods imposed is not collated or published as each is decided in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case. Without knowledge of these circumstances no meaningful interpretation of the information could be made.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information is available regarding the lengths of periods of unemployment benefit disqualification imposed by adjudication officers in the area which includes Warley East.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Number of National Health Service sight tests1 in Scotland by Health Board area

  Health Board

  1987–88

  1988–89

  21989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1 October 1991 to 30 September 1992

  Argyll and Clyde

  95,153

  98,926

  36,636

  39,703

  46,243

  48,096

  Ayrshire and Arran

  80,202

  85,746

  34,754

  34,606

  38,236

  39,902

  Borders

  16,123

  17,981

  7,176

  5,240

  6,316

  7,163

  Dumfries and Galloway

  29,324

  31,007

  11,761

  11,336

  13,637

  14,704

  Fife

  72,534

  76,854

  24,821

  28,556

  34,049

  35,453

  Forth Valley

  54,525

  58,847

  26,276

  18,426

  21,637

  22,354

  Grampian

  96,777

  108,592

  30,582

  33,367

  36,977

  39,129

  Greater Glasgow

  237,924

  252,843

  131,605

  110,697

  122,878

  128,436

  Highland

  36,185

  36,599

  15,841

  13,091

  15,476

  16,073

  Lanarkshire

  119,371

  119,307

  47,680

  47,983

  56,269

  58,527

  Lothian

  162,353

  176,902

  74,531

  56,682

  66,297

  69,096

  Orkney

  2,674

  2,972

  862

  873

  1,034

  1,156

  Shetland

  7,000

  7,069

  2,808

  2,420

  2,834

  2,700

  162
  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Andrew Faulds, dated 2 February 1993.
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the length of periods of unemployment benefit disqualifications in the Warley East area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  All decisions on claims for unemployment benefit are made by the independent adjudicating authorities.
  Information about the length of disqualification periods imposed is not collated or published as each is decided in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case. Without knowledge of these circumstances no meaningful interpretation of the information could be made.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Fife Health Board
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the resignation of Mrs. Ann Ferguson from the chairmanship of Fife health board; and what severance or compensation payment was made on her resignation.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the statements issued by Mrs. Ferguson and by him on 22 January. Any payment made to Mrs. Ferguson at the time her resignation takes effect will be subject to normal rules for reporting expenditure to Parliament.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people had sight tests in all health board areas for which figures are available in(a) the last 12-month period for which figures are available and (b) in each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested for each of the financial years from 1987–88 to 1991–92 is shown in the table. Information for the period October 1991 to September 1992, the last full 12-month period for which information is available, is shown separately in the table.
  163

  Health Board

  1987–88

  1988–89

  21989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1 October 1991 to 30 September 1992

  Tayside

  83,680

  90,498

  28,103

  28,132

  32,642

  34,802

  Western Isles

  4,320

  4,467

  2,043

  1,773

  2,073

  2,035

  Scotland Total

  1,098,145

  1,168,610

  475,479

  432,885

  496,598

  519,626

  1 One person may have more than one sight test in the period.

  2 Since 1 April 1989 free National Health Service sight tests have only been available to children, full-time students under 19, those in receipt of Income Support or Family Credit, the registered blind and partially sighted, complex lens users, those who hold an AG2 exemption certificate from the Health Benefits Unit, diagnosed diabetic or glaucoma sufferers, and close relatives aged 40 or over of glaucoma sufferers. Information is not collected on private sight tests.

  Littlewoods Pools
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will visit the Littlewoods Pools operation at Inchinnan, Paisley.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Littlewoods Pools is located at Hillington, Glasgow. My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to visit Hillington.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the outstanding appeals under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, relating to children with special educational needs, will be expedited.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Work is proceeding as quickly as possible on complaints to the Secretary of State under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Such complaints are made by parents of children with records of needs alleging that an education authority has failed to discharge its duty.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to issue revised guidance to education authorities on records of needs for children with special educational needs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I hope to do so later this year.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  s: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce reforms to the records of needs procedure for children with special educational needs, so as to (a) provide for an appeal to an independent tribunal and (b) specify a time limit for completing records of needs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The incidence of appeals against the terms of records of needs—around five per annum—is insufficient to justify the setting up in Scotland of a statutory tribunal to hear them.

  The Scottish Office education department has issued guidance specifying the timescale within which a record of needs should normally be completed. Research by Edinburgh university in 1989 showed that over one half of all records of needs in Scotland are completed in under six months and nearly three quarters in under eight months. I regard that as a sound achievement, but I shall continue to encourage education authorities to improve on this performance.

  Green Belts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy for the protection of green belts in and around urban areas of Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: My right hon. Friend's policy for protecting green belts is set out in Scottish Development Department circular 24/1985. Our consistent policy has been to maintain and enhance green belts.

  EC Committees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of committees of the EC each Scottish Office Minister chaired during the most recent United Kingdom Presidency.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to meetings of the Council of Ministers. Scottish Office Ministers did not chair any meetings of the Council of Ministers during the United Kingdom presidency. However, my hon. Friend, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, lead for the United Kingdom at the Fisheries Councils on 19 October and 23 November and shared the lead for the United Kingdom at the Fisheries Council on 19 December, and also attended the Agriculture Council on 26 October. My hon. Friend, the Minister for Education for Scotland, attended the Education Council on 27 November. On the occasions where Scottish Office Ministers do not personally attend, they are represented at all meetings of the Council of Ministers by senior officials or by their colleagues in the United Kingdom Government.

  Dounreay (Radioactive Leak)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department was informed of the leakage of radioactive liquor at the Atomic Energy Authority's Dounreay nuclear power development establishment on 21 November 1992; what off-site contamination resulted from the leakage; and how many such incidents have been brought to the attention of his Department since 1988.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: A report of this incident was made to my Department on 26 November 1992. No off-site contamination occurred; radioactivity was confined within the immediate plant area.

  Since 1988, four incidents involving radioactive liquor have been reported to my Department from civil nuclear installations in Scotland.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to make a statement on the results of his consideration of representations received on the consultation document, "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services;" and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: My right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage announced the outcome of the Government's consideration on 10 November 1992. These announcements covered England, Scotland and Wales. My hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Housing made a separate announcement on 10 November in relation to home-to-school transport in Scotland.

  Officials are currently holding detailed discussions with representatives of local government, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, on the practical aspects of implementing the Government's decisions.

  European Parliament
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last formally and collectively met members of the European Parliament representing Scottish constituencies; what matters he discussed; when he next plans to meet them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland last met Scottish MEPs formally and collectively on 9 July 1991. Various issues relating to Scotland and the European Community were discussed. There are no immediate plans for a further such meeting.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the work force of the Scottish ambulance service to discuss the efficient operation of services within(a) the Argyll and Clyde health board area and (b) Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet representatives of the work force. There are recognised procedures and channels for communication between staff and managers and between trade unions and management on issues relating to the efficiency of the operation of the Scottish ambulance service.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold a full public inquiry into the operation of the ambulance service within the Argyll and Clyde health board area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: Until my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has reached a decision as to whether a fatal accident inquiry into the death of Mr. Adleigh should be held, it is not appropriate to consider whether any other form of formal inquiry should be undertaken into the service within Argyll and Clyde health board area.
  166
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage of ambulances in each service in Scotland that responded within(a) eight minutes and (b) 14 to 20 minutes to emergency calls in 1991–92.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: There is only one ambulance service for the whole of Scotland and the information in 1991–92 is as follows:

  Percent

  0–8 minutes

  49

  14–20 minutes

  95

  Super-quarries
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what environmental impact assessment has been carried out of the proposal by Redland Aggregates for a super-quarry in South Harris; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: As required by the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988, an environmental assessment of the proposal accompanied the planning application by Redland Aggregates Ltd. to the Western Isles islands council. The matter is currently before the islands council, although my right hon. Friend issued a direction in September 1991 requiring the application to be referred to him should the council be minded to approve it. Because of my right hon. Friend's possible involvement in this matter at a later stage, I am unable to comment further.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what planning policy guidance he has issued with regard to super-quarries and aggregate mining; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: National planning guidelines on the working of aggregates in Scotland were issued in 1977. These guidelines, which are still extant, acknowledge the economic potential of coastal super-quarry developments and suggest that they would, in principle, be acceptable if damage to the environment is limited through careful choice of location and detailed site proposals. Following the commitment given in the Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200) all planning guidance is now being reviewed. In July 1992 a draft national planning policy guideline (NPPG) entitled "Land for Mineral Working" was issued for consultation. This will supersede the 1977 guidelines later this year and will provide the context within which local authorities should prepare up to date development plan policies for mineral working, including super-quarries where appropriate, in full consultation with the local community, and with regard to the economic needs and environmental considerations of their area.

  KS Properties Ltd.
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1992,Official Report, column 457, what information his Department had on the company named on the mortgage deed filed at Companies House, Edinburgh, when

  167
  approving the writing-off by the Scottish Development Agency of moneys due under the mortgage deed from KS Properties Ltd., and on the availability of assets in KS Properties Ltd. for the purposes of repaying the loan.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: My answer of 17 December, Official Report, column 457 related to the writing off of the balance of a loan owed to the Scottish Development Agency by KS Construction Ltd. The Scottish Office has never been invited to approve the writing off of any debt owed to the agency by KS Properties Ltd.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which present or past directors of KS Construction Ltd. or KS Properties Ltd. are or have been members of area boards involved with Scottish Enterprise, its predecessor body or any other publicly funded enterprise board or organisation in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: I am not aware that any person whom my right hon. Friend has appointed to any enterprise board or organisation in Scotland is or has been a director of KS Construction Ltd. or KS Properties Ltd. Membership of boards to which my right hon. Friend does not make appointments is generally a matter for the bodies concerned; and information is not held centrally.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate his Department has made of the total fixed capital in the hands of dentists in Scotland, and of return on that capital, over the last three years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: No such estimate is made by the Department. The return on capital is one of the factors that the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration takes into account when recommending the target average net income for dentists.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is planning to maintain the current level of NHS dental services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The Government remain committed to a comprehensive NHS dental service. Health boards in Scotland are responsible for making arrangements for adequate provision of general dental services in their areas. Health boards have been reminded that they may seek approval to employ salaried dentists if they think this is necessary to ensure the continued availability of NHS dental services in their areas.

  Engineering Industry
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action his Department has taken to assist engineering manufacturing industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: The Scottish Office Industry Department assists the engineering industry in Scotland by providing advice on exports, technology and best management practice and by providing grant-aid. Grants are available to help
  168
  companies to introduce new products and processes, to obtain specialist advice and, in certain areas, to undertake capital investment projects.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for East Lothian on Monday 11 January, c.635, what financial provision is to be made either by his Department or by Scottish Nuclear Ltd. for the eventual permanent storage or disposal of high-level nuclear waste following its removal from the planned temporary dry stores at Torness and Hunterston.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: As indicated in my earlier answer, no decision has yet been taken about Scottish Nuclear Ltd's proposed dry store for spent AGR fuel. In the circumstances described in the hon. Member's question, financial provision would be a matter for Scottish Nuclear Ltd.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he applies in determining whether an area should be awarded enterprise zone status; which areas currently meet the criteria; which areas currently enjoy enterprise zone status; if he has any plans to review the criteria; if he has any plans to make further awards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 January 1993]: Enterprise zones are essentially policy instruments to encourage the physical and economic regeneration of areas with particular environmental, physical and economic problems. Since 1987, following an interim evaluation of the enterprise zone experiment, it has been Government policy that enterprise zone designation is an instrument to be used only in exceptional circumstances, where the costs can be justified and where there are no alternative, more cost-effective measures available.

  The case for enterprise zone designation for an area is measured against three basic criteria, broadly the nature and severity of problems in the area; the likely cost-effectiveness of enterprise zone designation compared with other available measures; and the extent to which authorities and agencies can ensure the success of the zone. If these basic criteria are met, the case is considered in greater depth by reference to a range of more detailed issues. Enterprise zone arrangements are, however, kept under constant review. European Commission approval is required for any designation proposals.

  Enterprise zones are currently designated in Inverclyde, lnvergordon and Tayside in Scotland. Orders were laid before Parliament on 12 January proposing enterprise zone designation for sites in Lanarkshire with effect from 1 February 1993.

  My right hon. Friend has no plans for further designations in Scotland other than as set out in the orders for Lanarkshire referred to above.

  Renfrewshire Enterprise
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual cost of renting or leasing the premises of Renfrewshire enterprise in Causeyside street, Paisley; what is the annual cost of providing heating and
  169
  lighting for these premises; what is the cost per square foot for each year of these respective charges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 27 January 1993]: These are operational matters for Scottish Enterprise, and I have therefore referred the hon. Member's question to the chairman of Scottish Enterprise.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what schemes his Department operales to provide assistance to small businesses; if he will indicate the eligibility criteria for each scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 January 1993]: My Department itself operates the following schemes of assistance to small businesses.

  Regional Investment Grant
  Available to businesses in development areas with fewer than 25 employees for investment projects. It covers 15 per cent. of the cost of fixed assets to a maximum of £15,000.

  Regional Innovation Grant
  Available to independent businesses or groups in the development areas with fewer than 50 employees for innovation projects. It covers 50 per cent. of agreed project costs to a maximum of £25,000.

  Small firms also have access to a number of schemes designed to meet their needs and funded by the Department of Trade and Industry. Other more widely available forms of assistance such as regional selective assistance are open to small firms and they can also benefit from a full range of schemes operated and delivered through Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the network of local enterprise companies.

  Textiles
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of people employed in the textiles industry in(a) Scotland (b) Strathclyde and (c) Renfrew district in each year since 1973; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 January 1993]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Textiles industry employment in Scotland, Strathclyde region and Renfrew district 1973–1990

  Scotland

  Strathclyde

  Renfrew

  1973

  68,238

  27,762

  6,706

  1974

  65,261

  26,983

  6,573

  1975

  57,523

  23,731

  5,743

  1976

  55,041

  22,842

  5,463

  1977

  54,610

  22,547

  5,505

  1978

  51,672

  20,918

  4,981

  1979

  48,331

  19,286

  4,785

  1980

  43,708

  16,612

  4,262

  1981

  36,891

  13,050

  3,324

  1982

  31,758

  10,544

  2,700

  1983

  30,374

  10,415

  2,359

  1984

  30,743

  10,367

  2,036

  1985

  31,387

  10,494

  1,921

  1986

  31,782

  10,695

  2,034

  1987

  30,790

  10,873

  2,019

  1988

  29,088

  9,794

  1,862

  1989

  27,689

  9,350

  1,868

  1990

  25,652

  8,854

  1,640

  170
  Source: Scottish Register of Employment.

  Note: The Scottish Register of Employment only holds information for manufacturing units with 11 or more employees.

  As the table shows, textiles industry employment in Scotland declined considerably between 1973 and 1990. This decline was, however, accompanied by a significant improvement in labour productivity.

  Over recent years the industry has faced particularly difficult trading conditions but levels of activity are likely to increase as the economy recovers.

  The Scottish textiles industry has a fine export record and export orders increased between 1991 and 1992.

  Whisky
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the numbers employed in Scotch whisky distilling for each year since 1979; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) parliamentary constituency, (b) regional/island council and (c) district council in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: Figures from the Scottish Register of Employment relating to plants manufacturing Scotch whisky are as follows:

  Number of employees

  1979

  22,600

  1980

  21,900

  1981

  20,100

  1982

  18,000

  1983

  15,900

  1984

  14,600

  1985

  12,900

  1986

  12,300

  1987

  11,100

  1988

  10,100

  1989

  10,000

  1990

  10,700

  19911

  10,400

  1 Provisional.

  The breakdowns requested are available on the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information if necessary.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much each district local authority received in per capita contribution of aggregate external finance in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 January 1993]: The information is provided in the table for each year since aggregate external finance was introduced. The per capita figures have been calculated using the Registrar General for Scotland's mid-year estimates of total population.

  1990–91 AEF per capita £

  1991–92 AEF per capita £

  1992–93 AEF per capita £

  Berwickshire

  65·86

  98·85

  105·24

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  68·29

  101·99

  105·69

  Roxburgh

  78·44

  109·74

  105·69

  Tweeddale

  68·43

  102·06

  105·74

  171

  1990–91 AEF per capita £

  1991–92 AEF per capita £

  1992–93 AEF per capita £

  Clackmannan

  87·02

  126·51

  140·38

  Falkirk

  84·24

  111·87

  123·95

  Stirling

  109·24

  137·48

  152·56

  Annandale and Eskdale

  61·68

  89·99

  94·04

  Nithsdale

  66·39

  94·45

  107·16

  Stewartry

  55·79

  90·02

  91·88

  Wigtown

  71·04

  103·96

  112·01

  Dunfermline

  78·04

  108·21

  120·28

  Kirkcaldy

  75·08

  103·59

  116·77

  North East Fife

  79·18

  113·13

  125·16

  Aberdeen City

  111·88

  142·33

  152·89

  Banff and Buchan

  78·19

  103·59

  112·09

  Gordon

  68·94

  100·25

  109·34

  Kincardine and Deeside

  71·46

  94·46

  102·51

  Moray

  75·22

  103·32

  119·85

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  70·88

  109·04

  104·92

  Caithness

  75·17

  107·17

  112·88

  Inverness

  74·98

  99·35

  102·79

  Lochaber

  98·75

  136·88

  140·15

  Nairn

  72·38

  97·09

  101·34

  Ross and Cromarty

  105·83

  138·61

  148·05

  Skye and Lochalsh

  101·44

  167·24

  173·35

  Sutherland

  120·86

  135·86

  146·44

  East Lothian

  85·76

  122·72

  134·87

  Edinburgh City

  111·51

  155·83

  172·91

  Midlothian

  84·24

  106·41

  120·91

  West Lothian

  76·54

  106·98

  121·58

  Argyll and Bute

  111·92

  174·76

  193·11

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  76·59

  104·78

  113·69

  Clydebank

  143·15

  163·64

  175·17

  Clydesdale

  82·88

  115·84

  127·87

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  78·29

  100·49

  112·16

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  87·46

  116·41

  127·75

  Cunninghame

  101·24

  125·15

  141·52

  Dumbarton

  88·53

  110·54

  127·81

  East Kilbride

  66·01

  87·19

  97·18

  Table 1

  (1) Revenue support grant and specific grants 1992–93 per cent

  (2) Non domestic rate income 1992–93 per cent

  (3) Community charges 1992–93 per cent

  Borders

  78·1

  10·7

  11·2

  Central

  61·6

  22·1

  16·3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  75·4

  12·3

  12·3

  Fife

  62·5

  22·1

  15·4

  Grampian

  69·0

  19·5

  11·4

  Highland

  72·3

  17·0

  10·7

  Lothian

  55·5

  24·7

  19·7

  Strathclyde

  66·9

  18·6

  14·6

  Tayside

  69·0

  17·1

  13·9

  Berwickshire

  72·5

  14·5

  13·0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  58·3

  21·4

  20·3

  Roxburgh

  62·6

  17·1

  20·2

  Tweeddale

  69·8

  14·8

  15·4

  Clackmannan

  47·1

  25·4

  27·5

  Falkirk

  51·1

  38·1

  10·8

  Stirling

  39·6

  32·2

  28·1

  Annandale and Eskdale

  49·8

  18·5

  31·7

  Nithsdale

  54·1

  21·2

  24·7

  Stewartry

  63·1

  15·7

  21·2

  Wigtown

  63·7

  10·9

  25·4

  Dunfermline

  50·5

  27·3

  22·2

  Kirkcaldy

  49·7

  25·8

  24·5

  North East Fife

  60·9

  13·9

  25·2

  Aberdeen City

  40·1

  36·7

  23·2

  Banff and Buchan

  48·3

  31·4

  20·3

  Gordon

  69·9

  14·1

  15·9

  Kincardine and Deeside

  71·8

  18·0

  10·2

  Moray

  64·9

  22·5

  12·6

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  56·4

  20·9

  22·7

  172

  1990–91 AEF per capita £

  1991–92 AEF per capita £

  1992–93 AEF per capita £

  Eastwood

  61·30

  89·84

  94·74

  Glasgow City

  188·19

  212·36

  225·91

  Hamilton

  87·87

  116·11

  129·61

  Inverclyde

  105·73

  132·72

  148·50

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  85·51

  107·59

  118·91

  Kyle and Carrick

  88·37

  113·77

  126·18

  Monklands

  105·31

  141·19

  160·55

  Motherwell

  98·25

  126·86

  143·79

  Renfrew

  95·91

  127·93

  140·78

  Strathkelvin

  89·86

  115·71

  121·05

  Angus

  73·58

  103·05

  112·31

  Dundee City

  112·31

  153·48

  169·74

  Perth and Kinross

  85·78

  113·60

  120·59

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing for each local authority in Scotland the proportion of local authority finance(a) including and (b) excluding housing, derived from (i) central Government, (ii) business rates, (iii) rents, fees and charges and (iv) poll tax in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 January 1993]: The information requested is given in tables 1 and 2. Table 1 shows proportions of local authority income in 1992–93, excluding housing and table 2 shows the proportions including housing. The proportions shown in respect of community charges are inclusive of community charge benefit receipts from central Government. Figures on income from rents, fees and charges on services other than housing are not available centrally.
  173

  (1) Revenue support grant and specific grants 1992–93 per cent.

  (2) Non domestic rate income 1992–93 per cent.

  (3) Community charges 1992–93 per cent.

  Caithness

  67·2

  19·6

  13·2

  Inverness

  51·1

  31·5

  17·5

  Lochaber

  54·4

  29·7

  15·9

  Nairn

  67·2

  9·4

  23·4

  Ross and Cromarty

  63·4

  17·1

  19·6

  Skye and Lochalsh

  72·7

  10·2

  17·1

  Sutherland

  73·3

  8·9

  17·8

  East Lothian

  49·2

  25·0

  25·8

  Edinburgh City

  46·1

  22·7

  31·2

  Midlothian

  64·5

  13·2

  22·4

  West Lothian

  65·3

  20·3

  14·4

  Argyll and Bute

  59·9

  17·4

  22·7

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  63·9

  9·7

  26·4

  Clydebank

  56·9

  19·8

  23·3

  Clydesdale

  53·8

  15·0

  31·2

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  55·1

  21·3

  23·6

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  64·1

  12·8

  23·1

  Cunninghame

  48·4

  29·3

  22·4

  Dumbarton

  38·1

  18·0

  44·0

  East Kilbride

  41·9

  21·2

  37·0

  Eastwood

  75·5

  9·3

  15·1

  Glasgow City

  45·2

  31·8

  23·0

  Hamilton

  53·6

  16·9

  29·6

  Inverclyde

  62·1

  13·5

  24·4

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  57·9

  18·7

  23·4

  Kyle and Carrick

  44·1

  19·2

  36·8

  Monklands

  60·3

  13·8

  25·9

  Motherwell

  60·6

  18·0

  21·4

  Renfrew

  48·7

  19·4

  31·9

  Strathkelvin

  57·8

  10·3

  31·9

  Angus

  65·5

  18·3

  16·2

  Dundee City

  51·7

  25·1

  23·2

  Perth and Kinross

  54·8

  23·4

  21·9

  Orkney

  77·1

  15·3

  7·6

  Shetland

  61·5

  33·4

  5·1

  Western Isles

  89·3

  6·6

  4·1

  Table 2

  (1) Government grant 1992–93 Percentage

  (2) Non domestic rate income 1992–93 Percentage

  (3) Housing (Rents, fees and charges) 1992–93 Percentage

  (4) Community charges 1992–93 Percentage

  Borders

  78·1

  10·7

  11·2

  Central

  61·6

  22·1

  16·3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  75·4

  12·3

  12·3

  Fife

  62·5

  22·1

  15·4

  Grampian

  69·0

  19·5

  11·4

  Highland

  72·3

  17·0

  10·7

  Lothian

  55·5

  24·7

  19·7

  Strathclyde

  66·9

  18·6

  14·6

  Tayside

  69·0

  17·1

  13·9

  Berwickshire

  33·7

  6·7

  53·5

  6·0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  31·7

  11·7

  45·6

  11·0

  Roxburgh

  30·6

  6·8

  54·7

  8·0

  Tweeddale

  40·5

  8·6

  41·9

  8·9

  Clackmannan

  23·0

  12·4

  51·2

  13·4

  Falkirk

  20·8

  15·3

  59·5

  4·3

  Stirling

  22·3

  17·9

  44·2

  15·6

  Annandale and Eskdale

  30·0

  7·7

  49·2

  13·1

  Nithsdale

  27·2

  10·6

  49·8

  12·4

  Stewartry

  32·7

  7·2

  50·3

  9·8

  Wigtown

  31·2

  4·8

  52·9

  11·1

  Dunfermline

  25·3

  13·7

  50·0

  11·1

  Kirkcaldy

  23·6

  12·3

  52·5

  11·6

  North East Fife

  38·4

  8·8

  37·0

  15·9

  Aberdeen City

  21·1

  19·3

  47·5

  12·2

  174 175

  (1) Government grant 1992–93 Percentage

  (2) Non domestic rate income 1992–93 Percentage

  (3) Housing (Rents, fees and charges) 1992–93 Percentage

  (4) Community charges 1992–93 Percentage

  Banff and Buchan

  23·5

  15·3

  51·4

  9·9

  Gordon

  49·8

  6·6

  36·3

  7·4

  Kincardine and Deeside

  50·5

  9·2

  35·2

  5·2

  Moray

  33·8

  11·7

  48·0

  6·5

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  39·6

  10·6

  38·3

  11·5

  Caithness

  37·1

  7·3

  50·7

  4·9

  Inverness

  29·2

  13·6

  49·6

  7·6

  Lochaber

  45·5

  10·6

  38·2

  5·7

  Nairn

  38·0

  4·2

  47·3

  10·4

  Ross and Cromarty

  45·0

  7·1

  39·8

  8·1

  Skye and Lochalsh

  61·8

  5·0

  24·8

  8·3

  Sutherland

  45·6

  3·7

  43·4

  7·4

  East Lothian

  25·6

  13·0

  47·9

  13·4

  Edinburgh City

  29·2

  14·2

  37·1

  19·6

  Midlothian

  39·3

  8·0

  39·1

  13·6

  West Lothian

  35·1

  10·9

  46·3

  7·7

  Argyll and Bute

  38·2

  10·8

  37·0

  14·0

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  47·8

  7·2

  25·6

  19·4

  Clydebank

  27·3

  9·3

  52·6

  10·9

  Clydesdale

  29·1

  8·1

  46·0

  16·9

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  37·5

  14·5

  31·9

  16·1

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  26·4

  5·3

  58·8

  9·5

  Cunninghame

  25·9

  15·6

  46·6

  11·9

  Dumbarton

  20·7

  9·8

  45·5

  24·0

  East Kilbride

  36·1

  18·9

  10·0

  33·0

  Eastwood

  59·8

  7·4

  20·9

  11·9

  Glasgow City

  24·4

  14·4

  50·7

  10·5

  Hamilton

  24·7

  7·8

  53·8

  13·6

  Inverclyde

  29·4

  6·3

  52·9

  11·4

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  27·3

  8·8

  53·0

  11·0

  Kyle and Carrick

  26·1

  11·3

  40·8

  21·6

  Monklands

  25·6

  5·9

  57·1

  11·1

  Motherwell

  25·7

  7·8

  57·6

  9·1

  Renfrew

  25·0

  9·9

  48·6

  16·4

  Strathkelvin

  35·6

  6·3

  38·4

  19·6

  Angus

  35·3

  9·9

  46·1

  8·7

  Dundee City

  22·9

  11·2

  55·6

  10·3

  Perth and Kinross

  31·8

  13·5

  42·0

  12·7

  Orkney

  73·5

  14·4

  4·9

  7·2

  Shetland

  60·3

  28·6

  6·7

  4·4

  Western Isles

  85·3

  5·9

  5·1

  3·6

  1. Column 1 consists of Revenue Support Grant, Specific Grants and Housing Support Grant.

  2. Column 3 includes standard rental income from unrebated rents.

  Forestry Sales
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in respect of Forestry Commission plantations sold since October 1991(a) those in respect of which access agreements have been concluded and (b) those in respect of which access agreements have not been concluded, indicating the reasons why access was not given in each case.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: The arrangements for securing continued public access to woodlands sold by the Forestry Commission were introduced in October 1991. The Commission has sold 18 areas of forest land since then, in addition to those sales which were too far advanced in October 1991 to be included for consideration under the new arrangements.

  An access agreement has been concluded in respect of one of these areas, Steam Mills in Gloucestershire. Access agreements were not concluded for the other areas, which are listed, for the reasons given.

  Newbridge and Chirk By-pass, Clwyd

  176

  Newport-Worcester Trunk Road, Gwent

  These were sales for highway improvements.

  Ifton Quarry, Gwent

  Valley Woods, West Glamorgan

  These were sales which arose from the exercise of reserved powers in the title, eg a landlord's right to resume possession of a leased area.

  Blackwater Copse, Dorset

  Markshall, Suffolk

  Penyrallt (land at), West Glamorgan

  These sales were to former owners under the offer-back procedures.

  Barton Manor Woods, Isle of Wight

  Fishpond, Hampshire

  Oxendean, Borders

  Oxlease, Hampshire

  Patervan, Borders

  Tall Boys, Hampshire

  These areas were subject to third party rights, eg where the access to the area was over land owned by a third party who was not willing to join in an access agreement.

  Dromore, Dumfries and Galloway

  Glenscripesdale (part), Highland

  These areas were sold to Scottish Natural Heritage.

  Corrieour, Tayside

  177

  Mount Pleasant, Highland

  The local authorities decided not to take up the offer of an access agreement for these areas.

  Court Procedures
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to remove the need for witnesses in a trial, including police officers, to provide oral evidence to prove facts where the facts have been included in a statement submitted to the defence and the defence has served no counter-notice challenging their validity; and if he will estimate the saving in police time consequent on such a provision.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: A similar proposal was made in part VI of the Scottish Law Commission's number 137—"Evidence: Report on Documentary Evidence and Proof of Undisputed Facts in Criminal Proceedings". We are considering that proposal as well as seeking to identify other means of minimising unnecessary court attendance by witnesses. The time saved by such a proposal would depend on the use made of counter-notices and it is not possible to predict that.

  Hospitals
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many applications have been received from units or hospitals seeking trust status; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many expressions of interest have been received from units or hospitals seeking trust status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: Two trusts are currently operational. These will be joined by a further 15 in April 1993. Twenty-three other hospitals/units have expressed an interest in trust status and are currently developing possible applications.

  MV Braer
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the duration, frequency and geographical coverage, of monitoring activity undertaken by or on behalf of his Department in Shetland or coastal waters around Shetland, following on from the grounding of the MV Braer on 5 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: Extensive monitoring and sampling is being carried out covering sea and fresh water, sediments, fish, air, livestock and wildlife. Wherever appropriate, studies include control samples elsewhere in Shetland as well as from areas potentially affected by the oil spill. The information already available is copious: for example, on 28 January the marine laboratory in Aberdeen made available to local interests an 11-page bulletin reporting on seawater, sediments and fish monitoring, of which I have sent a copy to the hon. Member. Longer-term monitoring will be co-ordinated by the ecological steering group, which is to be chaired by Professor William Ritchie.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of capital expenditure in the national health service in the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what was the split between hospital building and equipment.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 February 1993]: Expenditure on capital in the national health service in each of these years was as follows:

  Year

  £ thousands

  1990–91

  183·065

  1991–92

  254·300

  1992–93

  1262·360

  1 Estimate·

  Information on the split between hospital building and equipment is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Paisley Pattern
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to promote the Paisley pattern; what steps he intends to take to encourage the development of the industrial manufacture of Paisley pattern goods in the town; and what resources are currently available to propagate the importance of the town's role in the worldwide commercial heritage of textiles.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: The local enterprise company, Renfrewshire Enterprise, is involved in a number of ways in the promotion and development of Paisley pattern. I consider that the actions which it has taken and is taking are likely to have a useful impact. If the hon. Member wishes details of Renfrewshire Enterprise's activities in this respect I know that the company will be pleased to provide further information.

  The resources which Renfrewshire Enterprise and other interested bodies choose to devote to the propagation of the importance of Paisley's role in the worldwide commercial heritage of textiles is a matter for those bodies.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) if he will make a statement on progress towards improving the working of the House of Commons;

  (2) what proposals he has to reform the House of Commons.

  Mr. Newton
  Reform of the working of the House of Commons is being taken forward by following up the recommendations of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House.

  Discussions through the usual channels are seeking to identify an acceptable basis as to when the House can take decisions on the Select Committee's report.

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.

The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
Robert Maynard, Lord Bishop of Lincoln—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.
Lord Churston—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Bloodstock Industry: VAT
2.44 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the commissioners of Customs and Excise will now permit the registration of racehorse owners for VAT.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Jockey Club has made proposals for changes to the rules intended to make ownership more of a business activity and therefore allow some owners of racehorses to register for VAT. Customs and Excise are looking urgently at the proposals and further meetings have been arranged.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, what does "urgently" mean in this context? Does my noble friend realise that it would seem to many people odd—even perverse—if Ministers were now seen to prefer the narrow construction put by the Excise authorities on a regulation of their own making against the sustaining of employment and the maintenance of overseas earnings?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, "urgently" means urgently. A meeting is being held this afternoon with a view to reaching a speedy conclusion and taking the process further forward. I said to my noble friend when he last asked me this question before the Recess that we were waiting for the Jockey Club to present a proposal. That has now been presented and we are acting quickly on it. I was interested in my noble friend's second question. His thinking seems to have evolved. I recall that on 19th July 1972 a certain Member for Yeovil voted for the VAT regulations that now control this issue.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, this is not a party matter. The industry is in serious trouble. The Government have made great concessions to Mr Stein of Ladbroke —for what reason I shall never know. Betting shops will be able to open late at night and so on. Yet the
80
people who really matter—the people who own the horses—are being penalised. Why? When are the Government going to do something about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when I answered a Question similar to this on 17th December I gave a catalogue of things that the Government had done. I can only say to the noble Lord that discussions are continuing.
Lord Renton: My Lords, even if registration of racehorses for VAT is allowed, how far will it go to overcome the great disadvantage of the French and the Irish having much more favourable arrangements than we have?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we will have to wait and see what can be agreed between Customs and Excise and the Jockey Club to see how the situation can be ameliorated. I say to my noble friend that there are plenty of opportunities for the industry to take advantage of the various concessions that Customs and Excise have granted.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, have the commissioners of Customs and Excise taken any further the notion that advertising could be carried on the backs of jockeys or on the saddle cloths of horses as they parade in the ring, thereby entitling owners to register for VAT?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these are some of the issues that are being discussed. All this relates to the question of what is meant by a business, and what is the criterion for VAT.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he anticipates that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be saying something about this on 16th March?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we can all anticipate. I can say nothing.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we have been around this course so often that noble Lords might be excused if they felt that it was time for a steward's inquiry—into the Minister, perhaps, for not trying to win the race; perhaps into the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, although I support him enormously, for excessive use of the whip. Why do not the Government take a decision? There are two practical solutions—to register for VAT or to establish our rate at the same rate as our competitors in Europe, the Irish and the French. Why not take a decision and not hold more and more meetings? Who is governing the country —Ministers or officials of the Customs and Excise?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord had a very good day's racing at Towcester before Christmas and that he also backed some winners. All I can say to him is that we are in discussions. Those are proceeding as quickly as possible now that we have received the paper from the Jockey Club.
Lord Manton: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that there is no restriction in either British or European law on a special rate being applicable to

81
bloodstocks? Is the Minister aware that the racing industry has been awaiting a reply for the past 14 years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand my noble friend, the question of bloodstocks takes us somewhat beyond the remit purely of the racehorse industry because there are bloodstocks of other types in the horse industry. We are very aware of the anxieties of the industry. It has made them well known to us and we are in discussion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise therefore that these industries are inter-dependent and that we are talking not only about racing, but also about the breeding, the training and the selling of horses, which together represent a very major industry making a considerable contribution to the balance of payments? Does my noble friend agree that it is a question for urgent resolution, using the term in the sense that most of your Lordships would understand and not perhaps as it would normally be used by people answering for Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will have had great experience. We listened to him with great interest when he answered for Her Majesty's Government. He knows that these discussions have to take place and fulfil their course.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will have in mind the fact that when I voted for these regulations I did so both with characteristic docility and also in the unfounded faith that they would be sensibly construed and administered. Does he not understand that the failure of Ministers on this occasion to take charge and make a sensible decision may well be taken as an admission by them that the construction of excise regulations has become, for them, a no-go area?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I disagree fundamentally with my noble friend about the lack of action by Ministers. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Paymaster General spoke to my noble friend this morning and explained to him fully what the situation is and the action which has been taken. As I said, we have now received the report from the Jockey Club and we must get on and consider it.

