Sitting of 20 October 1993

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

    Local Government Commission
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress of the work of the Local Government Commission.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): We announced on 30 September that the commission's programme was to be speeded up so that all the remaining shire reviews could be completed by the end of 1994. We also issued some proposed amendments to the commission's guidance on policy and procedures. We are consulting the commission and the local authority associations on the implications of the new timetable and guidance.
    Mr. Atkinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to speed up the work of the commission. Can he say whether he expects the elections to the new unitary authorities to take place in 1995? Does he agree that one of the sad lessons of the last local government reorganisation was that the smaller unitary authorities, such as the former county borough councils, including Bournemouth, proved to be much more beautiful and efficient?
    Mr. Gummer: As the legislation has to complete its passage through the House, I would not like to be too definite about the number that would be possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that people in many parts of the country are looking for local government that is closer to the people but large enough to have the necessary powers.
    Mr. Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that the democratic deficit of the country has now reached such an extent that we are the least represented democracy in the modern world, and that the work of the commission, by reducing the numbers of councils and councillors, will further aggravate that situation? Does he agree that the Government should arrange for the election of democratically elected regional government, instead of further extending the unelected state by the appointment of seven regional commissars who are responsible only to the doctrines and dictates of Whitehall?
    Mr. Gummer: I find it difficult to understand that a spokesman from a party whose democratic deficit has never been properly addressed can make such a comment at all. The Labour party's policy and representatives are
    260
    largely dictated by people who have never liked elections of any kind. Many of them are elected for life in a way that, until the rules were changed, was reminiscent of Haiti. I am certainly not learning anything from the hon. Gentleman about that. Our purpose is to make us more democratic and have a democratic system much closer to the people.
    Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern in the Isle of Wight at the announcement made during the recess. This morning, the Select Committee on the Environment took evidence from Sir John Banham and we were surprised to learn that the next tranche has been frozen, so far as the commission is concerned. That includes Hampshire and has implications for the administration of the Isle of Wiġht.
    When my right hon. Friend was Minister for local government, he was a great gladiator for every community making its own decisions. Can he reassure my constituents this afternoon, and other Conservative Members who believe in unitary government—small being beautiful—that the whole thing is not becoming murkier and opaque by the minute?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the most important thing is for local government to be as close as possible to those who elect it, so that the people know why the decisions are made and know to whom those decisions are to be accounted for. My hon. Friend has particular difficulties, as I am aware, with the Isle of Wight, and we are trying to address some of them. I hope that he will be able to put those points more clearly in the Adjournment debate which I understand that he will have. I assure him that we want this to be as transparent as possible.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the astonishment expressed this morning by the chairman of the Local Government Commission at being directed yesterday to cease all work on the second tranche of reorganisation of local authorities, does the Secretary of State not now agree that the whole process and programme of reorganisation on which they have embarked is in an utter shambles? It does not have the backing of public support.
    Mr. Gummer: I find that an odd question, if I may say so. The fact is that the commission is concerned to listen closely to what the public wants. The hon. Lady must see that clearly, not only from the commission's actions but from its guidance. The reason why the direction was issued was simply that it is much more clear if future decisions are made under the new guidance, which cannot be officially promoted until the proper time after the consultation has taken place. If the hon. Lady does not understand that, I wish that she would go back and read the documents.
    Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he sees the best possible outcome normally to be the creation of unitary authorities, arising from the Local Government Commission review? Will he also encourage the Local Government Commission to listen to that view? Some of us who listened, with concern, to the evidence given this morning to the Select Committee gained the impression that there might be some lack of enthusiasm among certain senior members of the commission for the introduction of unitary local government.
    Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt from the guidance that we would expect the norm of local government to be unitary authorities, but we are first concerned that it should

    261
    be local government that the population see as the best form for their area. Therefore, we are perfectly well aware that there may be a variety of ways to conduct local government. Many of us regret the loss of variety. We hope that unitary local government will seek to delegate its powers, wherever suitable, to parish and town councils, for example. At the same time, we point to the importance of unitary local government because it ensures that people know whom to hold to account when decisions are made. In two-tier local government, there is often a grave difficulty with that.
    Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State make a clear statement about how the costs of the reorganisation are to be borne? Does he understand that the whole exercise is necessary only because the Conservatives made such a botch of reorganisation in 1972? In those circumstances, it would be outrageous if the local people of the areas concerned were forced to pay all the costs of reorganisation by an alleged £100 surcharge on every council tax bill. If there is to be a surcharge, should it not be paid by the Ministers and Conservative Members of Parliament, such as the Secretary of State, who drove the 1972 reorganisation through the House of Commons despite the Labour party's consistent warnings that it would be an expensive and wasteful failure?
    Mr. Gummer: I rather suspect that the Labour party at the time wanted an entirely different system, one that would have been extremely bad, as is usually the case. The reorganisation is intended to end with a simpler system of local government, which will cost less. I hope that the savings will be given to the council tax payers for whom they are made. I see no need to expect this to cost very much, simply because there will be considerable savings and we are not necessarily extending or increasing bureaucracy. The hon. Gentleman's worries are entirely unfounded.

    Council for the Protection of Rural England
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when last he met representatives of the CPRE to discuss new housing development in the south-east; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): My right hon. Friend met a delegation from the CPRE led by Lord Marlesford on 8 July. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning met another one on 1 September. The CPRE's views on the proposed level of housing for the south-east are well known to my Department and will be taken into account, together with those of other bodies, in the final version of the regional planning guidance for the south-east to be published later this year.
    Mr. Rathbone: I welcome my right hon. Friend's contact with the CPRE. Does that lead him to conclude that the aim to have 35,000 more houses in East Sussex is over the top and that there are opportunities for building on derlict urban land of which advantage has not yet been fully taken? Any development of housing, whether in urban or rural areas, must be environmentally sensitive.
    Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend. No final decision has been taken on the figure of 35,000, and we are consulting on that. I agree that all use should be
    262
    made of derelict and underused land, the so-called brown land, before we make further encroachments into green fields. On my hon. Friend's last point, what we want to do is what he wants to do—provide decent homes for those living in his constituency without making unacceptable environmental sacrifices.

    County Hall, London
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects the redevelopment of county hall, SE1 to be completed.
    The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): The Shirayama Corporation plans to finish its redevelopment of the riverside building by March 1996.
    Mr. Banks: Does the Minister accept that the decision by "Baroness Bonkers" to abolish the Greater London council is deeply resented by Londoners, and does he accept that London is now in a chaotic state? Why will the Secretary of State not allow the people of London to discuss the possibility of having a strategic authority? He could get his own back on "Baroness Bonkers", who has said some rather nasty things about him.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's vocabulary is quite unacceptable.
    Mr. Banks: Does the Minister accept that the decision to allow a bunch of Japanese property sharks to take over county hall and turn it into an hotel is an insult to London? If the development cannot go ahead, will the Minister allow the roof to come off county hall and become derelict, just like Battersea power station?
    Mr. Curry: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box, but it is easy to see why the GLC acquired the representation it did while he was prominently involved.
    Not a dog has barked for the GLC. I have never known a corpse to die and decompose so rapidly and there to be so little regret at its departure. As for the Japanese corporation, the London residuary body has instructions to get the best price for county hall. A development is needed as that is One of the prime sites in London. The development that has been approved is exciting, and we expect completion to take place on 29 October. The sooner life returns to that side of the river the better, and a life that is forward looking rather than backward looking to the GLC.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend recall the waste and extravagance of the late and unlamented GLC and does not he agree that many London Members welcome the opportunity to sell county hall to ensure that the proceeds flow back to the London boroughs?
    Mr. Curry: The proceeds will flow back to the London boroughs during the period of the window for capital receipts, and they will be particularly beneficial to the boroughs. Nothing that the Khazbulatov of county hall says will make a difference.
    Ms Hoey: Is the Minister aware that originally there was great opposition to the Shirayama development? Does he recognise that the Government could learn a lesson from the way in which Shirayama is working closely with local

    263
    people and with the local authority in trying to make the development as near as possible to what local people want and to bring jobs to the community?
    Mr. Curry: One of the things that have changed during recent years since the demise of the GLC is that councils of all complexions have worked more sensibly with the private sector. That must be welcomed, and it brings a lot of sense and imagination to local government. I am delighted that that should be the case.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that the redevelopment of county hall will provide worthwhile jobs for Londoners? Does he also accept that the abolition of the GLC has saved London ratepayers many tens of millions of pounds and that the GLC is regretted only by those who purloined its GLC silver?
    Mr. Curry: I agree.

    Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the consultation relating to his responsibilities for licensing THORP.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Tim Yeo): Consultation ended on 4 October. When all the consultation responses have been carefully considered, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will decide whether to afford a hearing or inquiry, and, if they decide not to do so, will take final decisions on the authorisations.
    Mr. Williams: Today's issue of The Guardian states that German utilities may cancel their contracts with the thermal oxide reprocessing plant because the cost of reprocessing is more than twice the cost of dry storage. The original justification for THORP was that it would use the recovered uranium and plutonium, but there is not a market for those materials as there is a glut on the world market. Does the Minister agree that the original arguments for THORP have changed fundamentally since the 1970s and that they should now be subjected to a detailed independent public inquiry?
    Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's remarks reflect a hostility to the nuclear industry that is widely shared by Opposition Members and that owes more to the continuing malign and powerful influence exercised over Labour party policy by Mr. Arthur Scargill and Labour's other paymasters in the National Union of Mineworkers than to any concern with the environment or safety.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend not accept that if a decision is not taken pretty soon, all the orders will have gone up the spout, and work in Cumbria will be seriously imperilled?
    Mr. Yeo: I assure my hon. Friend that, as soon as we have carefully considered all the responses, we will make a decision. We are aware of the desirability of making that decision as soon as we reasonably and responsibly can.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Is not the truth about the consultation as stated in the evidence given by a departmental official at a conference in Germany—that the consultation process that has just ended was the only way
    264
    that the Department could think of trying to protect itself against the argument that, in law, it had to hold a public inquiry? In the light of all the changing circumstances, such as economic risks from Germany, increasing international opposition and increasing health concern, should not we accept—whatever our views on the issue —that the only way in which we will reach a decision that will stand up as valid and impartial is by allowing for some sort of scrutiny independent of the Government before the final decision is made?
    Mr. Yeo: The Government have proceeded with extreme care at each step of the way. The purpose of that is to allow my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment to make up their minds on the basis of the facts available.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what help is available to people living alone under the council tax.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): People living alone are entitled to a 25 per cent. discount on their council tax bill. Those on low incomes may also qualify for benefit to offset all or part of their council tax liability. They may also receive transitional relief, which eases the change from the community charge to the council tax.
    Mr. Clappison: Does my hon. Friend agree that—unlike that proposed under recent Labour party policy—the help that he has just described is available for all single people? Does he further agree that the single people who are in the best position of all are those who live in Conservative-controlled areas? Is my hon. Friend aware of the very substantial difference between the council taxes levied in Conservative and in Labour areas?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Single people living in Conservative-held areas will know that, in addition to the discount, band for band, they are paying £100 less than they would if they were living in a Labour-controlled area. My hon. Friend is also right in believing—and it is worth remembering—that if the Labour party had had its wag, there would have been no discounts at all for single people under the council tax system.
    Mr. Pike: Does not the Minister recall the Government's concern about the plight of single pensioners and widows living alone under the rating system? Does not he recognise that many hundreds of thousands of widows and pensioners living alone are paying far more in council tax than they were in rates or poll tax and that that is especially true of those living in low-value properties? Should not we introduce a band lower than band A, as that would bring considerable benefit to that category of people?
    Mr. Baldry: It comes ill from the mouth of a representative of the Labour party, which was opposed to any discount whatever for single people, to pretend that that party is the friend of those living on their own.

    Rents to Mortgages
    Mr. Deva: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people he expects to benefit from the proposed rents-to-mortgages scheme.
    Mr. Gummer: There are more than 1·4 million council tenants who pay full rent and who will be eligible. We hope that as many as possible will take up this new opportunity.
    Mr. Deva: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme, which extends choice and opportunity for council tenants who would not otherwise have the opportunity to buy their own homes, is an extension of our great policy of giving people their own homes and the right to buy?
    Mr. Gummer: It is important that people who can build something for the future should be given the opportunity to do so. One of the strengths of Conservative party policy is that it spreads to the many the privileges that were once enjoyed only by a few.
    Mr. Soley: Given the crisis in, and the lack of, affordable rented accommodation, how does the Secretary of State propose to replace the rented properties that are sold? Could he not put as much effort into a mortgages-to-rents scheme to prevent the nightmare of home owners being put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation because they do not have any rented accommodation to which to go?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The homes are occupied; they are not empty. Under our proposed system, someone who would otherwise be paying rent for the rest of his or her life can begin to build up a capital asset, and so release capital for councils in other ways. The hon. Gentleman should be an enthusiast for the scheme. Yet again, however, any opportunity to spread ownership is opposed by Labour Members, who want to keep people under the control of local authorities.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the Opposition's views on this new scheme? We do not seem to have heard anything from the Opposition.
    Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Minister answers for his own Government.
    Mr. Battle: It is not the Secretary of State's duty to issue a "buyer beware" notice, instead of wasting more public money advertising this latest scheme? More than 70,000 people who have bought council flats under the right to buy now face massive repair and lease bills and service charges that they cannot pay. As mortgage companies are now refusing to lend money on former council flats and houses, what will the Secretary of State do about those people who have huge debts, who are unable to sell and who are trapped in their own homes? Will he endorse the comments of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which recently told Wandsworth council simply to buy them back?
    Mr. Gummer: What a miserable party the Labour party is. Here we have the largest extension of freedom that we have known in Britain for many, many years; here we have hundreds of thousands of families owning their own homes; here we have the removal of Labour party control over large sections of people's lives; and all that the hon. Gentleman can do is to moan on in that particular way. It
    266
    is about time that the people of Britain see that if they want an optimistic future, they will have to support the Government.

    Right to Buy
    7. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to seek to extend the right to buy their homes to tenants of all housing associations; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir George Young: The Government have no plans to extend the statutory right to buy, which is enjoyed by secure tenants of non-charitable housing associations, to tenants of charitable associations and to assured tenants. All associations are able to sell homes to their tenants on a voluntary basis, and we have encouraged them to apply the proceeds of such sales towards the provision of new social housing. The Government also provide grants to enable housing association tenants to buy into forms of shared ownership with a housing association or into outright ownership in the private market.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Northolt, tenants of the Kittiwake road housing associations' development will have no right to buy? Local people have been required, through an unwilling Ealing council, to contribute £300,000 towards the land given to the housing associations for the development scheme. At the Perivale hospital site, 133 homes are being built by the housing associations which will not involve any right to buy or shared ownership. Does that not mean that housing association tenants, in cases where there is no right to buy, are second-class citizens compared to council tenants? Is it not time that this situation was ended?
    Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend may know, the Government proposed legislation in the 1980s to extend the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations. Those proposals were twice rejected in another place. To bring home ownership within the reach of housing association tenants, we have developed alternative schemes, including the tenants' incentive scheme and the do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme, so that housing association tenants do have the opportunity of becoming home owners.
    Mr. George Howarth: I welcome the Minister's lack of agreement with his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).The attention that the Government continue to lavish on owner occupation at the expense of rented housing is unworthy of the Minister. Would it not be better if he spent some time looking at positive alternatives to the irrelevant rent-to-mortgage scheme? It is about time that the Minister—who came to his job with something of a reputation—stopped scapegoating single-parent families and did something constructive about housing instead of continuing the present destructive policies.
    Sir George Young: On the first point, we are devoting substantial resources to providing more affordable homes for rent, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The figure is about 60,000 for the current year, three times more than it was two or three years ago. We are investing substantial sums to provide homes for rent. As to the second point, before the hon. Gentleman mines that quarry much further, he should read The Independent of Wednesday 7 July, which said:

    267
    "Labour slants homes policy against the single parent".
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend accept —in line with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)—that we have a problem with the housing associations? In areas such as mine—Waltham Forest, whose socialist-controlled council has been very dilatory in selling council homes to council tenants—housing associations are now buying up more land, locking more people into social housing and not giving them the opportunity to take up the right to buy, of which all Conservative Members are justifiably proud. May I urge my right hon. Friend to look again at the possibility of breaking down the position in regard to housing associations, so that we may change it radically?
    Sir George Young: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend has said. A growing proportion of the Housing Corporation's budget is being spent on schemes that promote home ownership rather than renting. Shared-ownership incentive schemes, for example, now account for a larger percentage of the budget.
    I am anxious for the housing association movement to be directed back towards its roots—towards urban regeneration, modernisation and improvement for sale, rather than towards extensive new building schemes for green-field sites. I said in Blackpool that I intended to bring about that redirection, which would be welcomed by many in the housing association movement.

    Housing Associations
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the level of housing association grant in 1994–95.
    Sir George Young: I announced on 4 August that the published grant rates for the rented programme in 1994–95 would average 62 per cent. and that they would be a ceiling against which housing associations would be invited to bid.
    Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister well knows, all informed opinion in the housing world—including the Housing Corporation itself and the Select Committee on the Environment—advised him not to make further cuts in housing association grant. That advice was given in the light of overwhelming evidence of the devastating impact of rent increases on tenants, which has forced them into benefit dependency and the poverty trap. When will the Minister recognise his responsibility to tenants, rather than acting—as he increasingly appears to be doing—as George the gopher, delivering cuts for the Treasury?
    Sir George Young: That was an unusually unintelligent question from the hon. Gentleman. He knows perfectly well that the reductions in grant rate have nothing whatever to do with the totality of resources available. Those reductions enable more homes to be built for a given public pound. By progressively increasing the amount of private funds going into housing associations, we have enabled 30,000 more homes to be built than could have been built otherwise. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put the grant rate back to where it was, he must accept that fewer homes would then be available to meet the needs of those who require good-quality accommodation.
    Mr. Tracey: Is not my right hon. Friend bothered by the impression that housing associations are too regularly
    268
    using their grant to outbid private sector developers? Will he amplify what he said in Blackpool about controlling the position and taking housing associations back to their roots in the way that he has just described, so that they can renovate out-of-date property and bring housing up to a proper standard, rather than building new housing?
    Sir George Young: In the past few minutes, I have certainly noticed some antipathy towards housing associations—particularly those in London—among my hon. Friends. I readily accept my hon. Friend's invitation to describe in more detail the proposals that I outlined a few weeks ago, to ensure that the resources of the housing association movement are devoted to what housing associations originally set out to do: improving conditions, particularly in inner-city areas, doing more conversions and improving houses for sale, rather than building new houses. That could equally well be done by house builders building for sale.
    Mr. Straw: Will the Minister come clean for once and confess whether he is any more comfortable with the disingenuous poppycock with which he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) a moment ago than he was with the undignified role that he was put up to play at the Conservative party conference? There, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said, he had to resort to scapegoating the children of single parents to pass on the blame for the housing crisis over which he presides. Will he admit that a reduction in the grant rate to housing associations necessarily requires an increase in private funding for housing associations, which in turn will force up rents—which have already rocketed—and that that, in turn, will force up housing benefit contributions from the Treasury? Will he admit that the overall consequence of those policies is to deny choice to any potential tenant who is in work and earning above housing benefit levels and to create ghettos out of what were once decent housing association estates?
    Sir George Young: We all understand that there are shadow Cabinet elections today, which means that Opposition Members have to put more spice into their questions. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a trade-off between rent levels and the volume of output. I have decided that the priority is to increase the output of affordable homes for rent. That is why the grant rate has decreased and imputed rents have increased. Housing' benefit is there to take the strain for those who cannot pay housing association rents. One must remember, however, that the average new rent on a housing association property is £42 a week. In my view that is affordable, given that housing benefit is there to take the strain for those on low incomes.

    Bathing Waters
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bathing waters were designated by the Government for the purposes of the 1975 EC bathing waters directive by May 1979; and how many are designated now.
    Mr. Yeo: No bathing waters were identified by May 1979. Since that date, 458 bathing waters have been identified.
    Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I am glad to hear that our bathing water is as clean as anywhere else. Does he accept that there is concern in this country that we seem to fare badly in European Community league tables with regard to the cleanliness of our bathing water? Will he reassure the House that in future dealings with our European continental partners he will insist that European officials also enforce the standards rigorously and ensure that their testing is done without bias?
    Mr. Yeo: I am glad to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that, of the 3,165 European Community bathing waters that do not reach the mandatory standards laid down in the directive, only 3 per cent. are in the United Kingdom. We shall press for revision of that directive. We want it, first, to take more account of the subsidiarity principle; secondly, to be subject to a proper cost-benefit analysis; and, thirdly, to confine its scope to protecting the health of bathers. We shall require an even-handed approach to enforcement of that directive and all others. That is central to the credibility of the European Community and we will make the most strenuous efforts to achieve it.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Minister confirm, however, that in July the Government were found guilty in the European Court for the condition of Blackpool's bathing water? Will he confirm that in August his own reports showed that two thirds of all our beaches failed to meet the European guideline standards for safety and that that is the second worst performance of any country in Europe? Will he admit also that he is engaged in discussions with the French Government about the repeal, withdrawal and amendment of the bathing water directive? Why is the Government's response to failure to try to bend standards, not to improve performance? Is not it time that the Government put people's health and safety before the profits of the privatised water companies?
    Mr. Yeo: That was quite a mouthful from the hon. Gentleman. The case in relation to Blackpool was purely a technicality because everyone who goes to Blackpool—I have just had the pleasure of spending a week there—will be aware that the programme of improvement to the bathing waters at Blackpool is well in hand. It is part of the £2 billion programme of the water industry in this country to ensure that we achieve full compliance with the standards of the bathing water directive by the end of 1995. I will happily assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that the British Government have had productive and positive talks with the French Government and with other member states about the scope for extending the important principle of subsidiarity to the bathing water directive, the drinking water directive and many others. The whole country will wish to know that it is the Labour party that wants to overthrow the principles of subsidiarity and is not interested in pressing ahead because it wants all those decisions to be transferred to Brussels lock, stock and barrel.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that beaches such as those at Blackpool have never been cleaner? In the wider context, does he also agree that one of the problems is that the directive is deeply flawed and that many other countries refuse to designate beaches as bathing beaches?
    270
    When he is next in Brussels will he ensure that those countries that do not designate bathing beaches do not get subsidies from Brussels to improve their tourist industry?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. First, the quality of the beach at Blackpool has never been higher, is improving all the time and will be even better by the time that we next visit Blackpool for another harmonious and triumphant week in October 1995. Secondly, my hon. Friend is also right that there has been much confusion in the interpretation of the directive and over what constitutes a bathing water. That is certainly one of the areas that we shall be dealing with through our efforts to have the directive revised and a greater element of common sense introduced into it.

    Area Cost Adjustment
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from northern local authorities about the area cost adjustment.
    Mr. Curry: We have received many representations from all parts of the country about the area cost adjustment in the course of our review of standard spending assessments.
    Mr. Beith: Has the Minister taken particular note of the feelings of northern authorities, such as Northumberland, which have to meet the same pay settlements for firemen and teachers as authorities in the south but are not compensated in the same way? The system appears to have cost Northumberland £2·5 million in the past year. Since some of those authorities have widely scattered populations and, therefore, very high costs in other respects, will he consider carefully some way to ameliorate the situation quickly in next year's settlement?
    Mr. Curry: The fact is that those who get the area cost adjustment think that it is indispensable and that those who do not think that it is disgraceful. We are subjecting the adjustment to careful scrutiny to decide whether it stands up. If it does it will be retained; if not, it will be modified or we will get rid of it. On the right hon. Gentleman's question about sparsity and scattered rural communities, when we announce the review—we are nearing the final stages—I am sure that he will realise that we have sought to identify all those factors that genuinely compel local authority spending. I am sure that he will find that the adjustment is comprehensive, rational, fair and a great improvement on what we have now.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend contrast the question of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) with the stance of Liberal county councillors in Hertfordshire, who are saying exactly the opposite, as Liberals tend to do? Is not it a fact that no proper case has been put for the abolition of the area cost adjustment? The left-wing majority on the Association of County Councils formed by Liberals and the Labour party is out to cane the district and county councils of Hertfordshire and Surrey.
    Mr. Curry: All the elements that go into the standard spending assessments are being subjected to careful examination and scrutiny. I am determined that that should be done fully and that the outcome should be balanced and fair. Where an element has stood up to that scrutiny and it

    271
    is clear that it is justified, it will be retained. Where it is clear that the weighting is wrong, we shall seek to adjust it and when it should go it will go. We shall end up with a more rational and transparent system, which will more accurately reflect the real costs pushing up local government expenditure.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the real issue is not merely the point made by northern region councils, although that is important, but the absurdity of the present system? Under the all-ages social index, which, as the Minister knows, is an important component of the standard spending assessment, Oxford is calculated as more deprived than Liverpool and Cheltenham as more deprived than Newcastle. Will the Minister admit that if a fair and accurate system is to be found it must take into account the real factors of deprivation, such as unemployment and income levels? Will he tell the House today that, before the announcement on local government finance in December, he will make an announcement on any changes that he may propose to the SSAs?
    Mr. Curry: The answer to the second part of the question is no, because we shall make the announcement about that when we announce the rate support grant settlement. On the hon. Member's third question about the all-ages social index, because the discussions that have taken place with the associations have not been behind closed doors, he will know that we are examining whether unemployment and health indicators should be brought into the index. We shall announce those conclusions and if those indicators are included it will be because our analysis shows that they should be and that they show areas of real need.

    Local Authority Associations
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings he has had with representatives of the local authority associations since April 1992.
    Mr. Baldry: Between April 1992 and May 1993, my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State met representatives of the major local authority associations on nine occasions. My right hon. Friend has since met representatives of those associations on four occasions, most recently at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 12 October.
    Mr. Hall: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 has not yet been given a commencement date? That section requires local authorities to compile a register of contaminated land. So far, only six local authorities, including my local authority in Warrington, have compiled such a register. Those registers enable local authorities to identify tracts of contamination, neutralise them and allow development to take place, thus removing areas of blight in our towns. Has the Minister informed the local authority associations when section 143 will be implemented? If he has not been able to give them a date, can he say when implementation will commence?
    Mr. Baldry: The policy review of contaminated land is going extremely well. Every developer has to be responsible for discovering the history of particular pieces
    272
    of land. Our work on the register of contaminated land has made sure that every solicitor and every developer is conscious of his need and responsibility to discover the history of any land that he wishes to develop.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister recall that on 14 September the local authority associations discussed with the Secretary of State an agreed list of members for the Committee of the Regions and that on 29 September that list was submitted in writing? As the Minister knows, the list was carefully prepared and agreed by all the parties, including his own. Why has the Secretary of State refused to accept that list and why has he ignored the views of the associations? Will the Minister assure us that the Secretary of State will stop delaying this matter and accept the views of the associations, or is this just another example of the Government's blatant disregard for democracy and consultation?
    Mr. Baldry: It is a function of the local authority associations to nominate and it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to choose. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will choose extremely well.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: When my hon. Friend met the local authority associations, did he discuss market testing and compulsory competitive tendering, because there is still a huge cultural barrier to overcome with local authorities in this respect? This is the second-largest area of public expenditure, and a substantial sum could be saved if those concepts were advanced.
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Independent research by Birmingham university shows that substantial savings of between 7 and 20 per cent. have been made through competitive tendering. Every local authority will need to be able to demonstrate to local council tax payers that they have made the maximum possible savings through competitive tendering. I hope that, increasingly, we will not have to force local authorities to do that through compulsory competitive tendering regulations, but that they will see the value and virtue of exposing services to competitive tendering to get the best cost and results for their council tax payers.

    Local Government Reorganisation
    Mr. Olner: To ask the Secretary of State for the, Environment when he last met representatives of the local authority associations to discuss local government reorganisation.
    Mr. Curry: On 14 September.
    Mr. Olner: The Minister said earlier that he wanted local government reorganisation to become closer to the people. I would not disagree and suggest that we should look at unitary authorities based on districts. As well as closeness, those authorities need a degree of freedom.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Reading.
    Mr. Olner: I can read. They need that freedom to be able to conduct their affairs to the best of their ability on behalf of the people whom they represent. Bearing that in mind, and because of all the uncertainty that the Minister has created by advancing this reorganisation, will he agree

    273
    to suspend compulsory competitive tendering for blue and white-collar workers within those organisations until reorganisation has been completed?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is behind the times. We have made it clear that we will not introduce white-collar competitive tendering during the course of reorganisation so as not to give local authorities more than they could handle at any time.
    Mr. Milligan: Will my hon. Friend convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State my enthusiastic support for his remarks a few moments ago about the need for variety in local government? Is he aware that in Hampshire there is support for unitary government in Southampton and Portsmouth, but elsewhere in the county there is strong support for the existing two-tier system? Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the Local Government Commission finds that there is strong popular support for maintaining the county council and also finds that it is the most cost-efficient way of running the rest of the county, it will be able to recommend the continuation of the present two-tier system?
    Mr. Curry: The Local Government Commission acts independently in the framework of the guidelines that we have laid down. The fact that those guidelines have been modified reflects the request of Sir John Banham that the Government should clarify their intentions in that area. Having clarified our intentions, the Government clearly wish to see that the bulk of recommendations should be consistent with those new guidelines. I temporarily suspended the review—about which there has been some comment—to achieve that consistency. When the Commission makes its recommendations, we will have to examine them and make our judgment and, at the end of the day, the House will have to make its judgment. Only when the House has done so will we be in a position to implement.
    Mr. Tipping: Has the Minister discussed with local authority leaders the cost of local government reorganisation? Does he accept that the transitional costs will be in the region of £1·2 billion? Will he give an assurance to local authorities and the House that services will not be cut just to reorganise local authorities?
    Mr. Curry: Everybody is chasing a piece of paper that came from the county councils which quotes that figure. That is not my Department's estimate. If I may say so, the county councils who expect their lives to be relatively short-lived perhaps have some interest in exaggerating the transitional costs.

    Water Bills
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent consultations he has had on proposals to moderate the burden of water bills for domestic consumers.
    Mr. Gummer: In recent months, I have met the Director General of Water Services, the European Environment Commissioner, the chairman of the National Rivers Authority and representatives of the water industry. Those discussions have formed part of my consideration of the issues as addressed in a letter to Mr. Ian Byatt entitled
    274
    "Water Charges, the Quality Framework", which I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have just published.
    Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the vigour that he is showing in those matters, but he will be aware that the figures that are being talked of for increases year after year, especially in the south-west, are quite intolerable. Will he therefore concentrate his efforts on minimising those costs in the coming years, not only in the area covered by South-West Water, where they are at their greatest, but in other areas such as that covered by Wessex Water, which includes most of my constituency? Will he not lose sight of the benefits to single-person households, especially, which might be obtained from sensible metering?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that we want the lowest possible charges consistent with providing the standard of water quality and the cleanliness of beaches that we are all seeking. That means that we must strongly draw to the attention of companies the ways in which they can keep their costs under control and to talk in the European Community to ensure that we are seeking sensible standards in sensible time scales. I agree with my hon. Friend that metering has many attractions, but that is a matter for the water companies.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister join me in condemning Anglia Water, which has the highest water charges in the country at £248 per head? Will he also condemn it for compulsorily metering households and recognise the hardship that that will cause to families with young children?
    Mr. Gummer: I believe that the hon. Lady's constituency is covered by the private Cambridge Water company. My constituency is largely covered by Anglia Water, which I would not condemn at all. I think that it is an extremely good company which provides a good service and it has been much improved since privatisation, as I am sure my hon. Friends would agree. Metering has a number of advantages and it is necessary to look at them.
    Mrs. Peacock: Many people in Yorkshire find it difficult to pay their water charges. What action can the Government take to moderate the huge increases in those charges which many people cannot afford to pay?
    Mr. Gummer: I am happy to look at any particular incidents that my hon. Friend would like to bring my attention. Obviously, that is the case. However, the fact is that water charges reflect the cost of providing water. It is very much better to direct our help to those who need it than to say that there should be some way in which to subsidise water itself. We should recognise that water is one of the necessary parts of life and, in an attitude of promoting sustainable development, we must ensure that water is properly cared for. That means a pricing system that reflects its cost.
    Ms Short: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that he will not pressurise the European Commission to repeal the drinking water directive which would mean that standards of cleaning up our water in Britain were reduced? People in Britain want clean, decent water at reasonable prices. They know that prices have escalated since privatisation largely because directors of water companies have given themselves intolerable pay

    275
    increases and because investment plans have been funded over far too short a period. The south-west needs help with the burden of cleaning up its beautiful coastline in which we all have an interest. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that he will not reduce bills by reducing standards?
    Mr. Gummer: The people of Britain have very good-quality water at very reasonable prices. That is the position today. We want to raise standards progressively and sensibly. There is no doubt that within the European Community there are many other countries, like ourselves, which from time to time may say that they have some details in the arrangements for reaching those standards which are out of kilter. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss those matters and I will certainly do so.
    I agree with the hon. Lady. What we want is what we already have, on which we can improve—high-quality water at reasonable prices. The reason for the increase in water charges is overwhelmingly the need for massive new investment to raise standards. The hon. Lady does her party no good by suggesting to the public that there is any reason for it other than that, which is manifest from the figures.

    Local Authority Debt
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current extent of local authority debt; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Curry: At 31 March this year, the total outstanding debt of local authorities in England was £37·6 billion. We shall continue to encourage authorities to reduce their debts.
    Mr. Hendry: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the level of indebtedness is markedly worse in authorities that are Labour controlled than it is in those that are Conservative controlled? Can he also confirm that those indebted Labour authorities are, all too often, the authorities that have the highest average levels of council tax, the highest levels of uncollected rents, the highest levels of empty council properties and the worst services for looking after their population?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some authorities seem to believe that debt has no impact at all. The fact is that debt costs the equivalent of £110 per adult in the country. Of course, that is money which must be paid in interest charges; it is money which cannot be spent on services. The taxpayer and the ordinary citizen have every interest in ensuring that that debt is brought down because services immediately benefit.
    Mr. Betts: Is not it a bit rich for Conservative Members to talk about debt in the current situation? Does the Minister accept that the debt of local authorities, by law, is incurred in investment in long-term infrastructure projects? Labour authorities that have debt have it because they have invested in housing, in schools and in public transport systems over the years. The difference between their debt
    276
    and the Government's debt is that the Government have frittered away the long-term assets of this country and have their debt because of their short-term economic crisis.
    Mr. Curry: One need only go to Sheffield to find out how untrue that is.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Is my hon. Friend aware of how much local government in Southport is in debt? It is in debt to my hon. Friend for listening so carefully and for acting so decisively to ensure that the structure of local government in my constituency will be reviewed shortly so that we can recapture the unitary authority status that we lost in 1974 and the independence that Southport rightly deserves.
    Mr. Curry: We have made it clear that the Boundary Commission will examine the boundaries in the metropolitan areas when it has concluded the present review. I have no doubt that where there is an overwhelming demand for change, it will listen to those demands.