Low and Non-Alcohol Beer: Prices
2.52 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will invite the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the prices of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the Government have no plans for an investigation into the prices charged for non and low-alcohol beers in pubs. The Director-General
82
of Fair Trading will nevertheless consider in the normal way any concerns that might be expressed to him.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Will she reconsider this matter because there is a widespread feeling that conscientious motorists who play the game are being exploited?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxieties, which I share. I believe that anyone with common sense to make the right decision about drinking and driving will use his car to drive away if the motorist feels that he has been overcharged.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, would it be true to say that the price of non-alcoholic beverages in this House is higher than the price of normal beer? Would it not be in the interests of the House to propagate the consumption of non-alcoholic beverages?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I must confess to a lack of knowledge about the alcoholic drinks in this House. I draw attention to the fact that we had a statement of trading policy from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, last week on the issue.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that people in this country cannot understand why they have to pay just as much for non-alcoholic beverages, which do not attract tax and excise duties, as they do for alcoholic beverages, which do attract those taxes?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I believe that the people of this country well understand that it is for the publican to fix the price of his drinks.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is it not clear that, given all the pricing evidence, together with the fact that just three companies now control over 70 per cent. of the market in low alcohol and non-alcohol beers, a complex monopoly, as defined by the Fair Trading Act, is now operating in this industry, meriting consideration by the OFT? Will the Minister explain the inconsistency in government policy in failing to apply the Act in this clear-cut case?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, perhaps I may first welcome the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to the Dispatch Box. I am pleased to say that it would appear by the numbers of representatives on the Opposition Benches that they are placing great importance on trade and industry. As regards this issue, what happened as a result of the resolution of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was that the tied estate order required national brewers to allow their tied customers to buy these drinks from any supplier of their choice. That means that it is a much more open market.

Energy Efficiency: Government Departments
2.55 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hanworth, and at his specific request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent they have been able to install the latest energy saving devices and control measures for lighting in government departments; and whether there is any provision in budgets for doing so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Energy Efficiency Office gives advice and encouragement to all government departments to adopt cost-effective energy efficiency measures. Total expenditure by departments on energy efficiency measures, including lighting, amounted to some £13 million in 1991–92.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Can he say what percentage of the total fuel costs are currently represented by lighting in government departments?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a specific answer to his question. However, I know that research by the Energy Efficiency Office has shown that about 50 per cent. of energy costs are made up of lighting.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the important percentage which the noble Lord has just indicated, does he not agree that on the whole lighting tends to be part of the energy efficiency drive which has been too long neglected? Therefore, will the Government not only do all they can to improve lighting performance in government-controlled buildings, but also use that as an example to spur on the rest of the economy to do likewise?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that there is increasing understanding that energy efficiency for lighting can be extremely effective with a low pay-back period. As regards government buildings, noble Lords will be pleased to know that in the parliamentary estate the electrical load has been reduced from 328 kilowatts to 111 kilowatts, a saving of 217 kilowatts (66 per cent.) by energy efficiency means.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord recognise that the latest figures for expenditure on energy and energy efficiency, 1991–92 over 1990–91, show a mixed record? His own department comes out rather well. Will he further recognise that there are some laggards; for example, the Department of Trade and Industry is down 74 per cent.; the Lord Chancellor's Department is down 57 per cent.?
A Noble Lord: Legal aid!
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Treasury is down to no expenditure at all. Can the noble Lord explain what
84
mechanisms are in place in his department for ensuring that the laggards at least come up to the recommendation of the Audit Commission for local authorities?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is for Ministers in their departments to decide what their priorities are. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has set up a committee of Green Ministers which sat for the first time on 1st October. Those Ministers have been asked to report what their individual departments are doing. We hope that that will encourage them to prioritise energy efficiency in the correct way.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since the committee to which my noble friend has just referred accounts for about 30 per cent. of Ministers, can we expect expenditure in this area in the Department of the Environment to go down by a similar amount?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that the battle for energy efficiency will not be won for a very long time. There is a considerable amount to do, not just in the Department of the Environment, but also in other departments. It is cost effective. I feel that more will be done.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Minister also consider that it is not only government departments that have to be energy-saving conscious but also the general public? In view of the high cost of energy-saving light bulbs, can the Minister say whether it will be possible for the Government to reduce the VAT on those bulbs?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness is, of course, absolutely correct. It is also a matter of what private individuals—the general public—do. However, this Question refers to government departments, which is why I answered it in that respect.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, have the Government heard of the Green Light Programme which has been put into operation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, by which the American administration gives technical assistance to companies which are reducing their lighting load? Something like 700 companies have been encouraged so to do. Are the Government considering a similar initiative in this country?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in the United Kingdom we feel that the case for energy efficiency is so great that the facts speak for themselves, so there is no need for a specific subsidy. Instead we support the Energy Efficiency Office to the tune of some £60 million so as to spread the message across the country.

Telecommunications Operators: EC Directive
3 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Utilities Supply and Works Contract Regulations 1992 are applied to the contracts (in respect of the services specified) of British Telecommunications plc and Kingston Communications (Hull) plc and not to such contracts of any other public telecommunications operators.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the regulations implement an EC directive which has an exemption for procurement in relation to telecommunications services which others are free to provide in the same area and under substantially the same conditions. On the basis of legal advice, we concluded that the exemption applies to all procurement by UK operators, except for procurement by British Telecommunications plc and Kingston Communications (Hull) plc, in so far as each is dominant in its licensed area in the market for the specified services and, therefore, the exemption does not apply.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, although I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer, I have some doubts about the legal advice that he is receiving. I wonder whether we can break down this problem in steps. Would my noble friend confirm that this directive is aimed at member states whose telecommunications services are provided by state monopolies? My noble friend will be aware of Recitals 11 and 12, and I think that he will find it easy to answer that question. Secondly, will he acknowledge that in the United Kingdom—differently from other member states—our telecommunications industry works in a competitive environment and will increasingly do so? If the answers to those questions are yes, which I anticipate that they will be: why are Her Majesty's Government not exercising the express powers granted to them under Article 8(1) of the procurement directive and freeing all operators in our telecommunications industry from the bureaucratic and other burdens of this directive?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right in saying that this is entirely a legal matter. Where one has two different legal opinions, there are appropriate procedures with which to resolve the problem. In this country, 130 companies are affected by the directive but, because of the dominant position of British Telecommunications plc and Kingston Communications (Hull) plc, they have not been exempted for certain specified services.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister indicate whether, in view of what appears to be a somewhat selective approach, the Commission has expressed any opinion on the way in which this directive has been applied in the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this was not a selective approach; it was very carefully considered. As the noble Lord will be aware, a review called the Duopoly Review looked at the whole question of telecommunications services and we then considered those that should be covered by the directive. As I understand it, the Commission has not made a firm comment on our proposals.
Lord Howell: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether such discrimination is being hallowed by the Government in any other field in the public or private sector? It cannot happen in relation to water or energy, so why is it right in the field of communications, in which competition is severe at the moment, that unfair arrangements should be brought about and hallowed by the Government in this way? Discrimination should be outlawed in competitive trading, and I submit that it is the duty of the Government to bring that about.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the whole point of the directive, in which I declare an interest as I was very involved in it while Paymaster General, was to avoid the discrimination that was practised previously by monopoly purchasers throughout Europe. The whole point was to create a better market. Where the market cannot act—and there are certain cases in which it cannot act—it is right that those companies with dominance in the area should be required to fulfil certain functions to create a market.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is there any significance in the point that the two companies against which discrimination appears to be being practised were both publicly owned companies before the 1984 Telecommunications Act was introduced? British Telecom was in the public sector and the Kingston-upon-Hull company was in the local authority sector. Is there any significance in the fact that the two companies against which discrimination is being practised were formerly both in the public sector? How on earth does Kingston Communications (Hull) plc have a dominant position? It is a fairly small company, is it not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong. The great advantage to British telecommunications has been the privatisation, with 75 per cent. now in the private sector, and a much improved service for customers. What we are talking about is the question of dominance in a specific area for specific services. It is not discrimination against those firms; it is to prevent discrimination against suppliers.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, do the Government think that these regulations will make it easier or more difficult to maximise the yield from the final sale of British Telecom shares?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these regulations are designed to create a market for fair competition for suppliers to the telecommunications industry. That stands to benefit British industry quite enormously overseas.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is this yet another case of the British Government applying European directives with much more rigour than is necessary, as they have done in the case of so many health regulations, resulting in the closure of half our abattoirs?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, it is not a question of that. It is a question—and rightly so—of enforcing the directive; but the purpose of the directive is to give the supplying firms greater competition. We shall ensure—and so will the supplying firms—that this is implemented throughout Europe.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it certainly seems illogical (to put it mildly) that two public utility companies should be subject to these regulations while all the others are not? Although that may be the legal advice that the Government have received on the construction of the directive, do they have any other proposals to impose similar conditions upon other telecommunications companies which at the moment, and on the Government's construction, arc not subject to the regulations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as British Telecom is mostly now in the private sector—thank goodness—it is an evenhanded approach that the Government have taken. What we have had to look at (through Article 8 of the directive) is the dominance of a supplier of a telecommunications service. Where there is a dominance—and there is in these two instances for certain services—it is right that the regulations should apply to those dominant suppliers.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry. Obviously, I did not make myself clear to the Minister, so I wonder whether the House will allow me to try again. As I understand it, two companies are now subject to these regulations and the tendering processes therefore have to take place in a certain form. Is it the Government's intention that other companies in a similar position in the market should also be subject to similar restrictions and regulations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the regulations apply to all 130 or so British firms which are affected by them. Of those 130, two are in a dominant position for certain services, and that is why they have been itemised in the way that they have. What we do—and what we shall continue to do—is to keep the situation under review. If there is more competition in the areas in which those two firms have a dominance, the regulations can be looked at again.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, can we can go back to the Minister's answer in which he referred to fair competition? Can my noble friend help me on this point? One aspect of this directive is the competitive disadvantage that is being imposed upon those companies that are subject to it—for example, in the periodic indicative notices in which they have to set out their future commercial plans in advance and publicly for exposure to their competitors at home and abroad.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend that that is too discriminatory against the two companies. As my noble friend will be aware, the threshold is considerably higher than for central and local government purchases. We are looking for greater competition for the suppliers of equipment and services to the telecommunications companies.

Business of the House: Debates, 3rd February
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Fisher of Rednal and the Lord Irvine of Lairg set down for tomorrow shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Applications for approval]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 25, after ("trading") insert ("including the arrangements for pricing and allocation of milk").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships in general and to my noble friend the Minister in particular for not having been in my place to move these amendments on Report on Monday of last week. I was under the misapprehension that that stage, like this one, was being taken on a Tuesday and so arrived late.
The amendment is a probing amendment, although naturally I hope, as I always hope, that my noble friend will accept it, or the next, as being a good solution to the problems in question. The amendment reflects my anxiety that the full details of the intended trading practices of successor bodies should be included in any application for a reorganisation scheme. The amendment on the same subject that I moved in Committee achieved some degree of support, but there appeared to be opposition to parts of it. In particular, my noble friend's reply in Committee did not take into account the regulated nature of the milk market through institutional prices and quotas under the CAP, with the resulting inadequate supply of milk in the United Kingdom.
The UK milk market is not, and cannot be, free while those CAP constraints continue. Deregulating the MMBs will not solve that problem. Those constraints make the trading practices, especially with regard to the pricing and allocation of milk by any successor bodies, of crucial interest to users. Users —that includes processors and the general public—have legitimate worries about the future availability of adequate supplies and pricing policy. Given that, even after deregulation, there will not be a free market, full details are required to enable manufacturers to plan and to be confident when taking decisions on the size

89
and location of investments in manufacturing and processing capacity in the UK. Hence, my suggestion that it would be helpful to everyone, and a wise thing for the Government to do, to have the details that I suggest in the amendment included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we on this side of the House have looked carefully at the amendment. We find it defective, because it seems to us that it assumes, inherently, that a voluntary producers' co-operative will operate in a fashion similar to that of a statutory milk marketing board. That is manifestly not so. If there are any doubts about that I suggest that your Lordships read the financial section of The Times today.
A voluntary co-operative will be subject to market forces in acquiring, pricing and selling milk. For example, it is uncertain as of now how many current producers will even bother to join the voluntary co-operative because they may have better offers from other sources. If many of them do not join, then selling prices fixed by the board may have to be adjusted to reflect competition in the marketplace. Instead of being able to allocate milk, as it now does, the co-operative may incur further costs in selling it to processors, some of whom will undoubtedly arrange their own supplies.
Even if the co-operative—I am thinking especially of England and Wales in this context—still spoke for a substantial market share, commercial confidentiality would, in our opinion, preclude acceptance of the amendment as drafted. There may be some consolation for the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in Clause 3(2) (b), which incorporates an amendment tabled by us at a previous stage, and accepted by the Government, which obliges the Minister to consult about the principles of the scheme before he proceeds with it. For those reasons, if the amendment were pressed, we could not support it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, although when my noble friend produced a similar amendment at an earlier stage I said that I had a certain sympathy with his point of view, I cannot support the amendment. The whole purpose of the Bill is to get rid of an arrangement for the pricing and allocation of milk. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said that it would be the market which would decide the pricing and allocation of milk. It is clearly the responsibility of anyone who wishes to buy milk to make clear to his potential suppliers the arrangements for the pricing of milk. Through that, he will hope to persuade them that it will be in those producers' best interests to sell to that operator. I cannot support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in that he has evidently given considerable thought to the remarks which I made on the amendment to Clause 2(2) (c) which he tabled in Committee. I said then that it would be wrong to
90
require a statement of proposed trading practices by a successor body to cover matters such as continuity and the settlement of disputes, those being appropriate to the content of a milk marketing scheme but not to the establishment of a structure relying on normal commercial freedoms.
I must say that the new amendment causes me somewhat less difficulty than the previous one. It is reasonable to assume that any statement of proposed trading practices should cover the area of pricing. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, I do wonder, however, about the implications of the word "allocation". Again, it is clearly accurate to describe what happens under the milk marketing scheme where supplies are allocated according to a hierarchy of prices. But is it accurate to say that a body selling milk commercially necessarily allocates its supplies? I suppose it might have to do so if demand outstrips supply but in that case economic theory suggests that other mechanisms might come into play. And how, I wonder, would the term "allocation" be interpreted in relation to the selling practices of, say, Dairy Crest, which could also be a qualifying successor body in the terms of the Bill.
I do not pretend to have precise answers to those questions, but I believe that the existing requirement in Clause 2(2) (c) to supply a statement of proposed trading practices is drawn sufficiently wide to require the important and relevant considerations to be spelt out in each case. If Ministers feel that the information supplied is insufficient to enable them to satisfy themselves, as they must, that the practices contained in the statement take account of the interests of the purchasers of milk, then they can use the powers in Clause 7 to require further information to be provided.
My noble friend need he in no doubt that those proposed trading practices will be examined carefully. I understand the anxieties which lie behind the amendment. I hope that I have been able to reassure him about pricing and to convince him that the use of the word "allocation" is out of place in the kind of free market arrangements envisaged in the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his full reply which reassured me. It was a reassurance required in particular because of the opposition to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. That shows that it is not an amendment which enjoys the happy support of the House as a whole. With that extra knowledge, I have the pleasure to ask to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:
("() Applications for independent ownership of central industry assets may be made by parties other than a milk marketing board.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 should have been moved last week. It reflects my anxiety that this Bill completely excludes even a

91
consideration of Milk Marketing Board assets being transferred into independent ownership rather than to a successor body of the MMB.
In Committee there was opposition to a similar amendment, but that mainly seemed to be a misplaced view that I sought only bodies "other than" rather than "as well as" the successor body to be able to receive transfers of MMB's assets. This amendment seeks to clarify the point.
I wonder why the Bill assumes that assets should be automatically transferred to MMB's successor bodies. Accordingly, I request further clarification from my noble friend as to why, if other parties can prove that they are capable of providing efficient, cost-effective services for industry and represent a significant number of dairy producers, they should be excluded from applying for a transfer of an appropriate share of MMB assets. It would be helpful if the Minister were to assure me that such transfers would be independently supervised to ensure no discrimination against the interests of producers who opt not to stay with the MMB's successor; that is, no coercion of farmers. I suggest that the matter could be resolved by the Government accepting the amendment. If not, I hope that my noble friend will give me some reassurance in this regard. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, we discussed this amendment in Committee. To make the position clear from this side of the House, I repeat what I said in Committee. We wanted to keep the marketing boards but that is not to be. We shall support the Government in ensuring that a strong producers' organisation succeeds the boards provided that there is transparency in its trading practices and that it is subject to normal competition law.
The reason we support the establishment of a strong producers' organisation is simple. The four biggest dairy companies buy two-thirds of the milk in England and Wales, and 70 per cent. of milk products is sold through just six supermarket chains. As we know, the UK is still in deficit in milk and milk products. Our production is limited by quota, and the EC is 10 per cent. oversupplied. For all those reasons, we support the formation, as is envisaged in the Bill, of a strong producers' organisation.
The noble Lord referred to the confusion which arose about the wording of the amendment in Committee. I believe that that confusion still exists. The amendment could be read to mean that it excludes the MMB's successor bodies from ownership of the central assets. If the noble Lord thought that there was confusion, he should have altered the wording.
As I understand it, the amendment as drafted would allow the four biggest dairy companies—Unigate, and so on—to buy the central assets. Is that the intention of the amendment?
As has been mentioned in the past, there is confusion also as regards central testing. We know that central testing was financed from producers' money—the co-responsibility levy. The funds were distributed among all the member states on the basis of acquis. All the member states in the Community were eligible to receive funds to improve testing
92
facilities. We know that the central testing facilities run by both the MMB and the private dairy companies received funds. Therefore, I do not believe that the argument stands up for moving central testing.
As regards this amendment, a relevant consideration is that the marketing boards must understand that they will emerge from a monopoly culture. In my view and in the view of others there have been—I put it at its politest—some examples of heavy handedness in some activities which arises from the background that there has been for the past 60 years. We know that in the future operations must be conducted rather differently. I believe that the amendment would weaken the successor bodies, although I am sure that that is not the intention. If the amendment were accepted, it would promote uncertainty. There would be chaos in what is already a rather uncertain situation. If pressed, I should have to advise my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, a very similar amendment was tabled in Committee by my noble friend. On that occasion I was much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for rehearsing many of the arguments against acceptance of an amendment along these lines, and I am grateful to him again today.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, went so far as to describe it as a wrecking amendment. I am not wont myself to employ extreme language, but it is certain that this amendment strikes at the heart of the Bill both structurally and in terms of the desired end. It is structurally hostile because the Bill is based on the premise that it is for the boards to propose how their assets should be dealt with under a reorganisation scheme. That is also the foundation of the Government's policy. Quite what would happen procedurally if my noble friend's amendment were accepted is unclear. No indication is given as to what my noble friend would expect Ministers to do in the event of an application being received from a third party, but it is clear that it would then be for Ministers rather than the boards to propose the future shape of the industry. That, I repeat, is wholly contrary to the Government's approach.
The amendment is also hostile in practical terms because to strip the boards' proposed successor bodies of those assets which my noble friend apparently regards as having some special status—the so-called "central industry assets"—would in practice under-mine the basis for a viable successor to be set up. As I have said before, the Government do not consider it reasonable to adopt the approach advocated by the Dairy Trade Federation of selling off all the boards' assets and leaving producers to sink or swim. They believe that those producers who wish to should have the chance to join a collective marketing organisation.
My noble friend asked me to explain why I said what I said on an earlier occasion. I can only repeat that the Government do not accept that there is something special about certain types of MMB assets which means that they must of necessity remain in common or independent ownership. A successor co-operative will need to be able to test the quality of its supplying producers' milk, and there is no

93
fundamental reason why it should not operate farm services. I should add that Ministers will need to take a view on whether it is reasonable that such assets should in an individual case pass to a successor body when a scheme is submitted to them. But I say again that I do not see that there is any objection of principle to what the MMB has indicated that it wishes to do.
I believe that the Government's approach commands the support of the majority of noble Lords. I hope that my noble friend will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, again, I thank my noble friend for a full reply. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me whether it is intended that just a few people should have an opportunity to purchase the MMB's assets. That was not the intention.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the point. I wish to know whether the noble Lord objects to any of the larger companies bidding for some of the assets.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the underlying feeling behind the amendment—and perhaps other events have overtaken it—is anxiety that one monopoly situation will be replaced by another. The idea is that that should not be the case because on the whole the processors and other purchasers do not like dealing with monopolies because, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, they can sometimes adopt a rather heavy-handed attitude which people in monopoly situations are prone to do. That is what is behind the amendment, and that is what I say to the Minister who says that it is a major wrecking amendment. I do not wish to wreck the Bill in that sense.
I should say also to my noble friend that I was not inspired to table the amendment by the Dairy Trade Federation. That federation had nothing to do with it at all. The Food and Drink Federation has a wider range of interests. We shall now have to see what happens. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that the article in today's Times is relevant to the matter we are discussing. We may find that it is realised that monopoly situations are disliked and they will not be encouraged to continue. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 22 [Activation of Part II]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 12, line 42, at end insert:
("(1A) If the Ministers certify that they are of the opinion that it is necessary that the Potato Marketing Scheme should be brought to an end because its continued existence is inconsistent with a regulation of the Council of the European Community, section 53(4) of this Act shall apply as if the references therein to sections of this Act include a reference to this section.
(1B) No order shall be made under this section prior to any decision that may be made by the Council of the European Community to introduce a regulation on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in potatoes, unless in the opinion of the Ministers such an order is necessary or in the public interest.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords in moving Amendment No. 3 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 11. This group of amendments is intended to clarify the situation regarding the regulation-making powers which are proposed in the Bill and which are related to the possible demise of the potato marketing scheme. The amendment corresponds to the discussions we had in Committee and on Report on this matter. As I said, it is intended to clarify what I believe are the intentions of the Government and what are certainly the intentions of everyone who spoke on the subject at previous stages of the Bill.
The Government have stated that if they propose to revoke the potato marketing scheme off their own bat, as it were, under the terms of Clause 22—that is, if it appears to Ministers that that is necessary or expedient, and they intend to do that but not as a result of the introduction of the EC potato regime —the process would then proceed by affirmative resolution. If, on the other hand, the Government are required to wind up the scheme as a result of the introduction of an EC potato regime, the process will proceed by negative resolution. That is the understanding we have with the Minister. We had an interesting exchange on Report, at col. 1098 of the Official Report. I asked the Minister what would happen if Parliament were to annul the negative resolution which the Government were required to proceed with as a result of an EC regulation. His comments were interesting. He said:
"There would be a legal contradiction, but my understanding is—I stand to be corrected on this and, if so, I shall write to the noble Lord"—
the Minister has not written to me, so I presume his understanding was correct—
"that EC law would prevail in any case. It would be obligatory for us to implement the EC law. In practice Parliament has little locus in that matter".—[Official Report, 25/1/93; col. 1098.]
I am sure that if my noble friends Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stoddart were in their places they would have something to say about the lack of parliamentary control in that matter. It seems to be an example of pre-Maastricht impotence. If that is the case before Maastricht, I cannot help wondering what the situation will be like afterwards.
As I said, this group of amendments is intended to spell out the Government's intentions. It is inconceivable that the Government would wish to revoke the potato marketing scheme before we know the details of the EC potato regime. The Minister also stated, at col. 1098 on 25th January:
"We have no current plans to abolish the scheme as a matter of government policy… We may reach a view in due course but I think it is more likely that an EC regime will intervene in the meantime".
The noble Earl added:
"My advice is that following the December Agriculture Council meeting we are 95 per cent. of the way towards achieving an EC regime and approval of those proposals is virtually a formality".
If that is the case, it is inconceivable that the Government would wish to revoke the potato marketing scheme in advance of knowing the outcome of the negotiations and the details of the EC potato regime. As the proposed new subsection (1B) requires,

95
there is certainly no harm in waiting to see what emerges from Brussels. That view was confirmed by the comments of the Minister of State, Mr. Curry, in oral Answers to Questions, at col. 1132 of the Commons Hansard on 28th January, when he stated:
"Our overwhelming priority is to settle the uncertainty which follows upon the proposals, so that we all know exactly where we stand".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/93; col. 1132.]
I am sure we are all agreed on that.
I am sure too that the Minister will not object to my next point. There has been confusion because the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Gummer, has expressed a certain amount of scepticism about the present arrangements. As we discussed on Report, it is clear that the Government are not seeking derogation or to plead subsidiarity in considering the EC potato regime. For all those reasons, we assume that the Government intend to await the outcome of the negotiations on the potato regime before they move, if they wish to, to revoke the scheme. The proposed new subsection (1B) spells that out. We have fallen over backwards in our drafting of the amendment to accommodate the Government. In the almost inconceivable situation that the Government wish to revoke the scheme before we know the outcome of the negotiations in Europe, we have allowed a let-out in the proposed new subsection (1B) which states,
"unless in the opinion of the Ministers such an order is necessary or in the public interest".
We have not used the word "expedient" that appears in the Bill. We have stated that in the very unlikely situation that Ministers might wish to take such a step, perhaps because it was taking a long time for a decision to be reached on the European regime, there is the fall-back provision in the form of the words at the end of the proposed new subsection (1B), that is,
"unless in the opinion of the Ministers such an order is necessary or in the public interest".
As I said, we have fallen over backwards in our drafting to accommodate the Government on this issue. The Minister has said that there are no current plans to abolish the scheme as a matter of government policy. What does the Minister mean by the word "current"? According to the Oxford Dictionary the word is defined as:
"The tendency or drift of the common opinion, practice, etc. of a body of persons".
There is a recent example. Only last Monday the current government policy was not to reduce interest rates, but the policy had certainly drifted by Thursday. These amendments are designed to deal with the possibility that the Government might drift into the opinion that the marketing scheme should be wound up in advance of the introduction of an EC potato regime. The proposed new subsection (1B) would require the Government to present good reasons to Parliament as to why they should not do so. I am sure the Minister will understand that if that were the Government's intention it would produce enormous uncertainty in an already uncertain situation. As I said, if the Government felt the considerations in Brussels were taking far too long—however, that does not accord with the Minister's words about the matter
96
being 95 per cent. certain—they would still have the let-out provision at the end of the proposed new subsection (1B).
I agree that the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect. I hope that the Minister can accept the principle of the amendment. There is plenty of time to amend the wording in another place if the Government wish to do so. I urge the Minister to accept the principle of the amendment because the House and the Government have accepted that principle throughout our deliberations.
It is clear from the proposed new subsection (1A) that the regulations should proceed by means of a negative resolution as a result of a regulation from the Community. The proposed new subsection (1B) controls the situation between the passing of this Bill and the emergence of a potato regime. It merely affirms what the Government have already said about their intentions. If the Government are not required by the Community to produce a regulation and they decide to revoke the scheme, they would do so by way of affirmative resolution. As I said, the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect but I believe the principle is entirely clear. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I added my name to this amendment for the reasons so well stated by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It would be stupid to do away with the Potato Marketing Board while the European Community is discussing what kind of regime it wants, if it has one at all. It could well be that we would have to bring in yet another scheme and organisation. That would further disrupt the market.
I make no apology whatever for the amendment and indeed the two following amendments to Clauses 24 and 25 appearing on Third Reading. During the passage of the Bill my noble friend Lord Howe has made great efforts to explain what is in the Government's mind on the matter. He has made many clarifying statements for which I am most grateful. For instance, at Report stage (at col. 1096 of Hansard for 25th January) he said that:
"The word 'expedient' should not be taken as a convenient means for the Government to do what they like regardless of the industry's views".
However, as we all know, my noble friend may not hold the post which he now holds for ever. I hope that he will go further. It is obvious that we cannot tie him to what he said and what is recorded in Hansard, despite a recent ruling last spring by the Law Lords that remarks by Government Ministers reported in Hansard can be relevant. I believe that the important word is "can" but no doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, would be able to comment more fully on that point. Therefore, I believe that it is vital that my noble friend's assurances are put on the face of the Bill. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, during the passage of the Bill the Government have moved a long way on this clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said—although I do not think that he gave due credit to my noble friend for those concessions—they have conceded that a decision on an order bringing the potato marketing scheme to an end will be brought

97
under the control of Parliament and fully discussed in both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure except in the specific circumstance of the order being inconsistent with a European Community regulation. I am sure that the Government are right to make those important concessions.
Farmers who can manage with difficulty under the present potato marketing scheme are extremely anxious that any move into the unknown should be carefully and properly examined in Parliament before it is accepted or rejected. I was glad to receive a letter from the National Farmers Union welcoming the Government's concessions.
The Bill now allows both parliamentary procedures to be used. There is just one element missing—a precise definition of the circumstances in which the negative rather than the affirmative procedure will be used. I put down an amendment at Report stage which tried to address that problem. I suggested that the public interest test would be appropriate. I gave reasons why that was the case following the previous exchanges with my noble friend on the same subject in Committee. The Minister replied, amplifying what he had said previously. I am bound to say that his arguments are persuasive. I have consulted various people on the subject and I accept the argument that the public interest test is not adequate in this context. I did, however, say that I thought that the matter should not rest there and that the Government should continue their search for a satisfactory way of putting their verbal assurances on to the face of the Bill. I suggested that the Government might bring forward their own amendment on Third Reading in this House or when the Bill proceeds to the other place. My noble friend has not tabled an amendment this afternoon. Can I take it that the search is still on? Will the Government be open to further suggestions that may be made to them on this matter in another place?
I welcome the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to the extent that they keep the discussion going. In most respects they closely resemble my amendment on Report. However, I do not think that they are satisfactory, if only because they still apply the public interest test, and from my reading of what the Government have said previously I do not believe that that is adequate. I shall, of course, listen with interest to what the Minister has to say but shall be surprised if for that reason alone he can accept the amendment.
In my view the Government have conceded a great deal. They have to go further in another place and find a legally satisfactory way of putting their assurances on the face of the Bill. The public interest test is not satisfactory for this House to insist upon at this stage. I believe that it would not be in the interests of farmers and the public to accept the amendment for the reason I have given. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment or, if he does, that the House will not agree to it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I should like to raise a practical point rather than discuss the detail of the amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Baroness who has just spoken will agree that farmers are in a most uncertain position at present. I have met a great many farmers recently—ordinary farmers rather than NFU officials—and they are extraordinarily worried about what exactly is to happen. Therefore, the more secure the Bill is so that they know exactly what will happen the better. If the amendment will help in that respect it would be a very good thing.
We have had the Milk Marketing Board, the Potato Marketing Board and the Wool Marketing Board for many years. Farmers have liked the security that they have provided and I appeal to the Government to see that nothing is done unless farmers know what is to follow.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships are being placed in an intolerable position unless the amendment is accepted. You are being asked to accept legislation by ministerial statement, not even by subordinate legislation.
As the noble Baroness explained, all along noble Lords have sought the affirmative resolution procedure, although your Lordships were prepared to accept less in the case of a scheme being introduced in consequence of an EC directive. In that case the House was content to accept that the negative resolution procedure, although a lesser parliamentary control, was appropriate. So far as there is any parliamentary control at all, the Bill establishes universal negative resolution procedure.
However, the noble Earl, who has handled the Bill so skilfully, has given an assurance. He said that the negative resolution procedure, which on the face of the Bill is universal, will be applied only in the case of pursuance of an EC directive. In all other cases the affirmative resolution procedure will be available. However, there is not a word of that on the face of the statute. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has already pointed out the adverse consequences.
The reason why we find ourselves in this extraordinary position of handing a Bill over to the other place in this defective condition is twofold. First, the ministry does not want parliamentary control. If it has to put up with parliamentary control it wants the minimum possible. I shall go into the recurrent excuses that have been made. The second reason is that we have been far too rushed in these final stages. In particular, your Lordships were alerted to the first of the many objections which the ministry successively raised only two working days before the Report stage. Between Report and today there has been only the minimum of the two weekends. When we read that Miss Whiplash had absconded, I expect that all noble Lords hoped that that meant a less harsh regime from the Government business managers—but that obviously will not come about.
Having had no time before Report stage, except by hurried telephone conversations, to resolve the

99
various objections that were put up, and today with no proper opportunity to examine the final position put forward by the Ministry, which is without foundation, your Lordships find yourselves discussing the very last stage of the Bill in this House.
The issue of ministerial objection to parliamentary control is not a matter for indignation. It is perfectly natural. Those of your Lordships who have served from both sides of the baize door know perfectly well what an appalling nuisance parliamentary proceedings are to an administrator wishing to get on with the job of administration. Therefore the Bill was introduced with no parliamentary control over the important decision as to the winding up of the Potato Marketing Board. At Committee that factor aroused universal condemnation. It was quite extraordinary. From every part of the Committee, voicing opinion from every part of the kingdom, your Lordships called for the affirmative resolution procedure.
Two days before Report stage, three of your Lordships received a communication from the Ministry putting up the first objection. It was said that a negative resolution procedure would be conceded. Examination must go on to see whether the department could go further. But there was an objection. The objection was the implementation of an EC directive, which would demand immediate action. It was stated that affirmative resolution did not vouchsafe that. It was then pointed out over the telephone that that was quite wrong: that a well-attested form of the affirmative resolution procedure—indeed, the first that is listed by Erskine May—takes immediate effect.
That objection having been shot down, the Ministry then had a second thought: that despite our own Minister being on the Council of Ministers and presumably able to influence timing, and despite the fact that the Brussels bureaucracy goes on holiday during the summer, it might be necessary to implement the Brussels directive when Parliament was riot sitting in the summer. It was then pointed out—again unfortunately only by telephone because the time limit was absolutely upon us by then—that there was also no validity in that objection, because the statute could provide that the affirmative resolution could be tabled and take immediate effect notwithstanding that neither House of Parliament was sitting.
By that time the Report stage was absolutely on us. However, the Minister, no doubt having seen that every objection thus far was untenable, made the offer to which 1 have referred; namely, that although the Bill provides only for the negative resolution procedure, nevertheless he would give an assurance that, that procedure would be used only in the case of an EC directive; in all the other cases the affirmative resolution procedure would be available. That is how we ended the Report stage and evidently how we enter Third Reading.
The final objection—which was expressed by letter, and verbally to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley—was that the legal advice was that it would be inadvisable to write the Minister's assurance onto the face of the Bill because it might then be subject to legal challenge on the meaning of the word "necessary". But again
100
there is absolutely nothing in that point. The answer is at the very outset of new Clause 22 which was tabled by the Government themselves. That states:
"If it appears to the Ministers that it is necessary",
and so on. That is in fact what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, provides.
That provision cannot be challenged at the time. There would be no delay. Theoretically it could conceivably he challenged on judicial review. But anyone successfully trying to challenge that provision would have to show that the Ministers had behaved unreasonably in tabling their regulations. I know that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches hold firmly to the conviction that everything any Minister in this Government does is unreasonable. However, the generality of opinion does not go that far; and I have no hesitation in saying that the last objection put up by the Ministry has absolutely no legal foundation. That matter could have been resolved in a half hour's discussion if there had been time. However, we have been hustled on to this Third Reading. I state again that there is no foundation in that latest objection.
Why should we not accept the assurance of the noble Earl? The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has already given a reason. But there are other reasons too. A department can go back on an assurance. Departments have gone back on assurances. Your Lordships will remember the recent occasion of the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. He gave an assurance to your Lordships' House that was not honoured by his department and he promptly and honourably resigned. Nevertheless, the dishonour of his assurance continued.
Another example was finalised in the last Session. That was the concession made reluctantly in the Education Reform Act 1988. Notwithstanding that concession and an amendment that was moved in pursuance of it, the Department of Education brought proceedings in the High Court and put forward an argument in support of them which, if accepted, would have driven a cart and horses through the amendment that had been made reluctantly and the assurances that had been given. Fortunately, that argument did not succeed, but it was not for want of trying.
The third example to show that these are not isolated instances comes from a recent case that has been determined by your Lordships sitting judicially. It arose out of an assurance given in 1976 by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the statutory provision in question would not cover a certain matter. Nevertheless, the Inland Revenue—and one sees its reasons, because to some extent fiscal equity prompted it—notwithstanding that assurance, raised assessments which were completely counter to what the Financial Secretary had said.
We dare not substitute ministerial assertions or assurances for parliamentary enactment. It is utterly wrong that we should be asked to pass a measure in this form. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, meets the point completely. He has been reasonable. He said he would be content if the noble Earl would accept it in substance and principle and play with the wording how he chooses. At Report

101
stage the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, also met the point quite satisfactorily and could perfectly well have been accepted. A ministerial assurance is no substitute for either of the amendments. It is no substitute for a parliamentary enactment. So I hope your Lordships will accept this amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I take the liberty of addressing your Lordships not as a lawyer following the noble and learned Lord but as one who for a third of this century represented one of the largest farming constituencies in the country which, if I may so, grew some of the best main crop potatoes. It was brought to my attention time and again by farmers that there were two things that they wished most. One was certainty as to the conditions under which they were to farm in the future, preferably with plenty of notice being given. The other was that if a change were to be made in those conditions, they should have the opportunity of expressing their views about the changes.
As concerns those two matters, the Bill needs perhaps a little strengthening on the subject of consultation. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has made an attempt and touched on it today. On the matter of certainty, the Bill is frankly defective. The practical position which the Bill envisages and creates is that the present potato marketing scheme could be done away with, the Potato Marketing Board abolished and no other scheme and no successor board put in their place before anything has been agreed to replace our scheme within the common agricultural policy. That, I suggest to your Lordships, is the uncertainty which we should try to remove. It does not need a lawyer to say to your Lordships that when legislating we should try to create certainty of Parliament's intention and not create a vacuum, which is what we are doing on this occasion. That is principally what I wish to say.
The question of whether this group of amendments deals with matters adequately from the technical point of view is one which the Government must consider in the light of their legal advice. But from rather long experience of both Houses I must say that one cannot always rely upon the legal advice given to the Government. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has pointed out various matters about which we should be careful.
As to whether we should rely—because that is the suggestion—upon the recent decision of the House of Lords Judicial Committee that Hansard may be relied upon, I utter this warning. The committee said that Hansard should be relied upon when there was uncertainty. I do not believe that it went so far as to say—which is what would happen with the Bill—that it can also be relied upon to fill gaps in legislation. I am sure that that is not what the noble and learned Lords intended.
In any event, we all know from experience that Ministers have to change their minds during the course of a Bill, and sometimes have to correct
102
themselves, as did my noble friend Lord Howe honourably at Report stage, correcting something he had said at Committee stage. If that happens, let us not rely upon Hansard. Let us try to get the Bill right. Fortunately, although this is the last opportunity that we shall have in your Lordships' House to do that, the Bill has to go through another place and those defects or uncertainties will no doubt be noticed and discussed.
However, surely it would be much better if we could try to get it right today. I should have thought that the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and supported by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley are ones that the Government could well accept, even if they need to adjust them slightly for technical reasons at a later stage.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down and, with the leave of the House, I agree with all that he said, but I wonder whether he heard my comments over my anxiety that the public interest test should still be contained in the amendments. Does he really think, contrary to what the Government have so far said, that the public interest test is adequate in this case and that therefore we can accept the amendments? That is where my doubt lies. Can he comment on that?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should have thought that it was desirable on many occasions that we should make specific reference to the public interest, but it is not necessary to do that if the same purpose is achieved by other means. It seems to me that the amendments achieve that purpose and, therefore, with deep respect to my noble friend, whose speech very much impressed me, I believe that we can overemphasise the public interest in the matter.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I have thought long and hard about the whole issue of potato marketing since the Second Reading of this Bill in November. My reaction to the part of the Bill dealing with potatoes at Second Reading was that I welcomed the measure to free up the market for potatoes, to see the end of the so-called managed market. I have to say that when I made that statement I little knew what uproar I was about to unleash, and since then I have been subjected to intense lobbying by two sides of the industry, the producers in the form of the Potato Marketing Board and the customers in the form of processors—both the trade association and individual processing companies. Noble Lords will note that I have not been lobbied by consumers or by those who are closest to the consumers—namely, the retailers.
I shall return to this point as I believe that the role of the retailers is just as important as that of the producers and the processors in the marketing of potatoes, and it is marketing that we are dealing with. Without an efficient, effective marketing and merchandising retail distribution system there would be little future for United Kingdom potatoes.
The two main problems in agricultural marketing in this country are the inability to produce what the consumer actually wants, and the propensity to import what we can and could easily produce here. I

103
drew attention to the import problem at Second Reading at col. 830 of Hansard of 23rd November. Subsequently it was pointed out that there had been a huge improvement in the trade gap in potatoes, and I was grateful to the Potato Marketing Board for giving me that information. Imports had been significantly reduced, and I referred to that at the Report stage. However, the picture is really not what it seems. There is confusion concerning the statistics for imports.
The Potato Marketing Board quotes an import figure of some 88,000 tonnes, down from 374,000 tonnes in 1989, which is commendable. However, the processors tell me that, in addition to the 88,000 tonnes imported, some 540,000 tonnes (raw equivalent) of potatoes are imported, and they maintain that that is because of the "managed market". It seems that the Potato Marketing Board does not regard a potato as being a potato if it is peeled, chipped, frozen, converted into hash browns or potato powder and flakes used in instant mashed potatoes.
Suffice it to say, I feel that there is merit in the processors' argument that the continued operation of what they say is a managed market is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom balance of trade, nor of the consumer, let alone in the long-term interests of the producers.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a strong plea for certainty for farmers. Certainty is a commodity that is not present in any economic or commercial activity. None of us can have certainty. We must try to ensure a viable future for our activities, no matter what area we operate in, and put the consumer first. I fear that the consumer is not being put first in the marketing of potatoes in this country. The Minister has told us that he is still consulting on the best way forward. He will continue to consult unless forced into a different line of action by the European Community. There are no current plans to abolish the potato marketing system unless an EC regime intervenes. In those circumstances, I feel I must support the Minister and oppose the amendment.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether he is also likely to consult the retailers. I would remind the Minister that it was due to the activities of a supermarket chain—not the one with which I am associated, I hasten to add—that the consumer became aware of the fact that there were potatoes other than King Edwards or Reds, and that certain potatoes were better for baking than others and certain potatoes better for chipping. The retailers have helped to segment and expand the market, and I feel that the Minister would benefit from their input in this complicated issue. I would welcome the Minister's comments on this suggestion.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in considering the consumers' interest, does she think that it would be to the benefit of the consumer that the Potato Marketing Board—which incidentally does not ignore consumer interests—should be abolished and not be replaced by anything at all, or that there should perhaps be a wide time span before some other regime comes into force? Would that be in the consumers' interest?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am not so sure about the consumers' interest. At the moment I do not think that the consumer is necessarily getting the best deal. I certainly do not think in terms of UK Limited, if one can make that comment, that we are getting the best deal through the operation of the Potato Marketing Board. At least, as has been pointed out to me—and the figures speak for themselves in terms of imports—I do not think that a free-for-all, abolishing the Potato Marketing Board without any other regime coming in, is likely to be of benefit to anybody, but I do not think that that is at issue.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, it is a long time since I grew potatoes. I dare say that my noble friend Lord Stanley may recall buying some seed potatoes from me some 40 or 50 years ago. However, it is not inappropriate for me to speak fairly soon after my noble friend Lord Renton. He is correct in saying that the county of Huntingdon grew, and still grows, some of the best ware potatoes that are going, supplied, as he well knows, by the best of seed potatoes from Scotland. In my day I remember sending many of them by rail to various stations in Huntingdon.
This afternoon I want briefly to follow my noble friend in the plea he made for an end to uncertainty. The noble Baroness said that to ask for certainty is to ask for far too much. I agree with her. I cannot think of any time since I started farming when I have enjoyed absolute certainty; one is up against weather factors and other things. But one can have a situation, without having certainty, in which one need not have total uncertainty. If there is one thing that is gripping the countryside and the farming community today it is the total uncertainty as to what is in the Government's mind for the future of the potato scheme.
It would seem to be a perfectly simple situation. Here my noble friend Lord Renton on Report asked a perfectly straightforward question: do the Government want to abolish the scheme? It seems an easy question to answer, but having once been a Minister I can well imagine that it is just the sort of question to which a Minister does not want to answer yes or no. In this he was voicing the doubts and the misgivings, and I am quite sure the misunderstandings, that are so widespread. In reply my noble friend said, "We have no current plans to abolish the scheme as a matter of government policy". That is the sort of answer that I very well recollect. What would have been much better—and I wonder whether it is still not possible—would have been to say, "By and large we think the scheme is a good one." The Minister properly said, "There is a strong chance"—that was as high as he put it—"that our hand may be forced by the introduction of a Community regime."
In saying the latter could he not make clear that the United Kingdom Government would much prefer to keep the scheme, or a large part of it, and that they would do their best to advocate the merits of the scheme if pressure came from Brussels?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way for a moment. I do not like

105
to say, but I believe that he is discussing the following two amendments rather than Amendment No. 3, which deals with a specific point moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, if so I express my deep apologies. As I have only one more point to make, it may be better that I do so now and remain silent when it becomes relevant. On the radio yesterday morning there was an interview with the Scottish Minister arising out of a lobby that took place a week ago. The interviewer asked the Minister about the potato marketing scheme. The answer was, "The Scottish Office is keen that it should continue; we are doing our best to see that it does."
Earl Howe: My Lords, these linked amendments essentially seek to refine the new Clause 22 agreed on Report, first, by stating on the face of the Bill that an order under Clause 22 should be subject to negative resolution procedure only if Ministers were of the opinion that it was necessary for the potato marketing scheme to be brought to an end because its continued existence would be inconsistent with an EC potato regime. Secondly, Ministers could not make such an order before the Council of the European Community had decided to introduce an EC potato regime unless Ministers considered that revocation of the scheme was necessary or in the public interest.
On the first point, let me make the present position quite clear. The Agriculture Bill, as we amended it on Report, does not define the circumstances in which an order under Clause 22 will be subject to negative resolution procedure rather than affirmative resolution procedure. However, I have given repeated undertakings that the Government will have recourse to negative resolution procedure only where it is necessary for them to act pursuant to the introduction of an EC potato regime.
At Report stage I asked the House to accept those assurances, together with the government amendments, as a totality. But I also undertook to reflect on the comments made by noble Lords in our debates on the amendments tabled at that time by my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lady Carnegy.
The problem with putting my undertakings on the face of the Bill is that there could in the event be scope for argument and hence possible legal challenge as to what constitutes an obligation. That scope for argument must be minimised. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said that there was no foundation to that point. He pointed to the existing wording at the start of Clause 22. But the amendment would extend the scope or the possibility of a legal challenge to the basis of Ministers' actions.
The present wording of Clause 22 also allows Ministers to act if it is expedient so to do. Ministers will have to take a view on what an EC regulation —not a directive—obliges them to do. There may be scope for a legal challenge to that assessment. It is not desirable that action should be held up for two years while the matter is resolved in the European Court.
An EC regulation will be directly binding on the United Kingdom but the precise nature of the
106
obligations which it might impose cannot be predicted accurately at this stage. If there were any possibility of protracted delay arising from a legal challenge to government action, or for other reasons which have been discussed at length, then the Government might have to take action under the European Communities Act. That would preclude the possibility of the Potato Marketing Board passing assets to a successor body —an objective which I believe commands the support of the House. Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Renton, that that is the principal danger of accepting the amendments.
I should like also to comment on that part of the amendment which precludes Ministers from revoking a potato marketing scheme before the introduction of an EC potato regime unless they consider it necessary or in the public interest. That brings us back to the debate over the difference between "expedient" and "in the public interest". I have repeatedly said that Ministers would not and could not act on a whim. But should Ministers decide to revoke the scheme otherwise than in the context of an EC regime, then that decision would be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. I suggest that it is at that stage that we could debate whether or not the decision is expedient or in the public interest.
The Government are consulting industry at the moment. We have genuinely not come to a view. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Renton, that is the reason why there are no current plans by the Government to revoke the potato marketing scheme.
The Bill is purely an enabling Bill. As I have said on numerous occasions, Ministers would not take lightly any decision to revoke the scheme. In coming to such a decision any number of considerations would be taken into account, including the interests of processors and retailers—to answer the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. To answer her further, we are consulting a number of retailers, including the British Retail Consortium, the Co-operative Union, the British Potato Trade Consortium and the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades among others.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether what I said at Report stage was correct in regard to EC law prevailing over UK law. It was correct, which is why I did not write to him. The noble Lord also mentioned Maastricht. Maastricht makes no difference to this matter at all. EC law has primacy over UK law. Should Parliament fail to approve an order to enable the UK to come into line with its obligations, nevertheless those obligations would exist. Any rights of individuals flowing from those obligations would be upheld by the courts, including if necessary the European Court. That is why I mentioned earlier that we would want to avoid the possibility of a lengthy delay through the courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the question of subsidiarity. The EC Commission proposals constitute a single market measure. There is therefore no place for subsidiarity in them. Potatoes would be produced and marketed across one

107
inter-related marketplace. It is not surprising that the Commission's proposals exclude any provision for the continuation of national regimes.
As I explained, the Government cannot and should not be bound by the provisions of the amendments. To answer my noble friend Lady Carnegy, I am certain that the debate on these questions will continue in another place. For the time being, and for the reasons that I have spelt out at some length, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to think again about the amendment and withdraw it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. It clearly goes to the heart of the problem of uncertainty mentioned by so many of your Lordships. The fact is that the Minister has failed to answer the principal reason for bringing forward the amendments. There is great anxiety both in industry and in this House that as the Bill stands the Government can wind up the potato marketing scheme by resolution as soon as the Bill becomes law and before we know the outcome of the negotiations in Europe regarding the use of the potato regime.
We have heard the Minister's assurance—to which I shall turn later—but this is the central point. If we leave the Bill as it is and do not attempt to redraft by placing on the face of the Bill what the Government say they want to do and what we all want them to do —which is to make sure that there is not a gap between the passing of the Bill and the negotiation of the European potato regime which is filled by the Government using the affirmative resolution to wind up the potato marketing scheme—chaos and uncertainty would result.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, put the point exactly. We are being asked to legislate by ministerial statement and by ministerial assurance. The noble and learned Lord gave an excellent summary of the legal position. He said that there is absolutely no legal foundation for the argument that the Minister has produced. We all know that Ministers give assurances—and of course they mean them when they give them. But as the noble and learned Lord said, we dare not accept that as enough.
Perhaps I may give an example to add to the one given by the noble and learned Lord. I was involved in the passing of the National Health Service and Community Care Act. We had an assurance from the Minister on the question of ring-fencing. We were told that the money ring-fenced for mental health would be protected. We have learnt in the past few months that that assurance has been cast aside.
We have to attempt to get on to the face of the Bill the points which we want to see. The amendments may not be perfectly drafted. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about the public interest. One could find alternative words. But there is a chance here for the Minister to take the amendment away and redraft it in another place if he accepts the principles of the argument. I am afraid to say that in his answer he did not seem to do so.
There is uncertainty in farming at the moment. It is a desperate situation. We should not be adding to it by
108
accepting on the face of the Bill a clause which I am sure, if they turned their minds to it, the Government could amend. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that she is sure that it is not intended to abolish the potato marketing scheme before we have a regime from Europe. But that is exactly what could happen. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent that happening.
The noble Earl the Minister referred to the possibility of a legal challenge and we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that he does not accept that. I am sure that the Minister's heart is in the right place. But it is always the way that the Government or the department will rely on the legal argument. He said that there are no current plans. That could change tomorrow. There could be a change of circumstance and the Minister could come forward and say, "In the light of what Ministers regard as necessary, we have changed our minds and we will revoke the potato marketing scheme". They would then bring forward an affirmative resolution, which of course could only be accepted or rejected. It could not be amended.
I was prepared to take the amendments away if the Minister had been prepared to accept the principle and to amend the Bill in another place. He is determined not to do that. He is resting entirely on this legal argument which, as we have heard from noble Lords who know the law better than I do, does not stand up. For those reasons I intend to ask the opinion of the House.
4.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 144; Not-Contents, 136.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Addington, L.

David, B.

Adrian, L.

Devonshire, D.

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Donoughue, L.

Alport, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Ennals, L.

Aylestone, L.

Erroll, E.

Banks, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ezra, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Falkender, B.

Birk, B.

Falkland, V.

Blackstone, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Boardman, L.

Foot, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Galpern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Geraint, L.

Bridges, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gregson, L.

Carter, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hampton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hamwee, B.

Cobbold, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Healey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Congleton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

109

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hooson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rea, L.

Howell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hughes, L.

Renton, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Richard, L.

Hylton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jacques, L.

Rochester, L.

Jay, L.

Russell, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jeger, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shackleton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Shannon, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Kintore, E.

Shepherd, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Listowel, E.

Stallard, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mayhew, L.

Tenby, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Underhill, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Varley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wharton, B.

Mulley, L.

White, B.

Nelson, E.

Wigoder, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Palmer, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Winstanley, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Wise, L.

Peston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Addison, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Annaly, L.

Davidson, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Denham, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Arran, E.

Elibank, L.

Astor, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elles, B.

Auckland, L.

Elton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Faithfull, B.

Birdwood, L.

Ferrers, E.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blyth, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gainford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bramall, L.

Geddes, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gridley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hacking, L.

Butterworth, L.

Haig, E.

Cadman, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Caithness, E.

Caldecote, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnock, L.

Harvington, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Cawley, L.

Headfort, M.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hemphill, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hives, L.

Cranborne, V.

Holderness, L.

Crathorne, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Hood, V.

110

Hooper, B.

Quinton, L.

Hothfield, L.

Reay, L.

Howe, E.

Rennell, L.

Huntly, M.

Renwick, L.

Ironside, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Romney, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

St. Davids, V.

Knollys, V.

Saint Levan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Leigh, L.

Savile, L.

Lindsay, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Margadale, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Marsh, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Swansea, L.

Mottistone, L.

Terrington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Moyne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Ullswater, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wakeham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Westbury, L.

Porritt, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Prentice, L.

Wynford, L.

Pym, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 13, line 2, at end insert:
("(2B) Subject to subsection (1A) above, no order shall be made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Application for approval]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No.5:
Page 13, line 17, leave out ("may,") and insert ("shall, subject to any poll of registered producers that may be carried out under section 36 below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. At Report stage I promised to study what your Lordships and my noble friend had said in reply to Amendments Nos. 39A and 39B and to try to put those thoughts into an amendment that would be acceptable. The result is the two linked amendments, Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I hope that they remove the uncertainty felt within the industry and so strongly deplored in our debates.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that should the Government decide to do away with the present marketing board, they will be committed to allowing a successor body, and to suggest what role that successor body should have, subject to the provisions of Clause 36. Your Lordships will note that these amendments are slightly different from those tabled in Committee and indeed at Report stage to take account, as I said, of your Lordships' views and

111
in particular of my noble friend's remarks, at col. 1096 of the Official Report, when he said that as regards any successor body,
"in the end it is for the industry to decide what it wants."
Following my noble friend's remarks, it has been pointed out to me that the producers might wish to wind up the board and have its assets distributed. That could be done by having a poll under Clause 36, hence the reason for my Amendment No. 5. I very much hope that producers will not be so stupid as to do that. But I acknowledge my noble friend's point that they should be given that option.
Amendment No.6 spells out the role which any successor body might have. That appears in paragraphs (i) to (v). I should make it clear that these matters are for the Potato Marketing Board to consider when preparing a successor scheme or schemes, as detailed in paragraph (c) of my amendment whereas paragraph (d) puts a duty on the Government to consult before authorising any such scheme.
The duty under paragraph (d) of my amendment is the same as in Clause 3 of the Bill. What the Government considered necessary for milk must be even more necessary for potatoes, not least, because we have had minimal discussion on potatoes as opposed to that on milk which has been going on for a year or so.
Most of the roles suggested for any successor body were mentioned at Report, in particular by my noble friend at col. 1096 and indeed by my honourable friend Mr Curry in another place on 28th January, at col. 1133. However, I got the impression from reading that exchange that my honourable friend would prefer to scrap the potato board and to have nothing in its place. I hope that my noble friend will be able to correct my naturally suspicious and cynical thoughts.
I cannot conclude without mentioning the negotiations now going on with regard to a possible European potato regime, not least because it was discussed at Report stage. This amendment would not force our Minister to write all the roles mentioned in this amendment into a subsidiarity regime for the United Kingdom which I understand is on offer. But it would morally oblige the Government to work for such a subsidiarity clause for the United Kingdom. For the life of me I cannot see why my right honourable friend would not want to do so. It must be in Great Britain's interest to do our own thing when Brussels gives us permission to do so.
If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment I believe that the potato industry will be forced to the conclusion that my right honourable friend wants to get rid of the United Kingdom's Potato Marketing Board and put nothing in its place despite the fact that the European Commission is offering us the ability to do so. Nothing could be so damaging to confidence, as has been said strongly by my noble friend, and that is what we are lacking in the industry at the moment. Confidence is at a very low ebb—and not only in the potato industry. Confidence is at a low ebb throughout what I am sorry to have to say remains of a once proud and efficient farming industry.
The amendment would give confidence by showing that the Government are prepared, if it is in the public interest, to put in place a creditable successor body to the Potato Marketing Board. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to add my name to the amendment and to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who has expressed the position extremely well. As he said, the amendment seeks to deal with the clear situation in which the Potato Marketing Board is to be wound up (whether as a result of an EC regulation or otherwise). The amendment deals with the preparation of a transfer scheme, which is the subject of Clause 24.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are intended to determine what will happen; what kind of successor body, if any, should be established; and what functions it should have. There are two scenarios. Let us suppose that the producers do not want a successor body but would prefer to distribute the assets of the Potato Marketing Board. That is one scenario. The alternative, which I think is much more likely, is that they will want a successor body and will want to have a say in the functions of that successor body.
The amendments are intended to achieve a clear statement of what I would describe as "the order of play". First, the board has to decide on the nature of the transfer scheme that it wants. The Minister has said on a number of occasions at previous stages in our consideration of the Bill that he is content that the board has contacts with producers and that it can speak for the industry. The board should then put this matter to producers in a poll. We have discussed Clause 36 a number of times previously and, as we know, it is not a mandatory poll. The board is able to decide whether to have a poll and is not constrained by the results of the poll. However, if it wishes the producers to decide on the nature of the transfer scheme, the board should put this to producers in a poll and, if the poll is satisfactory and the answer is yes, the board shall then bring forward a scheme with the functions which are set out in Amendment No. 6. So, the producers will have a chance to decide whether there should be a transfer scheme; and, if so, under Amendment No. 6, to decide what scheme it should be.
However, there is a drafting problem with Clause 36 and I think that we should have tabled a consequential amendment. I refer to Clause 36(1) (a) and (b), referring to a poll
"for the making of any application".
that is to say, where the poll is to determine whether there should be an application in relation to a transfer scheme. Clause 36(1) continues:
"or (b) for the making of an application under that section in relation to a particular scheme".
I believe that the word "or" at the end of paragraph (a) should be amended to "and" to avoid the necessity of holding two polls. If the Minister feels disposed to accept the amendments, perhaps he will deal with that point. It is a consequence and is necessary if we are to avoid the Potato Marketing Board having to conduct two polls—first, to see whether there should be a transfer scheme; and, secondly, to determine the nature of the scheme.

113
As I have said, there are two alternatives. The first is that when the situation is put to the producers, they vote no. They will then have the money, and the assets of the board will be distributed. If they vote yes, which is much more likely, the board shall then "have regard to"—we have discussed that phrase often enough at previous stages —the functions set out in Amendment No. 6.
Therefore, this group of amendments gives the maximum flexibility to the board and producers. It takes advantage of and builds on the permissive rather than the mandatory nature of Clause 36 which, as we know, deals with the producers' poll. Clause 36(2) gives the board the right to exercise its judgment about the results of the poll. Amendment No. 6 clearly states the functions which should be considered in the drafting of a transfer scheme and paragraph (d) deals with the important point about the consultation that will be necessary. I am sure that the Minister will recognise the wording of paragraph (d), which has been taken from a previous clause dealing with the milk marketing boards.
If I had to give my own preference for the successor bodies or transfer scheme that should emerge, it would be for a development council to be funded by statutory levy, with a strong producers' co-operative and perhaps a "potato mark" or a federation of co-operatives. That is the outcome that I should like to see. However, we should leave it to the producers and the board to come forward (as a result of a poll) with the kind of scheme that they want. Ministers should accept—as they did in earlier clauses relating to the milk boards—the description of the functions which is set out in Amendment No. 6. If the amendments were accepted, that would clear up the remainder of the confusion and uncertainty which exists in the industry, which has at least partly been put to rest as a result of the decision of the House on the previous amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, like others of your Lordships I am strongly in favour of the consultation provisions of the Bill being emphasised, and indeed tightened. I am strongly in favour of Amendment No. 6, which is a great improvement on Clause 25 although it goes into rather more detail than I often like to see in a Bill.
I am also in favour of the principle behind Amendment No. 5; but I feel obliged to mention one small drafting point. The expression "subject to" inserted where it is intended in Clause 24 would make subsection (1) read,
"The Board shall, subject to any poll of registered producers that may be carried out under section 36 below, at any time before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day specified by order under section 22 above, apply to the Ministers".
The board should have an obligation to apply. That would fill in one of the gaps in the Bill, which would be desirable. However, I wonder whether the expression "subject to" is the correct expression there. I should have thought that the correct expression should be (and this could easily be made the subject of an amendment in the other place if the principle is agreed by your Lordships) "shall, while having regard
114
to the result of any poll". I think that that is what my noble friend means and what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, intended. However, subject to that and because this is an important question of principle, I would vote for Amendment No. 5 in the Division Lobby if it should come to that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley about the effect of the amendment because I am not sure that I am clear about it or whether the House is clear about it. I realise that my noble friend's intention is to increase the possibilities for producers subsequent to the winding up of the board. However, as things stand at present, I am advised that under either the 1958 Act or the European Communities Act, the revocation of the potato marketing scheme would mean for producers a clear expectation that the assets would be distributed to them. That expectation —that all assets would go to the producers—exists now. The present Act does nothing to reduce that expectation. It still exists.
However, what the present Act does provide is an option. Through the board the producers can choose that some of the assets go to the successor board for the benefit of the industry. That provision exists now. In effect, the amendment would mean that that distribution of assets could not happen until there had been a poll. The automatic expectation is removed. There would have to be a poll and the producers would have to vote against the assets going to a successor body in order for them to get those assets direct. Does my noble friend understand what I am saying? I hope that I made myself clear. It seems to me that an impediment is being put in the way of the producers. A poll comes between them and their obtaining the assets direct. My noble friend needs to answer that point when he replies.
5 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I shall say a few words in support of the amendment spoken to by my noble friend. I shall start by emphasising the virtues of Amendment No. 6 to Clause 25 which will provide guidance for the board on the consultation it is to carry out and, under paragraph (b), the fact that Ministers must consult. It is along the lines of the provision in the Bill relating to the PMB, so I should not have thought that it was controversial. I wish to emphasise the need for consultation, as did my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. There has not been enough consultation. Too many snap judgments have been made.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister say on Report that growers could largely choose what future arrangements they made to succeed the PMB. However, his right honourable friend the Minister in another place does not look as though he will help them greatly. He does not appear to be considering derogation or subsidiarity, despite the climatic differences in different parts of Europe which might cause difficulties for potato growing. I am dubious about another of the Minister's views which seems to be that we have so many natural advantages for

115
potato growing that we should grow as many acres of potatoes as we like. That will prove to be too simplistic. It is against the trend in other crops. While the amendment does not refer to quotas, some form of supply management will need to be considered in the consultations. I understand that French and Spanish growers are thinking in terms of quotas. It would be nice to avoid them but, nevertheless, that is the way they are thinking.
The Dutch—I wish that we were in their shoes—have four growers' co-operatives. I have no doubt that they can put forward a policy and influence production levels where necessary. It puts them in a position of being able to plan logically. That approach seems to be more organised.
The problem in the UK is a noticeably large difference between wholesale and retail prices. Retail prices are disappointingly high, despite low producer prices. The four integrated co-operatives in Holland may be why Holland's potato growing is so successful. I do not believe that success for us will come through abolition of the PMB with nothing put in its place. That point must be emphasised as much as possible. I should prefer to see us go down the road the Dutch have gone, but that would take a long time to achieve.
I must end by saying, rather brutally, that I do not believe that producer-bashing is necessarily the best way to benefit consumers. Potato growing is a gamble. The danger is that we shall make that gamble too risky. If we do that, there will be no investment and growers will not continue. The abolition of the PMB without putting anything in its place will prove to be se] f-defeating.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the whole tenor and purpose of the Bill in allowing the potato industry, if it so wishes, to establish a successor body or bodies to the Potato Marketing Board is to allow the industry the maximum flexibility in what it proposes. Criteria against which any scheme will be judged are clearly laid down in Clause 25, but beyond that, it is entirely up to the board to decide on its course of action.
Amendment No. 5 flies in the face of that flexibility. It says that the board must apply for a transfer scheme, unless producers tell it in a poll not to do so. Of course, I share my noble friend's desire to see a successor body in place, but we surely cannot tie the hands of the board in that way. It is the Government's view that the industry must decide its own future. It is not for government to prescribe, as the amendment does, what that future must be. And there is another, more practical point. What would happen if a poll of producers wanted a successor scheme, but economic analysis or some other factor proved that such a scheme would not be viable? What would happen if no poll were held and it was found similarly that a scheme was impossible to evolve? This would put the board in an impossible situation. I have to say also, that that appears to be a back-door method of constraining the board to take account of the results of a poll, however unrepresentative that poll might be. That goes directly against Clause 36(2), about which we spoke at length both in Committee and on Report.
My noble friend Lord Stanley said that the Government should ensure that there is a successor
116
body. The effect of the House voting in favour of Amendment No. 3 is to increase to some extent the chances of the Government having to proceed under the powers of the European Communities Act. As I said, the Government are favourably disposed towards the idea of a development council as a successor to the PMB; so we shall seek to avoid having to act under the European Communities Act, if at all possible. Unfortunately, I am less able to give an assurance that the board will have an opportunity to establish a successor than I was half an hour ago.
However, those considerations aside, I do not believe that it is any of our business to be laying down the law—literally—to the board. Equally, even if we did consider it our business, we could leave the boards in an impossible position if we tied their hands in the manner suggested by the amendment. The right and practical way forward is to leave the board to judge how best to proceed. That enabling approach is the right one. It is the basis of this part of the Bill. I hope that the siren voices around me will not deflect the House from that view.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his clear exposition of Amendment No. 6. I believe that I well understand the purposes behind it. First, it seeks to define various aspects of a successor scheme which are desirable, and to encourage the board to include them in a scheme.
Secondly, it obliges Ministers to consult with representatives of the industry and of consumers before approving a scheme. It is therefore intended to ensure that desirable features of the present marketing scheme are continued in a way acceptable to all involved with potatoes, whether growing them, selling them, making them into processed products or just eating them. I have no quarrel with that. It lies behind the whole thrust of the Bill. Nor do I have any quarrel with the desirable features listed in paragraph (c), with one notable exception. But I cannot for the life of me see why we need this amendment to achieve these things.
Once again, it seems to me that we are trying to place a straitjacket on the industry when the whole tenor of this Bill is to allow the industry to make its own decisions. Indeed, the amendment itself seems to acknowledge this in its opening paragraph:
"the Board has had regard to the desirability of proposing such arrangements as it considers would be likely".
In other words, we are leaving it to the board to decide both on likelihood and desirability.
What is the amendment really achieving? It provides a list of desirable activities. Four of these —research and development, promotion, collection of statistics and providing a discussion forum—are all in the ambit of a development council. There is no argument about that. I cannot imagine that we need to prescribe them here in order for the industry to be aware of them. But, once again, it must be for the industry to decide what it wants. The first feature, however, is different:
"schemes for the orderly marketing of potatoes".
Such schemes within a scheme seem to me to be fraught with danger. There seems to be the possibility of the re-introduction of marketing controls, which would certainly not be appropriate to a development

117
council and would very likely be vulnerable under both domestic and Community competition law. No, my Lords, that will not do.
In sum, I do not see what this amendment contributes, and I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down and with the leave of the House, he said that a scheme might fail because it does not stand up to economic analysis. Surely, if that were the case it would be met by Clause 25(3)(a), which states that the Government must satisfy themselves that the scheme is in the public interest. Clearly, if a scheme failed an economic analysis then it would not be in the public interest. If that is the case, Clause 25 comes into play and the scheme would have to be rejected. Therefore, I believe that the Minister's argument is answered in the Bill.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not believe that that follows. On a face of it a scheme might appear to be in the public interest but when the sums are added up it may not be in the interests of a particular sector. However, I take the noble Lord's point.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton answered the question posed to me by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. The 1958 Act does as my noble friend Lady Carnegy suggests, hence Amendment No. 5. It gives an option. But what is the impediment or the problem in having a delay of perhaps two or three months, particularly when interest rates are alleged to be going to 3 per cent.? I cannot see that that is a great worry and it means that the whole scheme would be subject to more democratic decisions.
The Minister spoke about maximum flexibility. I am all for maximum flexibility but it seems to me that in the Government's mind that means to do nothing: flexibility not to produce any scheme at all. Amendment No. 6 in particular gives a guide to what might be in store for us.
I am not particularly worried about the thoughts or problems of the Potato Marketing Board. I am sure that it can solve its own problems. I am interested in the growers and consumers. They are looking for a guide. This amendment seeks to give them that.
My noble friend does not like orderly marketing. I am surprised that he does not like orderly marketing because I thought we all liked it. He jumps to conclusions. I give one other example of what orderly marketing might do. It might well negotiate between producers and processors about which he is so worried. He should not be worried, but I shall not go into that now.
The amendment may be technically incorrect. I take the point made by noble friend Lord Renton that Amendment No. 5 may be incorrectly drafted. However, I have been in your Lordships' House for nearly 20 years and I have sent on many amendments from here to another place and they have always been returned amended. However imperfect may be the drafting of the amendment, your Lordships may be
118
sure that government draftsmen will have another crack at it. Sometimes they make rather a mess of it. Therefore, I have no qualms about sending the amendment on to another place. Indeed, it is your Lordships' duty to do so. This is a problem. Every noble Lord has said that he is worried and it is good for another place to hear that we are worried and that we are passing on not necessarily our anxieties but those of producers and consumers. For that reason, I must ask for the opinion of the House.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 135; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Addington, L.

Healey, L.

Adrian, L.

Hertford, M.

Airedale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Alport, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hooson, L.

Ardwick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Howell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hughes, L.

Banks, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Birk, B.

Jay, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kintore, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Cobbold, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Congleton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Devonshire, D.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Eatwell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Nelson, E.

Erroll, E.

Nicol, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ezra, L.

Palmer, L.

Falkender, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Foot, L.

Peston, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Galpern, L.

Rea, L.

Geraint, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Renton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Richard, L.

Glasgow, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Rochester, L.

Gregson, L.

Russell, E.

Halsbury, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hampton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Serota, B.

119

Shackleton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Shannon, E.

Underhill, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Varley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stedman, B.

Wharton, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

White, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Teviot, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hives, L.

Addison, V.

Holderness, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hooper, B.

Annaly, L.

Hothfield, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Howe, E.

Huntly, M.

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kimball, L.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bessborough, E.

Leigh, L.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Marsh, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cadman, L.

Moyne, L.

Caithness, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Caldecote, V.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnock, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cawley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Pender, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Coleraine, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cox, B.

Prentice, L.

Cranborne, V.

Quinton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Reay, L.

Cross, V.

Rees, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Davidson, V.

Romney, E.

Denham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Downshire, M.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elibank, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Stewartby, L.

Faithfull, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Flather, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Gisborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Goschen, V.

Swansea, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hacking, L.

Ullswater, V.

Haig, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vivian, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Wakeham, L.

Harvington, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Wynford, L.

Hemphill, L.

Young, B.

Henley, L.