    Water Disconnections
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of the Office of Water Services and the water companies to discuss water disconnections; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Yeo: Ministers and officials do, from time to time, meet representatives of OFWAT and the water companies to discuss matters of mutual interest. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for meetings to discuss disconnections.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that there are 50 disconnections of water supply per day in homes in England and Wales? There is evidence to show a clear link between rates of dysentery and disconnections. Why do not we have a more sensible system such as that which exists in Scotland where there are no disconnections? Debts are dealt with through the courts and evidence is passed from the citizens advice bureaux to OFWAT to deal with debts and payments. We do not want prepayment meters to be introduced so that people cut themselves off and dysentery spreads in their areas.
    Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his assertion of a connection between dysentery and' disconnections. In Scotland, where disconnections are illegal, the incidence of dysentery shows exactly the same trends as in England and Wales. A water company has to go through a most elaborate procedure before any customer is disconnected. Disconnection is an absolute last resort for those who will not pay their bills; it is not for those who cannot pay their bills. If we were to ban disconnections it would do nothing to help poorer families; indeed, it would add to their costs as they would carry a share of the burden of those who refuse to pay. Disconnections would only help the skivers at the expense of the honest customer. That is why the Labour party espouses that cause.

Coal Industry
3.30 pm
The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement outlining recent developments affecting the coal industry.
The House will first wish to join me in offering sympathy to the families of those men involved in the tragic accident at Bilsthorpe on 18 August, and pay tribute to the rescuers.
Last month, the Government announced their intention that British Coal's mining assets should be offered for sale in five regional packages. Potential purchasers will be given the opportunity to bid for one or more of the businesses. The bids will be assessed on their merits. We have offered financial assistance to management and employee buy-out teams towards the cost of preparing bids.
The Government have issued two consultation papers covering the pensions and concessionary fuel regimes after privatisation. Copies of the documents are available from the Vote Office.
The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they regard safety in the coal industry as paramount. I have sought the comprehensive advice of the Health and Safety Commission on all aspects of the post-privatisation safety regime. I expect to hear from the HSC shortly, and I will make its advice available to the House when it is received.
The Trade and Industry Select Committee recommended that a high priority should be placed on reforming working practices, especially working hours. Following the Government's White Paper commitments to consult, I can announce to the House that I have today made the necessary commencement order bringing the repeal of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908 into force on 20 November.
In our White Paper, we said that we would establish an Energy Advisory Panel. I am pleased to announce that Dr. Martin Holdgate, the former chairman of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group, has agreed to become chairman of the new panel. I have also written to other experts in the energy field asking them to serve as members.
The White Paper made clear the Government's view that the private sector should be given the opportunity to operate pits which British Coal does not wish to keep in production. Twenty pits have now been offered for licence. I understand that British Coal is currently considering 12 tenders for seven pits.
The Government are continuing their financial help for the coal industry. They are providing more than £1 billion this year, and funding will now total nearly £20 billion since 1979. The Government have informed British Coal that we are prepared to extend our funding for the current redundancy terms for miners until 30 April 1994. British Coal has today informed the mining unions that it is resuming consultations under the modified colliery review procedure as the mechanism within which it will consult them on the performance and prospects of collieries.
The Select Committee recommended a subsidy to help the coal industry to achieve additional sales. The Government accepted that recommendation for sales from deep mines for electricity generation. But, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made clear,
278
there could be no guarantee of additional sales. It would be up to the coal industry to make the most of any new opportunities that arose.
As the House knows, the chairman of British Coal has said that he is pessimistic about the current market conditions and the prospects for genuinely additional sales this year. However, my Department has received applications for the subsidy, and I am pleased to tell the House that, subject to European Community clearance, the Government are now making the first offer of subsidy to British Coal in support of additional sales from Ellington colliery to British Alcan's power station at Lynemouth.
The coal industry will continue to face further challenges. The Government are_ convinced that privatisation offers the best way of meeting those challenges.
Mr. Robin Cook: First, I join the Minister in expressing our sympathy for the relatives of the men who lost their lives at Bilsthorpe. That accident reminds us of the constant danger of winning coal 1,000 ft below the earth's crust. I therefore find it deplorable that, in the same statement, the Minister should proceed to confirm that the Government will repeal working practices brought in by Parliament to impose decent safety standards on private pit owners.
We will not accept that the clock can be turned back to the working practices of the 19th century without putting at risk a century of improvement in safety. We will oppose those regulations, and the best tribute that the Minister could pay to the relatives of those who lost their lives at Bilsthorpe and the men who put their lives at risk in mine rescue would be to drop that proposal now. The best way of maintaining the best safety standards of British Coal, which are the finest in the world, would be for the Minister to drop his plans to bring in privatisation which will cut corners with safety.
The Minister referred to £1 billion being spent by the Government in the coal industry this year. Will he confirm that the overwhelming bulk of that £1 billion is the cost of the redundancy as a result of the Government's strategy for the coal industry, that, despite the public outcry, more than half the jobs in Britain's pits have gone in the past year, and that Britain, with the largest coal reserves in Europe, is now on course by next spring to have a mining work force of barely 1,000 men? Is not that the real message of the Minister's statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] Ten thousand men, against a work force of almost 40,000 only 12 months ago.
Does not the Minister now expect a second wave of pit closures? How many pits has British Coal said that it wants to put up for closure? Six? Ten? Fifteen? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many? If he cannot tell us how many pits will be left open in April, how can he seriously ask the House to privatise those pits in mid-November?
Last March, the Government claimed that they had reprieved 12 pits. Can the Minister tell the House whether any of those pits will still be open by next March? Will he now admit that the threat of further closures finally exposes the Government's White Paper of last March as a total fraud? Will he admit that his statement today that they have managed to sell extra coal to British Alcan merely throws into relief the fact that not a single bag of coal has been bought by either of the major generators, even though that coal would produce cheaper electricity than any other fuel? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Cheaper than gas, cheaper than nuclear and cheaper than French imports.

279
The Minister promised us that the White Paper would produce market testing. The market has been tested, and it has been found to be rigged. Why have not the Government taken a single step in the past 12 months to remedy the rigged market that they created? Since it was the privatisation of electricity that created the problem, how do they imagine that it will be solved by privatisation of the pits?
Finally, why did not the Minister find it in himself to acknowledge the tremendous success of Britain's miners in increasing productivity by a third in the past 12 months? Why did he not congratulate them on the fact that most of the market-testing pits now produce coal as cheaply as imported coal? If any other Government in Europe had such efficient pits and such large coal reserves, they would be safeguarding that national resource, not shutting pits down. It is not the miners who should face the sack, but the Ministers who have betrayed them and Britain's coal industry.
Mr. Eggar: Even by the standards of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), that was a grudging response. Surely even he could find it in himself to welcome the extension of the redundancy terms. Surely he could have found it in himself to welcome British Coal's return, as announced today, to the modified colliery review procedure. After all, that was something for which he and his hon. Friends have been arguing for some time.
As for the hon. Gentleman's comments on the 1908 Act, he seems to forget, rather conveniently, that the Trade and Industry Select Committee, which is chaired by a member of his party, pointed out the need for changes in working practices and made it clear that consultation would be needed on the 1908 Act.
No corners will be cut with regard to safety. The preservation of safety in the mining industry is paramount. That is why, as long ago as June last year, I asked the Health and Safety Commission for advice on safety matters if the industry was to be privatised. I have already told the House in my statement that, when we receive the advice from the HSC, it will be made available to the House.
The hon. Gentleman said that somehow the market had been rigged against coal. Let us be clear about how much money the Government have put into the coal industry —£20 billion since 1979. That means £1 million for every miner now working in the coal mining industry, and the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to say that we have rigged the market against coal. Massive amounts of taxpayers' money have gone into the coal industry from this Government.
Nationalisation of the coal mining industry has been part of the industry's problems, not part of its solutions. We believe that the best way to ensure the biggest and most economically viable coal mining industry in the future is privatisation and a commitment by the private sector to make a success of a great British industry.
Mr. Michael Alison: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that probably very few people outside the House have grasped the sheer scale of the £20 billion to which he referred as having been spent by the Government on the coal industry since we took office? If only a fraction of that sum had been spent by Labour Governments, who closed
280
far more pits than Conservative Governments, there would be far more happy and healthy families in the world outside today.
Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the £20 billion includes a substantial investment in the Selby complex of pits, where high productivity and output produces low costs? Will my hon. Friend continue to concentrate support on those modernised and new pits into which so much investment has been placed?
Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about additional investment in British Coal. I think that I am right in saying that £1·5 billion of taxpayers' money was invested in the Selby mine, which, despite initial difficulties, is now operating very effectively and is producing low-cost coal. Considerable commitment has been shown by miners and management at Selby. It is not just that the Labour party closed mines when it was in office; it made commitments to the nuclear industry and to the interconnector. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who I see in his seat, made the commitment to invest in the interconnector.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I associate myself and my party with the remarks from both Front Benches about the families of those involved in the tragedy at Bilsthorpe, which reminded us how dangerous coal mining is. Having said that, it is not an excuse for reducing the industry to virtual extinction.
Having told the House that he would leave no stone unturned in his determination to find a market for coal, what did the Minister do in the summer to stop the continuing erosion of the industry? I welcome the appointment of an energy advisory panel at last, but would not it have made more sense to appoint it 10 years ago, before the Government began privatising the energy industry so that it was not dominated by a free and open market but characterised by monopoly, oligopoly and restriction, which is leaving it at the mercy of that market?
Are not the Government now washing their hands of the industry as they hand it over to a rigged market that will leave few pits in Britain and will lead to the destruction of an asset which the British people asked the Government to save and which the Government said they would save?
Mr. Eggar: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not specifically welcome the appointment of Dr. Martin Holdgate, who was the distinguished chairman of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group. As his party is committed to windmills on a massive scale, I should have thought that it would be keen on that appointment.
The advisory panel will play an important role in assisting my Department in drawing up the energy report, which will be generally welcomed and which was a commitment in the White Paper. Our market for energy must provide an opportunity for the different forms of energy generation to succeed. We believe that the best way to achieve that on behalf of coal is to ensure that it is returned to the private sector.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Because of the number of hon. Members who are seeking to question the statement, may I ask for brisk questions and equally brisk answers?
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that pessimistic salesmen do not often win new markets? Is he entirely satisfied with the performance of the chairman of British Coal?
Mr. Eggar: British Coal and its chairman have a difficult task to perform, and he is tackling that difficult task with gusto.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Twelve months ago, on black Tuesday, the closure of 31 pits was announced, since when 21 pits have closed and 20,000 mining jobs and 60,000 related jobs have gone. The Minister is fooling no one. His announcement is preparing the ground for the demise of another 15 pits and another 20,000 miners. I pay tribute to those men who gave their lives at Bilsthorpe and to those who sought to rescue them. I hope that the report is debated in the House, because use of the skin-to-skin technique is normal in Nottinghamshire; the only difference in the system was the roof bolts that were used. We want more examination of that.
Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the preliminary report of the HSC on the Bilsthorpe tragedy has been published. It is appropriate to resist making a judgment on the causes until we have the full report. I hope that the report will be with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment next month.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Is it not a matter of regret that, 12 months after the statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the effect that the private sector would be able to take over pits that British Coal did not want, no pits are yet licensed in the private sector? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, prior to privatisation, British Coal will not close or even propose to close any more coal mines until other people have had the opportunity to see if they can make a go of it and find new markets for coal?
Mr. Eggar: I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that British Coal is not yet able to announce the lease and licensing of specific pits. I know that it is involved in detailed discussions about a number of pits, and wholly accepts the need to proceed as quickly as possible. Any possible future closures are a matter for British Coal, but we have made it absolutely clear that in future pits will be offered either for sale or for lease and licensing, if that is the correct way to proceed.
Mr. Richard Caborn: May I put the Minister right on one point? He mentioned working practices. The 1908 Act was superseded by the 1992 legislation on working hours, which was introduced because of the Community directive. He should not mix that up with the point made by the Select Committee.
The announcement by British Coal is more important than the Minister's statement. How many pits are now to go through the modified colliery review procedure? Many believe, rightly, that this is merely a more humane way of shutting the remainder of the 31 pits. The Rothschild report of 1990 said that we would be down to 14 pits.
Will the Minister tell the House what answers he has to the Select Committee's report on opening the market for coal? The Government have not yet responded to that matter, which was posed by the President of the Board of Trade in October last year. They have ducked the issue, and they are letting down not only the miners but the nation.
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman's report—I say it is his report because he was the Chairman of the Select Committee—did refer to the fact that we wished particular attention to be paid to the reform of working hours. It is impossible to deal with that issue without dealing with the important 1908 Act. We have had consultations, and I believe that the Select Committee was in favour of the process. I announced today that I have signed the commencement order.
As for the market for coal, the Government made their position absolutely clear in the White Paper. We said that there was no guarantee of additional markets, and we accepted the Select Committee's recommendation that a subsidy should be made available. We have made that subsidy available, and I announced today that the subsidy will be paid in connection with Ellington colliery for sales to British Alcan.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will the Minister tell the House and the rest of the country, which is listening intently, whether the Government subsidy is available for coal to be exported for electricity generation? If so, what action is British Coal taking to explore such markets?
Mr. Eggar: We look at all applications for subsidy. If people have identified markets for export, we shall consider such applications.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Minister accept that most people regard the Government's stewardship of the £20 billion of taxpayers' investment in the coal industry as astonishing? Does he agree that it is hardly right for him to claim as an improvement the new safety proposals, which would expunge the title and statutory capacity of the colliery deputy? Will he assure the House that neither the British coal industry nor any part of it will be sold to overseas owners whose safety record in their pits is less than satisfactory?
Mr. Eggar: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what has become colloquially known as the MASHAM package—after the Management and Administration of Safety and Health in Mines Regulations—put forward by the Health and Safety Commission. As the union that sponsors him is currently taking court action against a Government Department, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is impossible for me to comment on that, because it is sub judice.
Sir Cranley Onslow: As a member of the Select Committee, I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, especially his emphasis on the continuing need for safety, and the words about the reform of working practices with which he began his statement. I especially welcome the use of the subsidy for the first time. That subsidy was a key recommendation of the Select Committee, and the Government have accepted it. It is clear from the exchanges, both today and on previous occasions, that the best way forward for the coal industry is to get on with privatisation as soon as possible.
Mr. Eggar: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support, and I very much agree with his last point.
Mr. George Stevenson: Does the Minister accept that his statement represents another cynical event in this shabby process, which abuses the trust that many Conservative Back Benchers put in the

283
Government about 12 months ago? Will he tell the House what has happened to the promised nuclear review as a result of the White Paper, and what is to be done about the burning of orimulsion in this country? How much of the subsidy, other than what has been announced today, has been used over the past year in seeking markets, which was critical to the future of the collieries?
Mr. Eggar: We shall make an announcement on the nuclear review before the end of the year. With regard to orimulsion, the precise environmental controls, to which I believe the hon. Gentleman referred, are of course the responsibility of the independent inspectorate of pollution. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his party would not want Government interference in that independent statutory role. Finally, as one of the pits that is the subject of negotiation between British Coal and the prospective purchasers, Trentham, is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I am suprised that he did not refer to it.
Mr. Winston Churchill: What steps have Ministers taken to honour the undertakings given to me and to some of my hon. Friends that they would use their best endeavours to carve out a wider market for coal? How many of the reprieved pits does my hon. Friend expect to be in production by the end of the financial year?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend has raised a key point, which we accepted by saying in the White Paper that we would follow the Select Committee's recommendation and make a subsidy available. That has been done and, as I have announced today, the first successful subsidy application has been granted. My hon. Friend's detailed question about the number of pits is a matter for British Coal. British Coal's announcement today that it will use the modified colliery review procedure means that it will consult the unions, and it would be wrong to speculate about that.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Miners in Bilsthorpe and other coalfield communities in Nottinghamshire will welcome the Minister's concern about the accident, but that is about all that they will accept in his statement. That statement confirms that there is no extra market for coal in electricity generation, and that the path to closure is being prepared. It also extends redundancy payments to the spring of next year. What people in Bilsthorpe, throughout Nottinghamshire and throughout the country want to know is whether they will have jobs next spring. They think that they will not. Why does the Minister not come clean now?
Mr. Eggar: I am sure that there will be a wide welcome in Nottinghamshire and in all the coalfields for the announcement to extend the redundancy terms. That point was made to me by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and by the TUC delegation that came to see me. It is also fair to say that people in the coalfields will unreservedly welcome the return to the MCRP—I believe that the hon. Gentleman urged that course some months ago. As British Coal has announced a return to the MCRP, it is right that that procedure be followed, because it involves careful consultation and discussion with the unions.
Dr. Michael Clark: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in recent years, all the assistance for which British Coal has asked has been provided by the Government, including the promise of a massive subsidy at the beginning of this year? If not. What help has British
284
Coal requested which the Government have been unable to give? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that his Department has been working alongside British Coal to try to find markets for coal, and has not been working at arm's length from the company?
Mr. Eggar: We have provided large sums of financial support to British Coal. The level of financial support has not been an issue between the Government and the company. I failed to get my hon. Friend's second question.
Dr. Clark: Are they working together rather than at arm's length?
Mr. Eggar: Yes. The major commitment that we made—making available the subsidy—enabled British Coal to look for additional markets. It has succeeded in finding a market with British Alcan, which is an important development.
As for the wider issues in the discussions with the generators, the chairman has made it clear that he is pessimistic about the outlook. I think that I am right in saying that, in the letter which British Coal has sent to the unions, it has made it clear that it is considering the position with regard to the background market conditions, which are far from good.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that the statement that he has made today exposes for all to see the colossal and deliberate fraud perpetrated by the President of the Board of Trade personally and the Cabinet collectively when the review was announced? Authorisation of the importation of coal, of opencast extension, of the dash for gas and of nuclear power at three times the cost give the lie to the idea that there is no market or need for British coal in British power stations.
Is the Minister also aware that, when the industry was privately owned, 1,200,000 miners were injured and 7,800 were killed in a nine-year period in the 1920s and 1930s when the mines were under private ownership? Does not the Minister realise that the public contrast those facts with the actions of the Labour Government who authorised the Selby coalfield and the Drax B power station, and made public—as I did—that the link with France enabled us to export coal from this country by wire to France?
Mr. Eggar: I share the right hon. Gentleman's determination that we should not return to the safety record of the 1930s. That is precisely why, more than one year ago, I asked the Health and Safety Commission for advice on the safety regime in the post-privatisation period. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman—I think for the first time in the House—has recognised his role with regard to the interconnector. He said that the interconnecter was for exporting coal by wire. If he had paid more attention to the details, he might have realised that it was also there for importing electricity from France.
Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the news today, particularly the rumours circulating that British Coal has suggested that all the pits are up for review, will be met with deep dismay in north Staffordshire, in the light of what happened at Trentham and what is likely to happen at Silverdale?
On the issue of market demand, will my hon. Friend take account of the new technologies available, such as the integrated gasifier combined cycle system currently running in the United States and the topping cycle

285
announced by and developed by GEC Alsthom in this country? We are told that that will enable us to provide almost inexhaustible supplies of energy from the conversion of coal to gas, with pollution levels comparable to natural gas.
If the Government are seriously interested in applying market demand to innovation and technology, will they provide enough incentives and interests for those developments to take place in the interests of future energy supplies and to ensure that we are not dependent on imports?
Mr. Eggar: I apologise to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) for not picking up that point in my reply to him. The procedure under the modified colliery review procedure—after all, British Coal is resuming it—is that all pits are automatically reviewed. That is what the general review meetings are all about, so there is nothing surprising about that development, and it will be widely welcomed.
As for my hon. Friend's understandable emphasis on the need for expenditure on new technologies in coal, I and the Government agree with him. That is why we have increased expenditure on the coal research establishment by more than 110 per cent. this year. That was announced in the White Paper.
Mr. David Hanson: Is the Minister aware that every action that he has announced will lead to further demoralisation among the miners in my constituency at the Point of Ayr colliery, and will lead to a continued haemorrhage of workers? We have already lost 75 per cent. of the workers from that colliery in the past year.
Will the Minister answer one straight question? Are there any circumstances during the next six months in which he can see himself intervening if British Coal seeks to close a pit such as Point of Ayr?
Mr. Eggar: Of course, any decision about the future of collieries is a matter for British Coal and has to be followed through under the MCRP. I repeat what I have already said: if, by any chance, closure proposals were made and proceeded with after consultation, the Government have made it clear to British Coal, which has accepted this in respect of existing pits, that such pits will be available for lease and licence. We want to give the private sector the opportunity to make a success of pits which British Coal may or may not want to close.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The President of the Board of Trade gave me an assurance in this House some 12 months ago that, if bias against coal were identified in the electricity privatisation legislation in the course of the reviews that his Department was undertaking, that bias would be removed and a level playing field established. Why has not that been done? Can it be sound practice for a Government who are encountering severe economic difficulties—the Budget deficit and the trade deficit—to allow this country to import coal, thereby putting people out of work, when we have some of the finest and most competitive deep-mined coal in the world to offer for sale?
Mr. Eggar: The Government's position in respect of the Electricity Act 1989 is clearly set out in the White
286
Paper, and we stand by it. Imports of electricity coal are 50 per cent. down this year on last year, and overall imports of coal are 15 per cent. down.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Why does the Minister place such great emphasis on the modified colliery review procedure? Is he not aware that many pits that have already gone through that procedure, regardless of their productivity, economic value and viability, have been closed? If there is no market for coal, what is the point of reintroducing this red herring for the miners—as though it were something that would ultimately save them and their industry? Would it not be far better to act instantly by cutting coal imports further, by ceasing opencast mining, and by controlling our oil imports and gas reactor services more closely?
Mr. Eggar: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments on the MCRP. After all, it was the Select Committee that recommended that it should be used. It was also recommended in an early-day motion tabled by several hon. Members, although I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman signed it. I believe that the unions also welcomed the MCRP.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest): Will my hon. Friend agree that, although there is a tactical case for contracting the industry, strategically it is essential to retain the four-fuel option of oil, coal, gas and nuclear? Have the Government decided not to press ahead with the mothballing of recoverable resources; and will the new owners be expected to play a part in this so that, should the need arise, the resources can be opened up again?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend, whose long commitment to the four-fuel option I recognise, is aware that currently 60 per cent. of our electricity generation comes from coal—which is likely to remain the single largest source of electricity generation for many years to come. On his point about accessing reserves of coal, we agree that that is something that needs to be considered.
However, what is important is not the absolute number of reserves, but the number of economically recoverable. The Select Committee was helpful on that matter, because it pointed out that, roughly speaking, we have about the same amount of economically recoverable coal reserves as we have gas reserves—about the 30 to 40-year mark.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Minister aware that the three pits in my constituency—Harworth, Manton and Welbeck—are the finest in Europe and that their miners have broken every productivity record year in, year out, by the sweat of their backs? Can he give a guarantee to the local Conservative party that the pits will still be open come next election day, or will the miners be laid off by a privatised industry and then set back on again at half the pay and with worse conditions? Will there be seven-day working, with pollution, heavy lorries, traffic and klaxon horns on Saturday and Sunday nights? Will a denigration of the industry be the reward for the miners' hard work? Is not the Minister just polishing the brass plate on the coffin instead of putting the lid on?
Mr. Eggar: The Government made it clear at the last election—and repeated it in the White Paper—that we attach some priority to privatising the coal industry. Given that circumstance, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be stressing the advantages of his mines

287
and the co-operation of their work forces in making a success of the pits, whether they be in national or private ownership.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: My hon. Friend is aware that various groups of employees in the industry are considering making bids as part of the privatisation process. Can he confirm that financial support for the preparation of those bids will be available for any bids that embrace more than one of the five areas into which British Coal will be divided?
Mr. Eggar: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that confirmation.
Mr. Eric Clarke: I welcome the fact that the Minister has come to the House to make a statement, but I do not welcome its contents. Will the Minister give us the opportunity to debate the matter in the Chamber? We want to discuss many aspects of the Minister's statement and we would like him to join with us and give us time to do so. I do not want the House to go into recess again—I would rather discuss the matter because it affects people's wages and livelihoods. It certainly affects those whom I represent in one of the areas suggested in the consultative document. Will the Minister join us in seeking time to debate the matter thoroughly?
Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are consulting. I am aware that a particular concern of his relates to pensions and concessionary coal. Indeed, he has raised those points with me in Committee. I have sent him the consultation papers, and I look forward to receiving responses both from him and from those of his constituents who have an interest in the matter.
I know that the hon. Gentleman, as an adviser to Mining (Scotland) Ltd., will welcome—as it did—the proposed privatisation structure. I believe that it offers an interesting avenue for Scottish interests, which transcend all political groups within Scotland.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my hon. Friend remind Opposition Members who have refused to read the Select Committee report and acknowledge what it says that its first recommendation is to place a high priority on reforming working practices? We have dispelled the myth, so beloved of Opposition Members, that Britain has huge reserves of coal. In fact, the report shows that 50 pits have access closer to 20 rather than 40 years, as the Select Committee put it. The figures are absolutely clear.
If the market for the generation of power had been rigged, as it was, and the generators required to continue buying 70 million tonnes at an artificially high price compared with the world market, everybody's electricity bills—whether domestic or business—would be a lot higher.
Mr. Eggar: It is entirely right that my hon. Friend should seek to set the record straight. I must tell the lion. Member for Sheffield, Central that I do not wish to intrude into private grief, but the pamphlet that he and his Labour colleagues issued in advance of the Labour party conference was a gross distortion of what the Select Committee had actually said.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Minister come clean and accept that the Government are prepared to throw another 15,000 miners on to the scrap
288
heap, at a cost to the Exchequer and the public sector borrowing requirement of about £500 million; that they are adding another £1 billion to the balance of payments deficit of £16 billion by importing coal; that they are prepared to go through with their lunatic policy of buying French subsidised electricity, which is throwing another 6,000 miners out of work; and that they are engaging in a conspiracy with British Coal, prior to privatisation, so that Neil Clarke and other members of a consortium will buy out a small number of pits, when all the rest have been closed—in cahoots with the Government—so that Neil Clarke will be able, along with his fellow members of the board, to operate a tiny little industry without any competition whatever? That is the conspiratorial plan between the Government and British Coal. That is why the Minister has made his statement today.
Mr. Eggar: That is an outrageous statement, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not have said it outside the House.
I should also say to the hon. Gentleman that he must look at the figures. Imports of coal are down this year on last. With regard to the French interconnector, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have had words 15 years ago with his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
Finally, I ask the hon. Gentleman, who from time to time is fair, why he did not refer to the fact that he wrote to me only a week ago on behalf of the NUM general secretary for north Derbyshire, asking for an extension of the redundancy terms. Why did he not thank me for enabling British Coal to do just that?
Mr. Simon Burns: Will my hon. Friend expand on the implications of repealing the Act of 1908, which he announced today? What working practises will be most affected by that decision?
Mr. Eggar: The repeal of the Act, which restricted the number of hours that could be worked, plus winding time and travelling time, was generally recognised throughout the industry to be delaying productivity improvements. There is little doubt that the repeal of the Act will, within proper safety parameters, ensure that the cost of British mined coal comes down further, and therefore that British Coal is better able to compete with other fuels.
Mr. A. J. Beith: On what is otherwise a bleak day for the coal industry, can we read into the Minister's comments about Ellington colliery, which is in my constituency, a real and personal commitment to try to see Ellington through to a successful future, which will depend on the signing of a contract with British Alcan but will also benefit from British Coal having disclosed today that it intends to proceed with development work there?
Mr. Eggar: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. He, with the hon. Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), came to see me earlier. I understand the particular problems at Ellington, the connection with Lynemouth and also with Blyth power station and Blyth port. I have no doubt that the subsidy will enable British Coal to go on producing from Ellington. I think that I am right in saying that the subsidy covers the whole of British Alcan's needs for coal for the next 18 months. That has important implications for the future of the pit.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when British Coal announced recently that it was doubling its imports of coal, it was talking about between 400,000 and 800,000 tonnes this year, but that was only for the domestic market and for blending with less superior grades of coal? Is it not perfectly possible that, in private ownership, the mines, with sensible working practices and new technologies, can go after that market and save those imports?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right. The references in the newspapers were particularly to household and industrial coal imports. The total level of imports is down by 15 per cent.; electricity generation imports are down by 50 per cent. A number of private sector entities that are interested in purchasing mines believe that, by using different mining techniques, they could produce much more household coal and industrial coal than British Coal is currently doing from existing pits.
Mr. Jack Thompson: I welcome the fact that British Alcan and British Coal have come to a conclusion about seeking support from the subsidy, and I congratulate the negotiators, because the relationship between the two has been extremely good. I am pleased that a response may come from this. Of the £500 million made available a year ago, the sums of money involved in that agreement are small.
However, the negotiations with National Power and PowerGen have not been successful. I endorse the earlier criticism of the chairman of British Coal, who has not been able to persuade those companies to take extra coal, but some blame also attaches to the Secretary of State and his Department. In March 1993, in a statement recorded—
Madam Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Thompson: Can I make this point?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I made a strong plea for brisk questions and answers. Many hon. Members are waiting to be called.
Mr. Thompson: Does the Minister endorse the comment made by the Secretary of State in March 1993, in a report in Coal News? When talking about the use of the subsidy, he said:
"I have to talk to them"—
that is, to National Power and PowerGen—
"and persuade them that things are possible, and that I am working on them at the moment."
Does that not reflect the lack of salesmanship by the Secretary of State, who has failed in his negotiations with National Power and PowerGen?
Mr. Eggar: Without wishing to ruin the hon. Gentleman's reputation, I want to pay tribute to the constructive role that he has played in the negotiations between British Alcan, the local council and British Coal that led to the agreement. The Government have made it clear that the subsidy for coal will be available on the terms outlined in the White Paper, but if the market is not available and if there is not extra demand for coal, the availability of subsidy cannot expand that market of itself, as everybody accepts.
Mr. Keven Barron: The Minister knows that the problems that faced British Coal last October and that face it now are caused by the shrinking
290
market for its product. He told the House earlier this year that the Government would provide a subsidy to increase the market, but that subsidy has been available only in the past few weeks. I am pleased that at least one contract has been struck.
When British Coal tried to negotiate for additional tonnages with National Power and PowerGen, the subsidy was not available, as the Minister knows. One of the reasons why a new deal was not struck is that the Secretary of State allows those companies to lift coal from stock for use in the power stations. While that takes place as a result of the inaction of the Government, more coal mines will close, although they are doing everything they can to supply coal efficiently. When will the Government take the action that they promised Parliament and the country they would take earlier this year?
Mr. Eggar: There must have been a misunderstanding. The subsidy has been available—
Mr. Barron: In the past few weeks.
Mr. Eggar: No, it has been available and British Coal was aware that, if it came to us with propositions, we would have processed those applications.
Mr. Barron: That is not true.
Mr. Eggar: Unusually for the hon. Gentleman, he is being unreasonable. The other coal producers applied for subsidies some months ago. Those subsidies have been available.
The hon. Gentleman might like to know that we have been discussing stocks with the generators and they have explained the position to me. They believe that, almost certainly, the stock levels will be above 20 million tonnes at the end of March 1994, and that they could be substantially higher than that. The Chairman of the Select Committee will understand the implication of that.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I welcome the announcement that Dr. Martin Holdgate is to be chairman of the Energy Advisory Panel. He is well known for his expertise in environmental matters and for his commitment to environmental sustainability as the underlying principle of all economic and industrial policy.
Will the panel have an environmental remit, and will Dr. Martin Holdgate be able to advise how we can avoid a second rape of the fair country of Wales through the expansion of opencast mining, which is both under way and envisaged for the future? How can we make sure that that will be stopped, because it is unacceptable to the people of Wales?
Mr. Eggar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Martin Holdgate. When the names of the advisory panel are published in full, the hon. Gentleman will realise that people with environmental considerations will be at the forefront. That is as it should be.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's comment about opencast, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will publish shortly a full draft consultation of the revised mineral planning guidance.
Mr. John Cummings: The Minister will recall that Budge Mining expressed an interest in Easington colliery which was later withdrawn because of the large amounts of money—several million pounds—involved in underground pumping operations.