Younger of Prestwick, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.26 p.m.
Clause 25 [Determination of application]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 13, line 40, at end insert:
("(c) that in preparing the scheme for approval the Board has had regard to the desirability of proposing such arrangements as it considers would be likely to ensure the continuation or introduction by one or more successor bodies of:

(i) schemes for the orderly marketing of potatoes including market intelligence, and the identification of market opportunities,

(ii) research and development,

(iii) the generic promotion of potatoes,

(iv) the collection of statistics on the potato industry, and

(v) a forum for discussion of matters of common interest to producers, purchasers, retailers and consumers of potatoes, and

(d) that they have consulted about the principles of the scheme such persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of producers, purchasers, retailers and consumers of potatoes as they consider appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Wool guarantee]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 23, line 19, at end insert
("() Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of section 2 of the Agriculture Act 1957, in relation to wool the guaranteed price determined for the guarantee periods beginning in the years 1993 and 1994 shall not be less than 81 per cent and 77 per cent respectively (calculated in accordance with section 2 of the said Act) of the corresponding price determined for the guarantee period beginning in the year 1992.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 with which Amendment No. 7 is grouped. Amendment No. 7 seeks a gentle phasing out of the wool guarantee with complete removal at the end of the 1994 clip year; that is to say, at 30th April 1995, rather than its sudden termination at 30th April 1993. The British Wool Marketing Board hopes for some recovery in the world market by 1995. I am advised that early in 1992 Ministry of Agriculture officials were sympathetic to the phasing out of the guarantee and at the annual wool guarantee review meeting in February officials were urged to continue technical discussions about the scheme. A general election, however, changes many things and it appears that this was one of the changes which has resulted from that election.
The amendment provides for cuts in the guarantee of 19 per cent. for the 1993 clip year and a further 5 per cent. in the 1994 clip year, leading to a guarantee of 95p per kilogram and 90p per kilogram respectively. This would reduce the guarantee cost from about £26 million to about £12.5 million in 1993–94 and to about £7.5 million in 1994–95 assuming a modest increase in market prices. Both in Committee and on Report the Minister made much of the modest nature of wool receipts as part of producers' incomes. I believe the figure of 5 per cent. was mentioned at that time. Living

121
at or about the margin, however, can make 5 per cent. significant. We have Mr. Micawber's authority for that.
In another place the noble Earl's right honourable friend the Minister when questioned about reductions in hill livestock compensatory allowances said that hill farmers had received increases in income because of additional payments for each ewe. He said, however, that:
"lowland sheep farmers are facing particularly tough problems".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/93; col. 1137.]
This amendment seeks to mitigate the position of both hill and lowland farmers. The Bill provides for continuance of the British Wool Marketing Board, and we on these Benches are grateful for that. The amendment seeks to give the board a chance to survive during abnormal market conditions and perhaps add modestly to reserves in the meantime. The smooth flow of wool to primary processors is basic to the board's continuance. The value of wool textile exports exceeds £700 million and British wool plays a large part in this.
If more wool is purchased abroad the balance of payments will be worse off as a result. Furthermore, the industry does not want to jeopardise its restructuring process which it has found particularly painful. Abnormal world stocks have built up since the 1988 decision to end the guarantee. This modest amendment aims to give farmers, the British Wool Marketing Board and primary producers a slightly longer period to adjust to a situation not of their making and to do so at modest cost. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I must tell my noble friend Lord Howe that I am most unhappy about this matter. The removal of the guarantee could hardly have occurred at a worse moment because the price of wool is so low. Wool may well be dumped on the market in any kind of condition and not in an orderly manner; that is, not properly graded, and so forth. That has already happened elsewhere on the continent and chaotic conditions have arisen. It is also extremely bad news because of the possibility of damage resulting to the high reputation of British wool that has been built up over a long period thanks to the operations of the board. On the textile industry's side it is not good news at all.
As far as producers are concerned, what is so appalling is that the wool price is likely to get so low that a situation may be reached where there is no economic justification to shear at all. I suppose that in the end some may not be able to afford to shear their sheep. If so, that will have serious implications for animal welfare. Even if the situation is not as bad as that, while wool may be a very small percentage of the gross output from sheep nevertheless the margin on the production of lamb is so small that wool looms a lot larger than might otherwise be the case.
It may be that there was a decision in 1988 to do away with the wool guarantee and that it all ought to have been decided then and no alterations made. But the position now is not as foreseen; it is very bad
122
indeed, although the general view is that it is likely to improve in a few years' time. It is a matter of tiding over the situation. It is difficult to persuade me otherwise than to take the view that it is wise to forget the 1988 decision and by this amendment phase out the guarantee over three years. That seems to me to be a very reasonable compromise.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I hope that when my noble friend replies he will say whether the Government have considered the knock-on effect of the immediate loss of guarantee. The Confederation of British Wool Textiles has pointed out that there may be a balance of payments and unemployment problem in its industry. I apologise to the House—I hope I will not be called out of order—in that I misled it by saying that Amendment No. 6 was consequential when I should have said that I had already spoken to it and begged to move. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me, particularly my noble friend on the Front Bench who has been so patient.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I do not think I need to add much to what I said in support of these amendments at Report stage, except to say that if the Government do not accept them it will be a classic example of civil servants and the Government completely failing to understand the rudiments of farming. I fear it also shows how completely out of touch they are with the real world. Long-term planning is essential in farming. Many farmers will have bought sheep in September, or indeed as far back as the previous September, and based their calculations on the guaranteed price. It simply is not fair, with the stroke of a pen and at a moment's notice, to cut off the hand that feeds the nation. In view of the substantial cuts recently announced in hill livestock compensatory allowances it is hard to see a worse choice of time to bring the wool guarantee to a most abrupt end. I beg to support the amendments.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, in 1988 there was a flourishing marketing system run by the British Wool Marketing Board. A unilateral decision was then made by the British Government. Mr. John Gummer announced in the other place that the guaranteed price system would be done away with in five years' time. The Europeans were very envious of the marketing scheme in this country. They had no intention to suggest that the present scheme or the guaranteed price system should be abolished. Unfortunately, the Government made a very big mistake. I am very sorry that there is provision in the Bill to abolish the guaranteed price for wool as from 1st May of this year.
I was vice-chairman of the board for many years. Ten years ago we were very concerned about the future of that board. The present chairman, Mr. Alyn Evans, who farms in Wales, and the vice-chairman from Scotland are very concerned. The leaders of the national farmers union covering England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, farmers and politicians on both sides of this House and in the other place have over the years tried to persuade the Minister that this is the wrong approach to the

123
marketing of wool. Unfortunately no heed has been taken as yet. I wonder whether the Minister will be wise in his winding up tonight to say that he will try to persuade his own Ministers to reinstate the guaranteed price for wool because of the very difficult circumstances under which hill farmers work today.
The cost to the Exchequer in the current year, 1992–93, is estimated at £26 million. Assuming only a small increase in market price, the amendment will reduce the cost to £15 million in 1993–94 and to £7.5 million in 1994–95. The total sum that the marketing board is asking for over the next two years is just over £22 million. As the Minister is aware, the guaranteed price for the 1992 wool clip is 117 pence per kilo. The current market price for British wool is only 64 pence per kilo. Therefore without a guaranteed price, on current market prices producer returns will be reduced by about £26 million. That reduction coincides with the recently-announced cut in HLCA payments. That will reduce incomes by about £20 million. This will be a colossal loss to the wool producers of this country and to sheep producers generally. I hope that this reasoned amendment tabled by noble Lords and my noble friends will persuade the Minister at this very late hour to change his mind. If he does not there will be only one way forward: to vote for the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I explained at Committee and at Report stages the very clear reasons why the Government have decided to terminate the wool guarantee on 30th April. This mechanism originated as part of the detailed structure of guarantees built on the Agriculture Act 1947. The first national guarantee for wool was fixed by Ministers in 1950 with the objective that it should operate as a stabilisation fund. When market prices fell below the guarantee price, the Government were to make cash advances to the wool board to cover the shortfall. When the guarantee price was above the market price the board was required to make repayments to the Government. The intention of the guarantee was therefore to stabilise producer returns from wool production at a time when this return accounted for a more significant proportion of the return from sheep production than it does today, and when other means of support were by no means as substantial as they are today. Even in the 1960s and 1970s the producer return from wool accounted for between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of the total return from sheep production. It now accounts for only approximately 5 per cent.
I accept that the wool guarantee has served the industry well over the past 40 years, but your Lordships do not need me to tell you that conditions in agriculture and marketing have altered very significantly over that period. A mechanism designed to meet the needs of the 1950s must be scrutinised carefully to determine whether it remains appropriate in the conditions of the 1990s. The system of agricultural guarantees which emerged from the 1947 Act has now substantially been dismantled. Its functions have largely been replaced by support for producers from other means, notably the European Community. That is the case also for wool, where the function of stabilising and supporting sheep producer incomes now rests with the substantial Community
124
support measures operated under the common agricultural policy. The simple fact is that it can no longer be justified under those circumstances for Government to continue to operate a guarantee for wool.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that the Government announced their intention to discontinue the guarantee in 1988. The industry has been given more than four years notice of the measure. It is now time that the wool industry accepted financial responsibility for its own affairs.
It would not, therefore, be right to accept the amendments, which would postpone the date for termination of the guarantee by two years—from 30th April this year to 30th April 1995. I recognise that the proposal to loosen the current restrictions on the proportions by which the guarantee may be reduced from year to year would be intended to allow the guarantee to operate at a somewhat lower level, for two years after 30th April 1993.
However, as I explained in response to a very similar amendment tabled at Report stage, that misses the central reason for ending the guarantee. Its stated purpose was to stabilise producer returns from wool rather than systematically to give producers a higher price than their product will realise on the market. I have explained why this purpose of price stabilisation can no longer be justified. Under these circumstances, I stress that to accept the amendment would have the effect of increasing government expenditure by around £23 million to £33 million, which could, similarly, not be justified.
I understand very clearly the points which a number of noble Lords have made to the effect that the guarantee will come to an end at a time when the market for wool is very depressed. I also accept that this action will have a short-term impact on sheep producer incomes. However, the impact of ending the guarantee must be seen in the context of the very substantial producer support which will continue to be paid by means of the sheep annual premium and hill livestock compensatory allowances. Total payments to sheep farmers from these sources in respect of 1992 will be around £480 million.
Of that total approximately £360 million will be paid to hill sheep farmers. Even taking into account the reduction in HLCAs, sheep farmers in the less favoured areas can expect to be better off by some £60 million to £70 million. Looked at another way, the increases in ewe premium resulting from the devaluation of the green pound and the Agriculture Council decision to increase the supplement mean that hill sheep farmers will receive an increase in subsidy of at least £1.80 per ewe. This demonstrates that the Government's commitment to livestock farming in the hills remains very firm indeed.
I have set out clearly why we should reject the amendments. I am afraid that nothing I have heard today alters the Government's conclusion that the guarantee should be ended with effect from 30th April. Amendment No. 9, which proposes that wool already collected by the British Wool Marketing Board in the 1992 and previous clip years should continue to qualify for the guarantee provided it is sold by the

125
board before 1st May 1997—rather than 1st May 1995 as provided for in the Bill—is merely consequential and should also be rejected.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am very disappointed, not merely with the detail but with the tenor of his reply. He heard speeches from all round the House, on behalf of sheep farmers, by people who know the industry better than I do and perhaps better than the Minister's brief would lead me to believe the noble Earl knows the industry. He gave us no credit whatever for the fact that at Committee stage and Report stage, and now at Third Reading, we have progressively sought to reduce what we were asking for from Government. That is the effect of the amendment which we have tabled today. For example, I pointed out in moving the amendment that if the amendment were accepted, the cost to the Exchequer of £26 million would be reduced in 1993–94 to £12.5 million and in 1994–95 to £7.5 million.
Therefore, it is wrong to create the impression that on this side of the House we are profligate, unheeding of the difficulties which the Government face—we recognise those difficulties, even though some of them are of their own making—and uncaring not merely of hill sheep farmers but also lowland sheep farmers, as I mentioned in my speech.
The noble Earl mentioned the fact that in 1988 the decision was taken to end the guarantee scheme. So it was. I pointed out in my speech that the decision came after the election, not before it, and that in February the industry was talking to the ministry in anticipation of modifying the scheme. Now we have a situation in which the Government have made their decision quite firmly and, so far as concerns this House, intend to stick by it.
The Government wish, as we wish, to see the British Wool Marketing Board continue. But now, in the abnormal trading conditions it faces, what hope has it for continuance if the phasing out proceeds in accordance with the provisions of the Bill?
Taking one thing with another, not to hold out the slightest hope of any reconsideration of the decision and to rely totally on Brussels and the HLCAs, which admittedly have been reduced, seems a somewhat negative attitude at a critical time for an important category of farmers in this country. For those reasons, and in view of the Minister's failure to respond sympathetically to a reasonable presentation of the case—which may have more to do with what has occurred earlier this afternoon—I feel that I, too, must divide the House.
5.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kintore, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Banks, L.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Mackintosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cobbold, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

Congleton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nelson, E.

Cudlipp, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Davies, L.

Palmer, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Parry, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Erroll, E.

Rayleigh, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ezra, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E.

Galpern, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Geraint, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Glasgow, E.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Stedman, B.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strafford, E.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Healey, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Howell, L.

Varley, L.

Hughes, L.

Wharton, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

White, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

Wise, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wrenbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Boardman, L.

Annaly, L.

Borthwick, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Arran, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Brentford, V.

Astor, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Auckland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Beloff, L.

Cadman, L.

Blatch, B.

Caithness, E.

Blyth, L.

Caldecote, V.

127

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Marsh, L.

Coleraine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cross, V.

Mountevans, L.

Cumberlege, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Oxfuid, V.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Downshire, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Prentice, L.

Faithfull, B.

Prior, L.

Ferrers, E.

Quinton, L.

Flather, B.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rees, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ciray of Contin, L.

Romney, E.

Gridley, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Hacking, L.

St. Davids, V.

Haig, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Hemphill, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hertford, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hives, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Hothfield, L.

Swansea, L.

Howe, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Huntly, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Ironside, L.

Trumpington, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Ullswater, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Vestey, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Layton, L.

Wakeham, L.

Leigh, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Liverpool, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Long, V.

Wynford, L.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
Annual report on matters relevant to price support
(".—(1) The Ministers shall publish an annual report on such matters relevant to price support for agricultural produce as they consider appropriate and include in the report such account as they consider appropriate of developments in agricultural policy, so far as relevant to such matters.
(2) In subsection (1) above, the reference to agricultural policy includes policy relating to agriculture and the environment.
(3) In this section—
"agriculture" and "agricultural" shall be construed in accordance with section 109(3) of the Agriculture Act 1947; and
128
"the Ministers" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland acting jointly.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 which are linked.
We debated at Report stage an amendment which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Norrie. This would have required Ministers to publish an annual report on the economic conditions in, and prospects for, the United Kingdom agricultural industry and the role that it plays in the environment. In responding to the debate I said that I had some doubts about the precise wording of the amendment but that I would see what I could come up with by way of a government amendment for Third Reading.
These linked amendments are designed to meet what I took to he the principal concerns expressed at Report stage. Amendment No. 10 would insert a new clause which would place a statutory requirement on Ministers to publish annually a report on such matters relevant to price support for agricultural produce as they considered appropriate. They would have to include in the report such account as they considered appropriate of developments in agricultural policy so far as relevant to such matters. The wording of the amendment is designed to ensure that it falls within the subject matter of the Bill. It can also reasonably be said to reflect the current content of Agriculture in the United Kingdom which we intend should continue to be published. The wording of the clause would not, however, preclude the Government from publishing additional material not covered by the new statutory requirement should they consider that to be desirable.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause is designed to meet the points raised at Report stage about the coverage by an annual report of matters relating to agriculture and the environment.
Amendment No. 12 is a consequential amendment. It includes the new clause in the list of provisions in the Bill which apply to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 13 amends the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the proposed new clause.
I hope that these amendments will meet with the approval of the House. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment. It would be churlish of me to complain about it, but I am a little disappointed with the wording. It is a prime example of the, "taking one thing with another, all things being equal, on the one hand this and on the other hand that" school of parliamentary draftsmanship. If noble Lords remember, the original amendment which I withdrew was clearly to ask that Ministers,
"publish an annual report on the economic conditions in, and prospects for, the United Kingdom agricultural industry, and the role it plays in the environment".

129
This amendment does not go all the way to meet that requirement. I believe that the suggestion of enabling legislation has gone to the department's head.
The amendment is linked with price support; it proposes a report,
"on such matters relevant to price support".
We know that the CAP reforms are intended to reduce reliance on price support, to move towards world prices and for farming to be supported, in effect, by deficiency payments. For example, will the report be able to consider such things as the area aid for cereals and oilseeds? Would that be regarded as relevant under "price support"?
Another point put by the Council for the Protection of Rural England is the linking of the reference to the environment to price support. It implies that the development in agricultural policy should be taken into account when relevant to price support. Thus presumably it should be ignored when not relevant.
The new schemes under the agri-environment package in the CAP are completely separate from price support. Is it clear that the report can include such matters as the ESAs, the NSAs and all the agri-environment schemes to be introduced? Would they be ignored or could they be taken into account? I think that the Minister hinted that the Government would be able to extend the scope of the report and if he could assure the House that these matters, of which I have suggested examples, could be taken into account, we would welcome it.
I have to say to the Minister that the amendment is wishy-washy, but I suppose that it goes almost as far as the amendment that I withdrew and I am grateful to him for that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly support the amendments and cannot share the slight misgiving of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who suggests that they do not tie Ministers down enough. The alternative to expressing the matter as it is expressed in subsection (1) would be for us to go into a mass of detail as to what should be in the reports. We legislate in too much detail for the most part anyway. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Howe is absolutely right to present the new clause in the way that it is drafted. I gladly support it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, there is only one peripheral matter I wish to raise. On this occasion, I do not expect a commitment from the noble Earl, he will be glad to hear. I wish to draw attention to the provision as to the Long Title. The Long Title of a Bill can be useful when it comes to interpreting any part of the Bill, provided that it tells us its general, over-riding purpose. That used to be the practice with Long Titles.
The modern practice which this provision follows is a mere catalogue of the contents, which one can get elsewhere. The Public Bill Offices of both Houses say that they can do nothing without direction from the Procedure Committees and the draftsmen are in the hands of the Public Bill Offices. I do not expect the noble Earl to jump up and say "yes", but I ask that the matter be considered so that Long Titles may once
130
again be of some use instead of merely giving employment to printers, papermakers, secretaries and so on.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am tempted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that if he finds the amendment wishy-washy and does not like it very much, I am quite happy to withdraw it. However, I think that would go against the spirit of these proceedings and it is certainly not what I intended to do. However, I believe that I can reassure him on the points of doubt that he raised.
It is the Government's view that one cannot consider price support without also considering the economic conditions in the industry. Similarly, the whole field of environmental protection and the environment generally is linked to price support, sometimes closely. The noble Lord mentioned in particular the ESAs; schemes of that kind could be covered, as they are at the moment, in the annual report. It also goes without saying, I hope, that area payments and all forms of support from the Community would be included within the scope of the report.
The need for price support is linked to the economic circumstances of the industry. That is why I believe that at the end of the day the report that is produced by the Government at the moment will continue in much the same form in the future.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 26, line 38, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 27, line 29, at end insert ("section (Annual report on matters relevant to price support),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 13:
Line 5, after ("potatoes;") insert ("to provide for the publication of an annual report on matters relevant to price support;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
6.8 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass. We have had a great deal of constructive debate on the provisions of the Bill. I should like to thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher, for the pragmatic and open-minded manner in which the debate has been conducted. My thanks are also extended to the other noble Lords who have participated in the Bill's successive stages and whose contributions have, without exception, I believe, made our deliberations as thorough and illuminating as we would all wish them to be.

131
I trust that I may be forgiven for not naming all noble Lords, but in particular I wish to express my gratitude to my noble friends Lady Carnegy of Lour, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Wade, Lord Mottistone and Lord Renton, the noble Lords, Lord Geraint, and Lord Mackie of Benshie, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who has bowled me some very accurate balls on a wicket which I have not always found to be the most comfortable.
We have spent considerable time discussing various procedural aspects of the Bill—not just the question of parliamentary procedure but whether and in what circumstances Ministers should be required to consult various parties affected by matters in the Bill.
It is probably inevitable that opinions on these procedural matters should differ according to one's position in the constitutional scheme of things. From the Government's point of view we have sought to avoid a dogmatic approach but rather to consider what is workable, and—if I dare repeat a word to which I have had much recourse over past weeks—what is "reasonable". In a number of respects we have moved quite some way away from our original position. I hope noble Lords will bear that in mind even if, in some cases, they would have wished us to go further.
The Bill is not mainly procedural but deals with a number of important matters, some of which will have far reaching consequences for the producers and other parties affected. Probably the most significant change that the Bill would bring about is the ending of the milk marketing schemes, which have, as I have previously acknowledged, served customers, producers and others well throughout most of their 60 years. The reason for ending the schemes is that they have outlived their usefulness and no longer serve the best interests of producers, consumers and others with an interest in the dairy sector.
The Bill was criticised at Second Reading for the fact that the word "consumers" appeared infrequently in the text. In so far as the Bill is concerned with improvements in agricultural marketing, which much of it is, it is directly concerned with improving the response of the agricultural industry to the needs and desires of consumers. In the milk sector the best way to do this is to replace our present monolithic and bureaucratic arrangements with a more competitive and diverse structure, allowing those in the industry the normal freedom to respond to the market.
We have had some interesting and not uncontroversial debates on potatoes. I might go so far as to say that on potatoes I have had a fair roasting! But the debate was always constructive, and noble Lords might now find it helpful if I summarise where matters stand. The Bill provides enabling powers for the potato marketing scheme to be revoked 12 months from the date specified in an order made by Ministers if they consider it necessary, or in the public interest, for the scheme to be brought to an end. Following debate, on Report we amended the Bill to provide that such an order will be subject to parliamentary
132
procedure, and this afternoon we have amended the Bill further to put on the face of the Bill the undertakings that I gave at that time.
Should the potato marketing scheme be revoked and the Potato Marketing Board wound up - and I repeat that no such decision has been taken—the Bill will enable the Potato Marketing Board to submit a scheme to Ministers transferring some or all of its assets to one or more successor bodies if that is what registered producers wish. Again, the Bill has been amended this afternoon in such a way to make it clear that unless there is a producer poll expressing a contrary view, then the transfer scheme should be submitted to Ministers.
In this way a successor body could take over from the board such functions of importance to the industry as research and development, including the facilities at Sutton Bridge. Statistical services and market promotion would also be candidates for the successor scheme. During the passage of the Bill the other significant amendment was to provide additional flexibility for the continuation of the board's activities at Sutton Bridge. This was reassuring to the board.
I shall not recite all the changes that the Bill is intended to bring about, but say in conclusion that I am grateful to your Lordships for the welcome you have given to the Part III provisions relating to grants for marketing. The Government are convinced of the central importance of improved marketing for the future prosperity of our farming and food industry. At last month's seminar on food marketing, chaired by the Prime Minister, there was agreement that all sectors should work together to promote competitiveness at home and abroad. We intend, as soon as this Bill is passed, to consult with the industry to see how best to make use of the new powers.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Earl Howe.)
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, while speaking to the Question, That this Bill do now pass, I begin by thanking the Minister for the way he has taken this Bill through the House. He is to be congratulated on the co-operative and courteous way that he has steered the Bill through its various stages. From a personal point of view, I thank him and his officials for being extremely helpful at meetings outside the Chamber when we explored different aspects of the Bill. This has been extremely helpful. Speaking from this Dispatch Box, I thank my noble friend Lord Gallacher for his assistance on the Bill. My noble friend and I have worked together on agricultural matters for a number of years and it is always a pleasure to work with him. I also mention the invaluable help that we both received from Ms. Clare Cozens, our researcher, and also the organisations who have briefed us so ably and helped us with the Bill.
Like most Bills, it leaves here in a rather better state than when it arrived, and particularly after the votes today. On milk we all know that this is an enabling Bill, and the Government and the marketing boards have been given the benefit of the doubt in the sense that Parliament has been asked to trust them to come up with schemes that will benefit the producer and the

133
consumer, and deal with the genuine fears that have been expressed by the trade regarding unfair competition. The marketing boards now have to learn to move away from what I described as the monopoly culture in which they have existed for the past 60 years. It is best to say that the jury are still out, and it is a pity that Parliament will not be able to approve the final verdict, but no doubt a way will be found to at least debate the matter when it is finally agreed.
On potatoes I am sure the Minister and the Government are now well aware of the genuine anxiety that is felt by producers about the uncertainty of an unknown EC potato regime and the fact of a depressed market. The Government's intentions are still not wholly clear, although we tried to stiffen their resolution with the amendments the House accepted earlier today. I hope and trust that the Government will listen to the various fears that have been expressed and will do their best to allay them. On the potato section of the Bill, I have had the feeling that the motto of the Government was, "Thou shalt not kill, and should not strive officiously to keep alive" so far as the Potato Marketing Board was concerned. On wool, we are disappointed that the Government were unable to accept our arguments, and I know that that disappointment will be shared outside this House by sheep farmers and particularly hill farmers.
One of the most significant clauses in the Bill is Clause 55(1), to which I referred at Second Reading, which repeals Part I of the Agriculture Act 1947. This marks a watershed in our agriculture policy. The Government and Parliament, for the reasons we know and understand, are no longer required by statute to make themselves responsible for the welfare of farmers and consumers. That is a watershed in our agriculture policy. The reasons for it are entirely understood. We know that everything is now decided in Brussels; but that clause enshrined the whole thing. I should like to repeat my thanks to the Minister. We wish the Bill well when it gets to another place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Howe for the way he has conducted these proceedings. It is not merely the clarity of his mind and speech but the way in which he has kept his cool under stress when discussing potatoes that I am sure all your Lordships have greatly admired. I think he would acknowledge that the Bill has been improved by the efforts of noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House. As for the changes that we have made in regard to potatoes, about which some of us felt strongly and a majority voted against the Government, I now feel that there is no longer that vacuum that looked so dangerous and which was going to cause such uncertainty unless we had somehow attended to it.
With regard to the detail of what we have done, no doubt there are those in the department—legal advisers and even parliamentary counsel—who may think that they can improve upon it. If they can simplify it in doing so, they will be doing a great service. But should the principle be reversed in another place, it would be extremely regrettable and we would
134
not be content to let the matter rest when it came back here. We would have to ask another place to think again.
This is a valuable and timely Bill, and my noble friend Lord Howe is entitled to take a great deal of credit for it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the final stage of a Bill generally takes place in a genial, autumnal mood in your Lordships' House. Just occasionally there is an unseasonable touch of frost. Fortunately, in this Bill the cold winds blew in your Lordships' House at an earlier stage on two amendments, particularly in the Third Reading.
My own connection with agriculture has been tangential only. Your Lordships' command of expertise, knowledge and wisdom on the subject can only cause awe in such as myself. It would be presumptuous, indeed impertinent, were I to mention all those from whom I have learned so much. However, I hope that I may take advantage of my much greater years to second the tributes that have rightly been paid to the noble Earl the Minister.
It is easy and agreeable to coast through a Bill all the provisions of which commend themselves to the House. It is a different business when one stands alone at the Dispatch Box with every single voice raised against one. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, survived triumphantly what was a real test and I second the tributes that have been paid.
It has been an extraordinary pleasure to see a Minister conduct a Bill of this kind, showing not only a great command of his brief, but also a command of the whole of the background material which is so necessary when one is replying to a debate at the Dispatch Box. I add my congratulations to the noble Earl.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, perhaps I may state my own admiration for my noble friend the Minister. I should particularly like to thank him for the kind way in which he met certain people to whom it was helpful for him to speak, and for the great assistance he gave in putting the Bill together.
It is right to draw attention to the fact that for the past 60 years the agricultural industry of this country has been dominated by the Milk Marketing Board and the great strengths it has brought to bear over the years. So this is a special occasion. Although in one sense it is not an important Bill compared with much that has passed through the House, to what has been the heart of the country it is enormously important. It is inevitable that it will bring great changes to the countryside and to the face of Britain over the years to come. I believe that those changes will be for the better; that the Milk Marketing Board, although a wonderful institution when it first began, has seen its day and is now becoming a restriction on the marketing opportunities that are open for the milk products that we can produce in this country.
We have an opportunity, illustrated in a sense by the debate, where so many sides of the House agree on the issues —let us hope that industry will take notice

135
of that—for all sides to work together for the benefit of all sections of the industry. Let us hope that they will pull together and act as one for the benefit of all.
It would also be right and proper to show our respect and admiration for the way in which the leaders of the Milk Marketing Board have tackled the changes. It is not easy to realise that no longer has one a place in the changing market. We have every admiration for Bob Stevens and all his team who have seen the need for change and tackled it positively and effectively. They must have gone through great strain and worry about whether or not they are making decisions which may be viewed in the future as being wrong. We can assure them from this House that their decisions are right. We have supported them and they are now going to see great strides for what is possible in the milk industry of this country.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I endorse the view that the Bill has been considerably improved during its passage through your Lordships' House. Today the House made two important points, though it has been done in the end by amending the Bill in ways which I believe will inevitably need to be amended again. I hope that the important points stand, even if the amendments do not.
The fact that the Government did not prevail on two occasions this afternoon was no fault of my noble friend the Minister. He has conducted the Bill with skill and efficiency, courtesy and humour. When he has not persuaded the House, he has kept his cool and put his arguments extremely clearly so that they can be read and studied in another place as the Bill proceeds.
I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend as other noble Lords have done, and also to the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher, who have been extremely open in their conduct of the Bill. They were extremely helpful to me in explaining what they were up to to enable me to more easily see what I should be up to as well. I commend them for that.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie I thank the Minister for the courteous and skilful way in which he has manoeuvred the Bill through the House. I may disagree with him on many issues but at this stage that is beside the point.
We are coming to a different era with regard to agriculture. For the past 50 or 60 years I and others have been dependent on deficiency payments, guaranteed prices and the boards. Tonight we are doing away with all the successful bodies that we have had for the past 50 years. We are entering a free market economy and we must all stand on our own feet within the agricultural industry. My only wish is that we will succeed under the new arrangements. Perhaps I am a little old-fashioned and the Minister is looking forward as a young man. Let us hope that he is right and that the agricultural industry will function for many years to come.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Welsh Language Bill [H.L.]
6.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STRABOLGI) in the Chair.]
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Status of the Welsh language
Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales and have equal validity in the conduct of public business and in the administration of justice.").
The noble Lord said: In his opening speech in the debate at Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was sympathetic to our aspirations for the preservation of the Welsh language. All of us appreciated that. A century ago that would have been unthinkable. Even 50 years ago it is unlikely that the Deputy Leader of this House would have spoken of our language in such friendly and understanding terms. But the noble Earl has studied the background and the history. As he said, the Welsh language was emerging from the old British tongue early in the sixth century and, although literary Latin was the medium of the new religious forces, Welsh was the language of daily intercourse. Perhaps I may be allowed to remind the Committee that the earliest known piece of written Welsh, dating from the eighth century, can be found in a Latin copy of the gospels in Lichfield Cathedral. It deals with the settlement of a dispute about land. Welsh solicitors were busy even then!
Since then the Welsh language has suffered and survived against the heaviest odds. I would go so far as to say that its survival is the single greatest achievement of the Welsh people. But Wales was denied stability. For example, from 1282 until the Tudor Act of Union Wales was left with no defined frontier; no central authority except what the English Crown could wield through its officials or its feudal barons; no single administrative capital; no uniform system of law; and, please note this well, no unifying principle except the Welsh language and the culture and traditions it enshrined. Anyone who seeks to compare Wales with her Celtic neighbours, Ireland and Scotland, must bear that one great truth in mind. They had the administrative and legal structure to sustain them; we had only the language. That is why we love and value it so much.
Since the Act of Union, English has been the official language of Wales. Section 20 of the Act of the Union makes that plain. It follows that we cannot achieve equality between the two languages unless it is laid down by law that Welsh is also an official language in Wales. Let me emphasise one thing. I have an immense respect and admiration for the English language and its superb literature. There is no

137
intention on the part of any of us to diminish or minimise the English language. Our sole objective is to give our own language equality in our own country. There is not a country in the world which enjoys less or which would tolerate less.
That is the purpose of the new clause. As we stand on the threshold of a new century I hope the Committee will agree that it is a reasonable ambition. It also coincides with the attitude of the European Community towards the smaller nations and their languages. The Committee will note that we are deeply concerned to include the term "equal validity" in the Bill although we understand that there could be some objection to it. Perhaps I may be allowed to give the background to this. In 1963, as many noble Lords will recall, I led a small deputation on behalf of the Welsh parliamentary party to see Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was, to ask for an official inquiry into the state of the Welsh language. He then had responsibility for Welsh affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was also a member of that deputation, as was Mr. Raymond Gower. As a result, a working party of three, with Sir David Hughes Parry, Professor of Law at London University, Professor Glanmor Williams and Mr. Dafydd Jones Williams, set out to work on the subject. A report was produced in October 1965 which formed the basis of the Welsh Language Act 1967.
The report contained a number of practical proposals—I think there were 30 in all. In all the circumstances and under the pressures which existed at the time, I decided that a long detailed Bill was not a practical proposition and that something in the nature of an enabling Bill, which for the first time since the Act of Union gave the Welsh language the status which it surely deserved, was more likely to reach the statute book in a reasonable time. But the 1967 Act was based on the Hughes Parry report and on the principle of equal validity. We would therefore like to be told why equal validity is not acceptable in the Bill and indeed is excluded from it and we would like to see whether we can persuade the Government at this stage to reinstate it. The working party wanted it to be a basic principle governing the use of Welsh in the administration of justice and in the conduct of public administration. We would like the Minister to confirm that that is in fact the objective of the Bill before us.
The arguments for a clear statement in the Bill about the position and status of the language are overwhelming. They have been stated and restated over the past 15 years by the Council for the Welsh Language through to the present board, whose draft Bill in Clause 1 declares it,
"to be an official language in Wales where in relation to English it shall be of equal validity for judicial and administrative purposes".
That is the recommendation of the distinguished board set up by this Government. Furthermore, we have all received representations from organisations, local authorities and individuals throughout Wales. There is no doubting their sincerity and indeed their determination.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is concerned that the Bill should meet the aspirations of the Welsh people. I invite him to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: It is always a joy to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Those of us who have known him for a long time know of his great concern for the Welsh language. We were very pleased to hear him express it so effectively today.
The phrase "equal validity" has been used consistently and has been supported by all of us over many years. The noble Lord referred to a meeting that he conducted in 1963. I was unable to be part of it myself—I was Minister of State at the Foreign Office at the time. The noble Lord will remember a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in December 1965 at which I initiated a debate on the status of the Welsh language. During the debate I urged the then Labour Government to accept the principle of equal validity which was set out by the Hughes Parry Committee. The Secretary of State for Wales, James Griffiths, on behalf of the Government, accepted the principle of equal validity. He said:
"The Government are prepared to do what they reasonably and practically can to implement the principle of equal validity. The Government accept the principle of equal validity and think that it would be just to raise the official status of the Welsh language in this way. They are satisfied and I am satisfied that this will not in any way impair the rights of the English speaking people in Wales".
I have referred to the fact that all of us from then onwards referred to the importance of equal validity being given to the Welsh and English languages in Wales. But what equal validity meant varied according to how we interpreted it. I believe that it is important for the Committee to remember how equal validity has been interpreted. The language board had a draft Bill and its interpretation of equal validity was this:
"Any oral statement and any act, writing or thing made or done in Wales and expressed in Welsh shall have the like effect as if it had been expressed in English".
That is almost word for word what was put in the Hughes Parry Report and the suggestions made there that it should be given statutory force and enacted in a statute. That is proposed by the board and by the noble Lord. I am sorry that I cannot support it for this reason. If the noble Lord himself were to try to recollect what his discovery was when he went into the matter as Secretary of State, he would find it difficult to support his amendment. James Griffiths, the then Secretary of State, accepted the Hughes Parry recommendation that there should be legislative force for that concept of equal validity.
The 1967 Act which the noble Lord produced when he was Secretary of State and which was referred to in the Second Reading debate by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Cledwyn, was described as being an Act which supported equal validity. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said how pleased he was to be responsible for the Bill. He then referred to his noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and said:
"My noble friend referred to the use of the term 'equal validity' in the 1967 Act. I, too, should be grateful to the Minister if he would explain why that is not referred to in this Bill. Is there any significance in this omission?" —[Official Report, 19/1/93; col. 854.]

139
The 1967 Act did not contain the words "equal validity". That Act refers only to any form of equality. Section 3 of the Act states:
"Subject to subsection (2) of this section, anything done in Welsh in a version authorised by section 2 of this Act shall have the like effect as if done in English".
Therefore, one has a distinction in the definition of what is equal validity which the noble Lord, when he was producing the 1967 Bill, thought was adequate and possibly represented the nearest approach to equal validity. There is nothing in that Act which gives statutory effect to the words "equal validity".
The problem I face is this. I believe that we all support the Bill, the basic principles of which are somewhat historic and can be of enormous help to the 'Welsh language, but if we include something which is uncertain and not capable of clear definition we shall find that it is going to be very badly affected. I hope the Committee will understand that enacting these words will stimulate great activity of definition. In terms of this Bill we are thinking of guidelines and schemes by public companies. We are also thinking in terms of an independent board putting out guidelines and trying to stimulate schemes in order to advance the Welsh language. Each one of those schemes would be scrutinised to see whether it came under a statutory definition proposed by the noble Lord.
It would be a bonanza for the lawyers. I am now retired, but if I were still a member of the Wales and Chester Circuit I would probably support the noble Lord. As it is, looking at the matter as objectively and as properly as possible and knowing how important it is that this great Bill should be given full support over a wide area in Wales, I cannot support the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I am very happy to follow two former distinguished Secretaries of State. I am bound to say that on this occasion I prefer the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, has not dealt with the first part of the proposed amendment which states:
"Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales"
and then qualifies that definition.
Perhaps I may take the first part. The report of the Welsh Language Board, at paragraph 143 under the heading "Epilogue"—why it is called that I am not sure—states:
"The Welsh language ceased to be an official language in Wales not through neglect or misuse but by an Act of Parliament. Only an Act of Parliament can restore it to its former status".
I believe that that is a correct statement. In my Second Reading speech I referred to that objectionable part of the 1536 Act which stated that,
"all administration and judicial proceedings were to be conducted in English".
Therefore, from that time on in effect English became established as the official language for Wales. I believe that there is enormous psychological benefit from reversing that decision. The remnants of the 1536 and 1543 Acts have been repealed by this Bill; but there is a case here for a counter general declaration and that is that Welsh should be declared officially and by statute as now being an official language.
140
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, qualified, as did the Welsh Language Board, the words:
"Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales and have equal validity in the conduct of public business and in the administration of justice".
They did so to define that more acceptably. I regret that I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, even on the effect that the amendment might have on the livelihood of the members of the Wales and Chester Circuit.
I believe that the concept of equal validity was put forward by three of the wisest men I have ever known in Wales. They were Sir David Hughes Parry, Mr. Dafydd Jones Williams and Professor Glanmor Williams. I could not think of three more careful chaps to have put forward such a definition. They were very shrewd because it is a concept that is capable of simple legal interpretation.
I should like to quote from paragraph 38 on page 12 of the report by the Welsh Language Board which states:
"The principle of equal validity means no more and no less than that any act, writing or thing done in Welsh in Wales shall have the like legal force and effect as if it had been done in English".
I do not think that any court would have difficulty in interpreting the term "equal validity". It is interesting to note that, as far as I am aware, there has been no litigation since 1967 on what is meant by "equal validity".
Let us turn to the term "equality" which is used in the Bill. I am as anxious as the noble Lord that the Bill should be acceptable to all sides of this Chamber and another place and that it should be totally acceptable in Wales. However, if he gives it a little more thought, he will see that the "doctrine of equality" (I may so describe it) which is referred to in the Bill is a much more elastic concept. I can see endless scope for litigation on its definition. I do not know whether there is such a thing as the "Caldecott District Council", but let us assume that a district council in Gwent might be faced, on the basis of the equality of the two languages, with a demand for translating every document. The Welsh-speaking Dwyvor District Council, where all the proceedings are in Welsh, might be faced with a demand for interpreting everything that is done in Welsh into English because the doctrine of equality is a much more elastic concept. I think that it could be a source of fruitful litigation for lawyers but of no great help to those of us who want to see a happy environment for the future progress of the Welsh language.
The Welsh Language Board quoted the principal recommendation of the Hughes Parry Committee. I make no apology for quoting again—this time from paragraph 40 on page 13 of the report, which states:
"For a number of reasons we have decided to recommend the adoption of this principle of equal validity as the basic principle of the policy governing the future use of Welsh in the administration of justice and the conduct of administrative business throughout Wales and Monmouthshire".
The last sentence of the paragraph, quoting from the Hughes Parry Committee, states:
"We recommend that the principle of equal validity as outlined above should form the basis for the new legal status of the Welsh language and that a declaration giving this status should be embodied in a statute".