291
The Minister will be aware that pumping operations at Easington are linked inextricably with other pumping stations in the Durham coalfield. If pumping operations cease at Easington and elsewhere in Durham, there will be a serious threat to potable water supplies. Is it the Minister's intention that the successful tenderer for the north-east area meets all the pumping costs, or are such costs to be met by local authorities?
Mr. Eggar: I think that I am right in saying that this is a matter for British Coal. Budge has withdrawn its offer for Easington, so there is no outstanding offer for the colliery.
With regard to the environmental impact of pumping, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, following debates in the House, detailed discussions are taking place between the National Rivers Authority and British Coal about future pumping operations in the east Durham coalfield. There are serious environmental consequences of the change in pumping practices, and everyone is keen that we should do all we can to avoid any adverse consequences.
Mr. Bill Etherington: It will not have gone unnoticed by my constituents who work at Wearmouth colliery—the last deep mine in Durham—that, not for the first time, the Minister has been selective in emphasising recommendations from the Select Committee report with which he agrees. It is obvious that, if the positive proposals by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry had been adhered to instead of ignored, we would not be in the mess that we are in today.
Does the Minister understand that the massive public and political backlash against the White Paper last October was because the public did not accept the Government's policy which has led to the rigged market? Does he also understand that the public did not expect the DTI to proceed with another form of rigging to ensure that the original proposals were adhered to?
I believe that today's statement will be seen for what it is—political chicanery of the worst type. Will the Minister tell the House how much additional coal is to be sold to British Alcan following today's announcement?
Mr. Eggar: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we published the White Paper, on which the House then voted. We have followed the recommendations of that White Paper.
With regard to the sales to British Alcan, the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) will be able to fill the hon. Gentleman in on the situation. The contract comes to an end at the end of December, but British Alcan has been able to renew the contract for 18 months. That will have positive effects for Ellington, and the subsidy was a critical element in the renewal of the contract.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Will not most of this afternoon's statement simply make it easier for British Coal and the Government to close more collieries in advance of privatisation and so leave a small rump industry to be sold off to people in the City?
Is it not the case that, if we repeal the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908, we shall decrease safety underground? We are not improving working conditions—that is a misnomer—but extending miners' working hours to about 12 hours. We shall not only decrease safety but increase stocks, and it is stocks for which there is no market that have led to the problem within the coal
292
industry. It is not up to British Coal to try to find new markets. Only the Government could have found those new markets.
With the return to the modified colliery review procedure, which, incidentally, was not available for the 10 pits, every colliery in the country can go straight into that procedure—with the recommendation at the end of it that that colliery close.
Mr. Eggar: I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of or against the resumption of the MCRP.
Mr. Illsley: It has not kept one colliery open.
Mr. Eggar: Surely, though, the hon. Gentleman is in favour of a system that enables full consultation with the unions, which is well established.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the 1908 Act. He will recognise that there are considerable advantages in allowing more flexibility in working hours than is currently allowed under that Act. As regards the safety implications, of course safety will not be imperilled by the commencement order that I have laid, because safety is governed by rules laid down by the Health and Safety Commission, and those rules will apply regardless of whether or not the 1908 Act is in place.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I welcome the Alcan-Ellington contract, but will the Minister confirm that that contract is only for 18 months? Will he also tell us what subsidy per tonne has been given? Will he take a very serious look at the amount of opencasting that is taking place in Northumberland—approaching 3 million tonnes a year? It seems as though every farmer's field in Northumberland is up for grabs, and we already have 12 applications waiting to be processed. It is really becoming a nightmare.
Mr. Eggar: I understand—although this is a matter for British Coal and Alcan—that the contract is for 18 months and that the subsidy paid is the difference between the contract price and Ellington's production costs. That is the basis set out in the White Paper. However, the details concerning the level of subsidy and the competitiveness of Alcan's position are commercially confidential, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand.
The hon. Gentleman asked about opencasting. I understand his point. That is why my right hon. Friend the, Secretary of State for the Environment will shortly be coming forward with the revised draft guidelines—minerals planning guidance 3—which I understand will be consulted upon. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is widely understood in his part of the world that there is a role for large-scale opencast operations, which provide jobs and which provide competitively priced coal necessary for blending. Nevertheless, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: The Minister has produced a package that will increase working hours for men working underground, decrease safety underground and open the door for further pit closures. Why does not he come clean—I am sure that he knows—and tell the House which collieries the Government and British Coal intend to close? Can he tell me how anyone can justify closing the two collieries in my constituency—Hatfield, where people are queuing up every day waiting

293
for the product to come from underground, and Bentley, which is producing coal at less than £1 a gigajoule? How can the Government justify closing those two pits or any other?
Mr. Eggar: The question of working hours is a matter for discussion and negotiation at pit level. The Government are merely laying the commencement order for the repeal of the 1908 Act. There will not be a reduction in safety standards—either in the near future or post-privatisation. The responsibility for safety rests with the Health and Safety Commission, which has a statutory duty under the 1974 Act to ensure that there is no diminution in safety standards.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman was the NUM secretary at Bentley. Surely he knows perfectly well—
Mr. Hughes indicated dissent.
Mr. Eggar: He is shaking his head—my apologies.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the question of closure or non-closure is dealt with under the MCRP as part of the normal consultation procedure. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a very reasonable man: could he not have welcomed the extension of the redundancy terms, particularly as he wrote to me last week and urged me to make money available to British Coal to extend them?
Mr. John Evans: Does the Minister think that at the next general election the electorate will forget that the Conservative party is now in the process of virtually destroying Britain's deep-mined coal industry? Does he think that succeeding generations will ever forgive the Government for leaving millions of tonnes of coal to rot in the ground, as they have done at Parkside colliery in my constituency?
Mr. Eggar: The electorate at the next election will recognise that the Government made it clear in their party manifesto that they wished to privatise the coal industry, and were committed to achieving the largest possible economically viable coal industry in this country. The electorate at the next election will recognise that we have done just that.
Dr. Tony Wright: Is the Minister aware that some hon. Members are receiving letters from the chairman of British Coal in which he says that he can no longer give assurances about the future of any pit—any pit—in the country? That includes pits such as Littleton in south Staffordshire, which, a year ago, was said to be safe. Is that not the real meaning of the Minister's statement today?
Did not Baroness Thatcher write to the Minister a few months ago and say that, unless the Government were prepared to take action to produce a market through a guaranteed tonnage of coal for the generators, we would see the destruction of the British coal industry? Was she not right?
Mr. Eggar: Lady Thatcher did not write to me in those terms. As to the hon. Gentleman's question about pits, all pits go through the process under the MCRP, and are part of the general review meeting. Everyone who is familiar with the MCRP—as other Opposition Members are—recognises that.
Mr. Derek Enright: First, is the Minister aware that miners in my constituency will be enraged by his proposals about safety, for the simple reason that it is their heads and not his that are on the block day in and day out? Secondly, those miners will be extremely cynical about the proposals that are being made to opencast in North Featherstone and South Hiendley—both pleasant country areas—at the same time as pits are being closed. Thirdly, the miners who work in Frickley—and their families—have been in despair for over a year, not knowing what is going to happen to them.
Does the Minister not think it disgraceful that he belongs to a party that claims to be concerned about families, yet he puts families through this misery and hell?
Mr. Eggar: There is no question of imperilling safety. No miner would agree to anything that imperilled safety, no management would seek to impose anything that imperilled safety, and the Health and Safety Executive would never permit changes that imperilled safety—and the hon. Gentleman knows that. As to opencast in his constituency, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have already said that he will be introducing revised guidelines shortly.
Mr. Harry Barnes: What are the Government's plans for the energy market after coal privatisation? There is a fortune to be made from coal. Will not the existing rigged market have some of its rigging uncoupled after privatisation to enable those who have got their hands on the coal industry and opencast mining to make a fortune?
Mr. Eggar: No, that is not the case.
Madam Speaker: Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. William O'Brien: Always save the best until last.
Nothing that the Minister said today will safeguard any jobs in the mining industry. He makes great play about the extension of redundancy pay. Will he explain who will be responsible for the redundancy pay when that runs out? If miners go into the private sector and their pits close when run by private operators, will those miners receive redundancy pay equal to that which is in the process at present?
Will the Minister give an assurance to the House and to the mineworkers that no foreign mine owner who operates unsafe practices abroad will be allowed to purchase an' interest in the British mining industry under the privatisation plan?
Mr. Eggar: May I just clarify the redundancy terms situation? The Government extend the funding to British Coal that enables it to offer the redundancy payments. In other words, the Government reimburses 90 per cent. of the cost of redundancy terms. The Government announced today, and British Coal confirmed, that we shall continue to fund British Coal until 30 April 1994.
If British Coal were to be involved in closure consultations which begin this year, but which are likely to continue beyond that date, the funding would have to continue because of the implications of the MCRP.
The safety record of purchasers from overseas is one of the factors that will be taken into account, but no decision has yet been taken on the criteria that will be applied during the privatisation process.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does the Minister appreciate that, when I contacted British Coal today and asked which collieries would have their prospects reviewed under the review procedure, I was told that all collieries would be considered? Therefore, by definition, all collieries are under threat. When he tells us about the extension of the redundancy payments scheme, a picture begins to emerge of the prospect of far more collieries closing than the ones that we had expected and feared the worst about.
When the Minister tells us about the MCRP, can he confirm that he is merely following the dictates of the decision in the court case which he lost last year, and which he now has to invoke every time that a colliery has to be closed, if the miners want? The MCRP gives little comfort to anyone who has had anything to do with the coal industry in this country, because no collieries that have gone through that procedure have ever survived for any length of time.
Mr. Eggar: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman received the response from British Coal that he says he did, because everyone who knows how the MCRP works knows that all collieries are involved in the general review meeting which I understand British Coal is likely to call on a regional basis fairly soon—but that is a matter for British Coal and the unions.
British Coal makes the decisions about starting up the MCRP and, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, British Coal has to take into account legal considerations when it makes its decision. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support that.

Points Of Order
Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that yesterday, during the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales about the Welsh Development Agency, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) about regenerating the valleys and he replied:
"I have announced today the next five-year programme for the Welsh valleys initiative."
Later, on a point of order, I asked the Secretary of State why he did not have the courtesy to come to the House to make the statement so that he could be examined on the content of the initiative, which is of vital concern to us in the South Wales valleys.
You kindly invited the Secretary of State to comment on that point of order. He then said:
"I am grateful for the opportunity. I meant to say that I would make a statement tomorrow." [Official Report, 19 October 1993; Vol. 230, cols. 156–57].
I asked that the statement be made to the House.
Today I was waiting, as were my hon. Friends, for the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House so he could be questioned on the content, which is of such vital importance. The Secretary of State has not come. Yesterday, he was confused between yesterday, today and the day before. Has he confused the days again?
I wonder whether you could use your good offices, Madam Speaker, to get the Secretary of State for Wales to come here. At best, he is treating the House with absolute contempt—and I think that he is treating you, Madam Speaker, with the same lack of courtesy—but at worst, he is being economical with the truth, because I understand that today he has gone outside the. House and issued a statement in Wales, where he cannot be questioned or come under parliamentary scrutiny for what he is doing.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, Ministers determine for themselves whether they make a statement orally at the Dispatch Box or choose to do so by means of answer to a written question. The best I can do is to refer the hon. Gentleman to written question 356, which was answered today by the Secretary of State for Wales. It became available at 3.30 and is headed "Programme for the Valleys".
Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker, we all understand that the question' to which you refer was tabled after the Secretary of State had given an assurance to the House. What compounds the error is that, yesterday morning, the Secretary of State took it upon himself to conduct an extensive press briefing. Thirty-six hours before Members of the House with a direct constituency interest, the press knew of the nature of the statement that the Secretary of State was making this afternoon. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, a blatant disregard of the rights of Members of the House with a direct constituency interest.
I would ask that you reflect on previous rulings that you have given to the effect that, when Ministers have statements to make, they should be made in the House before statements are made to the press.
Madam Speaker: I have always taken the view, as the House knows, that, when a Minister has a statement to

297
make, he should make it here to hon. Members who are elected, rather than outside the House. We now proceed with our business.

BILL PRESENTED
  FORMER CABINET MINISTERS (INTERESTS)
  Mr. David Winnick presented a Bill to prohibit former Cabinet Ministers, within a period of five years after leaving office, from accepting any employment with or payment from a company which was privatised while they were members of the Cabinet or which had a commercial or contractual relationship with a Department of State for which or in which they had ministerial responsibility: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 October, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]

Human Organ Transplants (Amendment)
4.47 pm
Mr. John Heppell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 further to provide for the circumstances in which an organ may be retrieved from a dead person for the purposes of transplant; to require the anonymity of the donor and the recipient; to define death for the purposes of that Act of 1989 as the total and irreversible loss of brain function; and for connected purposes.
I notice that the Minister for Energy had so much support for his statement that hon. Members have disappeared from the Government Benches. I hope that when I make my contribution I do not empty the rest of the Benches.
The main purpose of the Bill is to do away with the current opt-in system for donors of kidneys and other human organs, and to bring in a new opt-out system, under which it will be presumed that people are willing to donate their organs unless they have expressed a wish not to do so.
Every year, the number of people who have transplants in this country grows. Last year, more than 5,000 people had major organ transplants. Thousands of other people would have benefited from cornea transplants, heart valve transplants, bone grafts or bone marrow transplants, and the only reason that those operations did not go ahead was the lack of donors.
Many other countries recognised the difficulties in obtaining donors and chose opt-out schemes several years ago. Those countries include France, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Israel. They have a higher rate of donors for heart transplants as a result. Let us compare. Austria manages to achieve a rate of 53 donors for every million of its population each year and Belgium manages 40 per million, but the United Kingdom receives only 30 per million. If we could achieve the same record as Austria, 1,000 more kidneys would be available for transplant, and 1,000 people would be spared the indignity of constant dialysis and would effectively be given a new lease of life.
There are 4,000 people on dialysis machines in this country, and they need them to stay alive. However, because they stay alive, people believe that that is an end to the problem, and see dialysis as a cure. It is not. People would realise that it is not a cure if they spent a major part of their life—three times a week—attached to a machine. They would realise that it is not a cure if they had to suffer the pain and discomfort of constant dialysis.
If people knew that their child could have rosy cheeks and be healthy instead of being pale and weak, they would realise it. If they had seen the knots caused by the constant insertion of needles in people's arms, legs, stomachs and elsewhere on their bodies, they would realise that dialysis is not a cure. People must recognise that children who are on dialysis will still be on it when they die. For them, the transplant will never come. If it did, the transplant would not merely keep them alive but would give them life.
I am sure that I am not alone in having carried a donor card for many years. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members do the same, because they have made a conscious decision that, after their death, they want one, or several, of their organs to be available to help other people. They have a right to have their views considered, and people should respect their wish.

299
If I had requested to be buried or cremated after my death, I think that everyone would respect my wishes. I think that they would respect them if I said that I wanted my ashes to be scattered across the Nottingham Forest football pitch, or the Oval or in the Thames or Trent. So why, when I say that I want my body to be used to help other people after my death, is my view so blatantly ignored?
For years I was under the illusion that I had already made the choice, as I carried a donor card, which meant that my organs would be used to help someone else when I died. I now know that when I die—I nearly said, if I die —my choice will not be respected. If I am involved in an accident, even if the donor card is found on me, my next of kin will be asked for their permission for my organs to be used.
I find that totally unacceptable. It is my choice, not my wife's, my son's or my daughter's. If I am involved in an accident, I do not want someone to ask my wife whether they can have my organs. It would probably be a doctor she had never seen before. I do not want her to suffer that sort of trauma while I am lying dead in hospital or on a mortuary slab. I do not want her to suffer that sort of pain at such a time. If my organs can be of use, I want my body to be used for other people.
It is time for us to accept that the present system is inadequate.
Dr. Joe Hendron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions are not allowed in ten-minute Bill speeches.
Mr. Heppell: The present system was introduced 22 years ago, in 1971. Ten years ago, a Gallup poll showed that 70 per cent. of the population were willing to donate their organs, and a recent poll showed that 72 per cent. would be willing to do so. There has been little variance during those years. However, only 18 per cent. of people carry kidney donor cards, and, as I have explained, those cards are not a guarantee that one's organs will be donated. To me, that smacks of failure.
After all the campaigns and education, it is time to consider a different means of organ donation. A recent poll
300
of transplant doctors showed that 40 per cent. were in favour of an opt-out system; 31 per cent. were in favour of the present system; and 29 per cent. were prepared to work with either system. I agree that that result is not conclusive, and that there is no overwhelming majority. However, in all the reviews carried out during the past few years, the public seem generally to accept the idea of opting out, and it gets more support as time goes by.
The most recent public poll, conducted by the British Kidney Patient Association, shows that 61 per cent. of the population are in favour of an opt-out scheme for donors. On top of that, the overwhelming majority of recipients of organs are in favour, as are people who are waiting for an organ. I think that such a scheme is sensible.
When hon. Members decide about the Bill, I want them to concentrate on two things, because this is what it all comes down to. The first is the needs of recipients and the second the wishes of donors.
The needs of recipients are fairly clear. Any hon. Member, or their wife, daughter, son or grandchild, may require a transplant, so I hope that they will bear that in mind when they decide. The idea that, as a donor, when I die my eyes could give someone sight, my kidneys could give someone a better quality of life and my heart could give someone life itself is very reassuring to me. It means that death has less of a sting. I want hon. Members to give me the chance to make that choice and to have that consolation. The Bill will do just that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Paddy Tipping and Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

Human Organ Transplants (Amendment)
  HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANTS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. John Heppell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 further to provide for the circumstances in which an organ may be retrieved from a dead person for the purposes of transplant; to require the anonymity of the donor and the recipient; to define death for the purposes of that Act of 1989 as the total and irreversible loss of brain function; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 November, and to be printed. [Bill 254.]

European Economic Area Bill [Lords]
4.57 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That in respect of the European Economic Area Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Since the two motions on the Order Paper are related I can allow them to be debated together and so it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That, if the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that, as soon as the proceedings on any Resolutions come to by the House on the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] [Money] and [Ways and Means] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
Mr. Newton: In the light of what you have just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak briefly about the second motion at the same time.
I do not need to detain the House for a great length of time. It is perhaps unusual for the House to be debating the motions in this way and I shall give the background as a fact, rather than as a conclusive argument. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the Bill should be taken through all its stages tomorrow [Interruption.]—I said that I was stating it as a fact and not an argument, but the House should be aware of it.
In the light of that agreement, it has also been agreed that we should make what are well-established procedural arrangements—that is what the resolutions do—for that to be done in a way that Members have historically found helpful and with which the House is familiar, so that the debates can proceed in an orderly fashion. I again emphasise that they are well precedented and in line with the practice that has been used on many occasions. However, as there were objections on two occasions when we sought to move them at other times—and I make no complaint about that—I have to ask the House to spend some time on them today.
The first motion allows amendments to be considered in Committee to be tabled before Second Reading. As I have said, the House is familiar with that procedure, which is used when all stages are proposed to be taken in one day. That allows the orderly tabling and printing of amendments in time for the Committee stage, which will immediately follow tomorrow's Second Reading. The second motion simply allows the Money and Ways and Means resolutions to be considered. That is again normal after Second Reading.
Mr. William Cash: These would be starred amendments. Has my right hon. Friend heard from Madam Speaker or from the Speaker's Office whether they would be treated as normal amendments and therefore automatically taken tomorrow?
Mr. Newton: It is for the Chair to determine that, but it is well within the experience of many hon. Members that in such cases and against the background of the resolution, the Chairman would not wish to rule that out. Perhaps it would be helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have some guidance.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I may assist the House by saying that as Chairman of Ways and Means I am prepared to accept starred amendments.
Mr. Newton: I hope that that helps my hon. Friend: it is certainly helpful to me in dealing with this matter.
The whole of tomorrow has been set aside for proceedings on the Bill and the associated financial resolutions. I understand that that was agreed through the usual channels, and the time allowed should be adequate properly to consider the principle and detail of a Bill whose straightforward objective is to incorporate into United Kingdom law an agreement between the European Community and EFTA to extend the benefit of the free movement of goods, services, capital and people throughout the area.
That agreement has widespread support, and its supporters include the overwhelming majority of Opposition Members. I did not say all Opposition Members in view of the muttering that I hear from time to time. All that we seek to do is to advance discussion of that matter in an orderly and sensible way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the motions are fairly narrowly drawn and that the debate on the merits of the Bill is for tomorrow.
5.2 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Of course I shall not attempt to discuss the Bill's merits today. However, in view of the nature of the Bill and of the treaty to which it refers, perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to make some animadversion. The Leader of the House let the cat out of the bag when he spoke at least two or three times about the usual channels. That phrase was first used in the 1920s or 1930s and referred to a procedure that was not even officially in operation. This House is not for the Front Bench of either party; it is for the representatives of the people, and long may that be so.
The Leader of the House and those associated with him have said that people should have realised that the Government intended to take the Bill in one day. In his notice of 22 July for this week's business—we all remember 22 July because it was the great social charter day—the right hon. Gentleman gave details of proceedings on the Bill. One would have needed a highly attuned ear to know that his announcement was about all stages of the Bill being taken in a day. I admit that textually and in pure terms one might have inferred that, but in the circumstances of that day and other circumstances that I put to the Leader of the House, I do not think that that was so.
The right hon. Gentleman has been here for some time and will know that it is not altogether unknown for a Leader of the House to say when announcing the following week's business that following Second Reading of a Bill other stages may be taken. However, he did not say that on 22 July. Therefore, even for those of us who try to keep up with these matters, Monday was the first day on which we saw on the Order Paper textual amendments or rules that would override the normal Standing Orders or courtesies of the House and permit the Bill to be taken tomorrow in one go. That was why I took the liberty of objecting on Monday

303
after 10 o'clock. I was trying to prevent that happening, and if I had not objected the dye would have been cast at 10 o'clock on Monday night or yesterday.
I do not object to the first motion, which simply alerts us to when the Government will allow amendments to be tabled. Perhaps they could have been tabled yesterday, which would have been short notice. The second motion contains the guts of the matter. It says that after Second Reading tomorrow, however long that may be, and after the accompanying money resolution—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has often said, such resolutions are important—and after the relevant Ways and Means motion, which is not just gobbledygook, the House will grant permission to expand the area of taxation. That matter is central to the historic powers of the House. The debate is open ended, although the closure can be moved. The motion says that after that the
"House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill."
Second Reading entails discussion of principles and explanations. I agree that some Bills could be taken in a day. One such Bill was the one that nationalised Rolls-Royce, but in that and other cases there was a need for speed and the intention, method and principle were clear. Although the details of such Bills are matters for dispute, agreement is usually between all hon. Members, not simply a matter of Front-Bench speakers ganging up.
This is not such a Bill. It contains only five clauses, but I defy any hon. Member to say what it is all about. It is twice as obtuse as the famous Maastricht Bill, and the treaty to which it relates has 550 pages and is about three times as obtuse as that Bill. It is not an ordinary Bill, nor is the treaty an ordinary one, yet we are being asked to take it in one day.
Bills are taken in stages to enable their purpose, effects and results to be properly debated. If a Bill is not taken on the Floor of the House by resolution it goes to Committee, and by convention two weekends elapse before the Committee meets. The Committee of Selection has to appoint a Committee and there is time for the Bill's purpose—in this case the purpose of the treaty—to be advertised and for people to make inquiries and table amendments. That leads to proper scrutiny in Committee. No such opportunity has been made available in this case and there are many questions about the treaty. I shall not go into all of them, but Switzerland is mentioned, although I understand that that country will not be party to the treaty in the same way. Many issues arise.
Dr. Norman A. Godinan: Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill requires a Special Standing Committee so that it may be scrutinised effectively?
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend raises an interesting issue. I have not thought of such a Committee, but my hon. Friend may be right about that, although I do not think that this is the type of Bill for which such a Committee should be established. Of course, such a Committee would enable us to ask Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers to give evidence. However, the Government have not considered that, and in any case I object to the speed and not to the procedure. That time scale does not give anyone time to think, to find out, to write letters or to make telephone calls. If we are properly to scrutinise matters relating to our relationships with the Community to which
304
the Government have committed themselves, why the need for speed? Why could not we have had the Committee stage even—I am not suggesting an ideal—after 10 o'clock some time next week or a few days later, let alone within only a few hours or minutes of the Second Reading?
I was accosted when arriving this morning by a colleague who said, "I hear you objected last night. You have precipitated a debate tomorrow. What mischief are you up to now, Nigel?" It is not my mischief, but the mischief of the Government. We do not have conventions in the House or ways of conducting business without good cause. When they are dispensed with, there must be a motion to do so. If it is a genuine reason, there is usually no problem. But there is a problem here and the Leader of the House should tell us why because the Bill is about the prerogative. Not only is the treaty conducted, and the negotiations to which it relates, by prerogative, but the consequence is that we will mix Foreign Office prerogative powers with obligations in legislation and, indeed, obligations in taxation. We all know from experience what that prerogative is. I quote from the explanatory memorandum to the Bill:
"Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act will apply so as to give legal effect in the United Kingdom to present and future provisions of the Agreement"
—that is the treaty—
"which, under the Treaties, are to be given legal effect without further enactment."
I remind the Leader of the House that the House does not have a good record in regard to proper scrutiny. I understand that the Select Committee on European Legislation wanted debates about general post office matters in the Community and did not get them. Rushing the Bill through in one day without an opportunity for reflection or to table amendments after Second Reading at least raises the big question "why?". The Government are devoted to open government, so they say. This looks like a closed shop between the two Front Benches.
5.12 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope in all sincerity that the Leader of the House will think carefully about the wisdom of shoving through a massive and important Bill and effecting the equivalent of a treaty or agreement in one day with Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, money resolutions and Third Reading.
There are only three reasons of which I can think for doing all that in a day. The first is that everyone agrees to it. The Leader of the House correctly said that everyone is agreed, but why? He specifically said that the Labour party had agreed with the Government that all the stages should be completed in a 24-hour sweep. We should pay attention to that. We understand that the Labour party, for the same reasons as the Conservative party, has found EC issues rather divisive of late—partly because of the failure to have a referendum on Maastricht. As long as we are discussing the EC, members of the Labour party and Conservative party will disagree, fight Whips, use obscene words in all kinds of places and, when we vote, all kinds of things will happen. The wish of the Government and the Opposition to hurry through the Bill is not valid.
The second reason for doing all that in a day would be if the Bill was non-controversial. The Government could argue that it is non-controversial, but they should ask themselves why. We know that the countries of EFTA say that they want an agreement in the same way as the

305
Government. That is as if, for example, the recipients of social security were to give £1 to the Conservative party and £1 to the Labour party and were then asked if that were preferable to not having social security. Most people would say that even if they had to give money to the Labour and Conservative parties, they would rather have the remaining social security. EFTA countries are anxious to have the agreement not because they regard it as a bonus, but because it is the only way in which the EC is prepared to allow them continuing free trade.
To the countries of EFTA it is a significant agreement. They will become involved in a mass of bureaucracy. Clearly we cannot consider the merits of the Bill in this debate, but if the Leader of the House considers title V on page 59 of the agreement, he will see that, as a consequence of the Bill, poor countries will have to go through the most absurd, ridiculous bureaucracy to engage in normal trade. The second thing that he will see if he looks at the agreement properly is that the countries of EFTA will have to change a mass of laws to abide by European laws. The House of Commons Library has said that about 60 per cent. of all the laws passed by the EC must be adopted by EFTA, whether it wants to or not. Article 4 of protocol 31, for example, says that all the education, training and youth provisions will have to be adopted by EFTA, even though the Parliaments and Governments may not want them.
Page 212 says that all the social provisions passed by the EC will have to be applied to EFTA whether the countries want it or not, as well as all the laws on consumer protection. Page 215 shows that there is a pile of cash that will have to be paid out in an assessment of contributions. All that is significant for Europe as a whole and for Britain in particular.
If we are to pass a Bill which is linked to an agreement that forces the countries of EFTA to adopt a mass of laws, directives, rules and requirements that their Parliaments are not going to take part in deciding, it should be discussed at length.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I do not wish to prolong the debate, which is on a point of procedure, but my hon. Friend should recognise that the matter of which laws are attached to the treaty is one for the individual countries. Is not it significant that the EFTA Governments want to join the European Community ultimately, not just the European economic area, because they understand the importance not only of the economic benefits, but of the political benefits, as the Prime Minister of Sweden said at the fringe meeting of the Conservative party conference?
Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is totally out of date. If he considers the recent elections in Norway and the opinion polls there, it is apparent that the last thing in the world that the Norwegians want to do is to join the EC—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not possible under the motion to discuss the merits of the present political feelings in Norway.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was misdirected by my hon. Friend. It is rather unfortunate that my hon. Friends say silly things to force me to contradict them and be out of order, which never happens
306
to me under my own volition. I am always glad to receive interruptions, but it is unfair of my hon. Friend to interrupt me and try to drive me out of order.
Is the agreement significant for Britain? I am sure that we know, as we have all had communications with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, that the Bill will have devastating consequences for Gibraltar and its economy by introducing further discrimination. That is certainly what the Chief Minister and his Cabinet think. They are worried that throughout the proceedings Britain has been neglecting Gibraltar shamefully. We should discuss such an issue in good time and not late at night. It stands out a mile that the Bill is significant. It is not non-controversial, but it is a measure of great constitutional significance which involves a change in democracy in Europe and is of great significance to Gibraltar.
The third reason that may be given for rushing the Bill through in a day is that it is of no consequence to Britain, the Treasury and its policy. I could give a multitude of examples why that is not the case, but I shall mention just one.
From looking at the financial effects of the Bill, one can see that it will add enormously to the Government's social security costs. I hope that all the civil servants have looked at that point. The Bill refers to the fact that there will immediately be about £1 million extra for social security. My constituents and your constituents, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have to pay for that.
I want to talk about that point, especially in reference to what is loosely called "one of our Cabinet Ministers" at the Conservative conference. I do not know whether any hon. Members here today heard him. He talked about "Euroscroungers" and alleged that people were coming from the EC to have a holiday in Britain at the taxpayers' expense. That would now appear to apply to people from EFTA.
If a Bill that will increase the extent of Euroscrounging is passed, will the Government tell us what they can do about it? We heard a statement from a Minister at the party conference. Although Ministers are all splendid people who have high principles, and who are very kind to children and to dogs, I have sometimes found that Ministers' statements do not turn out exactly as one would think.
We should decide on and discuss this matter so that we have policies that are important for Europe, policies that are desperately important for Gibraltar and policies that are important for the British taxpayer, who will have to pay a lot of extra money as a consequence of the Bill.
A fourth argument that could have been used was that there was a tight timetable. Let us suppose that the Government were rushed off their feet and that we had no time because of a mass of legislation that was to be discussed very soon. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know what the score is. We have had a very long summer break. We are told that we shall have another big break before the Queen's Speech and that we shall have a long Christmas holiday. Largely because of the massive surrenders of power to Brussels, there is not really much to do here.
I dare to suggest to the Government that the one argument that they cannot use is that we do not have parliamentary time. We have had loads of parliamentary time with precious little to do, so there is no reason why we cannot have Second Reading one day and the Committee stage the next.

307
Apart from the point about democracy, I ask the Government, "Please can we start to look for solutions?". All we are asking is to have Second Reading tomorrow and to have some time next week or the week after for the Committee and Report stages. We are asking only for two days: one for Second Reading and one for the Committee. What is wrong with that? If the Government agreed to that, everyone would be happy. In fairness, I point out that the majority of hon. Members are not listening to this debate and have probably never heard about the agreement about which we are talking. However, if the Government agreed to my suggestion, the problem would be solved and finished.
With the Maastricht treaty, the whole problem could have been solved if we had had a referendum, but the Government chose not to do so. We could solve the problem with the Railways Bill tomorrow if the Government said that there would be no foreign railway companies as well as no British Rail. I appeal to the Leader of the House, "Please start looking for solutions." All we are asking is for one day for Second Reading and one day for the Committee and Report stages.
I and many other older hon. Members—it is mainly older hon. Members here today, with the exception of one or two of my hon. Friends—have seen democracy dying in this House. There is no point in people trying to forget about that; we all know that it has been happening. There was a time when we used to discuss things, when we used to debate them and when we used to have fights. Sadly, with the help of, I am afraid, the Foreign Office, democracy is largely dying.
Here we have legislation that is terribly important for Europe, terribly important for the taxpayer and terribly important for democracy. With the agreement of Labour Front-Bench Members, Ministers and, possibly—I do not know—Liberal Democrat Members, we are being asked to shove the Bill through in one day. They say, "Let us get it over with. Let us get it finished. Do not talk about it. Do not vote on it."
I have been appalled to hear that the Government have tamed the Labour party with a one-line Whip. The last thing in the world that I want to do is to attack parties and to say, "We are the goodies and they are the baddies," but I must say that that is not the way to run a democracy. I tell the Leader of the House that something worrying has been happening in Britain. We are shoving through legislation using brutal methods. We are shoving it through at a breakneck speed. Probably at 3 am or 4 am, we shall be talking about something fundamental to the future of the people of Gibraltar, fundamental to British taxpayers and fundamental to the future of Europe. We shall also be passing legislation that will require the good people of Norway, of Sweden and of the other EFTA countries to adopt and to implement laws which they did not discuss and to which they did not contribute. That is not right.
I know that the Leader of the House is a fair person. I had the pleasure of sharing a platform with him at the Oxford Union last week. We had much in common and we agreed on at least one point. I say to him in all sincerity, "Surely, for the sake of democracy, we should have two days to discuss the Bill." It is a massive treaty and a very important Bill. It will cost my constituents a lot of money. It will cause a great deal of injustice. Surely we can talk about that and debate it. I can see no reason for not
308
agreeing to what we want, except for the fact that Labour Front-Bench Members and the Government have done a deal. Surely that it not a proper explanation.
I make it clear that the last thing in the world that I intend to do is to cause trouble over this matter. We know that when the bells ring, the vast majority of the troops will pour in, and will go into the Lobbies and ask what they are voting about. There is no point in having a row. I simply appeal to the Government to remember that democracy matters and to remember that freedom matters. Even though fat Whips will sit smiling away and will use abusive language to try to get legislation through, that is not what matters. What matters is the power belonging to the people. We represent the people and we are meant to decide matters properly and fairly. We are not supposed to have dirty, squalid deals being done between Front-Bench Members of each party.
Let us, therefore, have a proper and reasonable solution. Let us have two days instead of one. Let us cut down our extra, glorious holiday by one day. Let us represent the people and stand up for the people. Once again, we should remember what Bob Marley said in his great song. It is time for us to stand up, to wake up and to start fighting. If we do not do that, we may as well close down this place, we may as well all go home and we may as well forget about the whole idea of democracy.
5.25 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said that there should be two days of debate. I have reason to believe that, before the long recess, Labour Front-Bench Members put forward the proposition that there should be two days. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) may intervene in this debate and he may be able to confirm that. The fact that that was the proposition needs to be put on the record.
When I came in here, I thought, "Here we go again." It is like Maastricht all over again. It is as if the House of Commons in recent years is besotted with the idea of the Common Market. There is an alternative argument to the argument that we should have a long time for the Bill, which is what the hon. Member for Southend, East has just proposed. There is an argument that we should not be messing about with this thing at all.
Everybody knows that the Common Market has been an unmitigated disaster. We have just had a short debate and questions and answers on the coal industry—
Mr. Spearing: It was a statement.
Mr. Skinner: We had questions and answers about the demise of the coal industry. One point which was not made then but which has been made many times is that the Common Market was set up, presumably, to produce economies of scale so that countries could trade with one another. Yet they do not buy a single cobble of British coal even though it is the cheapest in the whole of the Common Market. The whole thing has been a fraud from beginning to end.
Here we are, going off again on another tangent to deal with EFTA. It is always the same with these Common Market fanatics. They always say that one can never get perfection in the Common Market unless one does something else. In the beginning, they said that the Common Market would produce jobs. They said that if we passed the Common Market Bill in 1971, when the grocer

309
was in charge, unemployment would be written off the map. What happened? When we went into the Common Market in 1973, there were about 700,000 people out of work. With the help of this Tory Government and the Common Market, more than 4 million people in Britain do not have a job—I do not believe the fiddled figure of 3 million.
What do the Common Market fanatics, including Liberal Democrats, who are besotted with the idea say? They say that we shall have to have direct elections to the Common Market. They say that if we have direct elections, we shall be able to produce all the jobs about which we talked before. They say that we shall feed the third world. Do hon. Members remember that story? All those people said that we would feed the third world. There are now more people in Africa and in other third-world countries starving than at any time this century. What is being done with Common Market food? It is being destroyed.
After that, the Common Market fanatics tried another gamble, and that was to increase the number of nation states. First it was six, then it was seven and now they have upped it to 12 and still we are not reaping the so-called benefits from the Common Market. The truth is that we can never have the benefits.
As a socialist, I want to make it clear to everybody, including the Labour Front Bench, that I do not believe that we can resolve the problems of the working class in Britain with the help of that Tory Helmut Kohl and that Tory in France, Balladur. I believe that we have to build socialism wherever we are. If that means association with other people, so be it, but we have to prove that it was there in the first place.
We have had the Maastricht treaty that was supposed to produce wonderful things for Britain and get people back to work. They are still on the dole. We have a massive balance of payments deficit with every Common Market country, yet when we started we had a trading surplus with those countries. We have a public sector borrowing requirement of more than £50 billion. What is the Common Market contributing to that? Nothing—it is making it worse all the time. What is it all about? Is it doing the British citizen any good at all? It takes £20 a week from every family in Britain to prop up a tinpot common agriculture policy to line the pockets of the rich farmers.
Sir Teddy Taylor: That figure was reviewed by one of the Treasury Ministers last week. It is now £24 extra a week for the average citizen, not £20. The hon. Gentleman's figures are wholly out of date.
Mr. Skinner: There we have it. That proves my point. We discussed it in the Maastricht debate, and the figure was £20 a week. Parliament has been in recess—our euphemism for a holiday—for about 11 weeks and what has happened? The amount has gone up to £24 a week. It is no wonder we have a public deficit on the PSBR and the Government want to enlarge it even more, at least on the economic front.
They talk about a level playing field. There is no such thing in world economics. It is impossible. How can we produce food on the same basis as Mediterranean countries and fruit like they can in California? I have never heard
310
such claptrap as people saying that we need the EFTA countries in to produce a more level playing field. As a socialist I believe in intervening in the economy.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Shame.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman says, "Shame" because he believes in the market system. I do not believe that it is possible to produce things in the same way in every single nation state.
The British people know that the Common Market has failed. They know that it is not what it was before. They can see mass unemployment in all the Common Market countries. They can see the rise of neo-fascism in Germany, Italy and France and now it is beginning to rear its ugly head in Britain. What has the Common Market done for them? Nothing at all.
It is time that people understood that there comes a moment when we have to accept that treaties such as the Common Market treaty, the Maastricht treaty and the one they are proposing now do not last any longer. Treaties between nation states do not last forever and we have seen the best inside the Common Market.
I am not hoodwinked by the business of incorporating the EFTA countries to make it all better. It will not make things better; it is defunct. We can talk about it, we can talk a donkey's hind leg off for three or four days, or even a fortnight—I will be here. I do not mind seeing the Tories ripped apart on this issue. In fact, I am on the horns of a dilemma. Would it be a good idea to spend a fortnight discussing this matter? We would have to have a splash-plate in front of us to stop Tory blood splashing us.
The Labour Front Bench should have been smarter. They should have said, "Let us have a fortnight on it. We can get all the Tory rebels back into business and Lady Thatcher could have little seminars to tell them what to do. It would be hilarious." I am beginning to think that it would be a good idea. We could scrap the fortnight's recess. Is anybody in favour of that?
They tell us that on 4 November we are to pack up again for another fortnight. Will anybody volunteer to talk about the EFTA thing for a fortnight? I can see one, two, three volunteers, and I shall be here. It would be better than VAT on fuel. I would settle for debating this thing instead of having VAT on fuel. I would settle for debating it instead of shutting the pits or taking action against some of the impoverished people in Britain, in the knowledge that it will not get us anywhere but at least it will divide the Tory party even more.
You heard it all before, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you where chairman of the Committee on the Maastricht Bill. They were pulling the wool over people's eyes. We are now at it again, all because 30 years ago some people had the daft idea that somehow or other we could call on other nation states to resolve problems that we did not have the guts to resolve ourselves. That applies to both sides of the House. That is roughly what it is about.
People are elected here to be Members of Parliament in Britain. They say, "We would love to get you better pensions but we cannot, we would love to find you employment but we cannot, we would love to be able to do all these things to make your lives better"—but in the real world we have to go with a begging bowl to Helmut Kohl, to France and to the rest.

311
It is an abdication and a dereliction of duty. We are about to debate another piece of that escapism that makes my blood boil.
5.36 pm
Mr. William Cash: On 25 September, the Prime Minister wrote an article in The Economist saying:
"Some differences in the Community are stark and simple. We counted the financial cost of our membership. Others counted their financial gain."
He continued with the point I want to emphasise:
"We subjected each proposal to the scrutiny of Parliament. They relaxed in the sure knowledge that their public opinion uncritically endorsed the European idea. Hang the detail. Never mind the concession of power to Brussels. Maastricht changed all that."
We seem now to be faced with yet another enormous raft of legislation. It is impossible for anybody to begin to imagine how much there is in the papers we are expected to get through in one sitting tomorrow afternoon. Although I personally do not believe it would be necessary to have an extended debate of the kind that we had before, we must consider the sheer volume of this stuff.
One has only to look at the references, each one of which is absolutely massive in its own right, and then realise that it is being amended in its application to the European economic area as well as to the United Kingdom, to realise that this rather shabby, behind-the doors deal between the Front Benches is a travesty of our democratic system. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made a very important point about the way in which democracy in the House is being drained away. This is a typical example.
It may come as a surprise to many hon. Members that I did not particularly enjoy much of the debate on the Maastricht treaty, but I knew that it was essential that, in procedural terms, we ensured that we examined properly the detail and matter in the Bill and the treaty.
I shall make just one more point, because there is no need to go into matters in great detail today. In the preamble and the provisions of this massively complicated agreement, there is a reference to the relationship between Parliaments. We are being asked in this sittings motion to consider the impact upon our democracy when the matter is debated at short notice and in short time tomorrow.
Hon. Members may not know that it effectively bypasses the British Parliament for the following reason: it deals with the relationships between the European Parliament and EFTA national Parliaments, yet we are being asked to implement the provisions in a Bill which affects our constituents.
If I could find any excuse for that, it would be—this may have escaped the notice of some hon. Members—that the Bill came here from the House of Lords on 25 November 1992, 11 months ago. Surely, in the aftermath of, and having regard to, the debates on Maastricht, we could at least have been given an opportunity to consider the Bill in a reasonable and proper manner. "Maine's Ancient Law" contains the maxim:
"Justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure."
The motion is a travesty of that maxim.
5.40 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I, too, strongly object to the way in which, yet again, the Government are using Parliament as some sort of legislative convenience. It is quite outrageous that, when a Bill of this importance
312
is being considered, the Government, because of their majority, will introduce a timetable motion that will sweep to one side the very important considerations involved in the Bill.
In years to come, when the Government are producing delegated legislation through Ministers, they will refer to section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, which is also referred to in the Bill, because that is the section that gives the administrative machinery extra power to produce delegated legislation and to bypass this House.
As the Leader of the House knows—I have raised the matter several times—timetable motions sweep Bills through the House without adequate debate and without adequate time to table amendments and to have a proper Committee stage. There is a different pattern of consideration for other Bills, so the House presumably regards the longer period allotted to them as adequate. If the time available for this Bill is to be curtailed, by definition that amount of time must be inadequate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others have raised a wide range of issues, and we need time to discuss them. For example, the Bill gives untrammelled powers to Ministers. It provides for the removal of
"exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations"
from the operation of clause 2. In other words, even though we will be forced to pass the Bill so hurriedly, Ministers will still be given untrammelled powers to make exceptions by means of delegated powers.
The Government claimed that they would take the legislative burden off the backs of the people, yet they treat this place with such contempt that the vast majority of their legislation emanates from subordinate instruments produced by Ministers. It is not on a trivial scale; they have produced more statutory instruments than any Government in the history of Parliament—3,500 last year.
Mr. Skinner: Never!
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend expresses surprise, as well he might. Many of those instruments exceed the power, size and extent of much primary legislation.
As the Leader of the House knows, the opportunities to debate subordinate legislation in the House are extremely limited. When this Bill is regrettably passed and hon. Members table prayers against the potentially huge raft of subordinate legislation produced by Ministers, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that, while he holds office, time will be provided for all those prayers to be debated? Of course he will not give such a guarantee—he cannot, because he has competing demands on time in the House.
Some hon. Members—the new, trendy intake—want to shut up shop at 5 o'clock and go home for tea and crumpets. They want a four-day week. There simply will not be the time for scrutiny of the potentially huge amount of subordinate legislation that will affect people's daily lives. The law is the law, whether it is made through primary legislation, through a truncated version of primary legislation—such as we are being asked to approve this afternoon—or through the whole process of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report and Third Reading, the House of Lords and then back to the Commons.
The delegated powers used by Ministers have the same effect as primary legislation, and often include criminal sanctions. It is important that time is provided to debate the

313
powers that this Bill will hand to Ministers. People are sick and tired of the huge volume of legislation introduced by this Government and their predecessors. Clause 5 states:
"The power to make regulations…shall be exercisable by statutory instrument".
There is no definition showing whether they will be made under the affirmative procedure—a resolution by the House to approve an instrument—or under the negative procedure. Apparently, that is to be left entirely to the Minister. That is not right. More instruments should be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that the House can have some sort of bite at the cherry. It is called democratic scrutiny.
The Government want to curtail the democratic processes for producing primary legislation. Then, within that curtailed process, they want to produce primary legislation that will give further powers to Ministers to produce subordinate legislation, which we are certain will not receive any scrutiny in the House.
The Bill provides for subordinate legislation to be produced to cover a wide range of instruments, including
"Orders in Council, orders, rules, regulations, schemes, warrants, byelaws and other instruments made under any Act."
That is not a narrow range. It is true that "any Act" is defined to some degree in the Bill, but it is important that the House has an opportunity to curtail such wide powers.
I object to Ministers being given such huge powers, because of the way that the Whips carry out their business.—Conservative Whips and, I regret to say, Labour Whips reaching agreement to hand Ministers a huge range of subordinate powers.
Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend illustrates the need for proper scrutiny. Does he agree that the motions, especially the ways and means motion that will be debated tomorrow —I hope we do not actually get as far as that—include the power to lay a tax at some future time, under any existing Act, for purposes unknown? To that extent, the motions are "open sesame"—not only for regulations, but possibly for taxation for specific purposes.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend clearly shows the need for more time. It is a relatively short Bill—indeed, the Maastricht Bill was also relatively short—but it is important. It is disgraceful that the Government should attempt to curtail proceedings on it. There is no need to do that. We have just been on holiday for 11 weeks. Hon. Members perform various tasks during that time and so are not completely free for those 11 weeks but, nevertheless, we have just had an 11-week recess. We will be here for a few days and on 4 November, so it is said, the House will go into recess again so that some Members of Parliament can recover from the shock of returning here after 11 weeks' holiday. Then we shall have another fortnight's holiday, coming back on 18 November. Why should the House have a fortnight's holiday at the convenience of the Government?
The Government want this place shut up to reduce scrutiny and challenge. Ministers make statements on television with no challenge other than a few soundbites from Opposition Members, who are in a subordinate position because the Minister is given prominence. Why should we not take two or three of those 10 weekdays? If the Leader of the House is in difficulty, I shall table a
314
resolution to curtail that fortnight's recess and, by a nod and a wink, he can tell his troops to slip off and let the Labour party approve the resolution.
It would not be popular among some hon. Members but, none the less, on the basis that we have plenty of time, I am prepared to do it. We can then have an additional two or three days in which to scrutinise the legislation without any difficulty.
Mr. Cash: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that one reason why the Government are so anxious to get the legislation through as quickly as possible before 1 November may be that that is the date on which the Maastricht treaty has legal effect in the United Kingdom? The drafting of this Bill is based on the assumption, which I am glad some of us managed to prevent being realised, that the Government would get the Maastricht treaty through in a jiffy. For practical purposes, the Government must get this Bill on the statute book before 1 November. Therefore, although it would be a good idea to have more time, we would need to have that time between now and 1 November.
Mr. Cryer: I am not in favour of this Parliament being subordinated to the convenience of other members of the EC. If Parliament wishes to take extra time to scrutinise legislation, we are entitled to do so. I do not accept the notion that we should be subordinate in the headlong rush for integration into the Common Market.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, the Common Market has been a millstone around the neck of the British people. It has not provided jobs; it has reduced them. It has eroded our manufacturing base. We import from the Common Market nearly half the total number of cars registered on our roads each year. The Common Market exports much more to us than we export to it. Our economic relationship with the Common Market is dependent on its economic survival. It is diminishing —hence the stalling of our recovery. We face a deluge of legislation from the Common Market, much of it irrelevant.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was doing well and keeping entirely in order, but he is now going beyond the scope of the two motions—far further than even the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) went.
Mr. Cryer: The implications of our relationship with the Common Market are relevant, because the treaty that the Bill implements links the EFTA countries with the Common Market. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what you say is right, and I do not challenge it.
But, as the lawyers would say—although they are not here because they are in the courts—that demonstrates beyond peradventure the need for extra time to debate this comprehensive, complicated and extensive legislation. Your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, demonstrated the nature and range of the debate that would be in order if adequate time were given, and that shows how shoddily the House is being treated by the Government.
We are always in some difficulty on motions such as this. The first motion, which allows amendments to be tabled, was objected to because we wanted time to debate the motions and that was the only way to achieve that. But in the final analysis, if we are presented with the Government's organised majority, perhaps with some

315
absentions from pro-market fanatics on the Labour Benches and all the Liberals who vote for anything from the Common Market without any critical thought passing between their brain cells, we must decide whether we take advantage of the motion in order to table amendments.
Therefore, perhaps on balance we should allow the first motion to go through, but vote against the second motion, which compresses the amount of time to an unacceptable degree. It is in effect a guillotine. It is the sort of thing that the trendy tendency in the House wants for every bit of legislation.
People can take warning from this. Those who want to finish at 5 o'clock in the national legislature to get home for crumpets and tea, and who are prepared to accept a guillotine at the beginning of each piece of legislation, should note that this is what it is like—compressing time at the Government's convenience so that we cannot exercise proper scrutiny. I am opposed to that, and we should vote against the second motion.
5.56 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I support and endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who spoke bravely and well about the serious constitutional issue at stake here. I am sure that what he has said will be widely appreciated by the British people whom we represent. It is a great shame that not more of their representatives were in the Chamber to hear what my hon. Friend said.
Hon. Members will not be unaware of a certain election which took place in Tower Hamlets a few weeks ago. Before you rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me explain the significance of that for what we are discussing this evening.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are debating only motions Nos. 1 and 2, and he will have to be highly creative if he wishes to go down the track that he proposes and stay in order.
Mr. Gill: I shall do my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will bear with me if I expand my argument. What I am saying in all seriousness is that history is repeating itself. An event in the history of this country 30 or 40 years ago on which the British people were not consulted had a profound effect on this country and, had they been consulted, they might have concluded quite differently.
You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the 1950s and 1960s, anyone who spoke against mass immigration to this island was pilloried and vilified—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating motions Nos. 1 and 2 on the European Economic Area Bill, not mass immigration or a part of London. Every other hon. Member who has spoken has stayed in order, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to stick to the two motions.
Mr. Gill: The debate has been wide-ranging, but had you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, allowed me to complete my next sentence, you would have understood the drift of my argument. Had the British people been allowed a referendum in the 1950s or 1960s on that important issue, we might have avoided one of the great difficulties that we are now experiencing.
316
There is a real danger that history will repeat itself, and that what we do in the Chamber today, carelessly, will, in 30 or 40 years' time, be regarded by the British people as a serious and fundamental dereliction of duty.
Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and others are right to say that we should have more time to debate these matters because they deal with the fundamentals of our constitution. It is only right and proper that the argument in this place should be extensive. It is regrettable that that argument has not been allowed to include the British people. Many of us believe that they should have been consulted through a referendum, in the same way as they should have been consulted on the other important issue many years ago.
One of the things that determined me to obtain a place in this House was that, throughout my adult life, I have seen this Parliament backing away from tough decisions. I have seen my country drifting rather than facing up to reality. I believe also that, on these important fundamental constitutional issues, the people should be consulted. At the end of the day, the people will be the all-time losers as a result of our failure to represent their interests adequately and well.
6 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I wish to refer to motion No. 2. The first motion causes me no concern. It specifies, rightly, the tabling of new clauses and schedules. However, motion No. 2 should be rejected by the House.
The House has been denied a detailed scrutiny of the treaty. I think that I am right in saying that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has not reported to the House on the treaty. I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and I can inform the House that that Committee's terms of reference have prevented it from examining the treaty. If the Bill were deliberated in a sensible way, it would allow us to voice some concerns that we have about the treaty. I am interested particularly in parts 2, 3 and 7 of the treaty.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House is interested in all parts of the treaty. However, this afternoon we are concerned only with the two motions. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address his remarks to those motions.
Dr. Godman: If the second motion is passed, it will deny us the opportunity to voice our reservations. I have already tabled a reasoned amendment to the Bill. If the Leader of the House were to apply Standing Order No. 91 to the Bill—the setting up of a Special Standing Committee—it would allow for the sort of scrutiny that hon. Members have demanded.
If I am in order, I should like to quote from Standing Order No. 91:
"A special standing committee to which a bill has been committed shall have power, during a period not exceeding 28 days …from the committal of the bill, to send for persons, papers and records, and, for this purpose, to hold up to four morning sittings of not more than three hours each."
That is what the Bill needs. In those circumstances, if needs be, the Foreign Secretary could be called to give evidence about the treaty and its implications for many communities in the United Kingdom.
The Standing Order also says that oral evidence can be given and

317
"shall be printed in the Official Report of the Committees' debates together with such written evidence as the Committee may order to be so printed."
If that procedure were to be followed, the Bill would be given the scrutiny that it needs. It would allow us reasonable time to table amendments and new clauses to the Bill if we thought fit. The proceedings need not be too lengthy, but a Special Standing Committee would meet some of the reservations that have been expressed.
6.5 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: There seems to be some familiar voices and faces in this debate. I wonder whether one day is adequate for all the issues being raised. I know that, during consideration of the Single European Act, four or five amendments were grouped together. During consideration of the Maastricht treaty, we changed gear and up to 30 or 40 were grouped together. Now, we have changed gear again and 550 pages have to be dealt with in one day.
We spent 27 or 28 days debating the Maastricht treaty because we thought that it was wholly wrong. However, I wonder whether it is slightly perverse that we should have spent 27 or 28 days debating the Maastricht treaty when the House had no power to alter a semi-colon, colon or even a comma, and then to spend just one day on a 550-page measure when we do have some power to look at the amendments.
If my wife wants to go shopping, she may come back to me and say that there may be a
"small amount of additional expenditure as a result".
However, I wonder whether that is the type of phraseology that we need for this type of Bill, when we are talking about the application for income support by EFTA nationals, of whom there are many millions who can, presumably, make claims. It seems to include Switzerland, which many of us thought had turned down the entire notion, no doubt wisely.
We must look also at the movement of people and our dependencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has mentioned Gibraltar. Also, Bermuda is considering whether it wishes to remain in the Commonwealth. We are not necessarily treating them badly, but I understand that all the citizens of the French dependencies can enter this country freely.
We will end up with the extraordinary situation—I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to confirm this—in which the citizens of British Guyana will not be able to enter this country, while as EC citizens people from French Guyana will be able to do so.
Those are just some of the major items that we will have to debate in one day. Is that right and reasonable?
6.7 pm
Mr. Newton: Despite the numerous references to the length of the recess, I have to say, I hope rather wryly, that during the past two hours it has seemed as if we have never been away. Although not without interest, there was a sense of déjà vu. I remind the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that I made it clear that the fact that there had been an understanding in what are conventionally called the "usual channels" was not being used as a matter of argument. I re-emphasise that to my hon. Friend the
318
Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and others. It is simply part of the background that the House should understand.
The hon. Member for Newham, South referred to the use of the word "proceedings" in my statement before the recess. I am sorry if that misled him. It is perfectly conventional terminology, and is usually taken to mean that the debate is not expected to be confined to Second Reading. I shall consider on future occasions whether there is any way in which I can make that clearer.
Mr. Spearing: I thank the Leader of the House for that remark. It would be helpful to say that "further stages" may also be taken. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's comment about déjà vu, that is not quite the same. Does he agree that democracy has not only to be done but must be seen to be done? In respect of the time for this Bill, it might have been better to do it in a different way.
Mr. Newton: If I may, I shall deal with that point in what will not be an extensive speech. What I have just said is without commitment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters closely, that I did not intend to mislead him by the wording of the statement that was made before the summer recess.
I say to a number of hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East, for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), that the second motion simply provides for the Ways and Means resolution to be taken after the money resolution and Second Reading. Sometimes there is a difference, but normally that is precisely when money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions are taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East maintained that this is a further demonstration that democracy is dying, yet gave a convincing demonstration that it certainly is not. He has been able to spend much time looking at points that he thinks should be raised under this Bill.
Were I to respond to many of the other matters about which we heard from the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South, they would, although they were in order, take me into a wide-ranging defence of our current economic arrangements with and beyond the Community. I say, however, to the hon. Member for Bolsover, who comes from Derbyshire and who adverted to jobs in Britain, that I do not believe for one moment that Toyota, which is in Derbyshire, would have located in Britain if we were not a member of the European Economic Community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), although he may not have meant it in this way, used the phrases "short notice" and "short time". I shall deal with "short time" in a moment. The Bill was ordered to be printed in the Commons on 25 November 1992, so it can hardly be said that there has not been time to study it. Equally, I gave notice of the proceedings intended for tomorrow before the summer recess. There can rarely have been an occasion when the House has had more time to study a matter or to consider the proceedings that we expect to have tomorrow.
Many hon. Members, most notably the hon. Member for Bradford, South, spoke of the motions as though they constituted guillotine or timetable motions. All they allow is for amendments to be tabled before Second Reading and

319
for the Money and Ways and Means resolutions to be taken immediately after Second Reading. There is no timetable motion before the House. These are sensible procedural motions to enable the House to proceed from Second Reading to detailed discussion, and I hope that the House will now pass them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in respect of the European Economic Area Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
Motion made and Question put,
That, if the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that, as soon as the proceedings on any Resolutions come to by the House on the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] [Money] and [Ways and Means] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Newton.]
The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 35.

Division No. 365]

[6.14 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Conway, Derek

Aitken, Jonathan

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Alexander, Richard

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)

Arbuthnot, James

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Ashby, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Atkins, Robert

Day, Stephen

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Devlin, Tim

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Dicks, Terry

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

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bendall, Vivian

Eggar, Tim

Beresford, Sir Paul

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Booth, Hartley

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Boswell, Tim

Evennett, David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Faber, David

Bowis, John

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Brandreth, Gyles

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Brazier, Julian

Fishburn, Dudley

Bright, Graham

Forman, Nigel

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Forth, Eric

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Burns, Simon

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Burt, Alistair

French, Douglas

Butcher, John

Fry, Peter

Butler, Peter

Gale, Roger

Butterfill, John

Gallie, Phil

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gardiner, Sir George

Carrington, Matthew

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Carttiss, Michael

Garnier, Edward

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gill, Christopher

Churchill, Mr

Gillan, Cheryl

Clappison, James

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Coe, Sebastian

Colvin, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Congdon, David

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

320

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Grylls, Sir Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Nelson, Anthony

Hague, William

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Nicholls, Patrick

Hampson, Dr Keith

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hanley, Jeremy

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hannam, Sir John

Norris, Steve

Hargreaves, Andrew

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Harris, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Haselhurst, Alan

Ottaway, Richard

Hawkins, Nick

Page, Richard

Hawksley, Warren

Paice, James

Hayes, Jerry

Patnick, Irvine

Heald, Oliver

Patten, Rt Hon John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hendry, Charles

Pawsey, James

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Pickles, Eric

Hicks, Robert

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Horam, John

Powell, William (Corby)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Rathbone, Tim

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Richards, Rod

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Riddick, Graham

Hunter, Andrew

Robathan, Andrew

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jenkin, Bernard

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Key, Robert

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kilfedder, Sir James

Sackville, Tom

King, Rt Hon Tom

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knox, Sir David

Shersby, Michael

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Sims, Roger

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Legg, Barry

Soames, Nicholas

Leigh, Edward

Speed, Sir Keith

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lidington, David

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lightbown, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spring, Richard

Lord, Michael

Sproat, Iain

Luff, Peter

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stephen, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Stern, Michael

Maclean, David

Stewart, Allan

McLoughlin, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sumberg, David

Madel, David

Sweeney, Walter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sykes, John

Malone, Gerald

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marland, Paul

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Marlow, Tony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Thomason, Roy

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mates, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thurnham, Peter

Merchant, Piers

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Milligan, Stephen

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

Mills, Iain

Tracey, Richard

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Trend, Michael

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Trotter, Neville

Moate, Sir Roger

Twinn, Dr Ian

321

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Willetts, David

Walden, George

Wilshire, David

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Waller, Gary

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Ward, John

Wolfson, Mark

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Yeo, Tim

Waterson, Nigel

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Watts, John

Whitney, Ray

Tellers for the Ayes:

Whittingdale, John

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Widdecombe, Ann

Mr. Timothy Wood.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

McAllion, John

Ashton, Joe

Madden, Max

Barnes, Harry

Mahon, Alice

Bayley, Hugh

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Beggs, Roy

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Bennett, Andrew F.

Mullin, Chris

Boyce, Jimmy

Parry, Robert

Chisholm, Malcolm

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Simpson, Alan

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Etherington, Bill

Spearing, Nigel

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Winnick, David

Gordon, Mildred

Wise, Audrey

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Hardy, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Leighton, Ron

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Livingstone, Ken

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the opening of the office building at No. 1 Parliament street, it has been the custom during Divisions for the police to obey the Sessional Order and allow hon. Members free access to this building. That service was not provided during the latest Division, and I understand from a police officer at the carriage gates that the police had been instructed no longer to provide it.
I wish to register a strong protest. If there is no way of providing such a service, I suggest that at least three minutes should be added to the time available for Divisions, so that hon. Members are able to get here. I do not expect you to be able to respond to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should be grateful if the House authorities could consider it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall bring the matter to the attention of Madam Speaker.

National Lottery Etc. Bill
Lords amendments considered
National Lottery Etc. Bill
  Clause 7

    LICENCES UNDER SECTIONS 5 AND 6: FURTHER PROVISIONS
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 31, at end insert—
    ("( ) to refer matters to the Director General for approval;
    ( ) to ensure that suchy requirements as the Director General may from time to time determine or approve are complied with;")
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Ian Sproat): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.
    Mr. Sproat: The amendments allow for certain additional provisions to be included in the licence to ensure that the lottery is operated fairly and efficiently. The Bill, as originally drafted, already included a wide range of powers for the director general of the lottery to control the operator and the new provisions merely complete the regulatory picture.
    Amendment No. 1 will enable the director general to ask the operator to prepare codes of practice for certain elements of the lottery, in particular to cover advertising and customer relations. The operator will, therefore, be asked, within these areas, to establish his own regime according to which he intends to operate for the benefit of the playing public. Codes will have to be approved by the director general, who will then monitor the operators' performance against their requirements. If there were breaches of the codes, it would be open to the director general to introduce new licence conditions covering appropriate matters.
    The requirement to develop codes of practice will be included in the draft invitation to apply for the licence which the director general will issue shortly after he is appointed, following Royal Assent. Once the draft document has been considered, the final invitation to apply will be issued, enabling him to license an operator by, we hope, next spring.
    As part of the tendering process, applicants will be asked to outline their codes of practice and explain how they see them operating in practice. When the successful applicant has been selected, the director general will agree codes with him before the lottery is finally up and running.
    Despite the fact that we could not complete the Bill's parliamentary process before the summer recess, we still hope that the first draw might be held towards the end of 1994 or in early 1995, with money flowing to the distribution bodies in the following month. Of course, the distribution bodies will need to prepare themselves for handling applications some time before that.
    6.30 pm
    The timetable is especially tight for the new bodies to be established under the Bill and particularly for the Millennium Commission, which will be handling major projects due for completion in time for the year 2000. In order to allow work on establishing the commission to get

    323
    ahead quickly after Royal Assent, my Department intends to bring forward a supplementary estimate this autumn for £150,000 for the Millennium Commission. That expenditure during the current financial year was not anticipated in the earlier stages of the Bill, so I wanted to put it on the record for the House now.
    Amendment No. 2 would allow the director general to publish information relating to the performance of the operator. That would be in addition to the annual report that the operator must produce and would make him even more accountable to the House and to the general public.
    The remaining amendments deal with the situation that will arise when, for whatever reason, one licence ends and another begins. They would require the licensee to take certain actions in connection with the end of his period of holding the licence so that the new licence holder could operate the lottery effectively with as little disruption as possible.
    Some examples of the kind of action that might be required may be helpful. For example, the director general might have to ensure the transfer of rights over the national lottery logo or identity. The identity of the national lottery must, of course, be able to continue even if the operator's licence is transferred to another body. Secondly, the director general might also require the former operator to provide information on accounting matters connected with the running of the lottery. Finally, the outgoing operator might still have information relating to his period as licence holder that the director general needed for completing unfinished games, reissuing the licence or reporting on the running of the lottery in a particular period. Clearly it is important that the director general should be able to gain access to such information and that the licensee should be fully accountable to the publicly appointed regulator for his actions even after the licence has expired.
    I emphasise that it will not be possible to include variations in the licence relating to the transfer of property or rights without the prior consent of the operator. The draft licence sent out with the invitation to apply will make those conditions clear so that all those who bid for the licence will know of their obligations before they make their bid.
    It is important that a certain degree of continuity be maintained in the event of a change in the operator. The amendments are needed to ensure the smooth operation and continuation of the lottery and I commend them to the House.
    Mr. Tom Pendry: The Opposition recognise that the amendments are, in the main, sensible and that amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are technical. We also welcome the news that supplementary estimates will be brought forward to help the Millennium Commission to get on with its work.
    Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 deserve some comment. The Government have said that amendment No. 1 would make it possible for the director general of Oflot to place additional requirements on the lottery operator, such as a requirement to adhere to a code of conduct on advertising. The amendment also offers the possibility of developing other codes of conduct if necessary. We welcome that addition to the Bill.
    A code of conduct for advertisting is important. Those who took part in previous debates will recall that concern was expressed about the possible nature of the advertising.
    324
    For example, it is plain that in some lottery advertising campaigns in the United States marketing material is targeted on low-income groups. Concern has also been expressed about the possible impact of careless lottery advertising on the incomes of charities. The amendment is welcome because if offers an opportunity for those concerns to be tackled, at least partially, through a condition in the licence that would require the lottery operator to adhere to a code of conduct on advertising prepared by the director general of Oflot.
    I believe—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the Government intend that if the need arose the code of practice could cover the use of charities in lottery advertising. We believe that it is important that it should do so. It appears inevitable to us that "good causes" will be a secondary feature of lottery promotion; and that could affect charities' income and give rise to concern about how images of charitable work are presented in the lottery's promotional material.
    Amendment No. 2 provides that the director general may publish some of the information that the licence specifies that he may require from the lottery operator. That, too, is welcome because it will enable the director general to obtain from the lottery operator for publication information that could help to assess the social effects of the lottery. We sincerely hope that that is one way in which the information will be used; the Minister may wish to comment on that idea.
    Research from the United States shows that lottery operators have a tendency to concentrate lottery terminals in the poorer districts of cities. The Government said in the House of Lords that the director general would require the lottery operator to provide information about the number and location of ticket sale terminals across the country. We believe that that information should be published. Indeed, the Government should go further. The director general could be required to include in his annual report a statement about the social impact of the national lottery. That would probably mean requiring the operator to make available to the director general for publication all its market research, including information about patterns of purchase of tickets according to social class, geographical area and so on. That could form one element of the director general's statement about the social impact of the lottery. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that suggestion.
    In another place the Government also gave an undertaking to publish before the Bill left Parliament a document giving information about what would be in the licence, including details of the headings. They had better hurry up. So far as we are aware that document has not been published. In fairness I must say that that is probably because the regulatory adviser, who will become the director general of Oflot when the Bill is enacted, was appointed only a couple of weeks ago. However, it is a shame that the document will not be made public before the Bill leaves Parliament. I hope that the Minister will comment on that matter, too.
    Subject to those provisos, and taking the group of amendments as a whole, we support it as a positive move in the right direction.
    Mr. Tim Renton: First, I declare an interest as chairman and shareholder of a new company, Interactive Telephone Services, in Southampton. Our automatic call-handling facilities may well be used by the