141
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly pointed out, it was not embodied in a statute. I think that that was a serious omission. I do not know why it was not embodied in the legislation at the time and I cannot remember whether I raised the matter on the Floor of another place at the time. I may well have done so. I have not checked, but that does not matter. However, such a provision should be embodied in a new statute because it qualifies the phrase "official language". It does not mean that everything has to be done bilingually because, let us face it, if everything had to be done in Wales bilingually at the moment, although I would be emotionally in favour of it, my common sense tells me that we do not want great emotional reactions either in the highly anglicised parts of Wales, such as Gwent, if there was any attempt to introduce bilingualism there, and nor do we want a reaction the other way in Dwyvor.
Therefore, I think that the Government would be wise to stick to the doctrine that we have come to accept, which is that of equal validity. That gives the language legal status, which is what we are concerned about. We are concerned with a circumscribed provision because the Bill deals largely with Welsh in public life. The amendment proposes that,
"Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales and have equal validity in the conduct of public business and in the administration of justice".
Those matters are already spelt out in other places as well as in this Bill. The Government would be wise to accept the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Even in the midst of prehistory there was a Conservative Government. I refer to the year 1972. In the nature of things, therefore, the Lord Chancellor in 1972 was a Conservative Lord Chancellor. He commissioned the late Lord Edmund Davies to carry out a report into the workings of Welsh language trials in Wales. Lord Justice Edmund Davies stated:
"In order to preserve the principle of equal validity between the two languages and the equally important principle of the random selection of jurors, the only practicable way is".
Those words were part of that careful report and those specific words were accepted by the then Lord Chancellor.
There is no problem at all in defining "equal validity". All litigation is, by definition, fruitful—and I speak as a lawyer. No vast panorama of litigation will spread before us if this simple amendment is accepted. I respectfully endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said. It is not simply a question of equal validity. It is a question of principle, namely, that one begins with the proposition, which is only one of elementary fairness and decent justice, that Welsh and English are the "official languages" of Wales. Those words were taken from the introductory remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on Second Reading. He repeated later that Welsh is an official language in Wales. If that is so, what conceivable proper objection based on any form of reason or logic can there be to the amendment which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos?
142
These are not cosmetics. We have been patient for a very long time. The world has changed since 1967. Expectations and demands have changed. It is no coincidence that the mover of this amendment is the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. There is no one present in your Lordships' House who has a greater experience of Welsh life in its fullest sense, a greater devotion to the language or has carried more burdens in terms of statesmanship. Can it seriously be thought that the noble Lord would put his hand to this amendment (and the whole of that vast moral authority to it) if any danger might sensibly ensue?
People who cherish the Welsh language—and they are not simply bilingual people who live in Wales because let us not forget that many monoglot English do the same—do not want a donation or a charitable, rather patronising gift. They look to your Lordships for decent dignity and justice for that language. The new clause which is proposed by way of amendment seeks no more than that. It wants the drum sounded for equal validity and a proper place in the sun for a language that has been bereft of that place for too long.
7 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I was much moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said about the moral authority of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I would be the last to challenge that. I am much drawn by the arguments that we have heard about the need to declare that the Welsh language, along with English, has official status within Wales. I suspect that the Government's response will be that that is self-evident, because whenever I read official documents or handbooks describing the United Kingdom it is now officially described as a multi-lingual state. The Welsh and Gallic languages are referred to regularly in such publications as official languages.
I suspect that the fact that the Welsh language is endorsed within the national curriculum in the Education Reform Act as a national language for Wales means that in education legislation it already has that official status. So what we are seeking to legislate in the amendment is in one sense a self-evident principle; but that is not an argument for not doing it. As we have been reminded in the historical statements already made in Committee, and also in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on Second Reading in which he made the point that it might be beneficial and positive, if it is that Welsh is already an official language, that it should be so designated. I have no difficulty with that part of the first amendment.
However, I have substantial difficulty with the proposal in Amendment No. 5 that we should delete:
"should be treated on a basis of equality",
and substitute:
"shall be of equal validity".
I say that because I believe we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has just said, moved on from the 1960s. The principle of equal validity, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, reminded us, is a principle based essentially upon oral statements or published documents. It is a statement which refers to

143
specific publications or speech acts (if I may use that linguistic term) whereas for me the phraseology of the Bill as it stands—that is,
"treated on a basis of equality"—
is a much more wide-ranging statement. That was my initial interpretation of the Bill. I know that it was the interpretation placed upon it by some other noble Lords. We have since discussed it with people outside the House. I have yet to hear anyone put forward an argument that convinces me that,
"treated on a basis of equality",
is not a much more wide-ranging concept than the idea of equal validity.
Reference has been made to the late Sir David Hughes Parry. I remember him well. In his own inscrutable Presbyterian way in a television interview, when asked to compare the Bill introduced in 1967 with his own report, he stated in Welsh,
"Mae hyn yn fyr o'r llall",
which I can translate as,
"this falls short of the other".
He was referring to a point already made in this debate—that the principle of equal validity contained in his report did not feature in the Bill. I suspect that the reasons for that omission were tied to the difficulties of legislating that principle. In the Bill's phraseology, the Government's draftspeople have come up with a "Scheme"—I emphasise the capital "S"—which treats both the principle of equality and the practice of implementation by providing that "schemes"—with the lower case "s" on this occasion—of that kind can be introduced by the Welsh Language Board. Those schemes can be developed on a basis of practicality within specific areas of policy and sectors without undermining the principle that the basis for the treatment of both languages is one of equality. So for me the wording of the Bill is stronger than that aspect of the proposed amendments.
The Bill as it stands and the idea of treating both languages on a basis of equality show me that we are moving substantially beyond the principle of equal validity. We are moving from dilysrwydd cyfartal to cyfartaledd, perhaps even to cydraddoldeb.
Lord Crickhowell: The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has spoken about the strength of the Bill and the effectiveness of clauses upon which the Government base their case which create a practical solution to a principle. I have no difficulty with what the noble Lord said because I share the view that that approach is sound and sensible. The question we must address is whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with or is complementary to what the Government propose. Does it perhaps support and reinforce it?
I have to say at the outset that I approach the whole matter at this stage with a good deal of caution. We are in the early stages of the passage of a Bill which, as we have already heard, raises complex and difficult issues. My noble friend Lord Ferrers told us on Second Reading that he and the Government intend to listen most carefully to the points made. Similar undertakings were given by the Minister, Sir Wyn
144
Roberts, who made it clear that he will be influenced greatly by the points made. That is my position. I have still not made up my mind on a number of issues.
It is with a great deal of hesitation that I even attempt to advance an argument which may appear to be in conflict with what was said by an old friend and colleague, Wyn Roberts, who worked closely with me in the late 1970s and early 1980s on Welsh language policy and provided indispensable advice or to find myself in conflict with my successor as Secretary of State whose work I admire greatly. So it is not with any sense of conflict that I put forward the arguments that still worry me. It is because I am seeking desperately for a workable and sensible solution.
At the moment I find myself in a good deal of sympathy with a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. He addressed the first point that arises in the amendment: whether we should have a statement that Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales. The Government's response to that is, "It is unnecessary and, after all, if we start putting in statements in this piece of legislation, are we going to have to put into every other bit of legislation that English is an official language in England?" That is stretching the argument rather far. We start from the historic fact that has been so often referred to, that a definition was effectively put into earlier legislation; a statement was made about an official language in earlier legislation; it was made in the Act of 1536.
It is worth recalling one section of that Act. Section 17 provided:
"Sessions courts, hundred-leets, sheriffs' courts and all other courts shall be proclaimed and kept in the English tongue, and all oaths of officers, juries and inquests and all other affidavits, verdicts and wagers of law shall be given and done in the English tongue, and that henceforth no person or persons that use the Welsh speech or language shall have or enjoy any manner of office or fee within the realm of England, Wales or other the King's Dominions, upon pain of forfeiting the same offices or fees unless he or they use and exercise the speech or language of English".
The effects of that Act have of course been repealed. Further repeals are contained in the Bill. But having said that, we have long had legislation on the statute book that states effectively that English is an official language. That has had an enormous psychological and practical impact in Wales. Therefore I confess that I am sorely tempted by the argument that it would reinforce and strengthen the Bill if we could put such a statement into the Bill without causing the perils described by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir.
If I have another reason for hesitating in putting forward these arguments, it is that I know of my noble friend's immense knowledge and practical experience of these matters. After all, he was brought up as a Welsh-speaking Welsh man; he has held the office of Secretary of State; and has practised in the Welsh courts. He knows exactly what may be the legal effects. Therefore, I hesitate again.
However, we must recognise what this amendment attempts to achieve. Ministers have helpfully discussed issues with Members of the Committee and have circulated papers which indicate the kind of arguments which are influencing them. They tell us

145
that they are worried about the meaning of a great principle, how it is to be defined and, if it is defined in the more general and extensive way—perhaps in a way implied in the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken who wants it to go wider—they would not be able to agree to it.
From my point of view the clause is extremely narrow and precise. It does not seek to impose the use of Welsh, even in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice. Moreover, it is confined to the conduct of public business and the administration of justice. It does not attempt to say that you must use the Welsh language. It merely says that if you use the Welsh language, if you produce a document in the Welsh language, it will have equal validity. I do not find that phrase difficult to understand and I cannot believe that even lawyers would find any difficulty in defining it.
I am sorely tempted by this clause or something like it. Interestingly, the phrase used in the 1967 Act, already quoted by my noble friend, and a phrase which is used in some of the papers presented to us by the Government in support of their argument, is:
"with the like effect as English".
I do not much mind which phrase is used. I am open to argument about the exact phraseology. However, it seems to me to be a simple statement that if you use a document or make a statement in the language, it has "equal validity" or has the like effect. That will strengthen and not weaken what the Government seek to do. It does not in any way derogate from the Government's very sound principle, which I wholly support, that one must use practical schemes and solutions to be administered in different ways in different parts of Wales.
When we held discussions with Ministers it was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the Bill had been published by the Welsh Office in Welsh but that it was not the official publication of Parliament. That makes my point. Parliament is not compelled to produce the Bill in Welsh. There are good and practical reasons why that has not been done. However, if another organisation or authority thought that it was sensible and practical to do so, that publication would have equal validity.
The Government produced an argument over which I have puzzled. They say that if you make a statement to someone, issue an important order or give a warning in Welsh and the person is an English speaker and does not understand Welsh, he may not understand you. Therefore, it cannot be an equally valid statement. I find that difficult to accept because there must be an obligation on anyone who presents a legal document, argues a case or presents an important warning to make certain that that is done in a language which is understood. Therefore, that problem is capable of solution.
I have not heard the Minister's arguments but I have a great deal of sympathy for what the amendment seeks to achieve. It may be that arguments will persuade me not to support the amendment. Certainly I cannot vote against it. I shall listen carefully to the arguments put forward. I hope that the
146
Government will listen with equal care because we are trying to strengthen and reinforce an admirable Bill. We are trying to help it gain the confidence of the people of Wales without which it will not have the success that it deserves.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Parry: I very much appreciate some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I do not dissent from any of them. I greatly welcome the noble Lord's contribution.
When the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, quoted from the 1967 Act, I fetched a copy of it. It states that:
"further provision should be made for the use of that language, with the like effect as English, in the conduct of other official or public business there; and that Wales should be distinguished from England in the interpretation of future Acts of Parliament."
I quote that because I believe that it is a benchmark in the salvation of the Welsh language. It is a milestone which marks the long road which we are still travelling. It has established the cause of saving the Welsh language even outside Wales.
It is significant that everyone has tried to reach agreement on this Bill so that it may become an Act. I believe that we have moved a considerable way towards that. It is not only the English-speaking Welshman and the Welsh-speaking Welshman who now appreciates the place of the Welsh language in our heritage. It is appreciated by a great many English people who see the need to resolve the difficulties, to perpetuate and strengthen the language and to increase its education in its own right.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, commands great respect in this Chamber and elsewhere, and has made a significant contribution to his own country. Therefore, I was saddened to find that he has something of a problem with this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, may have exaggerated the difficulties.
We have all travelled through the various areas of Wales while in local government or in business. We know that from point to point the emphasis changes. Thank God, these days it changes without too much difficulty and conflict. It is possible for an Englishman to sit in a Welsh council where the language spoken is Welsh so long as the translation services are available. There is now very little difficulty about it. In fact, we find an increasing education in the language. There is an increasing knowledge of its importance within the heritage of the British Isles. That has been achieved because we had the legislation right for the time.
I believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that this is an important statement and an important second mile on which the Government should embark. They should say that "equal validity" means just that. We are saying that we appreciate that the Welsh language is of great importance and that it has equal validity in law with the English language, which for many years was imposed upon the Welsh people.
There has been a great spirit of unanimity in this Committee, with Ministers going out of their way to

147
answer our questions. Therefore, it would be a great pity if we were to be divided by semantics in English about what is desirable in Welsh. The Welsh love semantics in English or in Welsh. It is interesting to note that people have come into the Chamber to listen to this debate. I hope that we can go forward without division. I hope that the Government welcome the amendment. I certainly support it.
Lord Geraint: It has been a pleasure to listen to the Members of the Committee who have spoken, especially the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Williams of Mostyn, and to my noble friend Lord Hooson. They all have legal minds. At times I wish I had one. I wish that I was a scholar, but I am not. I was delighted to hear those Members of the Committee stick by their principles, which is to give equal validity to Welsh and English in Wales, and I shall say a few words in support of what has already been said on this amendment.
I added my name to the amendment because I truly believe that that is where the heart of the matter lies. If we cannot have equal validity for the Welsh language in all things that concern public business and the administration of justice, I do not see that the resulting Welsh Language Act can meet our aspirations; that is, the aspirations of the Welsh people. Without it, the document just expresses pious hopes with provisions dependent on the good will of various bodies whose first interest may not be the Welsh language. As in other matters, commercial considerations will win the day.
As a Welshman I will never give in to the powers-that-be until the day when Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales. What we need in Wales is justice for our language, not sympathy and promises. Here we are in 1993, so let us hope that the Minister in his wisdom will realise that now is the time to give equal validity to Welsh and English in our proud nation of Wales.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wish to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 1 which has been so admirably presented to the Committee. I shall then discuss Amendment No. 5. This Bill when it is eventually enacted will be the nearest we have to a written constitution for the Welsh language in the public domain in Wales. We therefore believe, and many people in Wales believe, that it should enshrine a formal declaration that Welsh is to be an official language in Wales. If Parliament were to see its way clear to do that, the Bill would embody one of the fundamental aspirations of the Welsh people.
It has been said—although it has not been said this evening—that nowhere is there a comparable statement that English is an official language in these islands. However, I should point out with respect that the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, have made the point that the statement that English was an official language was almost set out in the Act of Union. Moreover, English is de facto the official language and de facto Welsh has no status.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn developed the historical arguments in support of the amendment. Others have developed the argument based on the
148
civic pride of the Welsh people. However, in support of this amendment we can also call in aid—the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, touched on this —the positive attitude taken by the European Parliament and the Council of Europe in support of the historic languages of the people of Europe. There is one key area of Community law to be considered. It is a key area because it involves the interpretation of Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome and Regulation 1612/68. In that instance the Court of Justice demonstrated in the Groener case, which involved the Irish language, that the status of a language is important. If a language requirement in relation to a post in Wales fell to be interpreted in the Court of Justice we say that the Welsh language should not be in a less favourable position than the Irish or the Basque languages because it had been denied the status of an official language by Parliament. However, unless this amendment is accepted by the Government, the Welsh language will be in that inferior position.
We see this as an opportunity and a privilege to secure for the Welsh language in Wales the definitive status whereby the Welsh nation can ensure that its ancient and national language is enabled to provide for the needs of modern Wales in the domain of public administration and in law. I am particularly grateful for the support we have received from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I shall now discuss—
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he tell the Committee why his draft Bill does not have a declaration of equal validity which he is now suggesting should be adopted for this Bill?
Lord Prys-Davies: I shall be frank with the Committee. It is because I have learnt a great deal in the school of experience. It is as simple as that.
I now turn to Amendment No. 5. I see that we have been given an argument by the Government for language schemes. I very much accept that. However, we have not been given an argument which demonstrates that the basis of equality principle is better than equal validity. Indeed, the evidence that we have indicates that the principle of equality is narrower than the principle of equal validity.
Where does that evidence come from? It comes from the Welsh Office itself. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred earlier to the memorandum from the Minister of State at the Welsh Office, which we have received, which explains the distinction between equal validity and the basis of equality. I trust that a copy of that important memorandum has been placed in the Library. I am grateful for a sight of that document. I find it to be an amazing but in fact disturbing document. I believe that would be the view of some members of the Welsh Language Board.
I have consulted on this matter and taken advice on it. Sadly I have come to the conclusion that the new principle represents a narrowing of the principle of equal validity. Moreover, on the evidence of the Welsh Office memorandum the new principle is unworkable without a language scheme. I believe that is acknowledged on page 3 of the Welsh Office memorandum. The document states:

149
"This Bill sets out to change the law and it is essential therefore that the duty to prepare schemes should have a legal meaning. The purpose of schemes, as defined in the Bill, must include these qualifying phrases … if it is to pass this test (i.e. 'have a legal meaning') and be such that the courts will, if necessary, be able to make sense of it".
There we have it. Impliedly the principle of equality can only operate where there is a language scheme. If there is no language scheme it cannot operate. If there is no language scheme and if this Bill is passed the principle of equal validity will have been rejected because this Bill repeals the 1967 Act. We shall see when we come to discuss Clause 5 that schemes—
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Far be it for me to speak from the Cross Benches on behalf of the Welsh Office but it does appear to me from my reading of the memorandum that there is another interpretation. The noble Lord argued that if we accept this present Bill the principle of equal validity is not workable. I would argue that the statement of principle in the Bill as it stands in the early clauses is the framework within which the schemes which we come to later in the Bill become articulated. What we have here is an articulation of a general principle and then a practical scheme for implementation which goes beyond the idea of equal validity.
Lord Prys-Davies: We know very little about the meaning of the phrase "a basis of equality"; but we know a great deal about the meaning of the phrase "equal validity". I see no reason why a language scheme could not have been attached to "equal validity". If it was so attached, I think it would be workable.
When we come to Clause 5, in my view it will take some years before language schemes will be operating throughout the Principality. When the Bill is enacted in its present form, there will be huge areas outside a language scheme where the individual will have no linguistic rights. I believe we have said enough to suggest to the department that it must rethink Clause 1 and the basis of equality principle. In my view, the department has had good advice from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and all Members of the House. I hope the noble Lord can give an indication that the Welsh Office is prepared to have a rethink.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for having introduced the amendment. As he always does, he has put his case with great care and clarity. His love of Wales and the Welsh language is as well known as it is transparent in the noble Lord.
This amendment is a very important one and an intellectual argument. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said that what was wanted was justice, not promises and sympathy. The whole Bill is about the encouragement of the Welsh language and the elevation of it. Those two issues which form the subject of the amendment have been at the heart of the debate surrounding the official status of the Welsh language for a very long while. I have listened to the
150
arguments on the amendment with a considerable amount of interest. I said at the beginning of Second Reading—I say again now —that the Government are prepared to listen. What we all want to do is to get the right answer.
The concept of equal validity is one that has underlined much of what the Government have done in relation to the language over the past two decades. It was only after the closest legal scrutiny that the decision was taken that it should not be the principle that should be at the heart of the Bill. The intention of the legislation is that it should confirm the official status of the Welsh language. I hope to be able to set out why in the Government's view it is not appropriate or indeed possible to do so in the way that the amendment suggests. It is worth underlining that the Government are not rejecting the policy objectives to which these amendments refer. Equal validity will continue to have an important—one may almost say treasured—position in the Government's overall policy of support for the language. We will also continue to take measures to strengthen its official status.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that some drum-beating was required for the Welsh language. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that the Bill needed to have a general declaratory observation. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell said that he was verging on being persuaded by the argument. I hesitate to take issue with the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Williams of Mostyn, who are eminent lawyers; but I suggest that Bills are not vehicles for the general declaration of intent or the beating of drums. Bills are for changing the law and implementing the change with clarity. I suggest that what we cannot do is enact in law the principles of equal validity and an official language. I believe that this point is crucial to the whole debate.
Were we to attempt to do that, the concepts of both an official language and equal validity would be so uncertain and therefore undefinable that, rather than simplify the issue, they would result in endless recourse to the courts for clarification. It is precisely that kind of uncertainty that we do not want to stimulate. Indeed, it will not help what the Bill is trying to achieve.
There are many who see equal validity as a narrow legal concept. If that is so, it will not do much to improve the levels of service available to Welsh speakers. It is no good a Welsh-speaking consumer being aware of the validity of a form if the form itself is not available. My other anxiety is that the rather narrow definition of equal validity tells only part of the story. There are wider implications for a declaration of this kind that will give rise not only to unacceptable uncertainty, but to practical implications which will not conform with what the Bill is trying to do. I use an example that I have used before. A request given in Welsh to a non Welsh-speaking public employee would not, and indeed could not, be to the like effect as would the same request given in English. The person simply would not understand it.

151
The policy is not to require people who cannot understand to understand, but to encourage the use of the Welsh language as much as possible.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wonder whether the example the Minister has just given is a little misleading. We are not seeking to place a duty on the employee of a public body. The duty is addressed to the public body. It will be for the public body to ensure that the resources are there so that it can respond to the Welsh speaker.
Earl Ferrers: I see that. However, if one is saying that in law there is equal validity in languages and a Welsh-speaking person approaches a public body and speaks to that body in Welsh, and the person to whom he speaks does not understand it, the original speaker will say, "I am speaking in a language that has equal validity as any other. You ought to understand it and be able to give me a response". It is that kind of thing that is tested in the courts. A person may say, "I spoke in this way and expected to be responded to because the language I used had equal validity". That issue would go to the courts and one would begin to run into trouble. What we have tried to do in the Bill is to put the onus on the Welsh Language Board to produce schemes to make perfectly clear what is going to happen.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are now fairly familiar with the phrase "equal validity". I believe the Government have a very strong argument in support of the language schemes and I do not oppose them; but why do they not attach the language schemes to the principle of equal validity?
Earl Ferrers: What I have been trying to explain all the way along is that the expression "equal validity" has no basis in law. If one attaches that to a Bill, inevitably people will have recourse to the law to decide exactly what it means. That weakens the whole emphasis of what the Bill is intended to do. We want to make as clear as possible what is expected of people and what their requirements are. To insert something into the Bill that has no legal basis will open up the position to perpetual questioning.
Lord Elton: Could my noble friend be more explicit, and perhaps extract from noble Lords opposite the answer to this question? If there is a requirement in general law in health and safety legislation that a local authority should give a warning to a worker that something he is doing or handling is hazardous and the circumstances are such that that warning has to be given by word of mouth, would the local authority official giving that warning to the employee, who spoke only English or Welsh, have discharged his function under the Act of Parliament? I believe that the answer is that nobody can tell us that until the matter is proved in court. Therefore, my noble friend must by right in urging that the amendment introduces an element of uncertainty and weakens the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend for asking me a question, which he wished me to ask the Opposition and then requested me to answer. Perhaps I may answer it as simply as possible. The obligation
152
upon the employee will depend upon the scheme which is presented to the organisation by which he is employed. Upon that will depend the way in which the employee responds.
My noble friend asked a very good question, because if the words "equal validity" were included in the Bill, the employee could go along to court and be represented. He could say, "I have done this and I have done the best that I can; what is equal validity?". One would then become involved in a morass of uncertainty.
Were the Government to contemplate even for a moment proceeding to legislate for such an untested principle as "equal validity", it is worth considering what the practical implications might be. The first and immediate consequence would be, as I suggested, a field-day for the legal profession. I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir that, without an adequate definition of "equal validity", it would fall to the courts to determine what it meant in each individual case. I suggest that that is no basis for a successful policy of support and encouragement for the Welsh language. We cannot leave the far-reaching changes which we want this Bill to secure to be dependent upon the uncertainty of perpetual recourse to the courts.
The concept of Welsh being an official language raises similar concepts of definition and uncertainty. It is the Government's view that, whatever uncertainty there may have been in the past concerning the official status of Welsh, it should be removed by the Bill. I am afraid that that certainty would be reintroduced should the language once again become dependent on a general declaration which could only be defined in individual cases by recourse to the courts.
It is also incumbent upon us to consider, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell pointed out, the implication of a declaration of this nature on the two languages most commonly used in Wales if at the same time there is no provision in British law concerning the official status of English in England. That would introduce an imbalance which would be difficult to defend. One must remember that the Bill repeals the remaining provisions of the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542—the Acts of union. No longer, therefore, is there a blot on the language.
That morass of uncertainty would be only the tip of the iceberg. It must be contrasted with what is contained in the Bill. The principle of equality is, in my view, a far more powerful formulation than equal validity in a number of important respects. It gives us a single principle which confirms the status of the Welsh language in the public sector in Wales. It also provides a framework which will enable the practical obstacles which govern the delivery of Welsh language services to be addressed and, wherever possible, to be overcome. Those practical issues will be addressed by the Welsh language schemes to which the Bill will give rise. Those schemes will reflect what "on a basis of equality" means in practice. Welsh speakers will not, therefore, be required to go to court to discover what equality means in individual cases. Instead what equality means will be set out in the schemes which

153
public bodies will provide and, crucially, all schemes will be drawn up having regard to the Welsh Language Board's guidelines.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the Government's principle of equality. I invite him to consider the vital role of the board's guidelines in illustrating clearly the meaning of equality. The amendment would leave it to the courts to decide.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I hope that before the Report stage he will ask his legal advisers whether the term "on a basis of equality" has ever been legally interpreted. The point was made by his noble friend Lord Elton in an intervention that the term "equal validity" has no legal basis. I believe that the term "on a basis of equality" is potentially a much more fruitful source of litigation than the other.
Earl Ferrers: I see the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, wetting his lips at the prospect of litigation. The noble Lord must not expect to predecease the legislation: I am sure that he has many more years of fruitful litigation work to conduct. I would not dream of answering such a technical question off the cuff. I shall, of course, look into the matter.
I keep returning to my concern that if one inserts the words "equal validity" in statute, one is introducing something which is untested. I consider that "on a basis of equality" is a far more general expression and would be easier to understand. However, of course I shall see that that point is considered.
Baroness White: Could the noble Earl not at least agree that a declaratory statement that Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales should be made? Without some such declaratory statement there will be great difficulty in achieving full acceptance for the Bill. Then one leaves the question of equality and equal validity to the lawyers.
Earl Ferrers: That is what I am worried about. Of course I shall consider the noble Baroness's point, but I come back to what I said at the beginning. I believe that there is a danger in using a Bill as a vehicle for making declaratory statements. We are trying to change the law and, in changing it, make it perfectly clear what the change is. Statements are made on public rostrums; the Bill is not the correct place. However, I shall certainly consider what the noble Baroness said.
I would not wish for a moment to dismiss the aspirations which lie behind the amendments because they are important. I am as anxious as anyone else to find the right route. However, I believe that those issues are addressed more comprehensively and practically in the words which are presently contained in the Bill. They also address the problem in a way which does not give rise to unacceptable legal uncertainty. That is why I should prefer to retain the words in the Bill rather than accept the additional
154
words which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has suggested because I believe that they will produce uncertainty.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may say that he has indicated that he will consider the points that have been made in the debate. There is at present a sharp difference of opinion on the use of the words "equal validity". I do not share the noble Earl's view. I believe that "equal validity" is an acceptable term. It is acceptable in many cases and by many organisations. Nevertheless, in view of the debate the noble Earl has indicated that he is prepared to give the matter further consideration and perhaps return to it at Report stage with some suggestions as to how it could be resolved. That would be helpful at that point.
Earl Ferrers: I was trying to suggest that of course I shall consider the matter. I cannot give any guarantee that as a result of consideration I would come to the view which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggests because, frankly, I do not believe that I shall. But it would be cavalier of me when so much concern has been expressed on the subject to say that I shall not consider it; of course I shall. But I am bound to put the reservation that I cannot guarantee the outcome.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I wish to be quite clear that he is giving an undertaking to the Committee that he will come back at Report stage with a further statement on this subject. Knowing him as I do, I believe that he will give very careful consideration to the arguments from both sides on this issue. In order to know how to proceed, it will be helpful to me if he will give such an undertaking at this time.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord must not push me too hard. He asked me if I would come back with a statement at Report stage. I do not believe that I can do that unless I find that the arguments which I propounded at Committee need to be adjusted or that we could find a way round. I said that I would consider all the arguments that have been put forward. If, after considering the matter, I found that there needed to be an amendment, I should be happy to bring one forward. I have explained that I do not believe that that is likely. But I shall certainly consider what has been said.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say this. If I have understood him correctly, his objection in principle to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, is that a Bill is an inappropriate vehicle in which to have declarations of principle.
If one considers Clause 4(2) of the Bill one finds precisely that: a declaration of principle.
Earl Ferrers: I am not certain how the noble Lord understands that. I do not propose to delay the Committee by reading through the Bill at present. However, that is not the same kind of principle as making the declaration which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, wishes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am simply reading the English language. Clause 4(2) states:
"The purpose referred to in subsection (1) above is that of giving effect … to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice … the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
That is a declaration of principle no different in kind to the declaration of principle which underlies the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that there is a difference. That clause explains how something should be interpreted. It is not giving a general declaration of principle; for example, that Welsh is an official language or anything of that nature. The clause quite clearly explains how the measures are to be interpreted.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may intervene. By having at the outset of the Bill an enactment of the phrase in the noble Lord's amendment, the declaration of principle to which he referred would be all embracing. It would not refer just to the contents of the Bill.
The provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred is not such a declaration of principle. It refers to the duty of the public bodies to prepare schemes. In preparing the schemes, the clause sets out that,
"so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable, to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
That provision refers to the preparation of the schemes. It is not all embracing as is the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mostyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I disagree, but if that is so in a curious sense it is a Magna Charta for Wales and even from my schoolboy recollection I believe that the Magna Charta contains important statements of principle.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I have given careful consideration to what the noble Earl said. I have the sense that he is anxious to resolve the problem if that is possible. He has indicated that he is prepared to consider the different views that have been expressed. He said that a declaratory statement was not desirable in a Bill. However, all the great Bills have declaratory statements. The great statutes of this country all have declaratory statements. I see no reason why there should not be a clear declaratory statement. It is asked for by many of the county councils and local authorities of Wales.
No doubt the noble Earl has read the correspondence that he has received on the contents of the Bill. To a large number of people in Wales, this issue is central. Therefore, the Government should consider again to see whether they can produce a form of words about equal validity which would be acceptable but would not cross the line as defined by the noble Earl.
If it is clear that the noble Earl is prepared to consider again what might be done to assist us, then I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I do not wish to take the sting out of any excitement that the noble Lord might have if he wishes to press the amendment. That is a decision that he must make. I merely wished to explain on a matter of no party issue—it is almost a question of philosophy about how best to approach the matter—that it would be cavalier of me to say that I would not take any note of what the Committee has said. Of course I shall consider the matter. I cannot see at present that I am likely to be able to find a different way round simply because I have put forward my views on the noble Lord's amendment. But I shall certainly take note of what the Committee said.
I do not want the noble Lord to expect me to come forward with a different amendment. If it transpires that that is possible, then of course it will be done. But I do not anticipate that. However, I shall certainly consider what has been said.
Lord Cledywn of Penrhos: The noble Earl stated that he would take note of what was said. That is something that we can all do. However, Ministers are expected to be a little more co-operative than that. Will he not only take note but consider the possibility of producing a form of words which might meet the views expressed by so many noble Lords?
Earl Ferrers: We are getting into an area of semantics. Of course I take note of what has been said and of course I shall consider it. But it would be wrong for me to imply that I can come forward with an amendment. I may not be able to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has expressed anxieties. I am trying to be as helpful as I can by stating that I have given the Government's view on the matter but that I shall consider what has been said to see whether there is any way of getting round the problem. I can say no more than that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: The noble Earl has gone that one inch further. That is extremely helpful. In those circumstances, given that we shall have the opportunity to return to the issue at Report stage, and in the hope that using that imagination for which the noble Earl is famous he will indeed produce something, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
8 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Membership of the Board
.—(1) At least five members of the Board shall be appointed from amongst persons nominated by organisations which the Secretary of State considers have a special interests in safeguarding and promoting the use of the Welsh language.
(2) Before appointing members of the Board the Secretary of State shall consult such local authorities, such other public bodies and such organisations concerned with the preservation, development and promotion of the Welsh language as he considers appropriate.
(3) In appointing members of the Board, the Secretary of State shall bear in mind the desirability of members—

(a) being resident in Wales;

(b) being representatives of the different regions of Wales;

157

(c) being representatives of a wide range of linguistic competence, including Welsh speakers, learners of Welsh and non-Welsh speakers.").