    325
    winning consortium that will operate the lottery, so it is only fair to mention that fact to the House, although my interest is of course declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
    My purpose in speaking in the debate is not, however, to advertise my new company, but, as someone who has consistently and eagerly supported the cause of the national lottery over the past three years, to say how extremely pleased I am that its gestation period has nearly come to an end. I hope that we shall soon see a thriving baby alive and kicking. I am especially pleased about the Millennium Commission, and the commitment of 20 per cent. of resources after expenses to projects commemorating the end of this millennium and the start of the next, because that concept originated from my desk two years ago when I was the last Minister at the Office of Arts and Libraries. I therefore wholly support the idea, and believe that over the next six or seven years we shall have an exciting time —together, I hope, with communities throughout the country—making suggestions to the Millennium Commission about how the money could be spent in a manner that will make our children and grandchildren proud and pleased, and by which they will remember us in years to come. That said, I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I am a little dismayed, particularly by the language in Lords amendment No. 1, which states in a general manner that matters should be referred
    "to the Director General for approval ;".
    If I am correct, that would come at the end of the lines in the Bill which state that the director general's consent must already be obtained by the operator before he does
    "anything specified, or of a description specified, in the licence;".
    I wonder whether the Minister would have inserted the amendment if the House of Lords had not insisted on his doing so. He has told us that the matters to be referred are limited in scope, but the terminology seems all-embracing. The Bill's provisions afforded enough protection when it left this House and went to another place. We do not need to tie down still further the hands and feet of the operator, but the words
    "refer matters to the Director General for approval"
    could be interpreted as doing so. I hope, therefore, that when the Minister winds up this short debate he will reassure the House that it was not the intention to provide a further bureaucratic stranglehold on the operator.
    If the lottery is to succeed, it is essential that a vast hierarchy should not be created around the director general of the national lottery, which would generate further expense and reduce the amount of money available for distribution to the five good causes—small charities, arts, sport, heritage and the millennium fund. It would be a tragedy if the idea of a national lottery, which has existed for so long, were not to succeed. I am told that the idea first came before the Treasury about 30 years ago when Robert Armstrong, now the noble Lord Armstrong, was a very junior civil servant in the Treasury. If the national lottery is now to be created, it is essential that there is not a huge hierarchy of civil servants and that excessive profits do not go to the operator, but a lot of money goes to the five good causes.
    The reason for my enthusiasm for the lottery when I was Minister at the Office of Arts and Libraries was that it was the only way in which I could envisage bringing a lot of new money into the arts, heritage and sport. There was no
    326
    other likely avenue available to achieve that. Let us now ensure that that concept is not dissipated by excessive bureaucracy in the administering of the lottery. Administrative expenses should never exceed more than 5 per cent. of the gross total. If there is to be a gross revenue of £2 billion from the lottery as the first annual figure, ideally 50 per cent. of that—£1 billion—after prizes, the operators' profits, taxes and administration have been accounted for, will be available for the good causes. There should be £200 million for each of the five good causes out of the initial turnover of £2 billion. That should remain the target over the months ahead as the idea is developed and the first national lottery is introduced before the end of 1994.
    The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) mentioned points of sale. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage once or twice to emphasise the argument that I hope that points of sale will be mainly in small corner shops such as tobacconists and newsagents, not concentrated in the supermarkets. I think that all hon. Members want the lottery not only to help the small corner shop to survive, but to provide it with another useful source of revenue by attracting more customers. Therefore, if the points of sale and the vending machines—whatever technology is used—were concentrated in the big supermarkets, it would be a tragedy. We would be throwing away an opportunity to bring new life back to a sector of this country's retailing industry which has suffered in recent years and which we would all like to help.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. It would not be a bad idea if the director general's report were to contain an analysis of points of sale and of the social effects of the lottery. That is an acceptable idea, but I have a twist to that argument. I very much hope that points of sale will be concentrated in the small corner shop.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The amendment relates to clause 7, which deals with the issue of the licence for the promotion of the lottery. When the Minister replies, will he enlighten us on some small but important points? Will matters to be referred back to the director general include details on the companies involved in some of the consortia? That subject is of great public interest and has been heavily covered in newspapers and on television in recent weeks.
    I refer specifically to three of the consortia which are said to be interested in the lottery franchise. The consortia have dealt with two American companies, one of which is Automated Wagering International, which is currently suspended for its activities in Victoria. I understand that it is involved in the bid of the Great British Lottery Company and is also assisting the Rank Organisation in a bid for the lottery franchise. G-Tech, which is involved in the Camelot consortium, has been under investigation for some time in Maryland in America. It was also under investigation in New York and its lobbyists were prosecuted in California in connection with anti-lottery legislation in that state.
    It is of great concern that companies that are to be involved in the lottery should be beyond doubt. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the companies'

    327
    involvement in the consortia will be closely examined as it is said that the annual turnover could be as much as £4 billion.
    Dr. Joe Hendron: I wish to refer to amendment No. 10—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We have not reached that amendment, although I am sure that many people wish we had.
    Mr. Sproat: I take your subtle hint, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    I thank the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for his general welcome for what we have introduced in the amendments. He raised the extremely important issue of controls on advertising and their place in the draft licence. We are concerned that the lottery should not be promoted in unsuitable markets. The licence issued to the lottery operator will oblige him to draw up a code of practice covering the way in which the lottery is to be advertised. That code will go into great detail—
    Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the code include promotions?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The code will include promotions and public relations.
    The code will ensure that the lottery cannot focus advertisements on those under the age of 16. It must also stipulate that advertising should not link the lottery with the sale of alcohol or drugs, or with betting and gaming.
    The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde made an interesting point about charities and the nature of advertising as it might affect them. The code of practice could cover the use of charities. It will be made clear to operators that if they wish to use the image of any beneficiary, including a charity, they cannot do so without that organisation's permission. I hope that that will set to rest any worries which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde might have.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it would be possible to include in the annual report produced by the operator some sort of social impact. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) also raised that issue. It is an interesting idea and I will draw it to the attention of the director general designate, who can discuss it with the operator when the operator is finally chosen. I certainly see no reason why that should not be done.
    The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde also asked whether it would be possible to see the draft licence, and when. It is certainly extremely important that the public and the House should know what is in the licence. When it is issued—shortly, I hope—I will ensure that a copy is laid in the Library of the House for all to see.
    Mr. Joseph Ashton: The Minister is giving us rather bland assurances, but the public want to know more about the nitty-gritty. For instance, will people who win the prize be able to claim it anonymously? Will those who operate outlets have to be insured; and if they are refused insurance, what redress will they have? What will happen if someone walks into a greengrocer's shop and sticks up the manager and takes all the funds? These are the practical difficulties, but the Minister is fobbing them off and saying that they are the responsibility of the director general. Apart from during one or two sessions of
    328
    cross-examining the Minister, the Select Committee has not had a chance to probe this matter either. Will we have another chance to debate these matters in the House?
    Mr. Sproat: These matters, important as they are, may arise on another amendment when we will discuss the revocation of licences, improper behaviour and so on. The hon. Gentleman says that I am laying an awful lot at the door of the director general, but that is what the House decided to do when it passed the Bill earlier this year. Of course, these matters will be taken seriously by the director general and I am not fobbing off my responsibilities on to him. It is just that the House has decided to give him certain powers.
    It is entirely up to the Opposition whether we hold further debates and if the House considers that we need them, we can have them. This is certainly an important subject; we are moving into a new area and no doubt we will want to refine many things at a later stage.
    Mr. Ashton: Would it then be in order for hon. Members to table questions in the House on the workings of the national lottery? Will the Minister answer them, or will he say that they are not a matter for him and his Department?
    Mr. Sproat: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the answer is that if the Table Office accepts the questions I will be glad to answer them. I will be glad to answer as many questions as I possibly can, but the rules of the House will decide that, not me.
    I welcome the support for the millennium fund offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex. We all pay tribute to his tremendous contribution to the national lottery. He was rather worried that various aspects of the code of practice would have to be referred back to the director general and might thus be a cause of more bureaucracy. I agree wholeheartedly with him about the need to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. In order to make sure that the code of practice is as realistic as possible, the director general, in his invitation to apply, will issue a draft licence which will give draft examples of what we want in the code of practice. He will then suggest that the applicant state what he would like in the code and the matter will then be the subject of discussions between them. In this way the code of practice will be practical and realistic and will fit in with the plans of the operator as well as meeting the needs of the director general and the public. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we share his wish that no money be wasted on bureaucracy which could go to good causes.
    My right hon. Friend also made the important point that points of sale could be in small shops, rural post offices and so on. That will be a matter for the applicants to suggest as part of their marketing plans, which they will put to the director general, but I have no doubt that the latter has heard what my right hon. Friend had to say and will take it into account.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) asked a good question about the fitness of operators to take part in various consortia. We take that extremely seriously and I can assure him that the director general will make it his first priority to see that no one who has exhibited criminality or any other kind of unfitness to operate is allowed to be part of a consortium. He will scrutinise people's fitness closely. He has the power to ask for papers, documents and information in any other form that he may

    329
    need to assure himself that the people asking to run the lottery are fit and proper persons to do so. I give the hon. Gentleman that unqualified assurance.
    With those few words, I rest my case.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Lords amendment: No. 6, after clause 15, to insert the following new clause—
  After Clause 15

    False representations as to the National Lottery
    (".— (1) If a person advertising, or offering the opportunity to participate in, a lottery, competition or game of another description gives, by whatever means, a false indication that it is a lottery forming part of, or is otherwise connected with, the National Lottery, he shall be guilty of an offence.

    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

    (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both.")

    Mr. Sproat: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The national lottery will, we hope, be a great success, but that may lead to the temptation for unscrupulous competition organisers to benefit from that success by trying to mislead consumers to the effect that a lottery or competition that they run forms part of the national lottery. This amendment, therefore, will make it an offence to make a false claim that a competition or lottery forms part of the national lottery.
    Although a person who gives a false indication that his lottery is part of the national lottery would probably also be committing an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, we cannot be certain that the Act would cover the position for all eventualities. That Act is confined to false statements made in the course of a trade or business; not all lotteries may fall within that description—for example, a society lottery. We would not of course expect the promotion of any society or local lottery to make false claims that it formed part of the national lottery, but we must ensure that such false claims constitute a criminal offence.
    There will of course be other safeguards for the consumer to ensure that any player who buys a ticket for the national lottery can be certain that it forms part of the national lottery, not something else that purports to. Three important conditions will be included in the licence to help customers know exactly where they stand.
    First, the director general will use the licence to ensure that the operator uses the lottery logo or other signs relating to it in specified places, circumstances and ways. Secondly, the licence and codes of practice will be able to control how the lottery is advertised and ensure that customers are quite clear that the ticket or chance they are purchasing is part of the national lottery and not of any other game. Finally, the operator will have to make sure that the odds against winning on the lottery, including against winning the jackpot, are available to all customers at the point of sale.
    Hon. Members will no doubt recall that we had originally intended to issue regulations under clause 12 to control these aspects of the lottery, but after further thought we have decided that incorporating these matters in the
    330
    licence would provide a more effective, less bureaucratic approach. Certainly, we will not hesitate to use our regulation-making powers should the licence fail to control these aspects of the lottery operation to our satisfaction.
    This amendment seeks to prevent the lottery from being undermined by deception and fraud and hence to protect both the general public and the national lottery itself. I hope that the House will support me in adding this important customer protection measure to the statute book.
    7 pm
    Mr. Pendry: The Opposition are a bit wary of the amendment, as it looks as though the Government have listened to us during the passage of the Bill. They are in danger of being called the "listening party", at least as far as this evening is concerned, with one obvious exception to which we shall come later.
    On behalf of the Opposition, I accept the need for the new clause to ensure that there are proper and adequate safeguards for the consumer who plays the national lottery. The customer must be sure that he is playing the genuine national lottery game and not something pretending to be so. Safeguards, as outlined by the Minister, are right and proper. I agree with him also that the national lottery needs to be protected from unscrupulous competitions so that it can be successful. With those words, we accept the amendment.
    Mr. Stanley Orme: Would a national daily paper that ran a lottery and called it a national lottery cause confusion? What about the football pools? What is the answer? A national newspaper could quite genuinely say that its lottery is national because it is circulated throughout the United Kingdom. How does one distinguish between lotteries? Perhaps the Minister will explain.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am delighted that the Government have taken this step, through the House of Lords, as it underlines a vital point about the lottery; not only must it be squeaky clean, but it must be seen to be so by the public who invest in it. If it is made absolutely clear, by amendments such as this, that there is no question that the authorities will be watching the way in which the lottery structure operates, the point will be strongly made.
    The success of the lottery will depend on people spending money on it and buying their chances. Less money will go to the arts, sport, charities, millennium fund or to heritage unless a vast sum of money goes in to the lottery. I originally envisaged something like £3 billion altogether. If we are to have such advantage, the confidence of the people is all important. If that confidence should ever drain away, the whole thing will end as a pitiful disaster and will be contrary to all our wishes and hopes. That kind of measure must be warmly welcomed by us all.
    Mr. Sproat: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for his welcome, for which I am most grateful, and also thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), to whom the whole House would wish to pay tribute for his contribution to the whole concept of the lottery. He has worked hard and successfully in that matter.
    The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) raised an important point about newspapers trying to pass off something of their own as a national lottery. That would not be allowed. They would be prevented from doing that. Any lottery or other competition that tried to do the same

    331
    would be caught by what we propose in the amendment. I can give him the assurance that what he fears would not happen.
    Mr. Orme: I must press the Minister on that point. If a national newspaper said that it was running a national lottery, it would be ruled out of order. Is that what the Minister is saying?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, is the short answer, but at the end of the day it would be down to the courts to decide. The right hon. Gentleman should have no fear. That is what we intend in the amendment and I am sure that that will happen.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I wonder whether the Minister can clear up that point. Is he saying that, for example, the Daily Mail, which is circulated nationally, cannot promote a lottery? Surely it would be an offence if it gave the impression that the lottery that it promotes is part of the national lottery. There is a big difference in that.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is what I sought to make clear. I understood the right hon. Member for Salford, East to say that, if a newspaper called something a national lottery—
    Mr. Orme indicated assent.
    Mr. Sproat: I see that he is nodding his head—it would be a passing off. That would be caught by the provisions of the Bill. I am sorry if I did not make that clear to the hon. Gentleman, but that was what I was seeking to say.
    Mr. Ashton: I do not wish to waste time, but what would happen if the Daily Mail offered a prize of £100-worth of lottery tickets in the national lottery? That, presumably, would be legal. It might say, "You can pick your own numbers. You can have 8, 10 and 4 on the 3; or 7, 6, 4 and 9 on the 4; or 7 consecutive, and we will run it through the machine, to the value of £100." Would that be legal?
    Mr. Sproat: As far as I know, that would be legal, but the hon. Gentleman's point is slightly different. The point that I understood the right hon. Member for Salford, East to be making was whether it would be right to call it a national lottery—
    Mr. Orme indicated assent.
    Mr. Sproat: —and, as it were, passing it off as part of the national lottery. That would not be allowed. What the hon. Gentleman has now said would, as far as I know, be allowed because it would not be passing off what the Daily Mail or any other newspaper said as part of the national lottery; it would simply be offering prizes An a competition of its own.
    Mr. Ashton: If we come to that, and I am glad that the Minister gave that reply, we have to take up the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) about its being squeaky clean. Obviously, the lottery must be totally squeaky clean. When people put their money on it, I understand that they will have to put it into a computerised box at the outlet and are guaranteed that, within seconds, if they are going for the big jackpot prize that will be drawn tonight at 8 o'clock, their entry will be recorded somewhere on a computerised line and they will be guaranteed a pay-out.
    332
    People will have no such guarantee if the Daily Mail gets the numbers wrong or forgets to feed them in, or comes back and says, "Sorry, but we are changing our mind."
    I regret to say that the Minister has not thought through the consequences of much of what he is deciding. He can pass it all on to the director general, but the House is in the process of passing something that is bigger than British Airways. If we look at what we were told in Committee, the cash turnover involved is bigger than British Coal at its height, yet every time that we asked a probing question in Committee we were told, "We shall talk about that later. There will be a director general, we shall have a report and an investigation." All sorts of things were promised, but there have been no definite answers.
    When my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) and myself went with the Select Committee on National Heritage to Washington and New York and visited the headquarters there, we found many anomalies that the Department has not considered.
    Mr. Sproat: Just to wrap it up, there may be anomalies that we have not considered so far, but I hope not. Details of the kind raised by the hon. Gentleman will be matters for the director general when he comes to decide who should be the operator when he monitors the performance.
    As I may mention later, if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, there will be provision for the director general to publish his opinions of the performance of the operator in addition to any report that the operator makes. All that will be dealt with in that way, quite publicly.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 7, to insert the following new clause—

    Extension of powers of Horserace Totalisator Board
    (".—(1) The Horserace Totalisator Board may hold a licence under section 5 or 6.

    (2) The Horserace Totalisator Board may hold an interst in a body corporate the only or principal object of which is the holding of a licence under section or 5 or 6.

    (3) In subsection (2) the reference to holding an interest in a body corporate is to holding, or being beneficially entitled to, shares in that body or to possessing voting power in that body.")

    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    As most hon. Members know, the Tote is keen to take part in a national lottery, but, as the law stands, it is prevented from doing so. The amendment, which was introduced by Lord Wyatt in another place, will enable the Tote to hold a licence to run the national lottery, or promote lotteries as part of the national lottery. The amendment is purely permissive. It simply places the Tote on exactly the same footing as any operator in the betting industry.
    The Tote has a good case to be a contender, it being well equipped with up-to-date technology. I believe that it would be wrong if it was to be prevented from applying because we were not prepared to take this opportunity to amend the law to enable it to make the bid.
    Mr. Pendry: We also agree with the amendment, for good reasons. Not only does the Horserace Totalisator Board have a proven track record of efficiency, but the profits to the Tote are vital to the horse racing industry. Any decline in its profit margin would have a devastating effect on the industry at a time when it is facing enormous

    333
    challenges. Racecourse attendances were down last year by 3·5 per cent. and courses are finding the economic climate difficult to live with.
    Despite all those problems, the Tote is alive and well, but it needs a helping hand from the Government and the amendment helps both the industry and the efficiency of the Tote. Without an operating licence for the Tote, horse racing would be badly affected, as it was in France when such a system was introduced. The PMU, the tote betting organisation for horse racing, took a dramatic nose dive —about 10 per cent. of its takings—and it took years to recover.
    The Tote is run effectively and efficiently and it would seem an appropriate body to hold a licence under the terms set out in the Bill. The Tote's fast terminal, which is currently on stream, would be of enormous benefit for a smooth operation.
    I move on to a subject already dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). While most people consider the Tote to be a fit and proper body to have an operating licence, would the Minister care to comment on the criteria for a potential operator? The words "fit and proper" were raised in the Committee proceedings, and probed there by my hon. Friend, and in another place. Since that time, and until just a few moments ago, there was a deafening silence from Ministers.
    I hope that, when he responds to the debate, the Minister will come clean and tell us that the honesty and integrity of those holding the licence will be necessary to ensure the public's perception of the probity of the lottery. It would not be good enough for the Secretary of State or the Minister merely to trot out the stock phrase, "It will be a matter for the director general to determine." There must be clear ministerial guidelines on a matter of such importance. There is a fear that, as they have failed to give such guidelines, the Government will be lax in the conditions that they attach to the successful bidder to operate the lottery.
    As we all know, the lottery will be a multi-billion pound organisation and it will be invested with the trust and expectations of millions of British people. Surely they are entitled to expect the highest standards to be enforced on their behalf. One suggestion is that the operator should not be appointed on the basis of any vetting procedures less vigorous than those established over many years by the Gaming Board. Will the Gaming Board's criteria for "fit and proper" form a useful basis for the director general of Oflot when he considers the matter? We would not expect companies that make sizeable contributions to the Tory party to be favoured in such an exercise. There would be a gigantic row if that happened.
    I hope that the Minister will spell out the criteria to be used. In the meantime, in general we are prepared to support the amendment.
    Mr. James Paice: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) spoilt his speech with that last, rather cheap, political jibe. He knows that I entirely agree with his earlier comments and my hon. Friend the Minister knows that the health of the racing industry is a matter close to my heart.
    There is widespread concern in the racing industry that the lottery will have a knock-on effect on the Tote, the
    334
    general betting industry and the horse race betting levy. The amendment, which was introduced with the vigour that we would expect from Lord Wyatt, and which has been accepted by the Government, is a major step forward. Without prejudging any outcome, it may provide a way for some make-up of the loss of income for the general betting industry and the Tote. It is a good opportunity for the Tote to expand its operations. As has been said, it has great experience and major resources in sophisticated communications equipment. It has a base spread over most of the United Kingdom and is probably more experienced than any other such company operating in the sector.
    I welcome the amendment and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government for accepting it and thereby allowing the Tote to operate on a level playing field. It is a worth while move. If the Tote gets the licence, that will bring into higher profile the Lloyds bank report on the future of the Tote, on which my hon. Friend the Minister has been sitting for a couple of years. That separate issue would then have to be addressed, but I hope that, as a result of the amendment, my hon. Friend will look favourably at any bid from the Tote.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am glad to have support for the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). The hon. Gentleman asked me about the definition of "fit and proper", the Government's view of that phrase and the seriousness with which we took it. He is right. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary covered much of this ground in his reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
    I can add to what my hon. Friend said by telling the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to appoint a director general who takes his responsibilities extremely seriously.
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Or hers.
    Mr. Lloyd: In this case, he embraces her.
    The Bill is clear. The director general cannot issue a clause 5 or a clause 6 licence unless he is satisfied that the company concerned, and the shareholders who benefit from it, are fit and proper. He will undertake checks, taking fully into account the standards, experience and methods of the Gaming Board. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde appreciates the effectiveness of the board, which has served us extremely well. The director general will also look at other regulators, because the operation is different from that of the Tote and he may learn from those other bodies. He will do so to satisfy himself in relation to both criminal and financial matters. The potential operators will have to co-operate fully in any investigations that he makes and he will make them before he makes any appointment.
    I hope that this addition to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had to say will give some assurance to those hon. Members who are rightly interested in the matter.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 24

    CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTING BODIES BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
    Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 10, line 36, leave out subsection (2).
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11, 23 and 24.
    Mr. Brooke: The amendments represent a considerable clarification of the powers contained in the previous version of the Bill. Amendment No. 8 removes the earlier subsection, and amendment No. 10 introduces a new clause aimed precisely at the two sets of circumstances in which we feel lottery funds should not be available.
    The purpose behind subsection (2) of the new clause is to ensure that the distribution bodies do not act in a way that may give rise to conflicts of interest. That is in Line with our stated intention that distributors of lottery moneys should not also be beneficiaries. A conflict of interest would arise if a distributor made grants to a body it owned or wholly sponsored, or whose members were appointed by the distributor, or indeed whose membership was the same as that of the distributor.
    In bringing the amendment to the House, it is certainly not my intention that the measure should be seen to imply criticism of any of the existing staff or members of the distributive bodies. However, in taking forward legislation, one has to think of the long term. It would be quite wrong for there to be any question in the future, when circumstances may be quite different from now, that the distributive bodies had feathered their own nests with lottery money. It is obviously important that the Government should have the power to prevent this situation from arising.
    The amendment is also concerned with Northern Ireland matters. It provides that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland considers that the lottery funding of a particular application could benefit a terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland he will be able to seek information from the distributing body concerned and, if appropriate, direct that body to refuse the application. The distributing body would be able to tell the applicant why its application had been refused, but would not be able to disclose publicly the name of the applicant. The powers could also be used to prohibit the funding of a particular project by what might otherwise be an acceptable applicant.
    That explains the broad thrust of the provisions, and it might be helpful to the House if the amendment is placed in context in relation to the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland. A key part of the Government's security strategy is to isolate terrorists from the communities within which they operate. For our part, we recognise the requirement to win and retain the confidence of all sections of the community in the effectiveness and impartiality of the Government's security policy, in the criminal justice system as a whole and in the operational activities of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army.
    The terrorists also recognise the critical importance of public relations within their sides of the community. To
    336
    that end, they have established in the past organisations which, taken at face value, have legitimate aims and carry out praiseworthy activities. In reality, these organisations are terrorist deceptions and are fostered and manipulated by terrorists for the purpose of raising the profile and enhancing the standing of their organisations.
    In other cases, terrorists have infiltrated respectable organisations and sought to use them for own ends. The current provision is intended to prevent that deceitful evil. Against that background in 1985, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), launched a policy to deny paramilitaries access to funds from the Government. The genesis of the policy was the concern that application of the normal criteria governing financial assistance from the Government could result in public funds being used for purposes that could directly or indirectly assist paramilitary groups. Although that policy has been applied very sparingly indeed—only 28 times in eight years—we believe that it has been effective in depriving paramilitary groups of funds or of an enhanced reputation.
    The policy has been applied with sensitivity, and I know from my own experience that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland takes a decision in any such case only after the most careful consideration of the circumstances of the case bearing in mind, on the one hand, public interest and, on the other, the effect on the organisation or individual concerned. The policy has been applied with a willingness to reconsider decisions in the light of information that has been made available, and funding has been restored in a number of such cases.
    The policy has been applied above all as a security measure. There is no question of political vetting. The grounds that are considered are security grounds, and no cognisance is taken of the political opinions of any organisation or individual involved. It has been applied fairly on an even-handed basis to groups or individuals on both sides of the community. We are seeking with the amendment to apply the policy to the proceeds of the national lottery. We are under an obligation to regulate the business of the national lottery and it would be a dereliction of duty on our part if we were not to introduce a procedure to enable the denial of funds and the enhancement of reputation to terrorists in Northern Ireland.
    We also believe that it is incumbent on us to provide safety for the distribution bodies so that they are not placed in the invidious position of being seen as targets by terrorists because of their actions. We have chosen to confer on the Secretary of State the power to direct the distributing bodies in relation to their operations in Northern Ireland. That measure will make it clear to terrorists in Northern Ireland that if they are deprived of access to funds and influence, it will be a result of a Government decision and will not be due to any initiative of the distributing body. By doing so, we intend to safeguard the distributing bodies from any unfortunate consequences of the decision to withhold funding in a particular case.
    Similarly, we are prohibiting bodies from identifying to the general public those subject to direction, as such direction might be taken as implying that the applicants are themselves terrorists and could thus make them the targets of unlawful threats. Frankly, we see no alternative to the provision we are introducing. There are those who say that

    337
    the matter should be left to the police with the investigative powers available to them under the emergency provisions legislation, but that reasoning has three major flaws.
    First, the experience of the police in Northern Ireland has been that when they investigate a fraud—particularly one that has been perpetrated by terrorists—even a successful prosecution does not result in the recovery of the funds; so money has gone to support terrorists whether or not the investigation has been successful. The second flaw is that criminal law does not provide a remedy where the benefit to a terrorist organisation is an enhanced standing in community. The third and most important flaw is that a reliance on offences is inappropriate for our purposes. We are not in this instance trying to catch criminals but rather are seeking to prevent innocent bodies from being duped into providing a flow of money to terrorist organisations or otherwise enhancing their reputation.
    It is quite unreasonable simply to say to such organisations that they are acting at their peril and that, in the event that they provided a benefit to terrorists, they would be in jeopardy of prosecution for a terrorist offence. That would not achieve our aim which is the prevention of the flow of funds to terrorists. It would not result in the prosecution of terrorists but would criminalise innocent parties.
    Without the amendment, the Government would find themselves in the position of relying on the other powers of direction in the Bill. But the effect of that would be to require distribution bodies to have regard to the views of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The bodies would thus become aware of our view that a particular distribution could benefit directly or indirectly a terrorist organisation, but it would be entirely for them whether or not to make the distribution. We believe that would place the distribution body in a difficult position and it would be wrong to place that burden on the body.
    There is nothing sinister in the amendments. They serve simply to define a power that the Government have accepted was too wide ranging and to close off a loophole that might have allowed lottery money to go to terrorist organisations. It is necessary to make explicit provision for matters in the Bill as national lottery grants are not subject to the controls that are available in the case of voted Government expenditure.
    I hope that the national lottery will attract an enormous amount of interest and that the distributive bodies receive applications for project funding from a vast number of organisations from all over the United Kingdom. I am sure that the millions of people who are eagerly awaiting the start of the lottery do not intend that their contributions to good causes should end up in the hands of terrorists. The House would be doing all of those people a great service by agreeing to the amendment.
    Mr. Pendry: We are in total agreement with the earlier part of the Secretary of State's speech. Most of the points of clarification that are contained in most of the amendments are down to our efforts in Committee, and therefore we agree with them.
    We find great difficulty in accepting amendment No. 10. If there were no alternative to the measure, it seems strange that it was not in the original Bill and was not referred to on Report or in the House of Lords.
    338
    The Opposition are implacably opposed to the terrorist campaign in Britain and in Ireland. As a former Minister for Northern Ireland, as was the Secretary of State, I am particularly aware of the problems and sensitivities that exist in the Province. I have spent a good deal of time in New York, Washington and Boston talking to bishops and to the editors of certain newspapers trying to stop the funds coming from Noraid. We need no lessons in that area. The Labour party is totally opposed to those particular activities and we support all attempts to block the terrorists' sources of funding. But in our view the amendment will not achieve that aim. We believe that it is unnecessary and could be counterproductive.
    7.30 pm
    The Government have claimed that the amendment was introduced as a result of various representations—indeed, the Secretary of State will not mind my saying that only yesterday he told me that himself. We have taken a good deal of time researching the matter and, as far as we are aware, no representations were made in Committee or in either Chamber concerning the possibility of lottery funds being diverted to benefit paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. As the Secretary of State said, the representations made on the original clause concerned the excessive power that the Secretary of State would be granted to interfere with the decisions of the distributing bodies—indeed, I tabled some amendments in that connection myself. The Government's justification for the proposal was the possibility of a conflict of interest between the receiving and the distributing bodies.
    It was not until the Bill reached its final stage in the Lords that Viscount Astor moved an amendment to what was then clause 26, purportedly to enable the Secretary of State to prevent funds from going to proscribed organisations or organisations "promoting or encouraging" terrorism.
    The Opposition argue that the present amendment is redundant, however, as legislation already exists to deal with cases where there is evidence of misappropriation of funds and support for paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Section 9 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act makes it an offence for a person to make any contributions intending that they be applied or used in connection with acts of terrorism. Section 10 of that Act makes it a criminal offence for a person to receive from or lend money to a proscribed organisation or to come to an arrangement that would benefit a proscribed organisation.
    It is already possible under existing legislation to prosecute in a court of law any individual or organisation giving funds to contribute to acts of terrorism or to benefit a proscribed organisation. Amendments to the present Bill would therefore contribute nothing to the fight against terrorism.
    Amendment No. 10 is clearly based on the 1985 Hurd statement, introduced purportedly to prevent Government funds from "furthering the aims" of paramilitary organisations. The Opposition oppose the use of that statement as the basis for the amendment on two clear grounds. First, the funds in question are not public funds but funds from the public. That is an important distinction. The Government have consistently argued that funds accrued as a result of the national lottery will not be treated as public money. That is vital if we are to avoid any problems of additionality at this late stage of the

    339
    proceedings. Any amendment based on the Hurd statement would only create confusion about the nature of the funds being distributed.
    Secondly—and more important—Northern Ireland's experience of the Hurd statement has been that it leads to self-censorship and fear among those in the voluntary sector. The practice in question has been discredited locally, nationally and internationally by the case of Glor Na Gael, the Irish language group, which had its funding withdrawn by way of the Hurd statement. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who knows much more about the subject than I do, will say more about it if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker. The practice was discredited not because the Government changed their mind but because the matter went to court. We believe that it is vital to avoid a repetition of that case—not least because it served only to damage the Government's campaign to starve the terrorists of cash and, in the process, damage the very Bill that the Government are trying to promote.
    Funding can be denied to individuals and groups without any specific allegation of wrongdoing being made —indeed, there is no obligation on the Government even to present any evidence of wrongdoing. The amendment allows funding to be denied on the basis of slurs, innuendo or other unspecified "intelligence" material, which could hardly be considered to constitute evidence and certainly would not do so in a court of law. It is impossible for any group properly to defend itself against unspecified allegations—and in any case there is no right of appeal. That is clearly contrary to all the principles of natural justice and to everything that the House expects.
    The amendment would extend political vetting to the whole of Britain as well as Northern Ireland. Decisions taken by the National Lottery Charities Board on United Kingdom funding would be overturned as a result of the amendment.
    All the regional voluntary sector organisations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are opposed to the amendment. It is an insult to the director general of the lottery—when he takes up his post—and to the independent organisations that are to distribute the lottery money to sports organisations, the voluntary sector, arts councils and projects to celebrate the millennium.
    The amendment undermines the basis of the Bill. It is completely at variance with the whole idea of independent and transparent decision making in the distribution of lottery funds. The Government should reconsider in the light of overwhelming opposition from the very bodies that are to distribute lottery funds and on the basis of past experience. The Government, in the form of the Secretary of State, should be big enough, even at this late stage, to withdraw the amendment in the interests of justice and common sense. In the absence of a guarantee to that effect, I will certainly ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment in the Lobby tonight.
    Dr. Hendron: I share with the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) their absolute opposition to the men of violence, especially as I represent the constituency of Belfast, West, where murder, terror and bombings are the order of the day—we shall hear more of that subject tomorrow and on Friday.
    I oppose amendment No. 10 because I have no doubt that it will allow political vetting and confer on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland excessive powers,
    340
    with an absence of any appeal process. I am concerned both about the circumstances in which the power of discretion might be exercised and about that absence of a right of appeal. Speaking on the subject in the House of Lords, Lord Astor made the point that bodies and persons have the normal right of a citizen to make representations to the Government about the operation of their policies, and that scope also exists for a judicial review. All I can say to that in present circumstances is, "Big deal."
    The Secretary of State will be able to direct distributors to consult expert bodies on grant applications. I should love to know who those expert bodies are. I have been a political representative in west Belfast for almost 20 years, mainly in local government but also with the Northern Ireland Convention and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have not seen any of the expert bodies that people are supposed to consult about who should be given funding. As the Member of Parliament for Belfast, West, I have not been consulted. I have certainly had discussions with people about funding that has already been given out, but no one has ever asked me whether I believe that a certain group should be given financial aid. I should certainly like to know who those expert bodies might be.
    Like every hon. Member, I should deeply resent it if any public funds, including lottery funds, went into the coffers of the IRA, the UDA or the UVF. It is ironic that, not terribly long ago, hundreds of thousands of pounds were creamed off by the IRA in connection with the building of maisonettes on the Moyard housing estate in west Belfast. Those maisonettes have now disappeared and have been replaced by new housing. I should add that I am in no way criticising the present Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which I believe is doing a magnificent job.
    I have given a fair number of years to fighting terrorism in west Belfast, but in the only way that I know that I can, and that is in the political arena. I think it fair to say that I have had some little success in that regard. I believe that responsible public representatives, genuine community leaders, spiritual leaders and, above all, Government bodies must encourage young people, families and community groups and young men and women who have come out of prison—God only knows that there are many of them—away from the evil influence of all paramilitary organisations. They should encourage these people, exhort them and guide them to participate as fully as possible in meaningful, active community organisations.
    The Secretary of State will be aware of the Belfast action teams, and will know that money is given to many groups. The Belfast action teams do great work, and I pay tribute to them. I have had discussions with them on many occasions, but I cannot say that I was ever consulted about what money should be given to any particular group. I am therefore cynical about amendment No. 10, and about which bodies will advise the Secretary of State.
    Belfast action teams give the money that they receive from the Government to community groups. Strict criteria are laid down for the giving of that money, but it is not vetted by the Secretary of State.
    Glor Na Gael, the Irish language group from west Belfast, has won prizes all over Ireland and abroad, but following a statement made a few years ago by the then Secretary of State—the present Foreign Secretary—finance was withdrawn from that group. Legal action was taken, and the Government eventually restored its funding.
    The amendment would be dangerous for those active in community and voluntary organisations, because it might

    341
    be suggested that they were associated with paramilitary organisations. Of that I have no doubt. It is one of the most important things in the debate. Great fear now stalks the streets in every part of Belfast, not just in my constituency. There are terrorists and murderers around, and people who have been in prison. More people have been in prison per thousand of the population in west Belfast than virtually anywhere else in western Europe in the past 20 years.
    Some of them are young people who have been in prison for all sorts of reasons, been released and are now involved in community work. Someone will write to the Secretary of State and say that a, b or c is involved in a particular group, and the Government will decide that that group should not receive any funding. I entirely oppose that.
    I pay tribute to the many voluntary bodies and community groups, not only in west Belfast but in north Belfast—in the territory of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), who is not present now—in the Catholic Falls road and the Protestant Shankill road. Many of those groups are doing outstanding work in those areas; but for them, the city of Belfast would be in a much worse state than it is today. Those groups are keeping many young people out of paramilitary organisations, although some have been associated with such organisations in the past. I would therefore like to know how the political vetting will be carried out.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: My hon. Friend represents the constituency of Belfast, West; I represent the constituency of Newry and Armagh. Can my hon. Friend envisage a situation in which community groups in our constituencies will not contain some people who support Sinn Fein, have previously supported Sinn Fein or have been through the legal process because of their support of that group? Can he tell me how it would be possible to have a dynamic community organisation in our constituencies that excluded such people?
    Dr. Hendron: My hon. Friend is right. One of the difficulties is that we cannot name organisations in Belfast, because if we make a general point that some members of a particular organisation hold certain political views, someone will put a bomb at their door and blow them to kingdom come. The person who named that organisation would be directly responsible for that.
    Political vetting of any kind would be wrong, stupid, immoral and counterproductive. While I agree with the Secretary of State about the Provisional IRA, the UDA and other paramilitary organisations, the amendment plays into their hands; they will use it and show it in the United States and around the world. I totally oppose the amendment, and I ask the Government and the House to do the same.
    7.45 pm
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not understand the official Opposition's objection to this provision or that of the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I have listened with great care to what has been said, but I do not understand how they can object to this provision if they are opposed to the harm that can be done by money going to evil causes. Even if it is right to say that the present law is adequate to stop the
    342
    distribution of money to evil causes, surely the belt-and-braces approach being adopted will be of advantage.
    An appalling mischief would be done if the profits of the lottery went to evil causes and if, in due course, the public learnt about it. If confidence in the lottery is lost, the lottery is dead. It must be squeaky clean; at no stage should the public suspect that the money that they are contributing through the national lottery is going to an evil cause. If they do that, it will defeat the purpose of the lottery and there will be no money to go to the good causes that exist.
    The belt-and-braces approach seems to me to be justified in this particular situation, even if the Opposition are right in saying that it is not strictly necessary because the existing law is adequate. I am not sure that they are right. The existing law may deter the giving of money to evil organisations, but such an action may not come to light until after the money has been given. It may be only subsequently discovered that the law has been broken, that the money has been used—has gone—and only subsequently that criminal charges are brought.
    The amendment is designed to pre-empt that. Where it is clear to the Secretary of State that an organisation which benefits from this vast source is likely to use the money for evil ends, he can stop that money from being distributed to that organisation. That will tighten the loophole in the existing law.
    Having listened carefully to what hon. Members have said, I am rather surprised that this did not form part of the original Bill. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, we cannot always guarantee that the money will not go, via some person, to an evil organisation, but that is no reason to say that, when we know that an organisation is evil or contains a sufficient number of evil people, it should not be a beneficiary. As for the argument that has just been advanced, that to introduce the measure would play into the hands of the paramilitaries and others, it does not appeal more widely to hon. Members because it savours of the attitude that one must not do anything which is good in case others who are evil use it as an excuse for stepping up the amount of their evil. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who speaks so movingly and with so much knowledge about terrorism whenever the subject arises, would have appreciated that more than anyone.
    Mr. Mallon: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I know and everyone in the House knows that during the past 20 years in the north of Ireland millions of people have been creamed off the expenditure of the Housing Executive and other organisations towards paramilitary organisations. The Government knew that that was happening and allowed it to happen, for the good reason that if they had not houses would not have been built. The previous Secretary of State for the north of Ireland knows that as well as I do, and I have no doubt that in different circumstances he would confirm it.
    In the north of Ireland, in certain parts of the Protestant community and the Catholic community, irrespective of the circumstances, if an application is made for grant aid in such a situation it will be almost impossible to say that there is no type of antipathetic political definition within that organisation. That is the reality of life in the north of Ireland and, whether we like it or not, we have to live with it.

    343
    I know that in an intervention it is not my job to ask a question—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not so much a quest ion whether a statement is made or a question asked; it is the length of the intervention.
    Mr. Mallon: I agree absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. If areas are deprived because there are no decent, upstanding people like the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and myself living there, who take the time and energy to try and deal with that community, are those communities to suffer as a result of their absence?
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have already dealt with his second argument, and I cannot improve upon my answer by repeating it.
    As to the first argument, it may be that, as he alleges —though I do not accept it for one moment—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's predecessors all knew that some money was being creamed off for evil causes. I do not accept it, but even if it were so, what on earth is the objection to putting a further obstacle in the legislation to the same thing happening through the National Lottery Bill? I simply do not understand it.
    Finally, I return to the argument that I began to make, that the issue seems to me to be so important that I am puzzled as to why it did not form part of the original Bill. It may be that we are grappling with a beast so large, with so many ramifications, that as Parliament sits we shall always spot more loopholes, requiring changes, and improvements that need to be introduced, and that we shall end up having an annual lottery amendment Bill, rather like the Finance Bills that we have to consider every year to block loopholes. I know that I have not been especially constructive in saying that, because the Bill that I introduced was an enabling Bill and even less was going to be in the Bill.
    An annual lottery Bill procedure might be a bad thing, but perhaps it would be a good thing. Perhaps it would focus hon. Members' minds regularly on the way in which the giant machine will operate. If we do not want such a procedure, however, we shall have to settle down—certainly during the next 12 months—and try to ensure that all that we want in the Bill is written into it. Perhaps we can then suffice with one amendment Bill at this time next year. Perhaps there is a reason why that was not originally in the Bill and perhaps we shall hear that from the Minister when he replies.
    Mr. Brooke: I welcome the implacable opposition to terrorism expressed from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). I am grateful to him for what he said in that context. He referred to a conversation with me on the eve of the debate, and I apologise if I misled him in any sense.
    On 25 February, in column 294 of the Official Report of the Standing Committee of the Bill, when he was leading for the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—I was glad to see him in the Chamber earlier this evening—was leading for the Government, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde inveighed against the dictatorial powers that were then contained in the section. In line with the praise that he bestowed upon the Government in response to an earlier group of amendments, we obviously listened to what he
    344
    had to say. He commended certain parts of the new clause that we introduced, which were in response to his propositions.
    In practical terms, however, the narrowing of powers that we were obviously being invited to undertake concentrated our minds in the context of those particular provisions relating to Northern Ireland. We had to verify, therefore, whether the new wording of the legislation would cover us adequately. In the light of that it brought —here I turn to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence)—to our attention the fact that the Bill, as originally written, allowed the Secretary of State by order to offer advice to the distributive organisations in the context of the type of organisation that we discussed in the debate. In the process of doing it by order he would be identifying the organisations.
    A classic element of what is referred to as the doctrine that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) originally propounded when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 1985 is that the Government do not identify the organisations. On the occasions when the name of an organisation subsequently appears in the public prints, it is because that organisation has put it into the public prints, not because the Government have done so. The Government have avoided doing so and have sought to preserve anonymity for the reasons that I gave in my earlier speech, which is that they wish to protect that organisation from any suggestion that all those who are engaged in that organisation might have a direct paramilitary connection.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Minister appreciate that so far he has not answered the following argument? Where an arbitrary decision is made, albeit after careful consultation within the Department, which prevents funds going to a particular organisation without an explanation, cannot the frustration and anger which that arouses among a perfectly legitimate organisation cause it to act as a recruiting ground for the Provisional IRA, which we would all strenuously deplore and oppose? Cannot the legislation have a backlash effect if it is put into practice?
    Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Member for the manner in which he made that argument. It is one of the considerations that weigh with the holders of the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as to whether they will invoke the particular doctrine in a particular case. I said in my earlier speech, and will refer to it again, that that has happened infrequently. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton will be interested to know that that is the reason why we introduced those aspects of the new clause in the other place.
    The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde spoke about sections 9 and 10. He could also have mentioned section 11 in the same context. I have covered the arguments that relate to those, and I would not assist the House by repeating them. I appreciate that these are complex matters, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not catch the arguments first time round.
    The Bill as originally drafted allowed for advice by the Secretary of State. If it remained like that, he would simply be able to advise the distributive body that it would be ill advised to pass money on. He would not be able to give any reasons because, for reasons that we all understand, there is no tradition for doing that. Therefore, the distributive body would have to make a decision without

    345
    knowing the precise basis on which the advice was offered. In terms of the sections cited by the hon. Gentleman, one of the problems is that the distributive body might be troubled about whether it was committing a criminal offence by passing on the money.
    8 pm
    The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde made play of the distinction between public funds and funds from the public. Clause 21 refers to the national lottery distribution fund. Once the money enters that fund, it becomes public money for which the Government are answerable, and not public expenditure. That element of the hon. Gentleman's argument does not have anything to do with additionality.
    The Government have avoided referring to particular cases, and one of the hazards of making references to them emerged in the debate. At least one hon. Member made incomplete reference to a body that had been affected by the working of my right hon. Friend's doctrine. An incomplete reference could have caused the hazard to spread to another body which was not involved.
    The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said that "political vetting" would extend throughout Great Britain. He will note from the Bill that that simply applies to grants to organisations in Northern Ireland, although I acknowledge that some Great Britain bodies are responsible for making grants to Northern Ireland. I repeat what is said in the Bill—that the issue determining the Secretary of State's decision and direction is security and not political affiliations. I say to the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that, for reasons given in the debate, these decisions are taken with extreme sensitivity.
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who is no longer in the Chamber, asked his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West how many community groups in his constituency and, he implied, in his own did not have associations with people in, for example, Sinn Fein. In a sense, that rhetorical question made the point that, if almost every community group in those constituencies has the associations that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh implied and if only 28 bodies, a significant number of which were not of the paramilitary persuasion to which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh refers, have been identified under the doctrine in the past eight years, that shows that the powers have been used sparingly and sensitively.
    The House owes a great deal to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton for his pathfinder work on

    CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTING BODIES BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

      Power to prohibit distribution in certain cases
      (".—(1) Where subsection (2) applies, the Secretary of State may by order prohibit a body from distributing money under section 23(1) to a person specified in the order.
      (2) This subsection applies if at the time the order is made—
      (a) the person specified is a company of which the body, or a wholly-owned subsidiary of the body, is a member, or
      (b) the Secretary of State considers that the body is able (whether directly or indirectly) to control or materially to influence the policy of the person specified in carrying on any undertaking or performing any functions.
      (3) In subsection (2)—
      this legislation. He envisaged the lottery growing to behemoth size. As the legislation reaches its conclusion, I am glad that he has the faith that the lottery will grow to that size.
      The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde opposes Lords amendment No. 10, but he did not table an Opposition amendment. If the House rejects that amendment, the clause will remain as it is, and in that state the hon. Gentleman in Committee inveighed against its dictatorial powers.
      Mr. Pendry: It is a bit rich, and stretching matters somewhat, for the Secretary of State to blame me for the amendment. In Committee, my colleagues and I argued that the amendment enhanced the dictatorial powers of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is taking away the autonomy that distributive bodies would have by taking more power to himself. His argument does not in any way answer the point. The original clause would be better than the amended one.
      We have had a good debate on the matter, and I do not want to detain the House. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would listen more closely to the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), even if he did not listen too much to me. When all is said and done, they were speaking not only from the heart but from the front line, as it were. They certainly know better than I and, no doubt, better than the Secretary of State, although we both had some say in Northern Ireland affairs for a time. They are at the sharp end, and they should be listened to.
      The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) is as puzzled as we are that this was not included in the original drafting of the legislation. If it is an afterthought, we are asking the Secretary of State to have another. He should look at the matter again. The Government have listened to representations not only from us, but from outside bodies, and it would be a pity to mar that with acrimony at this stage. I hope that the Secretary of State will be big enough to take the matter back. I agree that it is a difficult area, but we should get around a table to try to work out a way of meeting his points, while at the same time not removing the rights of the distributive bodies and staying in line with the general thrust of what I said at the beginning of my speech. I hope that the Secretary of State will do that. If he does not, I shall ask my hon. Friends to divide the House on this important issue of justice.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 9 agreed to.
      Lords amendment proposed: No. 10, after clause 24, to insert the following new clause—

      (a) "company" means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act 1935 or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 or a company to which the provisions of that Act or Order apply as they apply to a company so formed and registered, and

      (b) "wholly-owned subsidiary" has the meaning given by section 736 of that Act or Article 4 of that Order.

      (4) Where subsection (5) applies, the Secretary of State may give directions to a body—

      (a) prohibiting it from distributing money under section 23(1) to a person in Northern Ireland specified in the directions, or

      (b) requiring it to secure that any money distributed by it under section 23(1) to such a person is not applied for a purpose specified in the directions.

      (5) This subsection applies if at the time the directions are given the Secretary of State considers that—

      (a) a proscribed organisation for the purposes of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, or

      (b) any other organisation that appears to him to be concerned in terrorism in Northern Ireland or in promoting or encouraging it,

      might directly or indirectly derive benefit from the distribution of money to the person specified.
      (6) In subsection (5) "benefit" includes benefit of a non-financial nature and, in particular, an enhancement of reputation.
      (7) A body may not disclose to any other person either the identity of any person specified in directions given to it under subsection (4) or any information that might lead to the identification of such a person.
      (8) A body shall provide the Secretary of State with such information as he may require for the purpose of exercising his powers under this section in relation to the body.")
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 126.

      Division No. 366]

      [8.09 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Alexander, Richard

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Amess, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Ancram, Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Arbuthnot, James

      Burl, Alistair

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Butcher, John

      Ashby, David

      Butler, Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Atkins, Robert

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Cash, William

      Baldry, Tony

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bates, Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clappison, James

      Beggs, Roy

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Coe, Sebastian

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Colvin, Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Congdon, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Conway, Derek

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Booth, Hartley

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Boswell, Tim

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Couchman, James

      Bowis, John

      Cran, James

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

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

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Brazier, Julian

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bright, Graham

      Day, Stephen

      348

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Devlin, Tim

      Hannam, Sir John

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Harris, David

      Dover, Den

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Duncan, Alan

      Hawkins, Nick

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Hawksley, Warren

      Eggar, Tim

      Hayes, Jerry

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Heald, Oliver

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Hendry, Charles

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Hicks, Robert

      Evennett, David

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Faber, David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Horam, John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Forman, Nigel

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Forth, Eric

      Hunter, Andrew

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Jenkin, Bernard

      French, Douglas

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Fry, Peter

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Gale, Roger

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Gallie, Phil

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Key, Robert

      Garnier, Edward

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Gill, Christopher

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Knapman, Roger

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Knox, Sir David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Hague, William

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Legg, Barry

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Leigh, Edward

      349

      Lidington, David

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lightbown, David

      Sackville, Tom

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Luff, Peter

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Shersby, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Madel, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Malone, Gerald

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Mans, Keith

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Marland, Paul

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Marlow, Tony

      Spring, Richard

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sproat, Iain

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mates, Michael

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stephen, Michael

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      Merchant, Piers

      Stewart, Allan

      Milligan, Stephen

      Streeter, Gary

      Mills, Iain

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Sykes, John

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thomason, Roy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thurnham, Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

      Norris, Steve

      Tracey, Richard

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Trend, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Page, Richard

      Tyler, Paul

      Paice, James

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Patnick, Irvine

      Walden, George

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Waller, Gary

      Pawsey, James

      Ward, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Pickles, Eric

      Waterson, Nigel

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Watts, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Whittingdale, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Willetts, David

      Richards, Rod

      Wilshire, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wood, Timothy

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Yeo, Tim

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Mr. Andrew MacKay and

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Byers, Stephen

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Austin-Walker, John

      Coffey, Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Connarty, Michael

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corbett, Robin

      Blunkett, David

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Cryer, Bob

      Bradley, Keith

      Dafis, Cvnog

      350

      Darling, Alistair

      McLeish, Henry

      Davidson, Ian

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dewar, Donald

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dobson, Frank

      Madden, Max

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Mahon, Alice

      Enright, Derek

      Mallon, Seamus

      Etherington, Bill

      Mandelson, Peter

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Meale, Alan

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Michael, Alun

      Fisher, Mark

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Miller, Andrew

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foulkes, George

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fraser, John

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mudie, George

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mullin, Chris

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Murphy, Paul

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Pendry, Tom

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Gunnell, John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hall, Mike

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hanson, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hardy, Peter

      Prescott, John

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hendron, Dr Joe

      Randall, Stuart

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Hinchliffe, David

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Home Robertson, John

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Hood, Jimmy

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hoyle, Doug

      Short, Clare

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Simpson, Alan

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Illsley, Eric

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

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

      Jamieson, David

      Spellar, John

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Stott, Roger

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Leighton, Ron

      Straw, Jack

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lewis, Terry

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Livingstone, Ken

      Winnick, David

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Wise, Audrey

      Loyden, Eddie

      Wright, Dr Tony

      McAllion, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McKelvey, William

      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Mr. Don Dixon.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 47

    FREQUENCY OF LOTTERIES
    Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 19, line 31, leave out from ("that") to ("under") in line 32 and insert ("may be promoted").
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 20.
    Mr. Lloyd: Lords amendments Nos. 13, 14, 17 and 18 simply tidy up the drafting of or are consequential on clause 47. However, Lords amendment No. 15 represents a change of substance. Its effect is to double both the proceeds and prize limits for a society or local authority lottery. The proceeds limit is increased from £500,000 to £1 million. As a consequence, the maximum single prize goes from £50,000 to £100,000.

    351
    We have taken that step in response to the strongly expressed arguments of many in the charities world. The new limits will further enhance the appeal of their lotteries and will help to ensure that they flourish side by side with the national lottery.
    The purpose of Lords amendments Nos. 16, 19 and 20 is to give the Secretary of State a reserve power to set by order a minimum proportion of lottery proceeds that must go to the good causes if he feels that it would be in the interest of the good causes to do so. I commend the amendments to the House.
    Mr. Pendry: We agree with this batch of Lords amendments; they are acceptable to us. When the Minister said that he responded to the strong words conveyed to him from the charities, he omitted to mention the eloquent arguments from the Opposition on behalf of the charities. It is a particular pleasure to see a sinner repent, and when that sinner is a Tory Minister it is even more pleasurable. I refer to the Minister specifically. He argued in Committee that a top prize of more than £500,000 would be detrimental to the aims of a national lottery. He went on to say that it would create a series of "mini national lotteries". Since then, wiser counsels have prevailed. With the benefit of hindsight, he can say that he was bent by our arguments —[HON. MEMBERS: "Bent!"] Not "bent" in the way that my hon. Friends mean. The Minister knows exactly what I mean.
    As the Minister knows, we argued for a £1·25 million top prize, but we shall not quibble about the fact that the Minister has seen sense and has raised the level to £1 million for the top prize. That makes it far easier for charities to exist in the world that has now been set.

    (".—(1) Schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (registered pool promoters) shall be amended as follows.

    (2) In paragraph 13 (requirements with which the pool betting business of a registered pool promoter must comply) for sub-paragraph (e) there shall be substituted—

    "(e) the total amount payable by way of winnings shall, in the case of each competition, be calculated in accordance with paragraph 13A of this Schedule;".

    (3) After paragraph 13 there shall be inserted—

    "13A.—(1) In any competition the total amount payable by way of winnings shall be the aggregate of—

    (a) the total amount of the stakes in respect of entries in the competition, Less the relevant percentage of that total amount; and

    (b) any amount that has been duly carried over to the competition from a previous competition in accordance with any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule;

    less any amount that falls to be carried over from the competition in accordance with any such provision.

    (2) In sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph "relevant percentage" means such percentage as may be determined by the promoter, being—

    (a) the same percentage in respect of all his competitions which depend on the same events or on events taking place on the same day ; and

    (b) a percentage which is determined and notified to the accountant before that day."

    (4) In paragraph 14—

    (a) after "paragraph 13(d) or (e)" there shall be inserted "or 13A", and

    The Government have said that their aim in amending the Lotteries and Amusement Act 1976 in part III was to enable voluntary organisations to maintain their small lottery income in the face of competition from the national lottery. During our debates on the Bill, one of our major concerns was the possible impact of the national lottery on charities. Charities will, therefore, welcome the national lottery if it provides additional resources for them, which they now feel confident will be the case. We especially welcome Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16, but we support the whole batch of amendments.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am ambivalent about this concession to the charities. We must be careful to ensure that the national lottery is a success. I believe that, to some extent, we are diminishing the chances of that success, which was originally the Government's position. However, we can with a better grace give more money to the charities as we can see that the administration costs that they take are on average no more than 4 per cent.
    This is a timely moment to remind ourselves that when we give money to the Arts Council, it takes about 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. in administrative costs. When we give money to the Sports Council, it takes about 30 per cent. in administration costs. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are concerned with the national lottery will keep a very close eye on the way in which the beneficiaries of this great enterprise use on administration some of the resources that should go to grass roots good causes.
    Question put and agree to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, one with Special Entry.
    Lords amendment: No. 21, after clause 53, insert the following new clause—Roll-over of prize money—

    (b) for "paragraph 13(e)" there shall be substituted "paragraph 13A".

    (5) After paragraph 14 there shall be inserted—

    "14A.—(1) Subject to any directions under paragraph 14B of this Schedule, the rules applicable to any competition may provide that if none of the bets in the competition qualifies for, or for a share in, the first prize—

    (a) the amount of that prize shall be carried over to the next relevant competition, or

    (b) part of that amount shall be carried over to the next relevant competition and the balance shall be applied as mentioned in paragraph 14(1)(b) of this Schedule.

    (2) In sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph—

    (a) "the first prize" means the highest prize that can be won, having regard to the outcome of the events on which the competition depends (and not any higher prize that could have been won had the outcome of those events been different),

    (b) "the next relevant competition" means the next competition to be held by the same registered pool promoter under the same rules within the fourteen days following the day on which the result of the competition is determined, and

    (c) the reference in paragraph (b) to part of the amount referred to in paragraph (a) is to such proportion of that amount as may be specified in the rules or as may be determined by the promoter in accordance with the rules.

    14B.—(1) The Secretary of State may direct that any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule—

    (a) is not to have effect, or

    (b) is to have effect subject to such limitations as are specified in the direction.

    (2) The limitations that may be specified under sub-paragraph (1)(b) of this paragraph include—

    (a) limitations as to the number of competitions from which amounts may be carried over, and

    (b) limitations as to the period within which any such competitions may be held.

    (3) Any directions under this paragraph shall be given in writing and may be varied or revoked by subsequent directions."

    (6) In paragraph 15—

    (a) after "paragraph 13(d) or (e)" there shall be inserted "or 13A", and

    (b) for "paragraph 13(e)" there shall be substituted "paragraph 13A".

    (7) In paragraph 20(1) (information relating to a competition which the promoter is required to include in a statement to the accountant) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

    "(bb) the amount (if any) carried over to the competition from a previous competition in accordance with any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule;

    (bbb) the amount (if any) carried over from the competition in accordance with any such provision;".

    (8) In paragraph 21 (statement as to commission and expenses which the promoter is required to send to every competitor in a competition)—

    (a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a) for the words from "after deducting" to the end there shall be substituted "after making in respect of each of those competitions the deductions mentioned in subparagraph (1A) of this paragraph;", and

    (b) after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted—

    "(1A) In relation to any competition, the deductions referred to are—

    (a) a deduction of the aggregate of the total amount payable by way of winnings in the competition and any amount carried over from the competition in accordance with any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule, less any amount carried over to the competition in accordance with any such provision, and

    (b) a deduction of the amount of pool betting duty payable in respect of the competition."

    (9) In paragraph 23(1) (content of annual statement to be sent by registered pool promoter to accountant and registering authority) in paragraph (b) for the words from "after deducting" to the end there shall be substituted "after making in respect of each of those competitions the deductions mentioned in paragraph 21(1A) of this Schedule;".")
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 66, after 'paragraph', insert 'may'.
    I have already put on record my pleasure at the distance that the Government have travelled to meet our concerns about the potential impact of the national lottery on the pools business and consequently on the jobs of many thousands of employees on Merseyside, in Cardiff, in Glasgow and in London.
    From the earliest stages of the Bill, we have always maintained that the two operations, both long-odds and low-stake forms of soft gambling, would compete for similar markets. A number of changes have now been made to the Bill which give us and, far more importantly, the pools companies confidence that the industry and the lottery can exist side by side.
    The decision to legalise the sale of pools coupons in shops was the first important step to allowing the pools to compete on fair and level terms with the lottery. The reduction of the minimum age of pools customers to 16, in line with the minimum age which the Government have told us will be applied to lottery customers, was the second step. However, we wish the age limit of 18 years to apply to the national lottery and the pools. Nevertheless, it was a move in the right direction for the pools, as was giving the pools the right to sponsor television and radio programmes unrelated to football. Finally, the acceptance by the Government that the pools companies should be given the same right to roll over their prizes as the national lottery heralded a real victory for reason and common sense.
    It is worth recalling the Minister's words on Report. I hate to quote him too many times, but he said:
    "I am glad to be able to say that I am convinced that there is a good cause for allowing the football pools to operate limited rollovers similar to the national lottery … we intend to introduce our proposals in another place to ensure that, where rollover is involved, the pools will enjoy similar freedom and opportunity to those enjoyed by the national lottery."—[Official Report, 28 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 1019.]
    That was said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) on Report.
    8.30 pm
    The Government introduced a new clause in the Lords, now appearing as Lords amendment No. 21, which permitted equivalent roll-over to the pools in the lottery.
    There remains, however, one outstanding issue on roll-over which our amendment seeks to rectify and I hope that the Government will be minded to cede to our request. It concerns the three-month time limit that the Government may place on pool roll-over credits.
    356
    Under current Government proposals, it is only when a roll-over has occurred in the national lottery that a pools promoter will be allowed to roll over prize money. At this stage, and not before, a direction will be issued by the Home Office authorising a pools promoter to roll over money on one occasion for each type of competition he promotes, but, as I understand it, within a three-month time limit. At the end of three months, if there has been no opportunity to use the roll-over credit, it lapses. We object to that restriction, particularly as no similar measure is applied to the lottery itself.
    If the three-month restriction were to remain, it is quite possible that the lottery would roll over a prize and in so doing enjoy the benefits of additional business that that would generate while the pools credit would expire before there was an opportunity to use it. Clearly, in this instance the lottery would be operating a roll-over on unfair terms and the commitment by the Minister of State would not have been met. I am sure that he recognises that it would be a pity if his generous spirit deserted him when meeting the arguments we ranged on Report and in Committee.
    The likelihood of an unused roll-over credit is heightened by the very nature of the pools operation. Unlike the lottery, where it is possible to fashion games in a way that produces a high probability of roll-over jackpots, the pools are subject to the vagaries of match results, as the Minister knows. It is therefore impossible to predict the number of winning chances that may be created from week to week and consequently impossible for pools promoters to engineer roll-overs.
    There have been several occasions in recent months when in a three-month period no match result sequence has produced the circumstances which would have allowed the operation of roll-over for the pools. In those circumstances, current proposals for a three-month time limit would have meant the pools missing out on an equivalent opportunity to roll over, placing them in an unfavourable and unfair market position in relation to the lottery.
    I hope that the Minister understands the deep concern that we and the pools industry feel in this matter. It is not so much about persuading the Government to agree to the principle of equal treatment—that has already been conceded by them—as about ensuring that the Government carry out their promise of full and equal treatment.
    I hope that the Minister will reflect and make a concession to meet that particular point. It may seem technical, or even a bit petty, but it is real for the pools industry. I know that it is grateful for the way in which the Government have moved on the arguments that have been put before them.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said, amendments Nos. 21 and 22 fulfil an undertaking that I gave the House on Report, in the debate on the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton). They will give the pools companies the opportunity to roll over prize money on terms similar to those which apply to the national lottery by amending schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.
    The substance of new clause 58 is in subsection (5), which provides that, subject to any directions which may be made by the Secretary of State, a pool promoter may roll over part or all of the first prize in a pools competition in circumstances where that first prize was achievable but not achieved.
    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman expressed himself pleased with the distance that the new clause had gone. I wish that I could be equally encouraging about the amendments which he ably moved. It is not so much that my good will has evaporated as that we have a difference of opinion, at least at this stage, across the Dispatch Box as to how the new arrangements would work and who would be at a disadvantage.
    The hon. Member's amendments seek to remove any limit to the period in which the football pools could roll following a direction. The effect of this, however, would be to permit the football pools to accumulate credits for roll-over in such a way that they would have considerable freedom to pick and choose the occasions on which to take advantage of the opportunity that the credit gave them.
    If, for example, there has been a roll-over in the national lottery, the football pools, knowing that they are likely to roll over with considerable frequency, may not use the direction on the first occasion that they do not have a winner. They might decide to wait until another time which suits their promotional purposes more readily.
    We have to bear in mind the fact that the pools are free to change the rules of their competitions, and have done so only recently to make roll-over more likely. The jackpot draw which the pools companies introduced on 27 February this year makes it less likely that there will be a winner each week, and therefore more likely that there will be a roll-over.
    Figures which the pools promoters have provided show that, in the six months following the introduction of the jackpot draw, the pools on average could have rolled over at least eight times each. If I remember correctly, for one of them it was up to 14 times, while I certainly do not expect the national lottery to do so more than two or three times a year. If there were no time periods to constrain them, they could plan with reasonable certainty to take the roll-overs in almost any month they chose. That would give them a significant advantage over the national lottery.
    Roll-over in the national lottery will be purely by chance, and cannot be planned in advance. The football pools, on the other hand, could be given a considerable marketing advantage in being able to select a season. The national lottery is a new entrant in a competitive market, and I do not believe that it would be right to give the football pools such an advantage as amendments (a) and (b) seem to do.
    The provisions of clause 58 and the direction-making power is designed to give the pools equality with the
    ("Committees
    2.—
    (1) The Charities Board shall establish four committees for the
    358
    national lottery on roll-over, as the hon. Gentleman reminded me I said before. By that I mean that, if the national lottery rolls, the pool will roll.
    Every pools company will have that ability in all the competitions which they run. It is not just the treble chance competition but any other competition as well. That means that, if the national lottery rolls twice, the pools will be able to roll twice, and if the national lottery rolls three times, they will be able to roll three times as well. The same limit on consecutive roll-overs will apply to both cases.
    However, we are still in discussion with the pools promoters about the length of the time period in which roll-overs, once triggered, would have to be rolled. It would not be right to accept the Opposition argument for no limit. As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, we have been considering a three-month limit. The pools promoters have made representation that this period should be longer, and we are looking carefully at the arguments they have put to us.
    However, there must be some time period so that the arrangements operate in a way that is fair to the national lottery and are clearly and readily understood by everyone. If there were no limits, the postponed use of roll-overs by some pools companies would make it difficult to determine how many they had owing to them and how many they had used. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendments.
    Before I sit down, I want to emphasise that the operation of the Home Secretary's direction-making power will be kept under review. The great advantage of such a power lies in its flexibility. If my right hon. and learned Friend judges that the restrictions and limits should be changed in the light of experience, he can set different ones. His aim —again I confirm this for the hon. Gentleman and the House—will always be to achieve, as far as is possible, a just and equal balance between the pools and the lottery.
    I hope that that provides some reassurance for the hon. Gentleman—and other hon. Members who are concerned about that important matter—that the general principles agreed on both sides of the House will be those that we put not only into the law—the new clause contains that provision—but in the rules that the Home Secretary makes under that provision.
    Mr. Pendry: The Minister has been most helpful. Of course I am disappointed that he has not accepted my amendment, but the manner in which he opposed it was constructive. I am pleased that talks with the pools operators will continue. The philosophy that the Minister espoused on Report is still with him. No doubt there will be a healthy clash between the hon. Gentleman and the operators and an acceptable solution will result. The pools companies are satisfied with the negotiations so far. I hope that those negotiations will continue to be satisfactory.
    Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, one with Special Entry.

  Schedule 5

    THE NATIONAL LOTTERY CHARITIES BOARD
    Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 31, leave out lines 8 to 26 and insert—
    purpose of exercising the Board's functions in relation to applications by charities for grants in respect of appropriate activities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.

    (2) In sub-paragraph (1)—

    "appropriate activities" means activities in relation to which the Charities Board consider it appropriate to delegate their functions to a committee established under that sub-paragraph, and

    "charities" includes institutions such as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of the definition of "charitable expenditure" in section 41(1).

    (3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1), any function of the Charities Board may be exercised by any committee of theirs authorised by them (whether generally or specially) for that purpose.

    (4) A committee of the Charities Board shall consist of a chairman and two or more other members.

    (5) Subject to sub-paragraph (6), all the members of a committee of the Charities Board shall be members of the Board.

    (6) In the case of a committee other than one established under sub-paragraph (1), any member other than the chairman may be a person who is not a member of the Charities Board but is appointed to the committee by the Secretary of State at the Board's request.

    Tenure of office

    2A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as chairman or other member of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs in accordance with the terms of his appointment.

    (2) The Secretary of State shall not appoint a person to hold office as a member of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs for a term of more than five years.

    (3) A chairman or member of the Charities Board or a person appointed to a committee of theirs by the Secretary of State may at any time resign his office by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.

    (4) A member of the Charities Board or a person appointed to a committee of theirs by the Secretary of State may be removed from office by the Secretary of State on the ground that—

    (a) he has been absent for a period longer than three consecutive months from meetings of the Board without the Board's consent or (as the case may be) from meetings of the committee without the committee's consent,

    (b) a bankruptcy order has been made against him or his estate has been sequestrated or he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors, or

    (c) he is unable or unfit to discharge the functions of his office.