The noble Lord said: I trust that the Committee will forgive me if I speak at some length about the amendment. I wish also to make one correction to Clause 3(3) (b) of the amendment. The reference should be to "representative" rather than "representatives".
This is another amendment which commands wide support from many organisations and bodies in Wales. I am also glad to say that it has received the support of the Law Society. It is our hope that the new body, the statutory board, will develop to be a forward-looking Welsh institution of the greatest significance and commanding the respect and confidence of the people of Wales. I very much hope that it will one day rank among the most important institutions in Wales.
That is why we do not accept for one minute the proposal that the Secretary of State shall be free to make whatever appointments he likes to the body without consultation with any organisation, particularly the organisations which are actively engaged in supporting the Welsh language.
I am wholly unconvinced that the proposals should be acceptable merely because it is a standard clause which one finds governing membership of quangos. If this body is to be a success, then, unlike the existing quangos, it should not become a mere proxy for the department's wishes. It should become a national body enjoying the confidence of the Welsh people.
The amendment is in three parts. The first seeks to ensure that there will be an independent element among the membership. There is no suggestion that it must dominate the board—indeed, it will amount to about one-third of the membership. There is no suggestion that those members are to be delegates of the nominating organisations. But bearing in mind that there will be a close relationship between the Secretary of State and the board, we can be sure that from time to time the board will come under pressure from Ministers or officials. Therefore, it is important that there should be an independent element within its membership. I anticipate that the independent element would be in a better and stronger position to question certain Welsh Office assumptions if it believes they should be questioned. Indeed, it may provide a different perspective from that of the other members.
The second part of the amendment requires the Secretary of State to be under a statutory duty to have wide consultations with the appropriate bodies and organisations before he makes the appointments. They will be the bodies who will know what needs to be done and will know something of the difficulties.
The third part of the amendment sets out the criteria for membership of the board. I am clearly not wedded to the criteria, but I believe they are a basis upon which one could build. The Bill is silent about the board's composition; but in winding up the Second Reading debate, the noble Earl told the House that the Secretary of State
158
"will certainly be concerned to see that membership of the board is representative of a spread of opinion in Wales about the language".—[Official Report, 19/1/93; col. 880.]
That is acceptable, but we wish to have this criterion in the Bill. The noble Earl's statement is acceptable, provided —and I am sure we can assume this—all the members will be in basic sympathy with the objectives of the Act.
Thus I am not necessarily wedded to the criteria. I believe that the wording can be defended; but I also accept that it could be defective. However, it has been suggested to me that I ought not to press for the insertion of the criteria. Again, we should rely upon the standard appointment clause which says nothing about the nature of membership.
I wonder whether there is a standard clause which is applied across the board without exception. In preparing for the Committee stage of the Bill, I have been able to track down at least four statutory bodies set up since 1980 where the legislation has something to say about the composition of the governing body. I believe that one of them is relevant in the context of the Bill. It is the constitution of the Scottish Natural Heritage Board, set up under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. In appointing its members, the Secretary of State for Scotland is under a duty under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to:
"have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the membership … contains at any time, so far as is practicable, persons of knowledge or experience relevant to the principal areas of activity of SNH".
As Parliament considered it wise to place the Scottish Secretary of State under such a duty when making appointments to a body to protect the Scottish natural heritage from loss, we urge that Parliament should also insert into this Bill appropriate criteria which sets up the statutory Welsh Language Board to promote the use of the Welsh language, which is a priceless part of our heritage. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am happy to rise in support of my noble friend, in commending the amendment to the Government. I believe that it is a constructive and positive proposal which will strengthen the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to assist the Secretary of State in his crucial task—as my noble friend said—of selecting the very best available people for membership of the statutory board. We would do so by setting up a simple procedure which would do nothing more than focus the Secretary of State's mind on the breadth of abilities, experience, enthusiasm, skill and judgment which are available to him and permit him the widest possible range of choice.
The present Clause 1, together with Schedule 1, follows the usual conventions in setting up such bodies, imposing certain duties on the Secretary of State, though it is welcome to see that in this case they are kept to a minimum to allow the board the greatest possible autonomy and freedom of operation.
Our Amendment No. 2 is constructed with precisely the same principles in mind. The Committee will notice that only subsection (1) places any constraint whatever on the free and unfettered choice of the Secretary of State. The constraint in subsection (1) is so minimal as to be exiguous. Not only is the

159
number of appointees of this kind limited to five—33 per cent. of the total—but the Secretary of State would retain the power to decide which organisations,
"have a special interest in safeguarding and promoting the use of the Welsh language".
He would be required to nominate the nominators. I do not think that we could go much further in preserving his total power than that. The great advantage would be that organisations like the eisteddfod or Forwm yr Iaith could be rewarded for the dedication that they have displayed to the cause of the Welsh language over many years by being given some responsibility and allowed and encouraged to make a contribution to the establishment of the board—little more than that. There is reason to believe that they would not only value the invitation but that this would allow them to associate themselves actively, positively and publicly with the work of the board. They would be committed to it. That could be helpful to the board and to the Government.
When I was thinking about this I recalled a piece of proverbial peasant wisdom which is expressed in the English language. I do not know whether there is any Welsh version of this, but I am sure some of my colleagues will tell me if there is. I recalled the words:
"It is better to have some people on the inside spitting out, than to have them on the outside spitting in."
Subsection (2) places a duty of consultation on the Secretary of State; but again it does not lay down, except in the most general terms, whom he shall consult. Nor does it oblige him to do anything as a result of such consultation. The Government and the noble Earl may argue, then what is the point? It does it anyway, and that is true. But subsection (2) would ensure that consultation was seen and known to take place. This would be a great reassurance to the people of Wales, even those most critical of the Government's appointments in Wales. There have been many of them, and they have been vocal, and they would find it the more difficult in this case to argue that the board was—I use the phrase carefully—simply a bunch of Tory placemen, half of them fifth cousins to the Secretary of State, who will be wholly unrepresentative of the people of Wales. I hesitate to use such language in your Lordships' Committee, but I can assure you it is polite in comparison to what I have heard expressed about the idea of 15 people being appointed by the Secretary of State for Wales without consultation.
Subsection (3) is similarly permissive and enabling. It is designed to reassure the people of Wales that their national, regional and linguistic susceptibilities have been formally and properly taken into account. You will notice that we make provision for the learners of Welsh. I can assure the Committee from bitter personal, hard and long experience that learners of Welsh have enough problems mastering the manifold mysteries of front mutation, and would greatly welcome the presence of someone on the board who has trodden that painful path himself or herself. Further we would allow opportunity for a monoglot English-speaking majority to be properly represented, and we would hope that this would not be a piece of tokenisation but a real participatory function.
160
Clause 1, as it stands, and as we would wish to amend it, would have a certain simple beauty and clarity, which we welcome. The amendment would in no way cloud that clarity, and it would have the positive advantage of demonstrating to the people of Wales that the board would not be creating jobs for the boys but carefully selecting the best possible people for this important task.
Baroness White: Would my noble friend agree with me that subsection (3) of this amendment would be improved by having "the representative of" in paragraphs (b) and (c) instead of "representatives"? If they were representatives they would have to be elected, appointed or nominated by someone or other, and I do not think that is what is intended. It is purely grammatical.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to my noble friend. I understood that had been corrected. If it has, all is well; if it has not, it certainly should be.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: The Government should look carefully at the proposals in this new clause, and pay careful attention to the arguments produced by my two noble friends. I am sure that the noble Earl would agree that we must get the board right, and make sure that it is acceptable to the Welsh people. Lack of confidence in the board at the start would be damaging. There is at present a good deal of anxiety in Wales about appointments to membership of boards and committees.
I appeal to the noble Earl to make inquiries about this and to obtain an appreciation of the current views in Wales on this subject. It is important to get the balance right. The new clause would ensure consultation before appointment. That is right and sensible, and this would be welcomed in Wales.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I suppose that I have to declare an interest. I am not yet familiar with the rules of this House but I am myself a nominated body in that the Secretary of State for Wales recently had the good grace to nominate me on to the Welsh Arts Council, for which I am eternally grateful. Here is an opportunity for the Government to indicate how they intend to look at the structure of the board. Although I do not necessarily agree with the detail of the wording of the amendment, there is an important principle here that has been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies; namely, the amount of effort that has already been undertaken on a voluntary basis in support of the development of the language.
We are now legislating late in the day to enhance the official status of Welsh. We would not be legislating at all if it were not for the activities of the voluntary sector. In that I am going to include the campaigners who have campaigned, not always within the law, in Cymdeithas yr iaith Gymraeg, the Welsh Language Society, but also the activities of all those involved in the pre-school movement in Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin; in Rhieni Dros Addysg Gymraeg the movement for the development of Welsh medium education at the primary and secondary sector; and similarly the movement representing those who are learning Welsh, Cymdeithas y Dysgwyr, and of course

161
the civil rights language organisation, CEFN. I could go on listing organisations which, through their efforts, have enhanced the status of the language and have demanded a response from the Welsh Office. It is important that as the board gets going as a statutory body it develops the voluntary partnerships that the existing non-statutory board has already established. I am certain that this is the Government's intention.
It is also important as a matter of principle that there should be a number of English speakers as active members of the board. That has two immediate effects. It means that the board will have to practise what it preaches. It will have to have a language scheme for itself. Its formal and public meetings will have to be simultaneously translated. Its papers will have to be produced bilingually so that the board itself will be setting an example to the other public bodies in Wales that it is seeking to influence. That is important.
It is equally important that there should be an international dimension to the work of the board. I am not so happy about subsection (3) (a). I would not argue that somebody from Catalonia should be a member of the board; but I can see that there are benefits from having the expertise of other national regions within the European Community that have developed language policies associated with the work of the board.
In choosing membership of the board it has to be done on a wide regional area. It may not be essential that the board should be located in Cardiff. We have located public bodies successfully outside Cardiff. I think of the Countryside Council for Wales where the Minister of State took the decision to locate that body in Bangor, not far from the ancestral seat of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. I hope that it will be possible for us to look for ways of decentralising public bodies in this way within Wales, and to ensure regional representation in that sense.
I support the spirit of the amendment, but perhaps not the letter of it. I hope that the noble Earl can indicate ways in which, by the selection of people to the board through this wonderful process of nomination to non-departmental public bodies by which Wales is governed, we can ensure some kind of representation until that great day dawns when we have something called democracy, but I am not sure that I should mention that in this Committee.
Lord Hooson: I echo the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas about the opportunity this amendment gives to the Government to show what criteria they will have in mind when making appointments to this board. I am sure that the noble Earl would agree that the success of this Act will depend to a large extent on the calibre of the board and the quality of the chairman. I am slightly horrified at the idea of having 15 members on this board. I do not share entirely the idea that there should be regional representation. I would much prefer to have a board of half that size of people of real quality and calibre, especially some of the younger people in Wales.
In common with other Members of the Committee I was impressed by some of the young people who
162
came to see us to express their views in regard to the Bill from such diverse streams of life as the Consumer Council to teaching organisations and so forth. But it is important that we know what is in the Government's mind on the matter. It is not that the formula in the amendment is necessarily the right formula; but it would be an opportunity for the noble Earl to tell us what the Government have in mind.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that he thought that a board of 15 members was horrifyingly large and that he wanted a smaller one. I could not help thinking of the words expressed by Mr. Nubar Gulbenkian regarding the best number of people to have at a dinner party. He said that the best number was two, of which one should be the head waiter.
I listened with interest because I found myself in sympathy with a great deal of what your Lordships said about the composition of the board. I stated earlier that it is our intention that the board should be representative of a wide range of views in regard to the Welsh language. I certainly hope that there will be no dispute about that.
The language is an inheritance for all of Wales—the Welsh and the English speaking. The board should therefore bring together those people who are best suited for the work which we expect the board to undertake. That means that in practice the Secretary of State will seek to ensure that the board represents, for instance, a spread of ability in the language. I would expect Welsh speakers to make up a large part of the board and there is undoubtedly a role for those who have learnt Welsh. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, felt that non Welsh speakers also had a contribution to make. I too would expect them to be represented on the board.
Members of the board would need to be familiar with the operations of public bodies and the nature of the challenges that they will face in trying to implement the legislation. They will therefore need knowledge of that. We are anxious also that the board should forge a good working relationship with those organisations which embody the distinct Welsh speaking culture of Wales. They should be fully aware of their aspirations. Therefore, I find myself at one with a great deal of what has been said.
It is because it is important to obtain the best individuals to serve on the board that the Government wish to give the Secretary of State the widest possible discretion. I shall be concerned not to limit his choice, particularly by requiring the board to be made up of nominees from other bodies. We believe that there could be a danger that the membership of the board may have to be drawn from a reduced pool. There are no doubt suitable candidates for appointment from all walks of life who may be part of any organisation, or indeed of none.
I am therefore anxious that the amendment before us—probing amendment though it may be—is drawn too tightly and would circumscribe the freedom of the Secretary of State in choosing individuals to become members of the board. I would find it difficult to advise the Committee to accept the amendment as it is tabled, but I should like to consider the many points

163
made to see whether there is some way of reflecting the importance of the criteria upon which we all agree without placing undue restrictions on the Secretary of State's selection of members.
Lord Prys-Davies: First, I am grateful for the support that I received from all Members of the Committee who have spoken to the amendment. As I said, we are not necessarily wedded to the wording. However, I constantly have it in mind that the new statutory board is being designed to assist in the task of developing the use of the Welsh language and it must have popular support within Wales.
I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic approach to the amendment. It may be that we need to think afresh on Part I. I felt that Part I was important because we should have an independent element on the board. However, I listened with great care to the Minister and understood him to say that in principle he agrees that there should be a provision in the Bill reflecting the criteria which we all consider to be appropriate.
On that understanding I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but obviously reserve the right to return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Functions of the Board]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("function") and insert ("duty").
The noble Lord said: The intention of Amendment No. 3 is apparent. The board has been given this worthwhile function under Clause 2. The function is to promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language. However, the Government have not placed a duty on the board to promote the language. The key word in Clause 2(1) is "function". "Function" does not embrace a "duty". That is why it is unsatisfactory from our point of view. On the other hand, "duty" would embrace "function". We believe it is important that the word "duty" should appear in the Bill.
I hope that the Government will find the amendment acceptable. Those of us who met representatives of Welsh organisations last week were pressed hard to bring in amendments to Clause 2 which would ensure that the board has a proactive role in that sphere. My hope is that the Government can accept the amendment. If the amendment is agreed to, it will mean that the board is proactive. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: It is a sheer pleasure for an old professor of English like myself to support my noble friend on the matter of an argument about the meanings, functions and usages of words.
Someone once said of classical Greek that it is a language so subtle in its semantics and syntax that it is possible, in Greek, to create a distinction where there is no difference. I hope that we shall not be accused of such delicacy in proposing the amendment because there is a real and significant distinction to be drawn between a "function" and a "duty". In our view
164
the word "duty" is greatly to he preferred in this context because of its greater strength and greater clarity.
The Oxford English Dictionary gives as its first definition of "function":
"activity proper to person or institution".
The word "proper" is itself important in that definition. It is used in the same sense as we find it in the Book of Common Prayer where we read,
"thou art the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy",
or when we speak of chemical substances having "properties" and we mean those characteristics which make them what they are and not something other. So it is reasonable to think that a function is an activity proper to, or characteristic of, a given thing.
For instance, it is a function of the sun to shine. It requires no desire or volition on the part of the sun; the sun cannot refuse to shine; it cannot fail to shine by any negligence on its own part. Now in that central sense the Welsh Language Board cannot have a function. Of its own nature it can do nothing, or to put it another way, there is nothing that the Welsh Language Board does because it cannot help it—as the sun shines because it has no alternative. So "function", although we could work with it, is not the best word in this context.
"Duty", on the other hand, is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as, among other things,
"moral or legal obligation, what one is bound or ought to do".
That is very much better. That sense is clearly applicable to Clause 2. To promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language is what the board ought to do, is obliged to do, is required by the Secretary of State to do, not what it will inevitably do as a consequence of its own nature. The Oxford English Dictionary gives a convincing example when it quotes from the 1560 Geneva Bible, Ecclesiastes, XII:13:
"Feare God and kepe his commandments: for this is the whole dutie of man".
Try substituting "for this is the whole function of man" and you see at once the vast difference in use between the two words.
Duty is the stronger word, the clearer concept and the more appropriate in this context because the board needs to be seen to be having a moral obligation to the language and to the people of Wales. Like Lord Nelson, Wales expects that the Welsh Language Board this day will not exercise its function, but do its duty.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that he was a professor of English literature and referred to the problems of syntax and semantics. This is very nearly one of them. I knew that we would come into quite an interesting debate about the virtues or otherwise of "duty" or "function".
I must say that I rather side with the draftsman in preferring the use of the word "function" in this context. To begin with, it conveys the impression that it is the board's raison d'être and is therefore more general in scope than a mere duty which would be imposed upon it by the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that the function

165
of the sun is to shine and that it is not a duty. We are talking about the function of the Welsh Language Board. It is there for a particular purpose. That is the whole point of it being there. That is its whole function. It is slightly different from being given a task. The use of the word "duty" seems to imply a task which the board has had almost thrust upon it, whereas in reality this is a task which the present board—and I am sure the future board—has shown itself more than pleased to undertake. All those people on the board are there in order to make the board function properly. I think that the word "function" is probably more successful and more appropriate in this case than "duty".
Lord Prys-Davies: I am just a little bothered that the Minister has been unable to offer us a grain of comfort on this amendment. I am not entirely surprised because this modest amendment identifies a basic weakness generally in the structure of the Bill —the failure to construct rights and duties. On Thursday we shall come to the question of judicial review. It is my view that unless the board is under a duty to promote and facilitate the use of the language it will be extremely difficult for any individual to take judicial review proceedings against it if it is in default.
I appreciate that the Committee wants to make progress. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, after ("business") insert (", the provision of public services").
The noble Lord said: My function and duty in moving this amendment is to add the phrase "the provision of public services" to the reference to the conduct of public business as it stands in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to try to draw out from the Minister exactly how he intends to see the board functioning. It seems to me that there is a danger that the phrase "the conduct of public business" could be seen to be referring to the way in which the board deals with members of the public who are requiring services in the Welsh language or English language rather than to the content in the provision of services themselves.
The phrase "the conduct of public business" might also not clearly imply which public services are supposed to be under the aegis of the board. Because the Bill does not mention the health service or the education service, although in later clauses it mentions individual deliverers of those services, it could be argued that it will enable different aspects of public business to be conducted bilingually or through the medium of Welsh or English rather than ensure that schemes prepared by the board will relate to the content of services. I am referring specifically to the education service. I do not want to go into too much detail because, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is indicating, we shall be coming to that in greater detail on other amendments.
I want clarification that the area of operation of the board extends to the content of public service
166
provision where clearly that has a linguistic content —that includes the whole area of public service and the administration of public service—and that schemes specified in the Bill refer to the content and delivery of services and not just to the administration of detail when individuals go to a public service and request to be treated bilingually. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: I support the amendment. I should like to draw attention to one matter. The subsection deals with the advisory function of the hoard. It is in that context that the amendment is moved.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: I wonder whether the amendment is necessary. Surely the conduct of public business must embrace the provision of public service.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. One difficulty is that "public business" itself is not defined in the Bill. One wonders whether it ought to have been defined. The concept is complex. It seems very uncertain whether it is wide enough to cover some of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has referred. If there is uncertainty about the meaning of the phrase we have a potential problem. One related problem is who is to decide the meaning of the term. It would be safer if we had incorporated a definition of the term or widened it to include the wording of the amendment.
Viscount St. Davids: It is difficult to pick out any one of the functions referred to in Clause 2 and claim that it is any more important than the others. However, it is perhaps fair to say that the board's role of providing advice to other public sector organisations holds out the potential of securing the most widespread changes.
The reference to the board's role in relation to the public sector in subsection (2) (b) has been drafted with this in mind. The principle to which it refers is intended to apply throughout the public sector and to encompass the wide range of services which this includes. I am pleased to be able to reassure the Committee that there is therefore no need for the principle referred to in the subsection to be expanded to make reference to "the provision of public services" since the principle already extends to them.
Even if there were any doubt on this matter I would remind the Committee that it is a mistake to see the list of powers referred to in subsection (2) as exhaustive. They are, as the Bill states, without prejudice to the general function of promoting and facilitating the language, which is of course of even wider scope.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Before the noble Viscount sits down, can he follow that through with a further assurance; for example, that advice on the content of the delivery of education policy is clearly within the scope of the activity of the board?
Viscount St Davids: I believe that this is a matter which needs further consideration. We shall have to come back to it at a later stage.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("should be treated on a basis of equality") and insert ("shall be of equal validity").
The noble Lord said: In view of the constructive exchanges at the end of debate on the first amendment, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert (", including the publication of regularly updated guidelines for the private sector on the use of Welsh in Wales.").
The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, reminded us, this section of the Bill refers to the advice which the board gives to persons, which implies organisations as well as persons in the individual sense. The purpose of this amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lords Hooson and Lord Prys-Davies, is to indicate the advisory role of the board in relation to the private sector, the role of private companies in the grouped Amendment No. 15 and the role of voluntary organisations.
Viscount St Davids: Is the noble Lord also speaking to Amendment No. 15?
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am speaking to them together for the convenience of the Committee.
I wish to indicate quite clearly that those of us who support the principle of this Bill very strongly recognise that it is deliberately limited and constrained to its specific statutory role in the public sector and that its role in relation to the private sector and voluntary sector is an advisory one. It is important to state that principle because the present non-statutory board has undertaken substantial work here in providing guidelines for the private sector which have proved extremely useful for small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales voluntarily to develop the use of the Welsh language in their commercial and business activities.
I stress that principle because neither in this clause nor in any other part of the Bill are we dealing with any aspect of compulsion on the private or voluntary sectors. We are providing an opportunity through drawing attention in this amendment to the role of the board in providing regular advice and guidelines. We are drawing attention to the importance of the board as an advisory agency for the activities of the private sector and the voluntary organisations.
In my experience and from working with voluntary organisations—again I declare an interest as a consultant to the NSPCC in Wales—in developing their work, I believe that they are keen to benefit from the advice of the Welsh Language Board as they seek to implement policies in the social services, health service, housing and consumer fields, where they can by taking advantage of the advice of the board ensure
168
that Welsh-speaking consumers of their services in the voluntary sector can benefit from equality of treatment as set out in the Bill.
In particular I draw attention to Amendment No. 15 because it emphasises the additional cost to the voluntary sector of developing bilingual services. I know that many voluntary bodies have already undertaken a substantial effort in that area to meet voluntarily the needs of a bilingual population. That imposes additional burdens on them. By means of this amendment they are keen to draw attention to the additional cost of bilingualism and for that to be recognised, particularly where there is grant aid for the voluntary sector from the Welsh Office. I am certain that the voluntary sector in Wales generally, both in the social services and in the health sector in particular, looks forward to collaborating closely with the Welsh Language Board on a voluntary basis in ensuring that there are matching services to the services which will be provided within the public sector as a result of the board's schemes.
So the voluntary sector wants to participate in the schemes and wishes to be enabled to do so by recognising the on-cost of bilingual administration. It is for those reasons, and stressing the advisory nature of the clauses, that I move these amendments. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Aberdare: I wish to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 15. It attracted me immediately because, first, it seems to be a very modest amendment; it asks only for encouragement and assistance. Secondly, it attracted me because it refers to voluntary organisations with which I have been concerned in Wales for very many years. It also draws attention to the worries of those voluntary organisations which, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has rightly said, are over the difficulties if they are required to fulfil the obligations under this Bill of the extra expense that they would have to cover. Quite clearly, this is not a very good time for voluntary bodies to try to raise extra money.
I am indebted to the Wales Council for Voluntary Action for helping me and for pointing out that the difficulty arises where the voluntary body is under contract to a statutory body. Most often that is a local authority and usually in the field of health or social services. We have so often heard in this House criticism of the way in which the social services are dealing with the transition from long-stay hospitals and homes into the community, very often leading to homelessness. Certainly in Wales, as well as in England, the local authorities are increasingly looking to the voluntary bodies to fill that need. For example, there are hospitals for the mentally ill, rehabilitation centres for alcoholics and drug addicts and sheltered housing for the old. All those various services are being provided by voluntary bodies under agreements with the local authorities or the local health authorities.
They fear that when this Bill becomes an Act the Welsh Language Board might insist that those voluntary bodies that are providing services to public

169
sector bodies might be asked to meet the requirements that the Bill lays on them. The result would be very heavy extra expenditure. All I ask is that my noble friends on the Front Bench give some assurance to the voluntary bodies, which, as the noble Lord has already said, are all very supportive of the Bill, want to see it come into force and support the improvement and widening of the Welsh language. But they are worried about finding the extra money required. If it is possible to get some help on that point, I shall be very grateful.
Lord Hooson: I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who has great experience of voluntary organisations and charities in Wales. He knows the problems involved. I very much supported the idea first put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on these two amendments. I believe that they are very sensible ones. The main function of the hoard will be to deal with the public duties placed upon it, but as we are to have a Welsh Language Board it can give great encouragement and assistance.
I have always been against any compulsion on the private sector in Wales. I was once involved at short notice in bringing a Welsh language scheme of signs and so on into a public company in Wales and I know that that company would have been very grateful for assistance and guidance on what exactly was appropriate. The Welsh Language Board should be entrusted with such functions.
The Government should consider the amendments carefully to see whether they can incorporate them in the Bill. Let us think, for example, about the position of a company coming from Japan to Wales. The Japanese have been particularly sensitive about coming to countries such as Wales, but they have been very successful there. They are extremely anxious to fulfil what they regard as social as well as legal obligations. It would be extremely helpful if they could have encouragement and assistance from the Welsh Language Board.
We are concerned with the preparation and updating of schemes. Good guidance already exists. I was hoping to have with me—but I have not—a copy of a book on the use of Welsh in business which I was shown last week by a young typist. It was published jointly by S4C and the Development Board for Rural Wales. It was a very composite volume. I was tremendously impressed by it and only wish that it had been in being when I had a problem in this regard a few years ago.
This is an important matter. As I have said, like myself, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has been totally opposed to any imposition of duties on the private sector, but that is a very different thing from saying that the private sector should not be encouraged and assisted. In the present climate, which is so much more helpful in Wales these days, it would be a useful development.
Lord Crickhowell: My points are very similar to those which have just been made by my noble friend Lord Aberdare and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. As the Minister said on Second Reading:
170
"The voluntary guidelines that have been produced by the existing Welsh Language Board for the private sector have played an important part in promoting the use of the language".
I very much welcome that, but I was a little concerned by and seek clarification on one other comment that was made by my noble friend on Second Reading when he said—and I now turn to schemes and away from advice—
"Schemes will also extend to the new forms of service in the public sector, including those which are contracted out, and"—
and this is the important point—
"to private organisations such as the training and enterprise councils which are funded by government".—[Official Report, 19/1/93; cols. 835 and 836.]
I am not making a point about the training and enterprise councils or other bodies which are directly funded in that sense by the Government, but I want to question what is meant by "bodies funded by government". In a sense, that is the same point as that made by my noble friend Lord Aberdare.
It would be very unfortunate if we suddenly found ourselves drawing into the net not only charitable bodies but, for example, bodies that are financed through the Arts Councils. It happens that my wife runs an extremely good—a wonderful—charity "Live Music Now!" in Wales which takes live music of the highest standard to people who would never normally be able to receive it. It also so happens that that charity is punctilious in its use of the Welsh language. Its administrator is a Welsh-speaking Welshwoman who feels very strongly on the subject. However, it would be a harsh imposition on many organisations of that kind if they were suddenly to find themselves enmeshed in the system of schemes simply because they receive a grant from the Arts Council.
I notice that the chairman of the Welsh National Opera is in his place in the Chamber. When it embarks on its national tour, the Welsh National Opera properly prints its programme in Welsh. It has just done this. However, if it was faced with the wider need of carrying out a great deal of its activities in both languages, it would encounter serious financial difficulties. Having just left the board, I can speak at one remove. Furthermore, one wants to avoid the sort of entanglements that have arisen in Canada where, if an Italian opera has to have surtitles, they have to be given in both French and English. The thought of suddenly imposing the requirement to have surtitles in both Welsh and English is horrifying.
I do not believe that that is what my noble friend intended. I believe that he was thinking of much more directly funded government bodies. Therefore, I take the opportunity of this amendment to say that I wholly support the idea that advice and encouragement should be given to private organisations, charities and arts bodies, but I want to make quite sure that we are not being dragged down the road of imposing schemes on bodies that should be left in the voluntary field.
Lord Prys-Davies: I very much support Amendments Nos. 6 and 15. Amendment No. 6 merely authorises the board to establish updated practical guidelines. It is important that that power should be inserted in the Bill in case of a challenge as

171
to whether the board was acting ultra vires in publishing such guidelines. That is an extremely important point.
Turning now to Amendment No. 15 and the voluntary sector, this amendment meets the concerns that were expressed in the letter received from the Welsh Council for Voluntary Action, the Women's Institute and Dyfed Council Council and which have also been voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Voluntary organisations in Wales may not be as strong as in Britain. Their income in Wales does not amount to 3 per cent. of GNP, but the need for voluntary action is just as great—of that I am sure.
I am very impressed with the way in which the local authorities have been giving invaluable service in the disadvantaged areas of Wales. There are huge demands on their resources. In those circumstances, I take the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Elis-Thomas, that local authorities may find it very difficult to put part of their resources into the production and adoption of language schemes. Therefore, one very much favours the recommendation of the Welsh Council for Voluntary Action and the Women's Institute, which is reflected in Amendment No. 15.
I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify one point. As I understand it, under Clause 2(3) the board is empowered to make grants to charitable organisations subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury. If I have got that right, can the Minister tell us exactly how that will operate in practice? Will the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury be forthcoming on a case-by-case basis or can we assume that the board will be free to make specific grants within the limits of an administrative regulation to be issued jointly by the Welsh Office and the Treasury? It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that point.
9 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: In considering these amendments, I think it is important to consider the distinction which the Bill draws between public sector organisations, which will be expected to produce Welsh language schemes, and all other organisations which will be placed under no such requirement. The hoard will be able to encourage and advise outside the public sector, but the Government believe that it is important that this boundary should not be blurred. The effect of this amendment would be to do just that.
In addition, the Bill as currently drafted would already allow the board to provide advice to private sector organisations where it deems that to be appropriate. The Government would not, however, accept the extension of the scheme concept to be the main thrust of such advice, and would certainly not consider it a matter sufficiently central to the success of those policies to be referred to on the face of the Bill.
Subsection (2) (c), reflecting the importance of that advice, escaped our self-denying ordinance concerning the addition of further powers to this clause. The board has shown in its work to date that much can be achieved by the provision of sensible advice and
172
encouragement to private sector organisations. The Government are anxious that the board should be able to continue with that role. The power in subsection (2) (c) has been designed specifically with that in mind.
I do, however, invite the Committee to agree that as currently drafted the subsection leaves the decision as to how the board carries out that duty with the board itself. That may well include the publication of guidelines of the sort which have been successful to date. It may, however, include many other things as well. Rather than draw attention to any particular initiative which the board may wish to pursue, I invite the Committee to agree that since that specific activity is already encompassed within the clause as drafted, and since the board has already shown itself well aware of the possibilities which guidelines can provide, there is no need for a further amendment.
The voluntary sector is also an area where the board has already been active and where the Government expect the board to be an important source of new initiatives in future. That process can only be assisted by the transfer of responsibility to the board of the Government's programme of Welsh language grants.
The voluntary sector is nevertheless another area where we must proceed with caution. Although there are many voluntary organisations which receive significant funds from government there are many which do not. It is intrinsic in their nature that voluntary groups should be able to decide their own policies on the nature of the Welsh language services that they provide. Government departments will, I am sure, give close consideration to requests for funding submitted as a result of such policies. That must, however, be a matter for the voluntary sector to decide.
In answer to the fears expressed by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I can say that the Bill will not place burdens on the voluntary sector. If voluntary organisations are delivering services which are the subject of schemes, it will be for the local authority to ensure that it funds extras to cover that cost. The Bill will place no direct financial burdens on the voluntary sector. I do not believe that the Bill will have any of the unfortunate implications mentioned by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell in relation to the Welsh National Opera.
Lord Crickhowell: My noble friend spoke about voluntary organisations. I am not talking about voluntary organisations; I am talking about companies and artists, and I am asking about grants through the Arts Council. Can I take it that that will not lead to them being dragged into the network of schemes, but that they will remain in the private sector, so to speak, and so can proceed on a voluntary basis of choice?
Viscount St. Davids: The key is whether the Government pay directly for the organisation.
Lord Crickhowell: I am afraid that my noble friend is increasing my anxieties. I begin to wonder whether we have moved beyond the arts into education, because a great deal of Government funding now goes

173
indirectly through other bodies. It is not good enough for my noble friend to leave the matter like that. I want an assurance—and if I cannot have it now I shall seek another opportunity to have it when the point has been further considered—that organisations will not be dragged indirectly into the system merely because they receive grants from Government.
Baroness Seear: I had not intended to intervene in this nationalistic debate in which I have no part to play. I was alarmed—and I share the alarm of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell—because a great many voluntary organisations are 75 per cent., 80 per cent., or 90 per cent. financed by government money coming direct from government departments. It will have to be made clear that the provision does not apply to them. It would cause the most frightful upheaval if it did.
Viscount St. Davids: It would be against the ethos of the Bill if it were to result in some of the apprehensions that the Committee has raised. I shall put the Committee's mind at rest and write to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for the response that he has given. It has been a useful short debate. We have been able to draw out the distinction between advice and the statutory scheme. We are, I hope, drawing the distinction between public sector provision funded by Government and indirect secondary provision. If as one of its members I may dare to speak on behalf of the Welsh Arts Council, I should expect that it would have to have a scheme. I should be surprised if it were not a practical one, which would not mean introducing and applying the policy to all the theatre and education activities in Gwent, for example, to which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred on Second Reading.
We can debate later the practical and reasonable nature of schemes, but on this set of amendments I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his support, which he showed so clearly. He has great experience of the voluntary sector and he explained how anxious it is. The Minister has gone a long way towards responding to those anxieties. The noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Prys-Davies, emphasised the importance of the board continuing its advisory role in relation to private companies and the voluntary sector. In his response, the Minister took up that point. I am glad that he emphasised that the Government see that as a subsidiary or secondary role but still a very important part of the board's work. On the one hand, we have the statutory schemes to which we shall come later; but in the area of advice to the private and voluntary sectors, there is the progressive role of the board. That is not compulsory but it is an area in which the board has power to provide advice to:
"other persons providing services to the public … and the Board may do anything which is incidental or conducive to the performance of its functions".
That meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It covers the ultra tires argument that the board is able to provide those additional services.
174
I should like to make one further point on the amendment in response to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. This is not Canada; it is the United Kingdom. We have a very different basis for our linguistic legislation. I should not like to see us going down the road of Montreal. That is also a response to one of our absent friends, the noble Lord, Lord Walker, whom I have also heard on this issue.
Lord Prys-Davies: Before the noble Lord with-draws the amendment, I wonder whether the Minister has obtained instructions as to how the grants under Clause 2(3) will be applied. Will they be applied on an individual case basis or will a regulation enable the department to grant aid?
Viscount St. Davids: I understand that the board will not need to seek the Secretary of State's approval on a case-by-case basis when making grants. Rather, detailed criteria and arrangements will be established in advance.
Lord Elis-Thomas: On the basis of the Minster's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert:
("() keep under review the working of this Act and, where the Board is so required by the Secretary of State, or otherwise thinks it necessary, draw up and submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending the Act.").
The noble Lord said: A duty to keep under review the working of an Act of Parliament is not an uncommon duty to be placed on a statutory board. Therefore, this amendment does not introduce a novel principle. In fact, this amendment follows the precedent to be found in Section 43(1)(c) of the Race Relations Act.
However, after tabling the amendment I struck upon a more appropriate amendment for our purposes. The wording is to be found in Section 55 (1) (c) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. As I read it, that places on the commission the duty to keep under review the relevant statutory provisions. Therefore, the words in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 go wider than those contained in the Race Relations Act 1976.
The point is important because we do not have comprehensive legislation which embraces all the legislation relevant to the Welsh language or, indeed, to the linguistic rights of an individual. I can think of important pieces of legislation which have a relevance to the Welsh language; for example, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the Factories Act 1961, the Mental Health Act 1983, the Education Act 1948, the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Children Act 1989. That is quite apart from 65 statutory instruments.
Therefore, it is important that the board should be alert to developments in all relevant fields of legislation which directly affect users of the Welsh language. The board can then advise the Secretary of State on the need to update or amend legislation. I should have thought that it would be of enormous

175
help to the Welsh Office if this kind of amendment, amended in the light of Clause 55 of the Sex Discrimination Act, were included in the Bill.
Lord Crickhowell: I should have thought that this amendment is almost wholly unnecessary. Already, Clause 2(2) (a) provides that the board shall advise the Secretary of State on all matters concerning the Welsh language. I am not sure that there is such a provision in the legislation covering the National Rivers Authority, but that has not prevented the authority from frequently suggesting to Ministers that there should be revisions of the legislation. At present there is a whole pack of suggestions before Ministers as they prepare the new environment legislation.
I cannot see that we need to insert a specific clause into the Bill. In a sense it is unnecessarily rather trying to tell the board how it should conduct its affairs. If it is alert and doing its job, it will note if there is any need to change the legislation. I believe that it can be relied upon to get on with its job.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I support my noble friend on this amendment. I take a slightly different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It is common practice now for everyone to have performance indicators, aims, objectives, targets and mission statements. They must on every occasion be assessed. Review is vital to monitor any kind of performance.
I concede that it could be argued that all of this is covered in the arrangements for an annual report which appear in paragraph 13 to Schedule 1 of this Bill. However, that annual report lays down some requirements. The board is required to report,
"on the discharge of its functions during that year".
It is required to do that but it is not required to say anything about whether it believes its functions are correct, adequate, imperfect or insufficient. Nothing in Clause 2, as we have it on the face of the Bill, encourages it to do so.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that in many cases bodies with which we have all been concerned from time to time simply take no notice of the fact that they have not been encouraged to do something and go ahead and do it. It may be that the Welsh Language Board would be perfectly happy and capable of doing that. However, in our view it would be an improvement to spell out a little more what is required. In our view the board should be empowered to offer comment on the adequacy of the vehicle in which it travels. The passenger should be able to criticise the bus. The board should appraise itself and advise the Secretary of State not only on what it has done, as it is required to do, but also on what it has not been able to do and could do to advantage if the Bill were amended in certain ways.
Self-monitoring is an important duty or function of the board and the activity may easily throw up weaknesses and lacunae which need to be treated by amendments to the Bill. I am not in any sense wedded to the particular words of this amendment and improvement could be made by adding a paragraph (d) to subsection (3) of Clause 2 to advise the Secretary of State of what changes should be made to the
176
board's functions that would meet the requirement. Some such power would be an improvement to the Bill and a help to the board.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: In compiling subsection (2) of Clause 2, the Government have been careful to limit the powers included to as few a number as possible. It is important that the board's most prominent powers should be spelt out on the face of the Bill, but it is equally important that the board should have as much flexibility as possible in future in determining how best to set about its task.
The power set out in this amendment does undoubtedly concern an activity with which the statutory board will wish to become involved. I would, however, offer the Committee two reasons why it would be unwise to include this. First of all, it might invite the retort: "What about the workings of other Acts?". The board does, after all, need to be in a position to advise the Secretary of State on the position of the Welsh language under all sorts of legislation, not only this Bill. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the Government will expect the board's advice to cover the workings of all the specific Acts that he mentioned.
Secondly, this activity as well as that of advising on other Acts is already subsumed within the terms of subsection (2) (a), as of course is that of advising on the workings of other Acts. This amendment would not therefore contribute anything to the Bill and indeed could be said to detract from it.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should not have thought that it would detract from the Bill. I should have thought that to place this duty on the board would be an assurance that it is keeping its eye on all the relevant legislation. I accept the point that the duty ought not to be restricted to the operation of this particular Bill. We need to be reviewing all the legislation which directly affects the Welsh language.
I am conscious all the time of the number of occasions when we have failed to come up with an amendment to legislation which clearly affects Welsh speakers. I think, for example, of the permanent power of attorney. We made no attempt whatsoever to secure a Welsh language version of that provision. However, I take on board the Minister's message to the Committee. I shall reflect on it and decide whether or not this is an issue to which we ought to return on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert:
("() advise persons seeking to extend Welsh medium provision in education so as to ensure that such provision is made available within reasonable travelling distance of all pupils and students who desire it.").
The noble Lord said: This is the first attempt to introduce the subject of education specifically into our debate although I have given the Minister advance warning, as it were, that I was going to mention this. This amendment seeks to give the power of advice specifically to persons seeking to extend Welsh