    (5) If a chairman of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs ceases to be a member of the Board he shall also cease to be chairman.

    (6) A person who ceases, otherwise than by virtue of sub-paragraph (4), to be a member or chairman of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs shall be eligible for re-appointment.")

    8.45 pm
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 38.
    Mr. Lloyd: For the distribution of the charities' share of the lottery proceeds, the Bill envisages a Charities Board of 16 members, plus a chairman appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. He has agreed that, of those 16, he will appoint three on the nomination of each of the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales. He will also appoint three in respect of England and four in respect of the United
    360
    Kingdom as a whole. Those groups of three nominees will collectively form the majority membership of the national committees that the board will be required to establish.
    The size of the Charities Board can be increased by order, but anything much bigger, as well as being unduly bureaucratic, would be unwieldy as a central policy-making body. As it is, too, the committee responsible for any constituent part of the United Kingdom will be composed predominantly of those nominated by the relevant Secretary of State. They will sit on the Charities Board and they will form a majority of the board members. Thus the interests both of the United Kingdom as a whole and of its constituent nations will be protected.
    However, many important voices in the charitable world have expressed the worry that a board of 16 would

    361
    not, by itself, be adequate for the volume of work expected, which might be as many as 100,000 grant applications per year.
    Amendments Nos. 35 to 38 address that concern. They enable the Home Secretary, at his discretion but on application by the board, to appoint as members of any board committees, other than the four national ones, people who are not members of the board itself—for example, a committee for charities operating overseas, perhaps in the Commonwealth. The decision-making powers of those appointees will be restricted to the committees on which they serve. The committees will be required to have a board member as chairman and their proceedings at any meeting will not be valid unless at least one of those present is a board member.
    I hope that the House will find that a sensible and practical solution to what could have been a considerable pipeline blockage when the board is established. We have made the arrangement to deal with what I expect to be a very large amount of business coming to the board.
    Mr. Pendry: We accept amendments Nos. 36 to 38, which are largely technical. I want to speak specifically to amendment No. 35.
    I am sure that the charities appreciate the Minister's good will in accepting their arguments and introducing this welcome amendment. The previous requirement would have made it almost impossible for the board to set up the full range of regional or local specialised committees that it might consider necessary to enable it to carry out its work effectively across the United Kingdom. The amendment will make it easier for the board to set up a full range of committees and to maintain the necessary link with the board.
    As I am probably speaking for the last time on this Bill, I want to say how much I, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and all those who served on the Committee realise that we have been dealing with some very reasonable Ministers—the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who was with us during the Committee stage, and, latterly, the Under-Secretary of State.
    We believe that we have made enormous progress in ensuring that a true national lottery will take place next year. We hope that it will be very successful.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: As this may be my last speech on the Bill, I want to say that I appreciate the remarks of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). Reasonable Oppositions help to produce reasonable Governments. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has found our responses to his points constructive. I and my colleagues have found his approach helpful and sensible. Between both sides of the Committee and the House, we now have a better Bill than we started with. I give my thanks and my praise to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for that.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I welcome these final stages of the Bill, for which I claim a modest degree of paternity—if that is possible in genealogical terms. But at this valediction I should say something about how far the Bill has departed from what I originally had in mind.
    Originally, I had in mind not only a lottery that would raise the quality of life in Britain to even higher levels by
    362
    providing new resources for the arts, sport, heritage, charity and the millennium fund, which we added in due course, but a lottery in which the state played a lesser part than it now appears to be playing. I am afraid that we have a nationalised state lottery of a kind that I had hoped we would not have.
    I envisaged a lottery in which big business played a lesser part and in which, perhaps, a charitable foundation was responsible for the distribution of the money. Big business may be able to make an efficient business organisation work for the raising of money, but not before it has drained from the national lottery a substantial sum of money. One of the bidders for the lottery has 100 people working for it already, just to put its bid in order. One can look down the list and see that there is a real danger, which I hoped would never happen, that big business will drain off substantial sums of money that would otherwise be devoted to charities, art, sport, heritage and the millennium fund.
    That may not happen. One cannot look into the future and see. But the chances are that it will and, if it does, we will rue the day that we were not more dedicated in setting up a charitable foundation, not just in the form that we have been discussing in the amendment, but to control the organisation and distribution of the lottery.
    I hope that the charitable committees that will be set up will also adequately supervise the charities concerned in order to ensure that a minimum amount of money is spent on administration and a maximum on benefits, which is what this is all about. I thought that it was inevitable when I introduced my Bill that the Exchequer would want to take a large sum of money out of the national lottery, and we asked for and obtained assurances from the Government that there would be no reduction in the money that was spent on the arts, sport, heritage and good causes as a result of the lottery. But I fear that if the various taxes that will go to the Exchequer from the national lottery are aggregated, again we will find that money that should have benefited the good causes will not do so to the extent necessary.
    Sir Dudley Smith: If that should happen, we shall be blamed for it by the public. I hope that it does not happen.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not open up the argument that we had on Second Reading.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: No. I am talking about charities, which is the subject of the amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment is about committees.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Charitable committees, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can hang on by my fingertips long enough to say that if, in future, the Government seek to take more money in taxation from the national lottery, they should remember that its benefits come not just from taxation but from the allocation of resources to sport and the arts, which will, for example, distract a fair number of the juveniles who are now turning their hands to crime to good acts within society and that will reduce the cost to the Government of an enormous amount of juvenile crime.
    If people are directed by the national lottery to engage more in sport and leisure, there may be a better feeling in society. There will be less absenteeism, harder work and

    363
    less ill health and the Government will save enormous sums of money which would justify their raising less in taxation.
    I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me, in the dying moments of the Bill as it passes through the House, to make those remarks about the way that I would have preferred the legislation to go.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, one with Special Entry.

European Convention on Human Rights
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
8.57 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: It is a sad commentary on this place that our democracy and our constitution are rarely debated in the Chamber. The rights of our citizens should be the issue most keenly discussed and most urgently debated, yet it finds no room on our parliamentary agenda, which is given to us by the Executive who control the House. In many ways that is why Parliament has become increasingly irrelevant to finding the answers to our economic and social problems. Above all, it is the reason why reform of the House of Commons is so central to rebuilding democracy in our country.
Nowhere is that inadequacy more laughably illustrated than in the fact that an hon. Member must win a place in the weekly raffle for an Adjournment debate at odds of over 100:1 before using that precious opportunity to raise the issue of human rights. That such a matter is debated only due to a stroke of luck rather than as a deliberate duty of the House may explain why the House and its inmates are held in such low esteem and treated with such deserved contempt by the Government and people of this country.
Contrary to parliamentary mythology, people are interested in democracy. It is not only the chattering classes that talk about the failure of our political process. Everyone discusses the poll tax, pit closures, the state of our schools and hospitals and asks, "Why?". The simple truth is that command politics have not delivered. We need to try something different. Pluralism and a variety of independent and legitimate institutions and defensible human rights are a key part of that agenda.
It is essential that human rights are dealt with seriously and I have particular pleasure in initiating this debate on the day that Amnesty International launches a new worldwide campaign in protest at continuing political killings and disappearances. I am delighted to use this opportunity to extend my thanks and those of all who are concerned about human rights to the work of Amnesty International. In the United Kingdom Parliament ringing tribute should also be put on record to Liberty, formerly the National Council for Civil Liberties, and to Charter 88, both of which have kept the candle of human rights alight in the recent darkest years of centralism.
I was pleased to receive from those two organisations this morning a 6 ft high copy of the Human Rights (No. 3) Bill which I presented in the Chamber yesterday. That Bill, when enacted by the next Labour Government, will incorporate into British law the fundamental human rights that are guaranteed by the European convention on human rights. Those rights are currently guaranteed to citizens of every EC country apart from our own. Incorporation would give our citizens equal protection and equal remedies to those available in virtually all other European democracies. The argument of Charter 88, Liberty, Amnesty International and of those in my party, other parties and of no party is that if we have rights, they should be written down for all to see. If the Government can write down our rights as consumers—I welcome that—why cannot they write down our rights as citizens?

365
The 1993 Labour party conference endorsed as the policy of our party the most radical package of democratic reforms ever proposed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition summed it up when he said:
"We are proposing nothing less than a new constitution of citizenship for a new century. A new and modern conception of citizenship, which recognises the importance of the community acting together to advance individual freedom. A revitalised democracy which protects the fundamental rights of each and every citizen, regardless of race, colour, gender or creed. A system of government that is open, accountable and close to the people it is elected to serve."
He went on to say:
"We in the Labour party—unlike any other party—see the vital link between rights in the workplace and rights at the ballot box. We need both, if we are to create a society of free and self-confident citizens."
Labour's starting point for defining rights in the United Kingdom must begin with incorporating the European convention on human rights. At the moment, any person in the United Kingdom can take out a human rights case, but in Europe, not in our own country. Incorporation would allow the rights of British citizens to be directly protected in our British courts—rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right of privacy and many others.
The convention has a good claim to be one of the world's most successful instruments of human rights enforcement. The problems of the European Court of Human Rights—too many cases and lengthy processes—are the problems of success. I am pleased that the need to update the procedures of the court has been recognised, finally, by the Government.
The agreement reached in Vienna on 9 October—draft protocol No. 11—between the Heads of State and Governments of the member states of the Council of Europe has arisen specifically from the escalating demands and from the further cases expected following the admission to full membership of countries in central and eastern Europe. The European convention on human rights will soon need to service 800 million individuals. International barrister Andrew Drzemczewski has argued:
"those in much less privileged parts of Europe—whether they be in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo or in the Caucasus—may have a glimmer of hope that they too have recourse against barbarities which we (mistakenly) considered to be confined to the annals of history".
The problem with existing arrangements in Strasbourg is that, on average, the Commission filtering process takes three years while the court process takes two years. Anthony Lester QC, now Lord Lester of Herne Hill—in my opinion the founding father of the British Bill of Rights movement—warned that cases may take a minimum of 10 years to be heard, and possibly as many as 15 years, unless the system is radically reformed and adequately funded. On average, it takes the court five years to reach a decision, and that does not even take into consideration the domestic proceedings that precede a petition to Strasbourg. The old dictum of justice delayed is justice denied could never have found a more appropriate setting than the European Court as it is currently composed.
It is ironic, however, that proposals to reform the system have been made in secret and without proper consultation with non-governmental organisations. None the less, the proposals are welcome. I hope that the Minister will take the chance to explain whether he has any proposals to open
366
up and make less secretive the process of discussion and negotiation on the reform of the court and the extension of human rights.
The agreement reached at Vienna proposes a number of long-overdue reforms—reforms that have been pressed on the Government by Labour Members. The proposals include the elimination of the unnecessary Commission stage and ensuring that all human rights cases are sent directly to the court. In addition, in the vast majority of cases the new court will sit in a streamlined chamber of seven judges, who for the first time will meet on a full-time basis. Unfounded cases will be sifted out of the system at an early stage by unanimous decision of the court composed of three judges.
The Vienna agreement ensures that all allegations of the violation of the rights of individuals will go before the court rather than the Committee of Ministers. We welcome all those proposals and urge the Government to ratify them next May.
I have a specific concern about one particular area and I should like the Minister to address it. At the moment, a Government must specifically make a declaration to allow the right of petition for their citizens. We believe that the right of petition should automatically accrue to all individuals on accession to the covenant by their Government rather than having to rely on the political good will of a Government. I understand, however, that the Conservatives and France and Turkey do not support the proposal for an automatic right of petition for individuals. Will the Minister therefore clarify the Government's position and confirm whether his Government support an entrenched right or petition in the covenant?
Why must this Conservative Government be dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way on citizens' rights? Even when they are found to be in breach of European Court decisions they grudgingly implement the minimum level of compliance, which often results in further expensive and protracted litigation.
We welcome the recommendations for reform that were made at Vienna—they are but a first tentative step in the right direction. The creation of meaningful democracy in Europe and the United Kingdom will take more than reform of the procedures of the European Court of Human Rights, important though that is. Rights must be used as a framework for a judicial system here at home. If an individual can seek redress under our domestic court system, we shall dramatically reduce the impediments to securing justice, notably the time taken, the travel that is necessary and the expense. That would make justice accessible to all.
A pressing need now exists to overhaul and modernise the structure of our democracy to break the stranglehold of the Executive and to end the winner-takes-all approach to politics. The political system in Britain is failing to protect individual rights, just as it is failing socially and economically. Free, confident and assertive individuals need open, democratic and accountable institutions to grow and flourish. We must create a new culture of rights that will give substance to the inalienable right of citizenship, ending for ever the debilitating culture of hierarchy, deference and class which so holds back our country today.
The Labour party is committed to a major package of constitutional reforms: a Bill of Rights, reform of the royal prerogative, an elected second Chamber, independence for local government, a modernised judiciary, a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh assembly and the introduction of

367
proportional representation to elect the European Parliament and the second Chamber. As a package, those measures are essential components in the safeguarding of individual rights and in the building of our democracy.
Sadly, the Government have a shameful record as the prime violators of the European convention on human rights. Since 1979, 29 landmark cases have been brought against the United Kingdom, more than against any other country in the European Community. The judgments did not involve marginal or trivial cases; they have invariably involved fundamental issues such as the ending of unfair press curbs in the United Kingdom, the ending of unjust restrictions on prisoners' access to lawyers, the ending of unacceptable restrictions on the husbands and wives of immigrants, the creating of effective judicial protection for mental patients and for prisoners serving life sentences and requirements for new controls on telephone tapping. The Government's record should concern all of us here, whether or not we are members of the Government.
I make a pledge as Labour's spokesman on the constitution: incorporating into British law of the citizen's rights found in the European convention will take place speedily under the next Labour Government and that will be only a beginning. We shall then examine, by means of an all-party commission, a home-grown British Bill of Rights to give effect to the equally important international covenant on civil and political rights.
For the past 14 years, we have watched the Govermnent ride rough-shod over our rights. It is time the balance was redressed. Our constitutional system, with no checks and no balances, cannot now pass the test of a modern democracy. We need to establish the fundamental pillar of all democracies—a separation of powers. We need to consider once again the balance between the powers of the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. The Labour party's policy to give our citizens written rights, embodied in the Bill that I presented to the House yesterday, is the first small step on that long road.
9.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) for selecting this subject for debate and I welcome it for two reasons. First, the subject that he has chosen—the reform of procedures under the European convention on human rights—is clearly important to the United Kingdom and all its citizens. It is not a subject to which the House has paid much attention in recent years and the debate therefore provides us with a rare opportunity to discuss it. The hon. Gentleman and I can probably agree about that.
Secondly, I welcome the debate because it allows me to set the record straight. The United Kingdom's position on reform of ECHR procedures has, I am afraid, been consistently misrepresented in the press and other media. The hon. Gentleman referred to the growing burden placed on the Commission and the Court, which has been plain for all to see. There are two main reasons for it.
The first is the increasing number of member states of the Council of Europe which are willing to accept the right of individual petition under the convention. Indeed, within the past five years, it has been accepted by all member states. The second reason is the growing awareness of the convention, and the possibility of recourse under its provisions, among the people of Europe.
368
For some years, the United Kingdom has actively sought to improve the administration of the ECHR institutions to enable it to deal with its increasing workload, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and to reduce delays. We have, therefore, taken steps to promote changes that might offer some fairly swift and substantial relief. For example, it was the United Kingdom which played a key role in seeking and securing from the Council of Europe an increase in resources for the Commission's secretariat to enable it to keep pace better with the demands placed on it. The United Kingdom has sought to persuade its partners in the Council of Europe that improvements might be achieved by introducing changes to the working practices of the Commission and the Court.
That was not a means of deflecting attention from more fundamental reforms. We agreed that those needed to be tackled, especially in the light of the accession of new member states to the Council of Europe, but we hoped that our colleagues would be prepared to consider more immediate measures, given the time that would inevitably be needed to implement any new protocol reforming the ECHR institutions. We were disappointed that our arguments on that point failed to convince. Nevertheless, we accept that the question of structural change to the ECHR institutions needs to be tackled urgently and we have fully participated in that work.
The declaration that concluded the Council of Europe's summit in Vienna on 9 October confirmed the intention of the Heads of Government to establish a new court of human rights to consider all applications made by individuals under article 25 of the convention. That declaration had the full support of the United Kingdom. There is still a good deal of negotiation to be undertaken on the detailed operation of the new court.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the United Kingdom opposed a single court structure. It is true that we initially favoured a reformed two-tier mechanism because we felt that it would be better able to deliver the standards of jurisprudence and efficiency required of such an international body. But our main aim has been to ensure that, whatever the structure, it includes the elements necessary to achieve those objectives.
In negotiations the United Kingdom has made it clear that any reform of the ECHR procedures should incorporate three important features. The first is an adequate system for filtering cases. Under the present arrangements the Commission and its secretariat have established effective procedures for disposing of cases that are outside the scope of the convention, or otherwise clearly inadmissible, before serious consideration is given as to merits. It will be important for a single body to establish some comparable system if it is not to impose unnecessary and unacceptable burdens on its judges.
The second of our objectives has been to ensure the maintenance of satisfactory friendly settlement procedures. The opportunity for the parties to an action to reach a settlement among themselves is a long-standing and important feature of judicial proceedings of that kind. If such a settlement can be achieved, it will have the advantage of reducing the work of the court. Under the present system the commission has played a valuable role in facilitating friendly settlement, which I know is appreciated by other member states. The arrangement works well. In a single court the parties may be more inhibited about exposing their positions to a body that will also be responsible for making the final judgment. That is

369
not to say that friendly settlement will be rendered impossible, but care will be needed as to how it should be handled.
The third of our objectives has been to secure, within a reformed court, the opportunity for a second hearing of a case. We consider it wholly right that where a decision breaks new ground, or is otherwise of significance, there should be an opportunity for the matter to be tested afresh. We do not think that that is an unreasonable objective; after all, most judicial systems allow some form of appeal. Indeed, the European Court of Justice incorporated such a mechanism a few years ago.
We also believe that the opportunity for cases to be reviewed will provide an important means of maintaining standards of jurisprudence within the reformed court. That is not because we consider that the judges in a new court will be any less competent or diligent than those under the present system, but the pressures on judges operating within a single body will inevitably be greater and an appeals procedure will provide a valuable means of maintaining both the quality and the consistency of the judgments reached.
I have noted the suggestion in the press that an appeals procedure is to be incorporated into the reformed court at the insistence of the United Kingdom. Although it is true that, as I have said, we consider that an important objective, I should make it clear that we are by no means alone in that view. The majority of countries now favour some form of appeals mechanism. Indeed, its inclusion in the revised model for a single court has enabled the proposal to attract general support amongst member states.
Although a draft protocol to reform the ECHR procedures has been prepared, a good deal of detailed work still needs to be done. The European convention on human rights and its machinery have stood the test of time for more than 40 years. The proposals for reform now being discussed in Strasbourg will constitute the most radical change to the operation of the convention in its lifetime.
Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Wardle: Yes, but swiftly. I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy and generosity in giving way. He is making a good case for letting the judges in Europe continue the task of judging human rights cases, which they have undertaken for many years. Like us, the Minister clearly trusts those judges in Europe to come to the right decisions. Does he agree that there is a strong argument that the trust that he places in judges in Europe to decide on rights cases might equally well reside in judges in Britain were we to repatriate the European convention on human rights in British law?
Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman raised that issue earlier—it had not eluded me and I hope that I shall have time to address it. That was one reason why I was
370
proceeding at such a gallop—the hon. Gentleman is used to that from our previous debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
While we understand the desire for the reform to which I referred earlier to be speedily concluded, it is more important that we should get the systems right. The United Kingdom will continue to play its full part in ensuring that proposals for reforming the ECHR institutions are workable and sensible, and will secure real improvement in the handling of applications made under the convention.
The Government do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments for incorporating the European convention on human rights into domestic law. As I made clear in my response to his debate on 27 May in the House, we believe that the incorporation of the convention would undermine the constitutional principle whereby Parliament has the supreme responsibility for enacting and changing our laws. Most laws are specific, but the convention is broadly drawn. Its incorporation would have the undesirable consequence of bringing the judiciary into the political arena, which could threaten their reputation for impartiality.
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that citizens of this country are disadvantaged by our non-incorporation of the ECHR is, I believe, mistaken. The general principles set out in the convention are contained in the common and statute law of this country. The incorporation of the convention by a number of other member states has not prevented their citizens from submitting large numbers of applications to the Commission, even though they may have had access to domestic constitutional courts.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the right of individual petition under article 25 of the convention. The proposal has been made in Strasbourg that the right of individual petition under article 25 should be permanent. That is not in our view an integral element of the proposals for reform; indeed, it has only recently been introduced into the debate.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the convention allows for member states to accept the right of individual petition on either a finite or an indefinite basis. The United Kingdom, along with most other member states, has done so for a limited period—currently five years—and has renewed the right on each occasion. While some may feel that accepting the right of individual petition on a permanent basis demonstrates the commitment of a member state to the ECHR, of much more importance is the extent to which the principles of the convention and the decisions of the court are observed in practice.
We shall obviously wish to discuss that matter further with our colleagues in the Council of Europe. But we see no pressing need for a change of the sort proposed. Indeed, given that we are about to embark on a radical overhaul of the ECHR machinery, consideration of the proposal might best be left until member states have acquired some experience of the new court and its jurisprudence.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Nine o'clock

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Dining Rooms
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will publish a list of those organisations which have used dining rooms A, B and C in the past six months.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  No.

  Office Accommodation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many hon. Members currently share an office.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  One hundred and thirty-six hon. Members are accommodated in double rooms, 27 in treble rooms and 12 in rooms of four Members. Twenty-one have desks in open plan accommodation in the Cloisters.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will issue a questionnaire to hon. Members to discover their office accommodation needs and their level of satisfaction with current office accommodation.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  It has been the objective of successive Select Committees responsible for Members' accommodation to work towards a situation where every Member who so wishes is able to have a room of his or her own. Progress towards that goal is a high priority for the Accommodation and Works Committee in consultation with the Serjeant at Arms and the Parliamentary Works Directorate. I shall therefore arrange for my hon. Friend's suggestion to be considered.

  Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee in what circumstances the premises of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association would have to vacate its office at short notice to make way for a military guard of honour; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Matters relating to Westminster Hall are the joint responsibility of the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office, which includes the private office of the Lord Privy Seal and Lord President as well as the Judicial Committee and Privy Council proper, spent £10,885 in financial year 1992–93 on official hospitality.
  234

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In 1992–93 expenditure on official hospitality in the Lord Chancellor's Department was £20,697.44p.

WALES

  Transport Funding
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give all details of European regional development funds which have been allocated for transport initiatives in the last 12 months and which are proposed for the next 12 months.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No ERDF funds have been allocated to specific transport initiatives, but ERDF grant has part-financed various transport measures including provision of park and ride facilities, bus routes and new passenger rail services. It is too soon to indicate what schemes or initiatives might be submitted for approval in 1994.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Redwood
  The amount spent by the Welsh Office on official hospitality in 1992–93 was £38,382.

  Valleys Programme
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when details of the latest programme for the valleys will be published.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of the new programme for the valleys, launched by my predecessor on 1 April are set out in a brochure which I have published today. Copies have been sent to those Members in valleys constituencies. I have also placed copies in the Library of the House.

  Under the previous programme for the valleys, launched in June 1988, 2,000 acres of derelict land were cleared in the biggest venture of its kind in Europe, 2.6 million sq ft of industrial floor-space was provided and £700 million of private sector investment was generated. In addition, 24,000 jobs were created or safeguarded.

  My aim for the new programme will be to build on this success, to complete the process of restoring prosperity to the valleys area and to fulfil the aspirations of its people. The new programme has five key aims:

  to create more, better quality jobs;

  to improve training, education and transport;

  to improve the environment;

  to improve people's health;

  to improve the quality and choice of housing.

  I expect total public expenditure under the new programme to exceed £1 billion.

HEALTH

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on official hospitality in her Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992–93, the Department of Health spent £246,374 on hospitality.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Sir John Wheeler
  £535,299.

  Audit Review Group
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available copies of the follow-up report of the audit review group.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

TRANSPORT

  Railtrack
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's intention with regard to the time scale for the privatisation of Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  As we said in the White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways", Cm 2012, the Government would like to see the private sector owning as much as possible of the railway in the longer term. No target date has been set for the transfer of Railtrack to private sector ownership.

  Relief Road, Manchester
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures he intends to implement in order to assess the environmental impact of the proposed Greater Manchester western and northern relief road.

  Mr. Key
  If the scheme goes ahead following the public consultation, the proposals will be assessed in terms of the impact on existing communities, air and water qualities, the landscape, agriculture, nature conservation, heritage values and recreation. An environmental statement, describing those impacts and the measures we intend to take in mitigation, will be published in accordance with EC directive 85/337.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport, excluding its agencies, spent £231,547 on official hospitality during 1992–93.

  Exhaust Pollution
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been done by his Department on the linkage of asthma and bronchial disorders to exhaust pollution in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 18 October 1993]: I have been asked to repy.

  The Department is funding a research project which will examine the effects of the December 1991 air pollution episode in London when the highest recorded peak of nitrogen dioxide occurred.

  In addition, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants which was established by the chief medical officer last year has set up a sub-group on asthma which will make recommendations on research relating to asthma and air pollution.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 10 March at column 616, which stated that the MRC is sponsoring some research into factors contributing to the rise in asthma and has set up a working party to examine the aetiology of asthma under the chairmanship of Professor A. J. Newman Taylor. It is considering a range of possible contributory factors to current levels of asthma, including air pollution. The Department is represented on the working party and on the MRC committee on toxic hazards in the workplace and the environment, both of which will consider areas of need for further research.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The expenditure by my Department, excluding expenditure in respect of the Prime Minister's office, on official hospitality in the financial year 1992–93 was £33,320.

  Initiatives Programme
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements he has made for making payments to projects approved under the Office of Science and Technology's White Paper initiatives programme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Payments associated with such initiatives began earlier this month. Parliamentary approval to this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service and Science: science vote—class XVIII, vote 2. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure of up to £400,000 for agreed projects is being met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many disturbances have occurred at Blakenhurst since it opened; and if he will provide details.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about disturbances at HM Prison Blakenhurst.
  The Prison Service does not classify incidents as 'disturbances', but records a range of different types of incident which disrupt the smooth running of establishments.
  Since Blakenhurst began receiving prisoners on 26 May 1993, there have been four incidents of concerted indiscipline, and two rooftop demonstrations; all six incidents were passive throughout. These are the details:—
  9 August 1993: 50 prisoners refused to return to their cells at the end of evening association. They were protesting about the quality of the food and about the imminent transfer to training prisons of a number of prisoners. They returned to their cells after 3½ hours.
  13 September 1993: 62 prisoners refused to return to their cells after evening association. Their complaints included the timing of meals, lack of available work, poor choice of video entertainment and new restrictions on access around the houseblocks. The incident was resolved after 3½ hours.
  20 September 1993: 60 prisoners refused to return to their cells at the end of evening association; they did so after one hour.
  23 September 1993: a prisoner climbed onto the roof of the segregation unit to protest about his location in the unit. He remained there for 4 hours. No damage was caused.
  24 September 1993: another prisoner climbed onto the roof of the segregation unit to protest about his location in the unit. He surrendered after 3 hours 50 minutes.
  9 October 1993: ten prisoners refused to return to their cells after evening association. Four of the prisoners were due to be relocated in the segregation unit following an alleged assault on two staff members. The situation was resolved after 2½ hours.

  Cautions
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were cautioned by the police in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) 1992, (1) in total, (2) for indictable offences, (3) for indictable only offences, (4) for either way offences or (5) for summary offences.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested for the years 1990 to 1992—which is provisional—is given in the table.

  Notifiable offences of theft and handling stolen goods recorded by the police 1979–92

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Year

  Total

  Theft from shops

  Handling stolen goods

  Other theft

  1979

  1,416,143

  203,122

  45,290

  1,167,731

  1980

  1,463,469

  206,175

  38,815

  1,218,479

  1981

  1,603,151

  225,342

  40,793

  1,337,016

  1982

  1,755,853

  242,304

  43,589

  1,469,960

  1983

  1,705,924

  235,512

  44,871

  1,425,541

  1984

  1,807,981

  248,792

  45,046

  1,514,143

  1985

  1,884,069

  281,557

  45,336

  1,557,176

  1986

  2,003,873

  255,463

  41,497

  1,706,913

  1987

  2,052,005

  247,064

  45,968

  1,758,973

  1988

  1,931,274

  216,242

  49,262

  1,665,770

  1989

  2,012,760

  222,974

  44,867

  1,744,919

  1990

  2,374,409

  250,301

  46,822

  2,077,286

  238

  Number of persons cautioned by type of offence 1990 to 19921England and Wales

  1990

  1991

  11992

  All offences

  269,112

  278,765

  321,294

  Total indictable

  166,349

  179,885

  216,163

  Indictable only

  1,703

  1,577

  1,736

  Triable either way

  164,646

  178,308

  214,427

  Summary offences (excluding motoring)

  102,763

  98,880

  105,131

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number and percentage of people cautioned in 1990, 1991 and 1992 had(a) no previous cautions, (b) one previous caution, (c) two previous cautions, (d) three previous cautions, (e) four previous cautions, (f) five previous cautions or (g) six or more previous cautions.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not available in the form requested. The latest available information on previous cautioning history of persons cautioned in England and Wales is shown in the table.

  The past cautioning history of a sample1 of 2,787 offenders cautioned in England and Wales in 1991

  The number of previous cautions

  Percentage of the sample

  None

  79·9

  1

  12·8

  2

  4·3

  3

  1·2

  4

  0·8

  5

  0·2

  6 or more

  0·8

  1 The sample was based on returns from all police forces in England and Wales for all offenders cautioned between 25 and 29 November 1991.

  Theft
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing for each of the years 1979 to 1992 the total number of offences in the category of theft and handling stolen goods; and how many in each year were(a) shoplifting, (b) handling and (c) other categories of theft.

  Mr. Maclean
  The requested information is contained in the following table:
  239

  Year

  Total

  Theft from shops

  Handling stolen goods

  Other theft

  1991

  2,761,119

  281,276

  51,495

  2,428,348

  1992

  2,851,638

  288,672

  49,836

  2,513,130

  Bail Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people(a) were released on bail in (i) 1990, (ii) 1991 and (iii) 1992, (b) reoffended on bail and (c) were bailed again by the courts.

  Mr. Maclean
  The estimated number of persons remanded on bail at magistrates courts in England and Wales is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales". Table 8.5 shows that 441,900 people were remanded in 1990: 452,500 in 1991 and 458,700 in 1992. Information on numbers offending while on bail and on those bailed again is not collected centrally.

  A Home Office research report—RPU report 65 "Offending while on bail; a survey of recent studies"—gives some information about recent studies relating to offences while on bail. The survey concludes that, on average, between 10 and 12 per cent. of defendants on bail are subsequently convicted of an offence committed on bail and nowhere was the figure more than 17 per cent. A copy of this report is available in the Library of the House.

  Offences Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifiable offences were recorded by the police in the year ended June 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  The requested information is not yet available.

  Asylum
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average waiting time for asylum applications, from receipt of application to determination.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The estimated average length of time between the receipt of an asylum application and the decision, for cases decided in the second quarter of 1993, was 18 months. This figure reflects work on the resolution of older and more complex cases, as a result of the increase in staffing in the asylum and special cases division. Following the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 on 26 July, priority has been given to cases received after that date, with the aim of resolving the majority within three months. However, comprehensive information on the average decision times since implementation of the Act is not yet available.

  Political Conferences
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the total policing costs associated with the 1993 annual conferences of(a) the Liberal Democrats, (b) the Labour party and (c) the Conservative party.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the chief officers of the forces concerned that the estimated costs are:
  240

  £

  (a) Liberal Democrat (Devon and Cornwall)

  14,500

  (b) Labour (Sussex)

  31,000

  (c) Conservative (Lancashire)

  1,500,000

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work his Department has undertaken to establish the number of persistent juvenile offenders; and what is his estimate of the number of such offenders at the present time.

  Mr. Maclean
  A survey of police forces and local authority social services departments last year identified 106 juveniles who met the criteria for persistent offenders specified in that survey. It was immediately recognised that this figure was a significant underestimate: not all respondents—including two of the largest police forces —held their information in a way which allowed them to produce precise numerical data. Consequently, further research on persistent juvenile offending was commissioned by the Home Office. The report is expected to be available in the near future.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department's expenditure on official hospitality in the financial year 1992–93 was £21,651.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bosnia
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) of 6 July,Official Report, column 85, what steps Her Majesty's Government took, before co-sponsoring United Nations Security Council resolution 816, to verify allegations of a breach of the no-fly zone over Gladovici on 13 March other than consideration of the UNPROFOR press notice.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave to his written question of 18 October,Official Report, columns 83–84. We are satisfied with the standard of United Nations reporting on the observance of the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzogovina, including the information provided about the breach over Gladovici on 13 March.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of all countries for which ivory export permits have been
  241
  issued by the authorities in Hong Kong since the entering of the reservation in respect of the ivory trade; and if he will provide full details of the ivory exported.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Since the entering of the reservation and up to 14 October 1993, details of commercial ivory exported from Hong Kong are as follows:

  Importing country

  Nature and quantity

  China

  7946.70 kg raw ivory

  Korea

  273.60 kg worked ivory

  Taiwan

  24.20 kg worked ivory

  Mexico

  195.20 kg worked ivory

  Saudia Arabia

  8.80 kg worked ivory

  Andorra

  112.60 kg worked ivory

  Australia

  8.00 kg worked ivory

  USA

  0.73 kg worked ivory

  United Kingdom

  0.85 kg worked ivory

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much ivory has been confiscated by the Hong Kong authorities since 1 February 1991; and how many prosecutions for illegal export have been initiated since that date.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Between 1 February 1991 and 14 October 1993, the Hong Kong authorities confiscated 1,210.9 kg of ivory and initiated two prosecutions for illegal export.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many exports of ivory have been authorised from Hong Kong since midnight on 17 July 1990.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No commercial exports of ivory have been authorised from Hong Kong between midnight on 17 July 1990 and 14 October 1993 except for seven shipments of pre-convention specimens of worked ivory totalling 1.58 kg.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many spot checks have been made by the Hong Kong authorities of ivory holding premises since 1 February 1991; and if any irregularities were discovered.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Hong Kong authorities have made 778 spot checks on ivory holding premises between 1 February 1991 and 14 October 1993. No irregularities were discovered.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current stock of all ivory known to be held in Hong Kong; and on what date it was last assessed.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The total commercial ivory stock held in Hong Kong on 17 July 1990 was 463 tonnes, to the nearest tonne. No commercial exports of ivory, except pre-convention specimens of worked ivory, have been authorised since then.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current number of possession licences issued to holders of ivory stocks in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As at 14 October 1993, there were 899. possession licences held by commercial ivory stock holders in Hong Kong.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department, including the Overseas Development Administration, in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Expenditure on official hospitality by both wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1992–93 is estimated at £6,946,298.