177
medium provision in education and to make that provision available within reasonable travelling distance of all pupils and students who desire it.
The purpose of the amendment is to try to give effect to the view expressed by many organisations, including the Welsh Medium Parents' Association— Rhieni Dros Addysg Gymraeg that a right of access to the extension of Welsh medium education is placed in the Bill. There is a long history to the debate about the role of Welsh education into which I will not enter at this stage of the debate in Committee, save to draw to the attention of the Minister the remarks of the noble Earl at Second Reading.
He emphasised the important role of education in the restoration and recovery of the language. We have already seen that quite clearly from the recent census figures relating to children and young persons in Wales. That has been the effect of continuing campaigns to extend Welsh medium education and the status of Welsh within schools and in further and higher education. The effect has also been to make such provision available particularly in areas of substantial population on the northern coast and South-East Wales where Welsh medium education has not previously been readily available. That extension has taken place by local authorities, sometimes tardily and sometimes positively, responding to the demands of parent groups.
Here I have a difficulty. I have always resisted the idea that in linguistic legislation in the United Kingdom we should place language rights on individuals. I believe it is an important principle that, rather, we should place those rights upon institutions. That is what we have done in the case of the national curriculum whereby, in treating Welsh as a foundation and core subject within that curriculum, we have ensured that it is a national language in South Wales. That process is being extended, although clearly it requires more resources. Similarly, we need to extend the ability of pupils to pursue Welsh medium education in response to parental choice. That is not the same thing as imposing a right upon individual parents to have access to that service. This amendment is a compromise to draw attention to the need to develop further the whole area of Welsh medium education and the tremendous goodwill among parents, pupils and the teacher unions towards that extension. There is also a need for the Welsh Language Board to take a proactive role in the development of Welsh medium education and its extension.
I hope that in that spirit the Government will respond by indicating that it is their policy to see the extension of Welsh medium education and that where practicable and reasonable—I use words that we will come to later in our debates on the Bill—that provision should be made available to all pupils within Wales. Clearly, there can be no compulsion upon individuals in this area, but where pupils and parents desire it, that opportunity should be made available with as good an access as possible and within a reasonable travelling distance at all levels of education.
I hope that the Government will respond positively to the amendment. It is an attempt to bring the whole question of Welsh medium education to the heart of the Bill where I believe it belongs and to do it in a way that does not create rights for individual users of the language but the possibility for the Welsh Language Board positively to advise organisations seeking to extend Welsh medium education. In that way they can be supported directly by the board in its attempts to ensure that local education authorities and schools extend such provision and that Welsh medium education provision is planned with the assistance of the statutory board itself. This is an area where some local education authorities have been progressive and others have not been. I will not name any of them in our debate; it is invidious to do so and will be counter-productive. Here is an opportunity to take it one stage further by the Government making it clear that they see it as a function of the board to facilitate the development of Welsh medium education as one of the key sectors in the campaign to restore and normalise the position of the Welsh language throughout Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We on these Benches are very much in sympathy with the general thrust of the amendment. It is, of course, nothing new. Pressure for Welsh medium education to be freely and easily available to all who wish for it has for many years been a consummation devoutly to be wished for many of us.
I hope that the noble Earl, when he replies, will not simply dismiss the proposal by saying that the amendment has nothing to do with the Bill. In a superficial sense he would be entitled to do so because the creators of the Bill gave it its present form in full awareness of the importance of education through the medium of Welsh and chose deliberately to exclude it except for the provision of schemes. Schemes for the use of the Welsh language have in the past traditionally been concerned mostly with questions such as receiving letters in both languages, creating conditions in which inquiries can be answered in Welsh, telephone answering in either language, and so on. Education goes very much further and deeper. It raises a number of questions which I should like to put to the Government, even though I do not expect them all to be answered in our debate tonight. There are some which I hope that the noble Earl will be happy to take away and consider later.
I should like to ask, for example, whether the Government envisage a scheme in schools creating opportunities for all subjects to be studied at all levels throughout the school through the medium of Welsh. Again, what curriculum proposals would they welcome in a scheme from one of the schools listed in the Bill? Would the Welsh Language Board be empowered to ask for changes in the curriculum in a scheme of an individual school because, for example, of the board's view of the linguistic and cultural ambience of that particular school?
Many of us would find it profoundly helpful if the Government could explain why the Bill does not address the relationship between the promotion of the Welsh language and the provision of education,

179
because nothing on earth would better promote the Welsh language than facilitating education through the medium of Welsh.
Will there, perhaps, be another Bill on Welsh medium education in the foreseeable future; or is that not envisaged? Why must a scheme, as the Bill currently stands, be presented by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales but not by the University of Wales or its constituent colleges or the new University of Glamorgan? Indeed, is there a comprehensive government policy on education at every level through the medium of Welsh at all?
I am sorry to put those questions in that way, but I should be grateful for any answers that can be provided tonight. I should also be happy to receive any correspondence before we reach a later stage, if that is possible.
While we favour the intention of the amendment, although we are a little puzzled by the implications, we notice that it does not specifically confront the question of cost. It is, after all, not only reasonable distance which is a criterion in this case but also reasonable cost. Many local education authorities are extremely worried at present as to how travel costs are to be met in next year's budget, and an open-ended commitment such as this is the last thing that they would welcome because it would present them with an insoluble problem. From our point of view the amendment offers the Government the opportunity to disclose the present state of its thinking on this central and vital question of Welsh medium education. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to enlighten and reassure us.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, identified some of the practical problems. Clearly there are practical problems. The amendment is curious. It takes us into a wholly different area and produces an extraordinary contradiction. On the one hand it seeks to have the board advising persons on how they may set about dealing with a matter which is clearly the responsibility of education authorities under the education Acts. If ever there was a case for using the influence of the board through schemes which can identify practical realities and which can be worked out after detailed consultation with the education authorities responsible for delivery this is it. That is the strength of the Government's Bill: it translates rather vague requirements to advise people on how to extend Welsh medium education in an enormous variety of circumstances into practical schemes.
I very much welcomed the confirmation by my noble friend Lord Ferrers at Second Reading that the requirement for Welsh medium education policies will be included in the schemes. He suggested that it would help to secure the improvement that we all desire and would ensure that parents are fully consulted. My noble friend pointed out that the board will play an important role in ensuring that the views that parents have expressed are reflected in the services which result. It seems to me that such interplay between the board and the education authorities, or the funding
180
bodies, which have difficult responsibilities, is exactly the relationship that we should have. I hope that the Government will stick to their present proposals and will not be led down a path which may bring them into a quagmire.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend for that guiding advice. I certainly will not do as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, suggested and say that the amendment has nothing to do with the Bill. Of course it has something to do with the Bill. However, as my noble friend said, it takes us down a rather different avenue which we might do better to avoid.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the satisfaction that he seeks in the amendment. I am aware of the anxiety surrounding the provision of Welsh medium education in Wales and indeed of the interest that has been expressed in the way that the matter is dealt with in the Bill. But the Committee will be aware that in preparing the Bill the Government have been at considerable pains to avoid references to particular services. That is for one good reason: it is our intention that the Bill should apply to them all. I am only too happy to reassure the Committee that Welsh medium education is among those services. The organisations which are charged with the delivery of Welsh medium education will be among those which the board will advise. Welsh medium education will be included within the schemes. It will also be a subject on which the board will be expected to prepare guidelines. The effect of the guidelines will be to assist the providers of education in carrying out their duties under the Education Act 1944.
The board will therefore have a crucial role in relation to Welsh medium education. The Government have introduced a wide range of measures to strengthen the position of Welsh medium education. I can confirm that we intend the Bill to continue that trend. Welsh medium education will be included in schemes; and schemes will have to take into account the wishes of parents.
I hope that that explanation will allay the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
Lord Ells-Thomas: I do not wish to appear to be too easily satisfied because clearly it is an issue on which we have all had much correspondence and substantial lobbying. It is an area of deep anxiety to all of us as parents. In the past some of us have had to resort to the private sector when we were outside Wales in order to ensure that our children had Welsh medium education.
As to the Minister's response, I am fascinated that we are legislating on a Bill, which, by avoiding references to all services, applies to them all. If that is the case, then I have to be satisfied, but that needs clearly to be seen by those organisations that have contacted us on the issue.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the purpose of the board will be to advise those delivering education services as to how best that can be done; that certainly the development of Welsh medium education is within the schemes; that the Government

181
see the crucial role of Welsh medium education; and that the wishes of parents can be taken into consideration.
However, I have to say to the Minister that parents and organisations representing Welsh medium education have told us continually that in the past they have been frustrated by the difficulty of having community provision or provision of Welsh medium education within reasonable travelling distance. Again, I shall not name individual local authorities, but we know what we are talking about. Some authorities have not always responded to the wishes of parents. We appreciate that there are difficulties with resources, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, made the point. However, if the Government are to give effect to the principle that the wishes of parents should be taken fully into account in developing Welsh medium education, then the Welsh Language Board has to be able to assist in the planning of the provision, assisting local education authorities and individual schools in extending it, and ensuring that resources are used in the most effective way to develop that provision.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us a little more about the way the Government see the board functioning, how they see the board taking a proactive role in the delivery of education services, and how they see the wishes of parents being responded to. It is an area of concern and, although I am prepared to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the assurance given by the Minister, I have to give notice that we may wish to return to the subject in view of the response that may come from other organisations to the amendments that have been moved and to what the Minister said.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment—if that is what he wishes to do—perhaps I may refer to one omission. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asked me a number of specific questions about education to which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, also referred. The questions were quite detailed and I wish to absorb them, reflect on them and write to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, about them. Perhaps I may do the same for the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, as I realise that it is an important point. I shall read what he said and give him a fuller answer.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, should not worry too much about appearing to be easily satisfied. If he is, it is a good trait, for which I commend him. I anticipate progress in that respect; it is nothing to be ashamed of.
Lord Davies: I speak as a member of an earlier edition of the Welsh Language Board back in the early 1970s. As a result of what I learned on that board, my four children went to a Welsh medium primary school and one of them is still there. By the time they were 10, they were all fluent in Welsh—the first of my family to have been so for three or four generations.
One point came out of the discussions we have just had. If the Welsh education authorities are abolished, as appears likely from my reading of other Bills due to come before us, the planning that needs to go into
182
Welsh medium education is absolutely vital for the regeneration of Welsh in Wales. However, that planning will no longer take place or is liable no longer to take place. That will mean that an important function will need to be carried out by the board on which it will have to concentrate. Choices have to be made in the distribution of resources and that cannot be done by individual schools. Certainly, in my part of Montgomeryshire one primary school covers a large area and one secondary school covers a large area. Other secondary schools have provision for the children to be taught in Welsh, but not across all subjects. That is an important matter which I hope will be borne in mind by the Government.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us his testimony and reminding us of the role of the Welsh Language Council, as it then was, and the activity of that council, and also for the point that he made about the planning of Welsh medium education. I hope that the noble Earl will, in responding by letter to those of us who raised these concerns, also refer to that issue.
We are likely to have in the legislation being discussed in another place a new statutory non-departmental public body with responsibility for the funding of Welsh schools, the Funding Council for Wales. Presumably that body will have to prepare its scheme. There is room here for planning across the board, whatever emerges out of the present education system involving local authorities. It has been put to us by many organisations representing Welsh medium education and educationalists generally that they see that the role performed by the the Welsh Language Development Committee of the Welsh Joint Education Committee—Pwyllgor Datblygu Addysg Gymraeg—has now been reconstituted. Part of it has been absorbed by the Further Education Funding Council, other parts of it being absorbed by the schools assessment and curriculum body.
There is concern that extending the work of this body into the work of the new statutory agencies will dilute its activity or strategic planning. I think that is what the noble Lord had in mind, and I am grateful to him for reminding us of the need for that. I hope that in the Government's response there can be further satisfaction. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 9.
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

Welsh Language Bill [H.L.]

  Use of Welsh in communications with government departments or public bodies
  . Any member of the public in Wales shall have the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any government department or other public body which operates in Wales, or in any part of Wales, in Welsh or English unless such communication or provision of services is not reasonably practicable.").
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and my own, is to fortify and strengthen the principle that is found in Clause 2(2) (b)

  183
  and Clause 4(2) of this Bill in its present form. I hope that the noble Earl can find himself able to regard this as a helpful amendment. It is fairly limited in scope. It is limited on the basis of communication and the receipt of services from a government department or other public body, and it has the further overall limitation of reasonable practicability.
  I ought to stress that this imposes nothing on any member of the public. The present amendment is infelicitous because it omits the word "either" before the word "Welsh", but I think its meaning is relatively plain. It imposes nothing. It simply underlines that any member of the public within these limited parameters, subject to the overall limitation of reasonable practicability, has the option of choice. I hope that the noble Earl will find this helpful and be able to accept it. I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Hooson: Together with this clause are grouped Amendments Nos. 40 and 41, which are the provision of new clauses. I lifted Amendment No. 40 bodily from the Bill drafted by the Welsh Language Board, with modifications only to its subsection (3) and leaving out subsections (4) and (5). Although the scheme of the Welsh Language Board's Bill was different from the scheme of the present Bill, this was the one clause it had which put certain requirements on government departments as opposed to giving individual rights.
  Whether one subscribes to the doctrine of equal validity or to the principle of equality (whatever interpretation is put on those two terms) this clause, which is the original Clause 2 of the Welsh Language Bill, requires government departments and public bodies when providing written material to, or otherwise communicating with, any person resident in Wales in the course of discharging executive responsibilities to do so in the language, whether Welsh or English, required by that person unless his or her requirements were unreasonable or compliance with them would be impracticable. Under my amendment it is for the government department or public body to justify any refusal to comply with any such requirement.
  Whatever doctrine is used, whether it is the doctrine of equal validity or the principle of equality, surely that is the minimum right and the minimum duty which should be on any government department. It is acknowledged that Welsh is to be an official language together with English. Therefore the provision, which is another way of providing the same kind of service, is necessary, as indicated in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Williams.
  Amendment No. 41 was lifted bodily from Clause 3 of the original Bill as drafted by the Welsh Language Board. It simply allows the use of Welsh or English in Wales for the purpose of complying with statutory requirements to provide information in writing or to submit documents to government departments or public bodies.
  It seems to me that the aim of those three new clauses is to provide the service that one can reasonably expect of an official language. Each of the
  184
  amendments carries the proviso that it should neither be impracticable nor should it be unreasonable. That is why I tabled the two new clauses. I have never read anywhere or understood why the Government did not accept those specific provisions in the Welsh Language Bill as drafted by the Welsh Language Board. I believe that the Welsh Language Board was an effective and efficient body. It worked hard and possibly had much more direct information available than anybody who has taken part in the debates.
  It seems to me also that the Government simply turned down or rejected the two general provisions within that Bill and I have not seen any adequate explanation for their doing so. That is the reason I tabled the amendments. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, seeks generally to achieve the same result and I am interested to know the Government's reaction to the proposals.
  Lord Elis-Thomas: I am pleased to support my noble friends Lord Hooson and Lord Williams of Mostyn on these amendments because they revert to an area which I tried to cover earlier when I was talking of the provision of public services. In that case I was trying to specify that the content of services was clearly laid out so that the board's function in relation to the public sector would be clearly illustrated. That is why I am pleased to support the amendments. They set out how public bodies may respond through their duty to carry out the objectives as set out in the Bill.
  The Government will perhaps respond by saying, "That is covered by the schemes". Again I do not want to sound as though I am trying to usurp the role of the Minister by speaking from here, butt suspect that that is what the Government will say. The whole point of the amendment is that it sets out the requirement on government departments and public bodies as it will be implemented in practice.
  What concerns many of us is that we should be able to make clear to the public in Wales what provision will be made available as a result of the Bill. The amendment sets out precisely what the obligations will be. Therefore I do not believe it is contradictory that we set out in the amendments the use of Welsh dealing with government departments or public bodies. It is not contradictory to the provision of public schemes or to the principle as set out in the first clause of the Bill. It complements rather than detracts from those principles and shows quite clearly what the content of schemes in the administration of those government departments and public bodies and their services would appear to be. I fail to see why the Government cannot respond more positively, setting out what are the implications of the Bill in terms of the scheme as it will be provided. This will strengthen rather than weaken the work of the board. The Government are relying a good deal on the staff and members of the board to carry out the principles and practice through the schemes as set out in the Bill. The amendments will strengthen the activities of the board and make its work even more acceptable. I am therefore pleased to support them.
  Lord Crickhowell: As I read the new clause thoroughly for the first time during the discussion I

  185
  became more and more concerned about it. There is a problem which is addressed quite sensibly in the schemes. An individual may say, "I want a certain publication to be in Welsh". The organisation has to establish that such a demand would be unreasonable or compliance with it would be impracticable. Subsection (2) goes on to say that,
  "a requirement made in any case by any person shall be presumed to be reasonable and compliance with it shall be presumed to be practicable unless the contrary in either case is proved".
  What one will get is a whole series of arguments.
  I am the chairman of an organisation that has a strong Welsh language policy. Our Welsh region publishes in Welsh most of the things that we do. But we have a large number of highly technical publications for which we get a very limited demand in Welsh. We print a good many of them even though there is a limited demand. There are publications that we produce which I confess we do not automatically translate into Welsh. We would find ourselves in each case perhaps having to explain, to prove and to establish that it was not a productive use of resources to publish an enormous scientific document on some obscure subject for which one might get only one request. On the other hand, if one has a scheme the organisation can sit down with the Welsh Language Board and discuss practicalities. The scheme is published and the organisation can turn to the scheme and say, "We have discussed this. The Welsh Language Board agrees that this would be unreasonable and impracticable". There is therefore a quick and speedy answer.
  I can see a great jungle of horror for any organisation if every time someone picks up the telephone and says that he wants this or wants that the organisation has to prove that that is an unreasonable request. The truth is that we know that there are individuals who may choose to do just that. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will have met some of them. I have met some of them. They are those who would seek to bring the whole thing almost to breakdown. It is a much better system to have a Welsh Language Board able to sit down and work out these things for the general good of the language and thereby not get ourselves into disputes of that kind.
  Lord Hooson: Perhaps I may respond immediately to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The noble Lord mistakes the purpose of the amendments. The amendments are a general provision. They in no way displace the requirement of the Welsh Language Board to prepare schemes. Schemes will be prepared. The schemes will undoubtedly be evidence from which any organisation such as his own could say, "The Welsh Language Board did not consider that it was unreasonable not to do this". That would be the strongest possible evidence against any individual who was trying to argue to the contrary. The provision sets out the general principle showing what a citizen is normally entitled to unless it is impracticable or unreasonable.
  Lord Prys-Davies: Amendment No. 9 is particularly important. I shall come to Amendment No. 40 later
  186
  on. It is particularly important as the principle of equality will probably not work outside a language scheme. If there is a relevant language scheme the individual will look to it for his rights and the duties of the public body. It may well be that there are no language schemes because it will take time for them to be prepared. In that event there is no guidance in the Bill as to how the principle is to apply. It is rather surprising that there should be this gap in the Bill. Possibly, that is the biggest single omission from the 1967 Act; namely, that there was no criterion for the application of the principle of equal validity. Amendment No. 9 provides a definition of rights and that is invaluable.
  I am not quite certain how it came about that my name is connected with Amendment No. 40. I am sure that the fault is mine. I have been able to support part of that amendment as it takes us back to the two qualifying conditions which were suggested by the Welsh Language Board and which were heavily criticised by many people in Wales, including myself.
  Applying the two-fold test which we find in Amendment No. 40 we approach the claim from two sides. First, it has to be reasonable and, secondly, it has to be practicable for the public body to comply with it. The test of reasonableness in that context leads to many difficulties. Who will have the authority to decide what is reasonable? Again, would that be on a case-by-case basis?
  There was considerable strength of feeling about that test. Many people found it offensive that they should have to establish that their claim was reasonable. For my part I would be very reluctant indeed to discard a right merely because it was considered that the claimant was unreasonable in making the request in the first place. It would be conceding that the claimant never had a right because the Act had established that he cannot have a right to make an unreasonable request.
  In practice it may well be that the position turns on the test of practicability, which is a different issue. I am glad that the Government have rejected the two-fold test. No one has written to me favouring the reintroduction of that test. Many people would be deeply concerned if the Government were tempted to reintroduce it.
  10 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: I believe that we are all trying to get to the same end; it is merely a question of which route is the better one. I go along with the caution of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell over this matter. The Government have for many years sought to facilitate the desires of people in Wales to be able to choose which language they want to use in any particular situation.
  The Welsh Language Act 1967, for which some Members of the Committee now present were responsible, took a very important step which was guaranteeing the choice of using Welsh in the courts whether or not the individual concerned also spoke English. Since then the promotion of choice has guided developments in the use of Welsh across the

  187
  public sector. The Bill seeks to make that choice the norm across the whole range of communications and services to which it applies.
  The principle that Welsh and English should he treated on a basis of equality quite obviously brings with it the choice as to which language people will use when they have dealings with the public sector. Obviously that must be the case, whether we are talking about communications generally, which are referred to in Amendment No. 9 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, or Amendment No. 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. It may be the submission of written material to a body which is referred to in Amendment No. 41. Communications of every nature are therefore subsumed within the principle of equality as established by this Bill. The important point is that the issue is dealt with in this Bill but in a manner very different from that proposed by the Welsh Language Board.
  The cumulative effect of Amendments Nos. 9, 40 and 41 would achieve some of the same ends as the Bill before us but by rather different means. In particular, they seek to grant rights to individuals. I am bound to ask myself what the practical result of establishing rights for individuals in this context would be. It is, of necessity, the case that the right must be limited by considerations of what is reasonably practicable. In every case therefore where an individual tried to exercise his right, a public body could explain that it was not reasonably practicable for it to respond. Only by going to court could the individual establish whether he in fact had a right or not. The Government do not believe that that is the best way of ensuring an adequate level of service. It is not a burden that we would therefore propose to impose.
  The Bill, by contrast, requires that the ways in which a public body will provide for individuals to be able to exercise their choice of language should be agreed in advance between the public body and the Welsh Language Board. Reasonable practicability will still be a consideration, but we shall not be requiring the individual to prove what that criterion means in each instance. We shall place the powerful Welsh Language Board in the position of the advocate on behalf of individual Welsh speakers.
  I do not think that there is any argument with the concept of choice which is embodied in these amendments and about which your Lordships have rightly expressed anxiety. However, I do believe that the Bill as drafted provides a better way of ensuring that the individual knows what that choice is and how it can best be exercised.
  One of the most important distinctions between the board's Bill and that of the Government is the role which is played by the guidelines—not the schemes, but the guidelines. We are not rejecting these basic policy objectives. These matters will be covered in the guidelines which the board will be required to prepare. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell was quite right in his anxiety about the practicalities. The board will be able to consider detailed issues such as he mentioned in relation to every single body which prepares a scheme, and the guidelines will make the board's intentions perfectly clear.
  188
  I hope that the Committee will consider that the system that we have provided in the Bill is the best route by which we can attain the desires which your Lordships have expressed in other amendments.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I must say, with some regret, that I find the rejoinder of the noble Earl deeply unconvincing. I am speaking to Amendment No. 9. I take the criticisms which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made of the much lengthier amendment, Amendment No. 40; but I was glad even at this late stage in the evening to notice that he did not seek to impugn Amendment No. 9 which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
  The noble Earl constantly speaks of "facilitating desires" or his desire that choice should be "the norm" or that it should be "a route" along which we must all proceed. But what needs to be attended to is what route, to what terminus and for what purpose. All that Amendment No. 9 suggests is that the purpose is to enunciate rights. A right is a perfectly simple thing. It is something which is yours in law which is capable of being enforced. To "facilitate desires" or to make choice "the norm" does not attend to what people want, which is a clear categorical expression of the rights of the Welsh speaker or the English speaker in Wales.
  Amendment No. 9 is modest and moderate. To use the benchmark that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, rightly used, it is capable of practical operation. I have heard nothing from the Minister to indicate that the right claimed to be specified in Amendment No. 9 is something that the Government think should not be the right of a Welsh or English speaker in Wales.
  Lord Crickhowell: Before the noble Lord sits down, as he has tried to call me in support of his amendment on the grounds that I did not mention it, perhaps I might be allowed to say that my objections to Amendment No. 40 apply in almost exactly the same way to Amendment No. 9.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not see that they can apply in the same form, because Amendment No. 40 is different and raises different hurdles to be overcome by various public bodies. However, my proposition remains that Amendment No. 9, as we have put it down, with the possible typing error of the omission of the word "either" before the words "Welsh or English" is a moderate expression of what I have understood the Government to be agreeing to; namely, those are rights which should be capable of enforcement. The mechanism of enforcement, 99 times out of 100, will be through the Welsh Language Board's schemes, but it is important, not as a matter of cosmetics, but of clearly expressed and understood principle, that they are legal rights that residents in Wales shall have.
  I ask the Minister at least to reflect further. We are all putting a great deal of reflective homework on his desk. I ask him to reflect further, because we shall wish to return to this issue at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may say something before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment. As I see it, he is trying to put into the Bill a clause which says, first:
  "Any member of the public in Wales shall have the right to communicate with"
  someone else in Welsh. I do not see that such a right needs to be enshrined in the Bill. One can write and communicate in whatever language one likes. So there is no point in putting that right into the Bill. The important point comes in the second part of Amendment No. 9 which states that a person has the right:
  "to receive available services from, any government department or other public body which operates in Wales".
  There we have a complete contradistinction to what we are trying to suggest in the Bill: that the Welsh Language Board should set the guidelines, and then the individual organisations should operate their own systems. The noble Lord is seeking to cross over that
  190
  arrangement by including in the Bill a provision which is bound to override the principle upon which the Welsh Language Board should operate.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. They merely illustrate the fallacy behind his thinking. He says that the Welsh Language Board can set guidelines. I can understand that. As I said, 99 times out of a 100 those matters will be resolved through the operation of the schemes which the board will set up. If one wants to set guidelines, one needs to ask oneself, "Guidelines for what?" Our answer is, "Guidelines for the obtaining and enforcing of what should be a simple human right for someone who lives in Wales". That is the point, with great respect—I do not mean this tendentiously —which the Minister has presently missed. Reflection may assist. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 10:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

  Annual report of the Board
  .—(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year the Board shall make to the Secretary of State a report on its activities during the year.
  (2) Each annual report shall include a general survey of developments during the period to which it relates, in respect of matters falling within the scope of the Board's duties and the progress made towards achieving the objects of the Act.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of each annual report before each House of Parliament, and shall cause the report to be published.").
  The noble Lord said: The last paragraph of Schedule 1 requires the board to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State. This amendment transfers that requirement from the small print of Schedule 1 into the body of the Bill. It does so in order to emphasise its importance. I appreciate that in law the provisions of schedules are in no way inferior to those contained in the main body of the Bill but as this is a short Bill, I see no good reason why the duty to produce an annual report should be shunted into a schedule. It should be contained in a clause of the Bill.
  The second but more important point is that what is immediately apparent and important as regards the amendment is that it would require the annual report to include not only a survey of the developments during the preceding calendar year but also a report on the progress made towards achieving the objectives of the Act.
  If the report deals only with the events of the preceding year, the record may appear to be very successful: so many language schemes may have been implemented; so many may be in the course of preparation; so many public bodies may have introduced monitoring arrangements and so on. And yet, notwithstanding that encouraging news, the statutory board may be ignoring a long term problem if the objectives of the Act are to be achieved.
  I believe that if the board is to gain the trust and confidence of Welsh speakers, it is vital that the annual report should be addressing the longer term dimensions. The amendment places a duty on the board to be alert to the long term objectives, what has been achieved and what remains to be achieved. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My point is simple and brief. The most positive aspect of this Bill in the view of many of us is the establishment of the statutory board. We may disagree over many of the details relating to it but surely we all want it to succeed. We like it and we wish it well. Therefore, it must give some public account of its stewardship annually and it must publish that account so that it can be read, marked, learnt and inwardly digested and —dare I say it?—summarised and analysed in the Western Mail.
  In our view it is not sufficient to tuck that requirement away in the fewest possible number of words at the tail end of Schedule 1. It requires a higher place at the table if it is to be given its due importance
  192
  and priority. We should say to it, "Friend, go up higher". That should be laid down and spelt out on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Thomas of Gwydir: It seems to me that this amendment simply adds a few words to what is already in the Bill. It is quite clear that everything which is required is contained in paragraphs 13(1) and (2) of the schedule. This merely adds words. It suggests how a board, which one hopes will be responsible, should give a report on the discharge of its functions. If such a report does not include a general survey of developments during the period to which it relates, matters falling within the scope of its duties and progress made towards achieving the objectives of the Act, then it is not a responsible board.
  The only addition which the amendment makes is that a copy of the annual report shall be laid before each House of Parliament and:
  "shall cause the report to be published".
  The Committee will know that once a copy of the board's annual report is laid before Parliament, it is published.
  10.15 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Thomas. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said, when I first noted that the noble Lord considered that the provisions for the board's annual report should be moved from Schedule 1 to the body of the Bill, I thought that was odd. It seems to me that the schedule is very much the place for this sort of detailed provision. I was glad my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir thought the same.
  I note, however, that some changes have been made to the wording of paragraph 13 of the schedule. I note that the noble Lord suggests that the board should make a "general survey of developments". In essence, I suppose he means a sort of "state of the language" report. I do not think the Government would want to argue against the desirability of the board undertaking this sort of work. Keeping the state of the language under review would seem to be in keeping with the board's general function of "promoting and facilitating" the use of the language. I do not think, however, that we should tie the board down to doing this via its annual report. The board may wish to report on the state of the language in another way or at different intervals. It should be free to do so. The board should also be free to decide that a study of the language itself should be published separately from the day-to-day details of the board's operations and finances.
  As the Bill stands, the board can undertake this type of study as and when it considers appropriate, and it can of course bring any study to the attention of the Secretary of State and of other interested parties whenever it wishes to do so.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that we need an account of the board's stewardship and that that account should be published and made public. The amendment seeks to have the report published. There will be an annual report and we are agreed that the report should be laid before

  193
  Parliament. However, I am bound to tell the Committee that in my view this amounts to publication by another name. There is nothing to stop the board arranging a much wider distribution should it decide to do so or should it receive requests to do so. I would, however, expect there to be far more interest in the other kinds of publications the board is likely to issue rather than the annual report. It makes far more sense therefore for the board to determine its own priorities in this respect. I hope the noble Lord will agree that the Bill is best left as it is at present.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am somewhat disappointed by the response of the noble Earl. To the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, I would only say that the additional words incorporated in the proposed new subsection (2), namely,
  "progress made towards achieving the objects of the Act",
  are important. That is a new provision. The provision in the schedule does not require the board in its annual report to have regard to the,
  "progress made towards achieving the objects of the Act".
  It is, after all, the principal role of the board to ensure that it is achieving the objectives of the Bill.
  Before the Minister slams shut the door, I wish to mention that this amendment broadly follows the lines of an amendment that was suggested to me by a wise, distinguished and experienced Welshman who has occupied some of the most senior posts in Wales. I would be grateful if the Minister could consult again with his colleagues in the Welsh Office on the merits of this amendment. If it is not to be brought onto the face of the Bill, will the Minister inquire whether the final words of the proposed new subsection (2) could be incorporated in the schedule? That would be a step forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 [Supplementary provisions about the Board]:
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("Board") to ("shall") in line 17.
  The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I move Amendment No. 11. I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 12. Without, I hope, laying ourselves open to any accusation of undue suspicion and scepticism may we, in putting forward this amendment, seek some reassurance from the Government about the words which this amendment offers to delete? In particular I wish to ask the Minister three questions. First, why is the first part of Clause 3 necessary at all?
  In this Bill, as in a few others, all power already subsists in the Secretary of State. The board has functions—perhaps we can still call them duties—and activities but it has no particular powers of its own. It cannot compel anyone to do anything; nor, as far as I can see (I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten me to the contrary), can it refuse to do what it is told to do by the Secretary of State. If any of the members of the board do so, they could find themselves unable or unfit to discharge their functions
  194
  under paragraph 2(3) (c) of Schedule 1. Is not the expression "shall comply" in Clause 3 taking a steam-hammer to crack a peanut?
  Secondly, perhaps the noble Earl can give us some idea of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may need to use those very potent powers. Will not the board have singularly failed in its duty or function if he is ever compelled to issue general directions to it? Is there not a vast range of action lying between the two words "general" and "special"? I suppose that a general direction may be to double the charges that the board is making for the provision of services. On the other hand, a special direction may be to sack Dai and fire Fred by Friday. Such a wide range of unspecified powers will surely make the board and public bodies at least uneasy. Thirdly, is it not more usual and helpful to permit such powers only after a process of consultation? For example, I have in mind Section 4(4) of the Iron and Steel Act 1949, as revived in the 1967 Act, where it is provided that the Minister shall after consultation with the Corporation issue directions. In a few other Acts to which my attention is drawn I find that the process of consultation before the Minister issues directions is not uncommon. Will that not be welcome in this Bill in helping to conciliate everyone? I beg to move.
  Earl Ferrers: The Government obviously want the board to be independent. It is also important that the board is accountable. The Bill gives the board a very wide remit. We believe it is right to ensure that there is proper democratic regulation of how the board carries out its functions. If that is not the case many people in Wales may legitimately ask from whence the board has derived its authority.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has said that we have used a steam-hammer to crack a peanut. That is a glorious phrase but I believe it is a slight exaggeration. The provision we have made concerning directions from the Secretary of State is not unique in legislation that sets up non-departmental public bodies. I believe it is also the right model for this board and for the operation of the Bill. The Committee will note that in dealing with the role of the board in agreeing Welsh language schemes and monitoring their operation, we have built in a very considerable element of flexibility. In a number of important places the board is able to proceed as it considers appropriate. It is absolutely right that we should not put the board in a straitjacket; it should be able to tailor its actions to the circumstances of each particular case. But ultimately the board must be accountable to the Secretary of State. That accountability has to be reflected in the Bill; otherwise, the board is just an organisation on its own with enormous powers and there is no facility for reining it back should it go wrong. The powers of direction of the Secretary of State are a very important reserve remedy in the unlikely event that the Secretary of State felt that the board was not conducting itself correctly or could profit from change.
  When the board receives a complaint under Clause 17 about an alleged breach of the scheme, we have provided, as it is necessary to do, for the board to determine whether to investigate that complaint. That

  195
  would allow the board to dispense with vexatious or groundless complaints. If a complainant were ever to feel that the board had misjudged the importance of his complaint, to whom could he go for a second opinion? Here I believe that the Secretary of State's powers of direction are right because they ensure that he is in a position such that an individual could appeal to him to study his case. If it transpired that the Secretary of State was satisfied that the board had made a mistake he has the powers to act on behalf of the complainant.
  I hope that your Lordships will see that those powers of direction for the Secretary of State are not an attempt to render the new Welsh Language Board a servile creature. If that were the case the board would be of no use to anyone. Its function is simply to be an independent champion of the Welsh language, but it must be accountable to the Secretary of State and, through the Secretary of State, to Parliament. Clause 3, which follows a pattern which has been used for other non-departmental public bodies, ensures that it is.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: For what I have just received, may the Lord make me truly thankful. I am grateful to the noble Earl for a very clear answer to questions of which he had no previous notice. I shall need to think about what he said, discuss his words with my noble friends and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 12 not moved]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Duty of notified public bodies to prepare schemes]:
  Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 2, line 33, leave out ("both appropriate in the circumstances and").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 14. So far as I am concerned, and I am sure that I speak for many other noble Lords, at this early stage of a Bill our amendments have been couched deliberately to be probing amendments. They are intended to discover what is the Government's thinking in these matters and to have them pronounce the result of that thinking publicly so that the matters can be considered hereafter.
  When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill I indicated that I thought that it was inappropriate to have the qualifying words,
  "both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable",
  in Clause 4(2). Since that time I have reflected further on the clause. The more I reflect on the whole of Clause 4 the more troubled I become. In many ways it is the heart of the Bill because, quite apart from the general provision that the Welsh Language Board should promote and facilitate the use of Welsh, which is its general duty, Clause 4 contains the main thrust of the Bill: that public authorities should prepare schemes and that those schemes should pay regard to the guidelines issued by the board. What is more,
  196
  subsection (2) contains the only real reference to the guiding principle of the Bill, save for the Long Title. That is a very odd place to put it.
  Clause 4(1) states that a public body:
  "shall prepare a scheme … for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) below".
  Then we look at subsection (2) and we find that:
  "The purpose referred to in subsection (1) above is that of giving effect, so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable, to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
  One would have expected that principle to have been spelt out in the first clause of the Bill. It has been said that the words,
  "both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable",
  govern the schemes. As I understand the subsection, I believe that there is considerable danger that it could be argued that those words govern the principle rather than the schemes. If that were so, it would be a weakening of the Bill.
  I am equivocal about whether those words should be removed. I can see advantages and disadvantages; it depends on the circumstances. But if one takes my first amendment and removes the words,
  "both appropriate in the circumstances",
  the subsection would provide,
  "so far as is reasonably practicable".
  My first question therefore is this. What do the words "appropriate in the circumstances" add to the words "reasonably practicable"?
  The words "reasonably practicable" have been interpreted many times by the courts. For many years I undertook work for the Coal Board and one was constantly interpreting the words in Section 102(8) of the Coal Mines Act 1911 which provided that the Coal Board had to conform to all the statutory requirements so far as was reasonably practicable. The courts have interpreted those words many times both in that context and in the context of other Acts. What do the words "appropriate in the circumstances" add?
  If one takes the second amendment and removes the words "reasonably practicable", the subsection provides that,
  "The purpose referred to in subsection (1) above is that of giving effect, so far as is appropriate in the circumstances, to the principle".
  Why does one need the two provisions? There may be a purpose. I had not fully appreciated that. In discussions on the matter the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, indicated to me that there might be benefits in providing,
  "both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable".
  I am anxious to know the situation that the Government have in mind. Why is the noble Earl confident that those words govern the scheme rather than the principle? That is fundamentally a more important question than the other two.
  At a later stage we should consider carefully the provision of the whole clause. It seems to be the kernel of the Bill. The provision has been set out in an odd way. I am totally puzzled to know why the principle should be buried in a subsection and not put in a more prominent place. I beg to move.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Elis-Thomas: It is again a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who has moved a probing amendment which seeks to find out the precise meaning of the two phrases. They are important phrases in that they qualify the schemes which are the implementation of the principle, which is the Bill. They are either a piece of extremely clever parliamentary drafting by the responsible department and by the Government's lawyers or they represent a qualification which might not be effective in the implementation of the Bill. In the amendment we are trying to establish precisely which is the case.
  I mentioned earlier that I thought it was extremely important to get the basis of legislation for language policy right. It is important that we reject the principle of individual linguistic rights as not being practical for legislation within our framework of law-making in the United Kingdom. We should not go down that road, which was originally pursued by the Welsh Language Board and Members of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and my colleague Dafydd Wigley in another place. The purpose of those Bills was to pursue the development of individual linguistic rights between individual citizens and government departments. That principle appears in other statutes and is generally recognised in linguistic law world-wide.
  However, the principle here is of placing upon public bodies within the public sector a duty to produce schemes within a framework known, in the earlier clauses of the Bill, as treating the languages,
  "on a basis of equality".
  It appears to me that these phrases could be generously interpreted as providing for a sophisticated form of language development. I shall not say "linguistic planning" in case the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, gets too excited. It should be possible to provide, within the framework of these schemes, a form of language development with the provision of varied language services throughout Wales. I wish to know from the Minister whether I am accurate in interpreting these two key phrases, "appropriate in the circumstances" and "reasonably practicable", as providing the board with the necessary powers and legal back-up to enable it to implement schemes in a sensitive way in the linguistic patchwork which is Wales, and in the delivery of linguistic services, linguistic provision, through the statutory undertakings, the public bodies that are referred to in the Bill.
  Such a linguistic diversity includes public bodies which practise mainly through the medium of Welsh. Some local authorities in western Wales do that, but not exclusively in western Wales; there are other public bodies in other parts of Wales which have a policy of administering mainly or as a first language through the medium of Welsh. I would not wish to be party to a piece of legislation that put that into question. Where a public authority wishes democratically to reflect its linguistic community by using Welsh as its first language of administration, I believe it is important in the linguistic patchwork—to use that metaphor again—that it be facilitated.
  On the other hand, one does not wish to have a situation where individual citizens or groups within
  198
  such a locality feel themselves to be debarred. That is where the provision of simultaneous translation, bilingual information and so on is so important.
  Equally, in other parts of Wales, increasingly in the urban centres, particularly Cardiff, there is a developing Welsh medium community and substantial Welsh medium education provision. So the language is being returned to public life in a way which one would not have imagined possible 10 years ago, let alone 20 years ago. That also needs to be encouraged in a sensitive way.
  So it seems to me that within these phrases there is either a "cop out" for the board and its schemes, or there is an opportunity to develop the principle of equality in a sophisticated and sensitive way. I hope that it is the latter and that the Minister can say so.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I believe that the two limitations qualify the schemes rather than the principle. The paper from the Welsh Office makes it clear that without the qualifications, the schemes are not workable. That emerges from the paper. I believe that the limitation of being "appropriate in the circumstances" should be left out of the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, sees that there may be merit in that particular qualifying condition, but it is my impression that the Welsh Language Board is uncomfortable about this limitation.
  I fear that it has its immense dangers. The danger is that it can invite a heavy reliance on the status quo. The fact that the result might be to help in one or two areas in Wales where public bodies are already energetic in implementing the principle of equal validity is not sufficient to justify it. In Wales overall it would probably be more damaging to the restoration of the language. Others can equally rely on the limitation to argue that it would not be appropriate in the heavily Anglicised parts of Wales where the Welsh language is no longer habitually spoken to provide the machinery to implement the provisions of the Act. Indeed, an illustration is to be found on page 3 of the Welsh Office paper.
  I have a fear that more often than not the status quo would not benefit the Welsh language, and the condition could become an excuse for some public authorities to do nothing to implement the provisions of the Act. It could be an escape route from the Act. The words "appropriate in the circumstances" should be rejected, but I am sure that this is an area to which we shall have to return at a later stage in the Bill.
  10.45 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: I can see that we are going to have to return to many matters at a later stage in the Bill. I was worried when the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that the more he reflected on this the more he is troubled by it. I realise that these are probing amendments and I shall do my best to explain the position, but if they were incorporated the result would be to state unequivocally that English and Welsh should be dealt with on a basis of equality. That would underline the status that we all intend the Welsh language should enjoy. The clear statement of that principle is certainly fully in accord with the aims of the Bill. The single,

  199
  unequivocal principle underlying this Bill therefore is that "in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on the basis of equality".
  Having said that, what we need to bear in mind is that this Bill is not a statement of policy obectives but it is an attempt to change the law. While it may, therefore, be appropriate for the Government to have far-reaching policy objectives the important thing about the Bill is that any changes which the Bill may make to the law should be administratively practicable. The Bill does not focus upon the principle of equal validity because that principle does not correspond to the change which we are aiming to secure. The Government also do not believe that public bodies should be required to introduce measures which are unreasonable burdens, and it is therefore essential that the Bill should reflect that point.
  I do not believe that any of your Lordships would have argued for unreasonable burdens to be placed upon public bodies. If we are agreed on this policy objective then it is essential that it should be reflected in the Bill, as it is in Clause 4(2) as drafted. Quite apart from the fact that the clause as drafted accurately reflects our intentions in this respect, perhaps I can explain why, in the Government's view, it would be a mistake to see the qualifying phrases, which are the subject of these amendments, as any sort of threat to the Bill's wider objectives.
  First, the phrases apply to individual schemes and not to the underlying principle, which is established by the Bill. The principle is not therefore constricted in any way; only the extent to which individual public bodies are required to give effect to it. It is also important that both phrases are present.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was worried about the words "reasonably practicable" and "appropriate". Many measures may be reasonably practicable, but they may not be appropriate given the circumstances of a specific organisation. The phrases have different meanings and both must be present if the duty which is established in the Bill is to correspond to the objectives which we are hoping to achieve. It may help to consider why both phrases are necessary in the light of a concrete example.
  It could be argued, for example, that it is "reasonably practicable" for a local authority to recruit a Welsh speaking member of staff to perform a particular Welsh language function, wherever in Wales that body is located. But it may not be appropriate to do so if a local authority in, say, South-East Wales, is only called upon to provide that service once a year. In those circumstances the local authority and the board must have the flexibility to consider providing that service in some other way, possibly by recourse to a translation service. It is essential that the Bill can address such practical issues.
  Then, as I have already made clear, public bodies will not be able to take a subjective view of what they believe to be,
  "appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable".
  200
  The interpretation will need to be objective in every case. It will need to have been agreed by the Welsh Language Board, and public bodies must be able to demonstrate that they have had regard to the board's guidelines. Ultimately that could be tested in the courts.
  I have sought at various times to explain the difference between the Bill which was originally proposed by the Welsh Language Board and that which is before your Lordships. Although there are significant differences in the patterns of the two Bills, it is indicative that on this point at least there is some degree of agreement between them. The board's Bill talks about complying with the requirements of consumers in Wales unless those requirements are unreasonable or compliance with them would be impracticable. I understand that amendments which have been suggested by Gwynedd County Council, and of which a number of your Lordships will be aware, also make reference to the phrase "reasonably practicable". The Government, therefore, are not alone in considering the practicabilities of the issue.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was concerned whether the qualifying phrase governed the schemes or the principle. My reading of Clause 4 is that it is clearly to do with the preparation of the schemes; it is the schemes which have to be reasonable and practicable. The principle is referred to elsewhere in the Bill. It is referred to in the Long Title; it is referred to in Clause 2(2) (b), and that is without any qualifying phrases. I can therefore confirm that the principle stands alone.
  I am happy to accept the interpretation of the phrase by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. He asked whether it was a flexible and sensitive scheme. It is. There is a flexible provision and it is a foundation which bears detailed scrutiny. In my view the phrases are correct and proper ones to include in the Bill. I hope therefore that I have enlightened the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and at least eliminated some of his worries.
  Lord HoosonThe noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has enlightened me to a degree. But I am extremely uncertain about the provision. In Wales there is considerable fear that those words will enable the principle to be detracted from. As we are thinking aloud, and the Government have been extremely good on this particular Bill in having an exchange of views, perhaps I may put forward a suggestion which occurred to me as I listened to the noble Earl. Clause 4(2) includes the principle. Why cannot the Government consider a clause along the following lines as the first clause in the Bill:
  "Welsh and English are the official languages of Wales and in the conduct of public business and in the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages shall be treated on the basis of equality as is hereinafter provided"?
  That is taking the first words of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Most of the attack was on the words that followed, so let us leave aside for the moment the doctrine of equal validity and so on. Let us add to those words the principle that is spelt out in Clause 4(2). Clause 4(2) would then read:

  201
  "The purpose referred to in subsection (1) above is that of giving effect, so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable, to the principle set out in Clause 1 of the Bill".
  That would absolutely ensure that the words "appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable" could only apply to the scheme.
  I put that forward as a suggestion. I have been thinking aloud in the light of what we have discussed through the whole evening, going back to the first amendment which created a great deal of interest. This clause is the heart of the Bill. Such an amendment or couple of amendments might make the Bill more acceptable. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Meaning of "public body"]:
  Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 2, line 41, at end insert:
  (" () a government department;").
  The noble Lord said: I do not see why government departments should not be included among public bodies. I know that it is the Government's intention to ensure that government departments conform to the broad policy that the Welsh Language Board will adumbrate but I see no reason why they should be excluded from the list set out in Clause 5.
  It is said that it would be very difficult for the Welsh Office to insist that other government departments conform to certain requirements set out by the Welsh Language Board but I do not see that that can be a real objection. For example, every government department of whatever nature has to conform to certain requirements with regard to safety provisions. This requirement has to be enforced by a particular government department. Now this is a government policy. It is intended to govern all government departments. Why should it not be provided for in the Bill?
  I am intrigued to know what is the constitutional doctrine which has been hinted at that prevents the inclusion of government departments here. If it is intended that government departments should be included within the spirit of the Bill, why not spell it out? The intention of a particular Secretary of State or of a particular government is not enough. Governments pass away, as do Secretaries of State. They come to the House of Lords. One is not certain what the attitude of a future government or a future Secretary of State might be. So why not spell it out in the Bill? I beg to move.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Clearly, there is a case to be made for this amendment and there is a case to be made against it as we have heard it adumbrated in our earlier discussions both inside this Chamber and outside. At the centre of the objection to the amendment lies the difficulty of the Secretary of State's power to require other government departments to do something. But it is not enough to say, "Well, they will all prepare schemes anyway" because
  202
  we are dealing with law, and law cannot depend on goodwill or whim or being a good fellow or trying to lend a hand.
  The central question is: can government departments be required to prepare schemes or not? If they can, should they? And if they cannot, can we afford to ignore them? I shall be grateful if the noble Earl can tell the Committee what efforts have been made to solve the legal problem; what possibilities have been proposed; what options have been investigated and why every suggestion has been shown to be impossible? I do not doubt for one moment the Government's complete goodwill on this matter. But I believe that it would help us all to learn what efforts the Government have made to include themselves in.
  Earl Ferrers: The Government have explained on a number of occasions and have given the assurance on a number of occasions that government departments and indeed other Crown bodies, should prepare Welsh language schemes just like other public bodies. We intend that that should come about. We have made provisions at Clause 20 governing the special circumstances of Crown bodies.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said in a moment of great pontification that there is a case for this amendment and there is a case against it. He would not get many enemies that way. It is not desirable that government departments should be included in the list of public bodies in Clause 5. If they were to be included, it would follow that the Bill's enforcement provisions were also to apply in the case of government departments.
  This is quite an important point and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, found difficulty in understanding it. There has been a government indication and assurance that government departments will produce schemes. I repeat that assurance. The enforcement provisions rely in the end on the Secretary of State having the power to give directions. That mechanism provides for breaches of this legislation to be speedily resolved without the need for lengthy and expensive litigation. It is not a mechanism which can be applied in respect of the Crown because one would get the absurd situation of the Secretary of State having to direct himself. That is a legal peculiarity which we must avoid.
  Therefore, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that for practical purposes it simply is not sensible to put into the Bill a provision which enables the Secretary of State to direct himself. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that even when I pass away, as he so graphically decided, nevertheless the Government will continue to ensure that government departments do make schemes.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble Earl sits down, is not the answer to give the board power to apply to the court rather than simply the Secretary of State, which we find in Clause 19(3)?
  Earl Ferrers: The idea is that if a person has an objection to what the board has done, he has recourse

  203
  to the Secretary of State who can direct the board. That is the way it should be, unless I have misunderstood.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand that. But if one looks at Clause 19, one sees there that the Secretary of State has power to make directions. If the directions are not complied with, as set out in subsection (3), he may apply to the Divisional Court for an order of mandamus. If there is a constitutional knot which needs to be either undone or cut, the way to do it is to give the board power to go to the Divisional Court: end of problem!
  Earl Ferrers: It is not exactly the end of the problem. If the board goes to the Divisional Court when the board is, in fact, a creature of the Secretary of State because it is responsible to the Secretary of State, one would get the same position in the end. The Secretary of State would end up having to give directions or to be taken to the court by his own creature.
  11 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is no problem at all with a creature taking a government department to the Divisional Court, as recent history amply shows. The Commission for Racial Equality, for instance, institutes legal proceedings, and so do many other similar bodies. If one does not leave the sole power and opportunity of going to the Divisional Court to the Secretary of State, and gives co-terminus or parallel powers to the board, there is no further problem. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, would then be appropriately and civilly answered.
  Lord Hooson: I do not find the answer very satisfying; but of course it all depends. At the moment, totally accept the reassurance of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that the Government intend that all government departments should comply, as it were, or provide schemes that would satisfy the Welsh Language Board. Such a reply might be important in the interpretation of this Bill whenever it becomes law in the future.
  I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is correct. I know of cases in which I have been involved where bodies have taken government departments on a mandamus or "judicial review" as we should call it these days, and I see no reason why the Welsh Language Board should not be allowed to do that. However, this is a matter on which we must reflect further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 2, line 41, at end insert:
  ("() a public utility;").
  The noble Lord said: This is the briefest amendment standing in my name this evening, and since I hope to catch the last available public utility to Cardiff, I shall be as brief as I can on the subject.
  It is important that we look at this issue because we are now coming to the question of privatising public
  204
  utilities and this opens up a whole new prospect for the Welsh Language Board and its activities. I want to know how the Government perceive the privatised utilities as relating to the work of the board and the principle of the Bill. Clearly, all of these are already undertaking policies of a similar nature to those that might be agreed in schemes by the board once it is established. When Clause 5(o) refers to
  "any person (whether or not a body corporate or unincorporate) who appears to the Secretary of State to be exercising functions of a public nature"
  would that include the public utilities? If the Minister can confirm that, then I shall again exhibit some satisfaction and I might catch my last train. I beg to move.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I said what I had to say about this on Second Reading and I was not totally convinced then or subsequently that I have had a really satisfactory answer. Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl that I said on that occasion:
  "surely public utilities, whether privatised or not, must be required to provide a bilingual service and to prepare schemes to that end. Clause 5 leaves so many questions unanswered. British Telecom is partly privatised but where does it fit? British Rail as it stands would have to prepare a scheme but when it is privatised it will not. A public service is a public service whether it is provided by the local authority, a government department or a private utility. Surely all of them should be required to prepare schemes to provide their service to the general public bilingually."—[Official Report, 19/1/93; col. 874.]
  I think my views there are broadly in line with those of the Welsh Language Board, and there is a wide range of support for the inclusion by some means of these public utilities. It is an important and, in Wales, an emotional matter. I need not remind your Lordships that water in particular is a very sensitive matter in Wales. Many of my countrymen have served terms of imprisonment because their views and actions on the right use of that element did not accord with the laws of the land.
  On the matter of Amendment No. 18, I would only wish to add one illustration to what has been so clearly stated by my noble friends. Among the many letters I have received since Christmas on the subject of this Bill comes one from a gentleman in Pembroke. Now, the Committee may care to be reminded that Pembroke is not in the heartland of Welsh-speaking Wales. South Pembrokeshire, "little England beyond Wales", has been largely English-speaking since quite soon after the Norman Conquest, and since Pembroke is well south of the so-called "Landsker", the line which divides English-speaking Pembrokeshire from Welsh, my correspondent has certainly not been swept along on a great tide of Welsh nationalist feeling against his more sober judgment. He writes as follows:
  "From the enclosed leaflet which I have received with my telephone bill you will see that British Telecom proposes to end bilingual bills and divide its customers into sheep and goats. Only those who actively pursue Welsh language bills will receive them in future".
  He sent me a copy of that little pamphlet which reads splendidly in English, although I do not quite know what the tone in Welsh is. It states:
  "Dear Customer,
  We are pleased to send you your new style phone bill.
  This bill is in English only because there is insufficient room on the new bill to produce it in both Welsh and English.

  205
  However, to meet the known demand from customers for an entirely Welsh bill, we are pleased to be able to offer a choice of bills printed in either English or Welsh.
  Your future bills will continue to be sent to you in English, but if you wish to receive your bill in the Welsh language please let us know by calling 0800 800288, free of charge".
  He goes on:
  "Perhaps you could bring pressure to bear to stop this retrograde step. Many Welsh people whose knowledge of Welsh is not fluent would still like to see the language in use. There are also families where only some members speak Welsh. We shall never see full acceptance of the language until industries feel that its use is important for all our futures".
  He makes his points reasonably, gently, more in sorrow than in anger, but he is manifestly concerned that this supplier of a telecommunications service is prepared, unilaterally, without consultation, and for no better reason than,
  "there is insufficient room on the new bill to produce it in both Welsh and English",
  to reduce what he feels to be his right to receive his bill in both Welsh and English.
  British Telecom's reason for the change, as stated here, is stupid, and I hope that the Government will ask why it insults the intelligence of its customers by sending them such a patronising and puerile pamphlet. It is precisely because such cases as these exist that many of us believe this amendment to be so necessary.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Essentially, Amendment No. 17 goes hand in hand with Amendments Nos. 18 and 21. Amendment No. 18 has rather more specifics than Amendment No. 17. The reasons we have sought to have them included are entirely those of practicality. First, those utilities, whether public or private, are extremely important economically; secondly, they are extremely important socially; thirdly, they are monopoly institutions; and, fourthly, they are of such general significance in the life of any community that they should be the subject of a requirement for schemes.
  Earl Ferrers: Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 centre around the privatised rather than the public utilities. I can understand why the Committee takes a special interest in the privatised utilities. They are providers of essential services with which we all have to deal regularly. Public utilities are among the bodies it is intended that the Secretary of State should specify, using his power under paragraph (o). That means that, for example, the Post Office will be required to prepare a Welsh language scheme. The nationalised industries—for example, British Rail - to which one of the amendments that we are considering refers, fall within the definition of "public body" and will be required to prepare schemes.
  Obviously in the beginning—and it is only a beginning -in listing public bodies in Clause 5 we have sought to strike a balance between making clear indications of our intentions and avoiding making the clause over-burdensome. That is why we do not see the various public utilities and nationalised industries separately referred to.
  As regards the privatised utilities, all Members of the Committee will be aware that the major utility companies operating in Wales have already adopted
  206
  praiseworthy policies for the use of the Welsh language. They are shining examples of what can be achieved on a voluntary basis. Some people like the successful status quo and I believe that, on balance, they are probably right.
  I am aware also that both amendments before us would impose duties not only on the major suppliers, of which we have all been thinking, but also on a number of other smaller companies which conduct only limited business in Wales.
  The Committee will be aware of the line which has been drawn between the private and public sectors for the purposes of the Bill. We consider that the objectives of attracting inward investment into Wales, the business of creating jobs and thereby regenerating Welsh communities are so important that nothing should be allowed to interfere with them. We must avoid the danger of legislative requirements in respect of the use of Welsh being perceived by some as a significant additional cost of operating in Wales, in which case it may be seen to provide a deterrent. The experience of many businesses which are already established in the Principality is that a sensitive use of Welsh does not entail those costs. However, it would be all too easy to give rise to such fears.
  It is the distinction between the private and public sectors which is of the greatest importance to us. We hold the view that to bring the privatised utilities within the remit of the Bill would be to blur that distinction. Therefore, we do not consider that the list in Clause 5 should be amended to include a reference to privatised utilities. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas—I hope that he will catch his public utility—that the power given to the Secretary of State in paragraph (o) cannot be used to extend the Bill to the utilities.
  Lord Elis-Thomas: I am dissatisfied and disappointed because I believe that it is important for the Government to look again at the position of the privatised utilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, indicated, there is a distinction between public service privatised utilities and the private sector per, se. Indeed, there is a very important difference between those services already existing in Wales and the whole question of inward investment by outside capital.
  Clearly, one does not wish to interfere in any way or provide a deterrent in that respect and there is nothing in the Bill which does that. However, we are talking about established services and companies that were in the public sector. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, those have now adopted sensitive policies but that was not always the case. Indeed, one does not need to remind the Committee that those policies have come about as a result of pressure and campaigning.
  The anxiety which many of us have is that unless there is a framework within which those major monopolies can co-operate with the board, however that is structured, then a large part of the commercial and service experience of people as consumers in Wales will be missing from the remit of the Bill. I am not satisfied but I am conscious of the time and I willingly give way to the noble Earl.
  Earl Ferrers: I do not wish to send the noble Lord away disappointed or dissatisfied. I realise that this is a complicated matter. I gave the Committee the views of the Government which we strongly believe are correct. However, we do not believe them so strongly that we are not prepared to consider matters. Of course I shall consider what the noble Lord said.
  11.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a very important matter. An elephant remains an elephant whether it is privately owned or publicly owned. It is not the nature of the ownership that matters; it is the nature of the beast. Simply to say, without any reasoned explanation, that the line the Government draw is between public bodies and privatised bodies is nonsense. It is wholly a matter of indifference and irrelevance to a consumer who wants to be dealt with in an appropriate way in Wales as to whether British Rail by then has become privatised in full or in part or whether gas has been partly sold off, wholly sold off or is public or private. That is a complete and utter irrelevance. It is the nature of the service, its significance in the community and its importance to the consumer that matter, not who owns it, in what circumstance and in what percentage.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I very much want to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. It seems to me that the question of the ownership of the enterprise should not be the determining factor in whether the enterprise should produce a language scheme. The determining factor must be the nature of the service and whether it meets the fundamental needs of the individual.
  Possibly one should mention the significance of the case from the European Court of Justice relating to Foster and others v. British Gas plc which established that an employer cannot evade the obligations of a directive applying one of the fundamental principles of the EC by pleading that his is a privatised enterprise. The right to use one's language is a fundamental right and a privatised company ought not to be able to escape that commitment merely because it is privatised. The question does not turn on the ownership of the enterprise. I would be grateful if the Government could reconsider their attitude towards the public utilities.
  Lord Elis-Thomas: The Minister of State at the Welsh Office indicated publicly, or gave a public undertaking, when this Bill was first published that the Government would seriously consider areas for amendment. It seems to me that this question of public utilities—the noble Earl will have heard the arguments —is one that the Government might well reconsider either in this Chamber or during the passage of the Bill in another place. Taking what the Minister said as an undertaking to reconsider in that way, and mentioning in his absence the Minister of State from another place, I hope that the department concerned is able to listen. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 3, line 28, at end insert:
  ("() any private company successfully obtaining a tender under arrangements for compulsory competitive tendering for the provision of services within Wales").
  The noble Lord said: The theme of the final amendments is taken up in this amendment. The arguments in favour of public utilities, to the extent that they provide public services within the meaning of this Bill, apply with the same force to enterprises in the private sector which have contracted with a public body, a local authority or a health authority to provide services to meet the fundamental needs of the individual.
  Once a language scheme attaches to the service, a client or a public body must be able to rely on that shield even when the service is contracted out to the private sector; in other words, the language scheme will follow the client. I do not see that there is a specific clause in the Bill which deals with the position.
  I wish to put three questions to the Minister. First, will a public body be under a duty to include in a tender and in a contract a provision relating to the need for a provider of services to implement a language scheme in line with that of a public body? Secondly, will the public body have a statutory right to monitor how the language scheme is being carried out? Thirdly, will it be lawful for the public body to take these matters into account in awarding the contract? I beg to move.
  Lord Crickhowell: I intervene briefly on this clause partly because I spoke at some length on the general subject on Second Reading. I did not intervene on the previous set of amendments because I did not want to prevent the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, from catching the last train to Wales.
  First, I believe that this amendment goes too far. I do not think that the noble Lords who moved it can imagine the variety of situations covered by competitive tendering. There is a very large variety of such situations, often involving small groups of individuals and perhaps former employees doing related services. To extend the Bill on the terms proposed by the amendment is to go too far. I share some of the doubts expressed on the last set of amendments about the public utilities.
  I believe that my noble friend Lord Ferrers knows that there is perhaps no one who has been more concerned with attracting inward investment to Wales. I spent a very great part of my time as Secretary of State concentrating on that single task. I understand perfectly what he says about the private sector as a whole and completely endorse it. However, generally speaking we are not seeking inward investment in Wales to provide public utility services. We already have quite close control over those services. For example, in the case of the water industry, Ofwat has extensive powers over the way in which the industry relates to and charges its customers and the introduction of such things as metering. I cannot see that it is an enormous extension of principle to say that this is a topic that perhaps exceptionally may be covered.

  209
  I voiced some of the problems in the Second Reading debate and will not repeat them. There are organisations, such as Severn-Trent, that deal with a very small part of the Principality. But I hope that the further consideration promised by my noble friend will look at the whole issue again and return to it later. There will be grave worries and anxieties in Wales if we do not get it right. We may spoil the effects of an otherwise excellent Bill if we do not get it right. I hope that my noble friend will reject the amendment because it will interfere quite unreasonably with a very large number of diverse organisations. However, I hope that he will give most careful thought to the points raised in the earlier debate.
  Earl Ferrers: Again, I find myself in some sympathy with the view that has prompted the amendment. Public bodies now provide services in increasingly diverse ways. They include the award of contracts to private sector organisations for the delivery of services such as refuse collecting, catering and so forth. We are anxious that that type of arrangement does not result in less provision being made for the use of the Welsh language in the delivery of such services. The Bill already ensures that Welsh language schemes cover those types of services. The delivery of a service may be contracted out, but the responsibility for providing it still rests ultimately with the public body. It is the local authority that has the statutory duty to provide a refuse collection scheme. That remains the case even where it has contracted a private company to carry out the collections. The public body with the responsibility for the service will be required to prepare a scheme and agree it with the board. It may be that excluding part or all of the scheme will fall to the private contractor, but that need not be a problem. The public body will simply need to specify the requirements as to the use of Welsh as one of the elements of the contract.
  Therefore, I think that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord is unnecessary. It will also have the undesirable consequence of requiring the private contractor, once it has won a contract, to approach the board and agree a scheme. That will make such a private company unique in having itself to go through the procedure of preparing a scheme. It would also cut across the statutory responsibility for the delivery of the service, which remains with the public body. The Bill as drafted, therefore, provides for the Welsh language scheme for the service to be determined by the public body before any contract is awarded.
  The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked three questions. He asked whether the public body will have a duty to put in a tender. If the public body has a duty to carry out such a task and is subcontracting that task to a tenderer, that would have to be included in the tender. He asked whether there was an obligation to monitor the service. As the public body is the body which is responsible for complying with the scheme then, of course, it has the right to monitor what is happening. The noble Lord also asked whether the public body would be able to take these matters into account when awarding contracts. The answer to that question is the same as to the first question. If the public body contracts one of its services and has an
  210
  obligation to fulfil certain elements of the scheme it will be up to that public body to ensure that the contractor is able to carry out those obligations, will carry them out and has carried them out.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am very pleased with the noble Earl's reply. He has answered the three questions in the affirmative and I am content. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 3, line 28, at end insert:
  ("() any body mentioned in Schedule (Public Bodies) to this Act").
  The noble Lord said: At the outset perhaps I may say that this is a probing amendment, although it is now rather late at night. The amendment provides us with an opportunity to obtain some information on the shopping list contained in Clause 5 and some omissions from the list. It is a restricted list, embracing 14 categories of local authorities, health authorities and educational institutions. One can think of a longer list, longer even than the one mentioned in the schedule which is attached to the amendment. The Welsh Consumer Council suggested the addition of 20 or so organisations to our own list. Our own list has no special significance, except to indicate that there is a wide variety of organisations which, in our view, should have been included in the shopping list.
  The amendment is intended to elicit guidance on a number of important practical points. We want to know why the Bill has singled out the 14 categories for mention in Clause 5. I had assumed that those were the bodies which would be called upon in the first instance to produce language schemes. If that is so, is there not a likelihood that other bodies not mentioned in the clause will not be required to produce language schemes for some years? In any event, we should like to know how many bodies, leaving aside the 2,000 schools in Wales, does the Secretary of State contemplate will be brought in by Orders in Council in the foreseeable future. Will it be about 50, 100, 150, or more? And how many years will it take before the target number is achieved?
  As to the best of my knowledge Wales has not received any information about this rolling programme, I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions. It would also be appreciated if he were to place in the Library a list of the bodies to which it is contemplated the Bill will be extended under Clause (5) (1) (o). I beg to move.
  11.30 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: The form of the amendment illustrates only too well the difficulties which the Government faced when they sought to compile the list within Clause 5. Of necessity, the list of bodies on the face of the Bill has had to strike a balance between completeness and what is practicable. I discovered that the Cabinet Office's guide to Public Bodies contains over 800 different organisations in England and Wales. They may not all provide a service in Wales but the point serves to illustrate how unwieldy the Bill would become if it sought to list them all.

  211
  Therefore we had to have some form of compromise. Some organisations would be left off the list, as indeed is the case too with the list which is included in Amendment No. 61. The Wales Youth Agency is one of the prominent organisations which is not included on that list.
  The Government's list strikes a reasonable compromise. It lists all the major public sector organisations in Wales, and those whose services have influence on the largest number of people. We must remember that in addition the Secretary of State can use his general powers to specify every other public sector organisation as a public body for the purposes of the Bill.
  I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the Bill contains a reasonable compromise with regard to brevity and completeness, there being full knowledge that the Secretary of State can add to that list, which will have to be approved by Parliament, by statutory instrument if necessary.
  The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked how many public bodies the Secretary of State would have in mind. I cannot tell him the exact amount but there would be more than 100 in a fairly short period of time. The period of time is partly dependent on the advice of the board and it is difficult therefore to answer that point immediately.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble Earl sits down, can he assist on Clause 5(1)(o)? It refers to,
  "Any person (whether or not a body corporate or unincorporate) who appears to the Secretary of State to be exercising functions of a public nature".
  Would a privatised utility ever be capable of falling within that category of exercising functions of a public nature?
  Earl Ferrers: A private utility does or can exercise jurisdiction in the public field. But the Welsh Language Board, and the whole principle underlying the Bill, relates to public bodies and not to private bodies. In that respect therefore it would not cover the private body.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am a little bothered by the Minister's reply. I wonder whether the Welsh Office could do better. Does the Welsh Office have a timetable for the implementation of the Bill? We have the names of the 14 categories in Clause 5. When does the Welsh Office contemplate that the schemes will have been implemented with regard to those bodies? As I understand it, there will be more bodies, taking the number to about 100. When will that target be achieved? The Minister used words to the effect, "not before very long". Can he give us a date? My worry is that there will be huge areas of public life in Wales that will not have the benefit of a language scheme. Nor will they have the benefit or the principle of equal validity.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord asks a difficult question. It is hoped that the board will be set up within about two months of the Bill becoming law. After that it depends on the speed at which the board can deal with matters in front of it. It would be quite difficult to set a timetable and to give a reasonable
  212
  indication because it depends on the number of bodies involved and the speed at which matters could he dealt with.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble Earl sits down, can he say whether the proposed chairman of the new board has been identified and approached?
  Earl Ferrers: He has not been announced.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: That was not my question. I asked whether he had been identified and approached.
  Earl Ferrers: I think that is one step towards giving the second answer. I prefer not to comment on it.
  Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I may come back now, before we withdraw the amendment. We have been given an indication of when the board will be established. We have not been told the date by which the schemes will be ready for implementation. It has just occurred to me that perhaps it may be better to restructure the Bill so that it applies to all the bodies named in the schedule immediately it is enacted. Every public body would be required within, say, 12 months to draw up and implement a language scheme based on the voluntary guidelines issued in 1989 by the present board. In that event, a Clause 6 notice would become a default mechanism when a public body failed to produce a scheme within a prescribed period or produced a scheme which, in the opinion of the board, did not reflect the voluntary guidelines.
  It seems to me that that would be cheaper and less demanding on the resources of the board and the time of the staff. There is a great deal of concern that years may elapse before the language schemes will be operating across the board.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord produces an idea but I think it would be unreasonable to impose too many constraints of time. We are asking for quite a lot to be undertaken. There is good will and the board will want to get on with the job and produce the answers as quickly as possible. But to say that within a specified time—the noble Lord said 12 months—everyone affected must be in a position where the schemes will be operative might put undue pressure on the board and possibly the organisation. It would be better left to good will, on the perfectly good understanding that it will be done as quickly as possible.
  Lord Prys-Davies: We shall have to study the noble Earl's words carefully and reflect on whether we ought to come back at Report stage. There may be a great deal to be said for requiring the authorities to produce a language plan within 12 months or such period from the passing of the Act so that the Clause 6 mechanism becomes a default mechanism. However, the idea occurred to me as the Minister was responding to the amendment and I am not pressing the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 3, line 31, at end insert:

  213
  ("() The duties imposed on a body by this Act shall continue even when such a body ceases to be called a public body for the purposes of this Act, provided that the body remains in existence providing equivalent services or conducting equivalent business as that provided or conducted as a public body.").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is introduced in the interests of continuity and consistency. Support for the Welsh language provision, regardless of the swings and roundabouts of political policies in other areas, might be damaged if it were to be observed that a public body, on ceasing to be a public body, joyfully jettisoned its language scheme and imposed a monolingual regime against the wishes of a significant minority of its customers.
  Is it not always dangerous to contemplate taking away from any body a right or privilege to which it has grown accustomed? Try taking away from the dog Fido the bone that he has earlier been given and which he is currently gnawing with relish and delight and Fido may well feel that the situation requires him to take a hefty chunk out of the purloiner's hand by way of comment. Even so, and not otherwise, might it be in Wales if citizens found that a privilege that they had previously enjoyed was suddenly no longer available to them. What possible advantage could there be to permitting a public body which became a private body to abandon its scheme for the promotion of the Welsh language? It would hardly save significant sums of money. It would certainly win bad publicity and forfeit good will. If I dare adapt the words of Holy Writ:
  "When from him that bath not is taken away even that which he hath, there is sure to be wailing and gnashing of teeth".
  I beg to move.
  Viscount St. Davids: The Government do not believe that moving a public sector organisation into the private sector should necessarily lead to any reduction in the level of Welsh language service provided. Indeed, the experience of the utility companies which have been privatised to date has been highly encouraging in this respect. Welsh Water is of course seen as a model towards which others can aspire; and I am aware that British Telecom in Wales has also received considerable praise of late for its Welsh language policies. Having said that, I have considerable reservations as to whether this is something which can be readily legislated for.
  If a single large organisation which belongs to the state transfers to become a similarly large organisation within the private sector, then of course the transfer of Welsh language responsibilities becomes a relatively simple affair. The same would not be the case where a public sector organisation is distributed among a large number of private sector suppliers. I have some sympathy with this proposal, and it is one that I would wish to consider in much greater detail.
  I would just repeat the Government's view that the fact that a body moves from the public to the private sector should not in itself lead to any reduction in the Welsh language service it provides.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: If that is so it blows an enormous hole in that rather insecure vessel that was
  214
  being floated earlier that there is a difference between public and private. The two are wholly mutually inconsistent.
  Viscount St. Davids: I have just said that I would wish to consider this proposal in much greater detail.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am deeply diverted by the highly unconvincing examples that the noble Viscount managed to summon up in support of his case. I am glad that the Government have sympathy about taking it away and thinking about it further. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 3, line 31, at end insert:
  ("() Where the Board considers it appropriate to include within the meaning of "public body" any body not included, it may so recommend to the Secretary of State, giving its reasons for so recommending.").
  The noble Lord said: We now come to the last amendment of this evening. This amendment gives to the board the right to recommend to the Secretary of State that a body be included within the meaning of "public body". I accept that in practice the chairman and the officers of the board will have made representations to Ministers and to Welsh Office officials that the body should be included. But suppose that the Secretary of State repeatedly refused to include such a body, notwithstanding strong evidence that it should be within the definition of a public body within the meaning of the Act? Where then does the board go? How does it get out of this impasse?
  As the Bill stands the board has no statutory right to request that a body be included. Accordingly, the rejection of its recommendation is not a matter that would be reported in the annual report. But if it is a function of the board, or if the board is authorised to nominate a body for inclusion in the list, then the board would have to report in the annual report on the exercise of that function.
  The advantage of putting that function into the provisions of the Bill is that the board would be obliged to report to the Welsh public on the exercise of that power. That at least should help to concentrate the mind of Ministers or officials when they are asked by the board to extend the list. I beg to move.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has raised a matter which I had not anticipated. As I understand it, it concerns what happens when the board wants to include a body in the list but the Secretary of State does not. I would prefer to reflect upon the matter rather than giving an off-the-cuff answer.
  The noble Lord would like to see that provision included in the board's annual report. As I see it, there is no reason why it should not be included. I do not believe that it would necessarily be right to make it an obligation to include it, but there is nothing to stop the board putting it in. I should have thought that if they felt so strongly they would wish to put it in. Perhaps I can consider the matter further and advise the noble Lord later.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful for that response and for the time being I am content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at thirteen minutes before midnight.

  HUMANITARIAN APPEALS
  HUMANITARIAN APPEALS
  BAe—TAC: TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY
  BAe—TAC: TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY
  CAROUSEL TRADE
  CAROUSEL TRADE
  SMOKING ON TRAINS: BR REPORT
  SMOKING ON TRAINS: BR REPORT
  NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY
  NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY
  HOUSEHOLDS
  HOUSEHOLDS
  WATER COMPANIES: SALARIES
  WATER COMPANIES: SALARIES
  HIGHER RATE MOBILITY AWARDS
  HIGHER RATE MOBILITY AWARDS
  DIRECTIVE 79/7/EEC
  DIRECTIVE 79/7/EEC