  In addition, the FCO availed itself of part of the £1,141,600 grant-in-aid to the Government hospitality fund, but the exact figure is not available.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of items from endangered species seized by the Hong Kong authorities in the years 1991, 1992 and the first half of 1993; and what prosecutions arose from the seizures.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Hong Kong authorities made 276 seizures of items from endangered species in 1991, 256 seizures in 1992 and 120 seizures in the first half of 1993. A total of 341 prosecutions for the two and a half year period arose from these seizures.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the ivory exported from Hong Kong since 25 March 1991 in accordance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species requirements.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No commercial exports of ivory have been authorised by the Hong Kong authorities since 25 March 1991 except for six shipments of pre-convention specimens of worked ivory totalling 1.48 kg.

  Special Operations Executive
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to release the records of the wartime Special Operations Executive.

  Mr. Hurd
  I said in my answer on 26 November 1992,Official Report, column 766, that work had started on reviewing the SOE archives. A first batch of files, covering SOE activities in the far east have been transferred to the Public Record Office and will be available to the public from 21 October. The next batches will cover Scandinavia and Africa and will be released as soon as possible after mid-1994.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on future British aid to Ethiopia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have agreed to commit £10 million of bilateral development assistance to support projects in Ethiopia in the period 1993 to 1995. In addition, during her recent visit to Ethiopia, my right hon. Friend
  243
  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey agreed to provide £5 million balance of payments support during United Kingdom financial year 1993–94 to support Ethiopia's economic reform programme.

  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recent discussions between the Natural Resources Institute and the university of Greenwich.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Natural Resources Institute —NRI—has been reviewing the scope and orientation of its work in the light of a changing market for its services and of the White Paper on science and technology, Cm 2250. The institute has concluded that it has surplus accommodation on its Chatham maritime site. At the same time, it wishes to strengthen links with centres of higher education and research.

  The NRI has, therefore, agreed with the university of Greenwich that its school of earth sciences will be based at Chatham from the autumn of 1994. The university is considering whether to relocate other operations—notably its school of engineering—to Chatham as part of a wider plan to rationalise its estate and to expand the provision it offers in Kent. The NRI and the university intend to develop substantive links in research, teaching and consultancy. This association between NRI and the university is a welcome and constructive initiative, which will also give added impetus to the development of the Chatham maritime site and the Medway towns and will make an important contribution to the regeneration of the east Thames corridor.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the percentage fall in the volume of book purchases if VAT at 17.5 per cent. were imposed on books and (b) on the consequential loss in corporation tax, income tax and national insurance contributions.

  Sir John Cope
  Research carried out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that imposing the standard rate of VAT on books would reduce book sales by approximately 10½ per cent. The consequential loss in corporation tax, income tax and national insurance contributions would depend on the behaviour of individual companies.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated effect on the retail prices index of the imposition of VAT at 17.5 per cent. on books.

  Sir John Cope
  Imposing VAT at the standard rate would increase the RPI by around 0.08 per cent., assuming the tax is fully passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates would be raised if VAT at 17.5 per cent. were applied to books.

  Sir John Cope
  The Treasury publication "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" shows the estimated cost of 244
  applying a zero rate of VAT to books, newspapers and magazines as being £1,100 million in 1993–94. Revenue from books alone would be around 30 per cent. of this figure. This estimate makes no allowance for the likely behavioural response to applying VAT at the standard rate.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Nelson
  Expenditure on official hospitality in 1992–93 was £287,195. This is significantly higher than expenditure in 1991–92 reflecting two large one-off events; the annual conference of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions for which the United Kingdom was host in July 1992; and the informal ECOFIN meeting in September 1992 which was held as part of the United Kingdom presidency. If these two items are excluded, expenditure was £84,904.

  No. 11 Downing Street
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 July,Official Report, column 876, in respect of No. 11 Downing street, on what floor and room the old carpet was relaid; where the carpet already in that room is now located; what adjustments had to be made to the old carpet before it was relaid; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The old carpet was relaid on the back staircase between the ground and second floors. The carpet had to be cut to fit this previously uncarpeted staircase.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Computer Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the co-ordinating committee on multilateral export control was notified of the United States decision announced on 26 August to lift existing restrictions on export of computer equipment to China and eastern European countries; and if he will make a statement on the implications of the decision on British export policy for computers to these countries.

  Mr. Needham
  My officials were present at the meeting of COCOM—the Co-ordinating Committee for Multilateral Strategic Export Controls—on 30 September 1993 when the US delegation presented its proposals for amending the agreed level of controls on computer equipment by all COCOM members including the US to proscribed destinations, including China and eastern Europe. Agreement to decontrol was reached at a further meeting held on 5 October.

  Like our counterparts in the US and other COCOM member states, we are considering the practical issues of implementing in the United Kingdom this more relaxed export control policy. We expect to introduce new measures soon.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.
  245
  Mr. Eggar
  My Department spent £526,447 on entertainment in the 1992–93 financial year.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with British Aerospace concerning launch aid for the Jetstream plant at Prestwick; what action he has taken as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  British Aerospace has had initial discussions with officials about launch aid for Jetstream. No application has yet been made.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received from the nuclear installations inspectorate concerning the safety of computer software to be used in the Sizewell B power station.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received no such representations. I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate has not yet completed its assessment of Nuclear Electric's safety case for the computerised primary protection system proposed for Sizewell B.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to announce the timetable and the terms of reference of the 1993 nuclear review.

  Mr. Eggar
  The terms of reference and the format of the forthcoming review of the future prospects for nuclear power in the United Kingdom are under consideration within Government. It remains the Government's intention, as set out in the White Paper "The Prospects for Coal", to make an announcement later this year.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to publish his Department's renewable energy strategy document.

  Mr. Eggar
  I expect to publish a new and renewables strategy document this year.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when potential bidders will be informed whether they have been successful in obtaining support under the third renewables order of the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency expects to be able to inform bidders whether they have been successful around October 1994.

  Regional Development Funds, Merseyside
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made to enable funds to be allocated to Merseyside as a result of its designation within objective 1 status; what is the total amount to be allocated; what changes have taken place in the allocated amount; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 18 October 1993]: The objective 1 funds to be allocated to Merseyside are 840
  246
  mecu at 1992 prices, as I announced in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on 27 July, Official Report, column 948.

  A regional development plan is currently being prepared by the Government in consultation with local interests as required by the regulations and will shortly be transmitted by the Government to the Commission.

  Swan Hunter
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to obtain the approval of the European Commission to the making of intervention funding available for merchant shipbuilding at Swan Hunter.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 October 1993]: Following my initial approach to Vice President van Miert in May, applying for the shipbuilding intervention fund for British warship yards, I have submitted to the Commission a detailed case in writing. Since then I have met with Mr. van Miert in Brussels to urge approval of our application and I have pursued this in correspondence and on the telephone, most recently today. Negotiations between officials continue to take place and a further official level meeting is scheduled for Monday 25 October. I will continue to maintain a close involvement in this issue.

DEFENCE

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the financial year 1992–93, my Department spent £4,950,000 on official entertainment and refreshments, and on protocol entertainment. This figure includes expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence itself, by formations and establishments of the armed forces at home and abroad, and by individual officers occupying command and international appointments for which entertainment allowances are payable.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Sick Notes
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is given to Benefit Agency officers regarding the period of notice given to claimants when the sick note reminder form BF6OB is sent out.

  Mr. Scott
  The issue of form BF6OB is a procedural matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. James Wallace, dated 27 July 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what guidance is given to Benefit Agency officers regarding the period of notice given to customers when sick note reminder form BF6OB is sent out.

  247
  Guidance to Benefit Agency staff does not specify how much notice a customer should be given about the expiry of their medical statement. Normally form BF6OB is issued whenever an order book is issued to a customer which runs on beyond the expiry date of the medical statement. Notice to customers of expiry of medical statements would normally be in the range of 1 to 20 weeks.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Official Cars
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many official cars are currently at the disposal of his Department.

  Mr. Hague
  There are currently 2,188 official vehicles in use on the Department's business.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent by his Department on travelling abroad by(a) Ministers and (b) officials in each of the last three financial years; and which countries were visited.

  Mr. Hague
  Information for financial years prior to 1992–93 is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The sum spent in the financial year 1992–93 on the cost of travelling abroad was £403,600. Countries visited in that period were:
  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, USA and Zimbabwe.

  Separate figures for Ministers and officials are not available.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent by his Department in each of the last three financial years on costs for officials travelling to France.

  Mr. Hague
  Information on costs for officials travelling to France in years prior to 1992–93 is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The sum spent in the financial year 1992–93 on the cost of travel to France by officials was £26,735.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Hague
  Departmental expenditure on official hospitality in the financial year 1992–93 was £175,901.

SCOTLAND

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many application forms were received after the deadline for sheep annual premium; how many were accepted late; what were(a) the reasons for late
  248
  applications and (b) the percentage of applications received by the deadline; what his Department regards as exceptional circumstances; how many applications were accepted because of exceptional circumstances; if he will give details of each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Thirty-eight applications were received after the closing date for applications for the 1993 sheep annual premium scheme. The EC regulations which govern the scheme provide that only those late applications which can be attributed to "force majeure" can be accepted. For this purpose, on the basis of guidance from the European Commission, "force majeure" means abnormal or unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. The 38 applications in question were late for a variety of reasons, but none of them fell in the "force majeure" category.

  A total of 17,027 applications—99.8 per cent.—were received by the deadline.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he proposes for the election, operation and financing of community councils in his plan for reorganisation of local government in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  Our White Paper, published last July, "Shaping the Future—The New Councils" restated our commitment to community councils. We are currently examining responses and will announce our conclusions in due course.

EMPLOYMENT

  Environmental Training
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representation his Department will have at the European Commission's Joint Research Centre meeting on training and education for business and the environment, to be held in Seville on 8 to 12 November.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Joint Research Centre's Eurocourse on business and the environment, originally planned for November in Seville, has been postponed until some tune next year.

  Restricted Reporting Orders
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what methods a journalist or newspaper editor may challenge or apply to vary a restricted reporting order made under the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None, unless they are a party to the case.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1992–93, the amounts spent on official entertainment by the Employment Department, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the
  249
  Health and Safety Executive/Commission, the Employment Service and the Office of Manpower Economics were £39,000, £8,000, £20,000, £21,000 and £10,000, respectively.

ENVIRONMENT

  Raw Materials
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans Her Majesty's Government have to reduce United Kingdom consumption of non-renewable raw materials.

  Mr. Yeo
  The consumption of non-renewable raw materials will be one of the issues raised in the United Kingdom strategy for sustainable development, which the Government are currently preparing.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are Her Majesty's Government's policies for sustainable development.

  Mr. Gummer
  The United Kingdom has taken a leading role in establishing the world strategy on sustainable development. We shall be publishing our strategy in the very near future, following the wide consultation which we have already undertaken.

  Eco-labelling
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about eco-labelling.

  Mr. Yeo
  The eco-labelling scheme was formally launched by the European Commission at the end of June 1993. The Commission has also approved the first ecological criteria, those for washing machines and dishwashers which were developed by the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board. Manufacturers of these products are now able to apply for an ecolabel for products which meet the published environmental criteria and we expect the first labels to be awarded at the turn of the year. We hope that agreement will soon be reached on a range of other criteria including those for light bulbs, hairsprays, tissue products and soil improvers.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the services which councils may put out to tender.

  Mr. Curry
  Local authorities can voluntarily put out to tender any services they think it appropriate. An increasing number of councils recognise the benefits of competition and, in addition to the services already subject to compulsory competitive tendering, have their own voluntary tendering programmes.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in his plans to extend CCT to a council's professional services.

  Mr. Curry
  We are continuing to consult the local authority associations and professional institutions on all 250
  aspects of the Government's proposals for extending CCT to local authority professional services, and have made considerable progress. Secondary legislation for legal and construction-related services, the first services to be introduced in the phased programme, will be circulated in draft for consultation in December and laid before Parliament thereafter. Legislation for the other services will follow.

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his review of the formulae for calculating grants to local authorities.

  Mr. Gummer
  Work on the review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95 is now complete. I discussed the findings of the review with the local authority associations at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance last week. Proposals for 1994–95 will be announced later this year.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made to alter, amend and improve standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Gummer
  Work has now finished on the review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95. The primary aim of the review was to incorporate data from the 1991 census into the underlying standard spending assessment formulae. Proposals for 1994–95 will be announced later this year.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to develop energy conservation projects both in domestic and business buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  To encourage energy efficiency at home so as to reduce the threat of global warming, my right hon. Friend will tomorrow launch the Helping the Earth week.

  At the same event, the Energy Saving Trust will launch a pilot trial of local energy advice centres which is partly funded by the Government.

  Council Property (Repairs)
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that councils repair properties promptly.

  Sir George Young
  We are introducing an improved right to repair scheme from 1 April 1994 which will ensure that council tenants have a simple and reliable way of getting urgent repairs carried out promptly and paid for by the council.

  Council Rents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what change has occurred in the current rent for council houses and flats in England between 1979 and the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Sir George Young
  The estimated average weekly unrebated rent for local housing authority dwellings in April 1979 was £6.41. In April 1993, it was £33.50.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources have been made available under the estate action scheme since its introduction.

  Mr. Baldry
  Provision for estate action, from the inception of the programme to 1993–94, amounts to over £1.5 billion.

  Council House Sales (Receipts)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation of his policies in relation to allowing local authorities to spend capital receipts from past sales of council houses.

  Sir George Young
  We have recently widened the scope for debt-free local authorities to spend their reserved capital receipts. Other authorities can spend their reserved receipts provided that they use a credit approval. We have no plans to alter these arrangements.

  Empty Properties, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public and private sector properties are currently standing vacant in Liverpool.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities report the number of their own dwellings which were vacant and estimates of the numbers of vacant dwellings owned by housing associations, by other public sector landlords and in the private sector in their annual housing investment programme—HIP1—returns. "Other public sector" includes dwellings owned by another local authority.

  The latest available figures, for 1 April 1993, are shown in columns A71, A72, A73 and A74 respectively of Liverpool city council's HIP1 return, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives from North West Water plc to discuss bathing water cleanliness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited North West Water earlier this month to learn of progress on their schemes to improve bathing water quality at Southport, Blackpool and elsewhere. He has no immediate plans for further discussions, but he will continue to take a close interest in the improvements now under way.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has received or plans to make concerning de-designation of any area currently within the statutory curtilage of the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Detailed discussions have been taking place between the London Docklands development corporation and the London boroughs of Newham, Tower Hamlets and Southwark about the progressive withdrawal 252
  of the LDDC from parts of the urban development area. The Department has been kept in touch with the progress of these discussions.

  Council House Sales
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

  Sir George Young
  Between April 1979 and June 1993, about 1.35 million tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for the improvement of home ownership opportunities for those living in council homes.

  Sir George Young
  The new rent-to-mortgage scheme came into operation on 11 October. It provides a new route into home ownership for council tenants who pay full rent and are financially secure, but who find the full right-to-buy purchase price is still beyond their reach.

  Urban Policies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his current urban policies.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government will continue to support the regeneration of urban areas through their main programmes and special measures. These measures include bringing together English Estates, derelict land grant and city grant into a single Urban Regeneration Agency which will be a major engine of renewal; supporting the urban development corporations which have already attracted some £12 billion in private investment; and encouraging local regeneration through city challenge.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to come to a decision on the commissioning of THORP.

  Mr. Yeo
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have granted British Nuclear Fuels plc's existing authorisations to discharge liquid and gaseous radioactive wastes from Sellafield, to permit the testing of the company's thermal oxide reprocessing plant with natural and depleted uranium. The variations came into effect on 2 September 1993.

  The grant of the variations is without prejudice to consideration of the company's main applications for authorisation to operate THORP, currently being undertaken by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If the decisions on the main applications do not permit THORP to operate, the variations would require the company to stop testing and decontaminate the plant.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 388, if he will set out the technical areas in which RWMAC has been asked to do further work and the timescale set for it to submit its report.
  253
  Mr. Yeo
  Last year, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee—RWMAC—produced a first report on the proposals by British Nuclear Fuels plc —BNFL—to offer waste substitution to those foreign customers with whom its contracts provide for the return of waste. Under its proposals, BNFL would return an equivalent amount of high-level radioactive waste in place of intermediate and low-level waste arising from the reprocessing of their spent fuel.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc has proposed the integrated radiological toxic potential—ITP—system for comparing the radiological equivalence between different waste streams. I have written to the chairman of RWMAC requesting the advice of the committee on whether ITP is a suitable basis for determining radiological equivalence, whether there are any limitations to its application and whether, in the committee's opinion, BNFL's proposals are on this basis broadly neutral. The committee has also been asked to identify the environmental implications resulting from substitution and to advise in what circumstances these may be significant.

  The committee's advice is expected early next year.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were accepted as homeless in the most recent two quarters for which figures are available.

  Sir George Young
  The number of households accepted as homeless by local authorities in England in the quarter ending June 1993 is estimated at 34,410. This is some 1,700–5 per cent.—less than the 36,120 accepted in the previous quarter.

  This is the fourth quarter in succession in which the number of homelessness acceptances has fallen.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the United Kingdom is taking to phase out the production of substances damaging the ozone layer.

  Mr. Yeo
  Under the EC regulation that implements the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, United Kingdom production of halons must cease at the end of this year, chlorofluorocarbons and carbon tetrachloride at the end of next year and 1,1,1 trichloroethane at the end of 1995. Controls on hydrochlorofluorocarbons—HCFCs—and methyl bromide were added to the protocol last year, and a new regulation which would apply them within the EC is currently under discussion. In those discussions, the United Kingdom is pressing for the Community to agree to tighter controls than the protocol contains on both HCFCs and methyl bromide.

  Single Mothers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has relating to provision of local authority accommodation for single mothers; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  In my answer today to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), I have indicated 254
  that we will be consulting interested organisations in due course about our proposals to reform the homelessness legislation, with the aim of ensuring fairer access to permanent social housing for everyone who needs it. I will consider what further accommodation provision may be needed for single mothers in that context.

  Multiple Occupation Houses
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of multiple occupation houses are classed as(a) unfit for human habitation and (b) substandard.

  Sir George Young
  The 1991 English house condition survey found 28 per cent. of multiple occupation houses, defined as dwellings in which facilities are shared by more than one household, unfit under section 604 of the Housing Act 1985, as amended by schedule 9 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Information on the percentage unfit under section 352 of this Act is not available.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) of 26 July,Official Report, column 580, when he intends to make an announcement on the construction of the docklands light railway extension to Greenwich and Lewisham.

  Mr. Baldry
  An announcement will be made soon, once the structure of the project has been fully assessed to take into account the interests of both the public and the private sectors. Studies are under way to scrutinise the capital costs of building the railway's extension to Lewisham and to assess the best means of providing for private financing of its construction.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implications for Her Majesty's Government's policy on global warming and climate change of the findings of the Natural Environment Research Council's terrestrial initiative in the global environmental research project released on 31 August; and what further funding will be made available to the project to follow up the research findings published to date.

  Mr. Yeo
  Work under the Natural Environment Research Council's terrestrial initiative in global environmental research—TIGER—will help to improve predictions of climate change and its impacts. The results will be part of the scientific evidence supporting the implementation of the framework convention on climate change under which the United Kingdom will be committed to take actions aimed at returning CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.

  Funding of the programme is a matter for the Natural Environment Research Council. The Department will continue to support TIGER by facilitating joint work with the Hadley Centre climate prediction programme and through the climate impacts link project at the climatic research unit, university of East Anglia.

  Housing
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to issue further guidance, and to amend existing guidance, to relevant authorities under the powers contained in section 71 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Sir George Young
  The Government have consulted local housing authorities and other interested parties on proposals(a) to revise the third edition (1991) of the "Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities" in the light of the Court of Appeal's judgment in the case of R-v-Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte London borough of Tower Hamlets, and (b) to supplement the code by providing guidance on the housing provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. I intend to issue a revision of the code and a supplement to it in due course, taking account of the consultation responses.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to use his powers under section 59(2) of the Housing Act 1985 to vary the categories of persons defined as having a priority need for accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  We have no plans to amend section 59(2) of the Housing Act 1985 by order.

  First-time Home Buyers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce new measures that will help first-time home buyers; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The most important way in which first-time buyers, and indeed all home buyers, will be helped is through continued improvement in the general economy. Measures that my Department is taking to encourage home ownership include the new rent-to-mortgage scheme, which will enable secure tenants of local authorities and certain other bodies to buy their homes on a mortgage that costs no more than their rent.

  Environmental Programmes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet representatives of(a) the Business Council for Sustainable Development and (b) the World Industry Council for the Environment to discuss their respective programmes in regard to United Kingdom environmental policy.

  Mr. Yeo
  None. Officials are, however, in touch with both organisations.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the total accumulated capital receipts held by local authorities which are not available for investment.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities are not required to account for the reserved part of capital receipts separately from other amounts set aside as provision to meet credit liabilities—PCL.

  At 31 March 1992, the total balance held by local authorities as PCL was around £6.5 billion. Amounts held
  256
  as PCL may be used to repay debt, to meet liabilities in respect of credit arrangements, or, with the authority of a credit approval, to meet capital expenditure. In the interim, such amounts would generally be represented by financial investments.

  Building and Construction
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of activity in the building and construction industry since last year's autumn statement to date.

  Sir George Young
  Total output in the building and construction industry in Great Britain fell by 2.5 per cent. between the third quarter of 1992 and the second quarter of 1993. This change is at constant 1985 prices and adjusted to exclude normal seasonal variation.

  Council Services
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many councils have put services out to tender on a voluntary basis.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Gummer
  Total expenditure by my Department, including the Building Research Establishment agency, the Planning Inspectorate agency, the Buying Agency and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre agency, was £138,000 in 1992–93.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by Government Departments towards their 15 per cent. energy efficiency target.

  Mr. Yeo
  Energy management in individual Government Departments is a matter for the Ministers responsible for those Departments. The Energy Efficiency Office of my Department provides information on good practice and monitors progress towards the target agreed in 1990 of a 15 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency over the five years ending 1995–96. The progress of Departments towards the target during 1992–93 is shown in the tables. Green Ministers reviewed the results at their meeting on 13 October; they noted an improvement in 1992–93 over 1991–92, but agreed that further improvement was required.

  I am pleased to note that in the first two years of the campaign my Department has reduced weather-corrected energy expenditure per sq m by 5 per cent. Performance indicators expressing performance in terms of carbon dioxide per sq m and total carbon dioxide emissions indicate that my Department has reduced the former by 16 per cent. and the latter by 20 per cent. during the same period.
  257

  Table 1: Departmental expenditure, investment and percentage progress on the standard performance indicator (£ metre2) relative to 1990–91

  Energy expenditure

  Own investment in energy efficiency

  £ metre2 Percentage progress on £ metre2 relative to 1990–91

  Department

  1992–93 (£ million)

  1992–93 (£'000)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  MAFF—Main Estate

  3.9

  417

  (4)

  (6)

  —Buffer Depots

  0.1

  0

  0

  21

  Cabinet Office

  0.5

  40

  (18)

  (4)

  Customs

  3.6

  650

  2

  13

  Defence—Civil

  n/a

  n/a

  (10)

  n/a

  —Royal Navy

  n/a

  2,800

  n/a

  n/a

  —Army

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —RAF

  n/a

  2,300

  n/a

  n/a

  —Procurement Executive

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —Defence Research Agency

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —Total

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Education

  0.5

  n/a

  (21)

  (83)

  Employment

  9.8

  1,175

  (7)

  (1)

  Environment

  2.0

  208

  2

  5

  FCO

  1.0

  165

  (3)

  7

  Health

  0.8

  421

  (14)

  (1)

  Home Office—non-Prisons

  2.6

  0

  (17)

  (21)

  —Prisons

  24.4

  1,500

  (1)

  (2)

  Inland Revenue

  12.7

  1,631

  1

  1

  Lord Chancellor's

  6.4

  650

  1

  3

  ODA

  0.7

  n/a

  —

  (4)

  National Heritage

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  National Savings

  1.3

  84

  4

  8

  Northern Ireland Office

  10.4

  729

  5

  5

  Scottish Office

  1.0

  416

  3

  (2)

  Scottish Courts

  1.0

  20

  —

  4

  Scottish Prisons

  3.3

  n/a

  (2)

  (5)

  Social Security

  15. 6

  843

  (6)

  0

  Trade and Industry

  5.5

  n/a

  1

  1

  Transport

  4.3

  368

  7

  7

  Treasury

  0.3

  4

  2

  4

  Welsh Office

  0.6

  121

  0

  2

  Total (excl. MOD, ODA and Scots Courts)

  112.3

  9,442

  (0.8)

  0.2

  For ODA and Scottish Courts 1991–92 is the base year. Therefore these departments' contributions have not been included in the 'Progress' totals.

  Table 2: Departmental percentage progress on CO2/metre2 relative to 1990–91

  Department

  Percentage progress on CO2/metre2 relative to 1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  MAFF—Main Estate

  (1)

  (1)

  —Buffer Depots

  3

  25

  Cabinet Office

  (8)

  1

  Customs

  1

  15

  Defence—Civil

  (7)

  n/a

  —Royal Navy

  n/a

  n/a

  —Army

  n/a

  n/a

  —RAF

  n/a

  n/a

  —Procurement Executive

  n/a

  n/a

  —Defence Research Agency

  n/a

  n/a

  —Total

  n/a

  n/a

  Education

  (16)

  (58)

  Employment

  (6)

  3

  Environment

  7

  16

  FCO

  0

  13

  Health

  (11)

  3

  Home Office—non-Prisons

  (15)

  (17)

  —Prisons

  1

  3

  Inland Revenue

  3

  7

  Lord Chancellor's

  2

  8

  ODA

  —

  (2)

  National Heritage

  n/a

  n/a

  National Savings

  6

  13

  Northern Ireland Office

  6

  6

  Scottish Office

  2

  6

  Scottish Courts

  —

  6

  Scottish Prisons

  1

  (2)

  258

  Department

  Percentage progress on CO2/ metre2 relative to 1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Social Security

  (3)

  5

  Trade and Industry

  5

  9

  Transport

  10

  13

  Treasury

  23

  19

  Welsh Office

  1

  7

  Total (excl. MOD, ODA and Scots Courts)

  3

  6

  For ODA and Scottish Courts 1991–92 is the base year. Therefore these departments' contributions have not been included in the 'Progress' totals.

  Table 3: Departmental percentage progress on total CO2 emissions relative to 1990–91

  Department

  Percentage progress on CO2 relative to 1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  MAFF—Main Estate

  (1)

  (6)

  —Buffer Depots

  3

  24

  Cabinet Office

  (22)

  (13)

  Customs

  (56)

  (38)

  Defence—Civil

  (6)

  n/a

  —Royal Navy

  2

  (3)

  —Army

  (3)

  1

  —RAF

  (2)

  (2)

  —Procurement Executive

  n/a

  n/a

  —Defence Research Agency

  n/a

  n/a

  —Total

  n/a

  n/a

  259

  Department

  Percentage progress on CO2 relative to 1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Education

  (34)

  (7)

  Employment

  (8)

  3

  Environment

  5

  20

  FCO

  (2)

  7

  Health

  (50)

  0

  Home Office—non-Prisons

  (15)

  (17)

  —Prisons

  (5)

  (8)

  Inland Revenue

  0

  4

  Lord Chancellor's

  (12)

  (6)

  ODA

  —

  (2)

  National Heritage

  n/a

  n/a

  National Savings

  6

  13

  Northern Ireland Office

  3

  1

  Scottish Office

  (12)

  (8)

  Scottish Courts

  —

  (7)

  Scottish Prisons

  (1)

  (2)

  Social Security

  (3)

  (10)

  Trade and Industry

  7

  17

  Transport

  10

  12

  Treasury

  13

  31

  Welsh Office

  2

  17

  Total (excl. MOD, ODA and Scots Courts)

  (3)

  (2)

  For ODA and Scottish Courts 1991/92 is the base year. Therefore these departments' contributions have not been included in the 'Progress' totals.

  Notes to Tables

  1. Progress by departments under each of the Performance Indicators (PIs) is expressed as a percentage reduction relative to the base year value of the PI in question, with 15 per cent. improvement on £/metre2 after five years as the campaign target. Numbers in parentheses denote regress rather than progress.

  2. Some departments have revised earlier years' figures, which explains some differences from last year's published results. Equally, some of this year's figures may be subject to revision.

  3. Base year figures for Customs and Excise on expenditure, consumption and floor area were all considerably understated, at least partly because the department is a minority tenant occupier in many buildings, with energy bills often paid as part of the service charge, and not separately identifiable. This situation was largely altered after the base year, hence the apparent increase in the figures. For this reason, improvement relative to 1991–92 is a more reliable indicator of progress.

  4. Floor area figures are not available for most of the MOD estate. An alternative assessment method to £/metre2 has been agreed whereby base year consumption figures will be adjusted up or down to allow for the addition or loss of buildings to MOD's estate during the campaign; this will also apply to CO2/metre2. For total CO2, since no allowance is made for estate changes to any other department, unadjusted figures will be used for MOD. At the moment, adjustments have not yet been made to MOD's data, so equivalent £/metre2 and CO2/metre2 are not yet available.

  5. DFE's consumption is dominated by the HQ building, and this changed from a largely naturally ventilated building in the base year to a completely air-conditioned one, with a much smaller floor area, last year. This is the explanation for their large increase in £/metre2.

  6. Investment figures for departments do not include investment made by Property Holdings on their behalf.

  Housing, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of housing starts in London for 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and expected for 1993–94 by(a) local authority, (b) housing associations and (c) private sectors.
  260
  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 18 October 1993]: Estimates are shown in the table of the total numbers of housebuilding starts by sector in Greater London for financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and the first five months of 1993–94.

  Financial Year

  Private Enterprise

  Housing Associations

  Local Authorities

  Total

  1990–91

  6,900

  3,000

  100

  10,000

  1991–92

  7,800

  3,500

  100

  11,400

  1992–93

  7,200

  5,900

  200

  13,300

  1993–942

  3,500

  2,800

  —1

  6,400

  1 Less than 100.

  2 April to August.

  The Department does not prepare forecasts of housebuilding activity.

  Birds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in relation to the Marismas de Santoña judgment—C355/90—in the European Court of Justice on 2 August; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 18 October 1993]: I have received a copy of the representations made by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. A response to these representations was sent on 12 October.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps were taken to publicise the second consultation period on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant; how many sets of consultation documents were distributed and to whom; what criteria were adopted in deciding the scope of distribution of relevant documents; how many responses were received; and if she will give a breakdown of those(a) in favour of and (b) opposed to the opening of THORP, based on the responses.

  Mr. Jack
  The second consultation in connection with British Nuclear Fuels plc's application for authorisations for Sellafield, including THORP, was publicised by a public notice in the national press and in local newspapers within the Sellafield area. Some 250 sets of the consultation documents were issued to those local authorities, public bodies, environmental and other interest groups who were previously consulted by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In excess of 40,000 responses have been received and these are still being assessed. More detailed figures will be made available once all the responses have been considered.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 18 and 19 October; and if she will make a statement.
  261
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, considered a proposal from the Commission for changes in the agri-monetary system, made in response to pressure, mainly from Germany, at the previous meeting. Following the changes in the exchange rate mechanism in August, the appreciation of any Community currency beyond a defined limit results in an automatic revaluation of the green rate of the member state concerned and a consequent fall, in terms of that currency, in prices and amounts set under the common agricultural policy. The Commission's proposal would slightly widen the margin within which a currency can appreciate without triggering such a revaluation. I argued that there was no need to alter the existing rules. Germany continued to press for the extension of the "switchover" mechanism to floating currencies, whereby prices in all other member states would be increased in order to avoid a reduction in one.

  The Council will return to this issue at its next meeting. Meanwhile, the Commission indicated that it would continue to freeze green rates at their current level. I objected to this, on legal grounds and because farmers and traders had a right to expect that existing rules would not be arbitrarily suspended.

  The Council had an inconclusive discussion of the Commission's proposals for changes to the detailed arrangements for arable area payments, including set-aside, and for implementing the agreement on oilseeds reached between the Community and the United States. These proposals will similarly be considered again at the Council's next meeting.

  The Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Steichen, reported on his discussions with the United States trade representative, Mr. Kantor, on the agricultural aspects of the Uruguay round tariff negotiations.

  The Council adopted two decisions by qualified majority vote, one establishing a draft supplementary and amending budget for the Community for 1993, and the other authorising the Commission to negotiate with certain banana exporting countries about their rights under the general agreement on tariffs and trade in relation to the changes in the Community's arrangements for bananas agreed last December.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 6 July,Official Report, columns 111–12, whether the interests declared by chairpersons of members of the boards of executive NDPBs sponsored by her Department are maintained in a register of interests available for inspection.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 July 1993]: There is no register of interests for members of NDPBs and none of the NDPBs for which my right hon. Friend is responsible maintains a register of interests available for inspection. Details of those filling many posts are published, or are available at the time of appointment.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals confirmed as having BSE were born between(a) August 1988 and December 1988, (b) January 1989 and June 1989, (c) July 1989 and
  262
  December 1989, (d) January 1990 and June 1990, (e) July 1990 and December 1990, (f) January 1991 and June 1991, (g) July 1991 and December 1991, (h) January 1992 and June 1992 and (i) July 1992 and December 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  The details of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle born in Great Britain relative to the periods referred to are as follows:

  Period of birth

  Cases of BSE confirmed

  August to December 1988

  3,499

  January to June 1989

  375

  July to December 1989

  397

  January to June 1990

  3

  July to December 1990

  3

  Note: There have been no cases of BSE confirmed in cattle born after December 1990.

EDUCATION

  Student Unions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he has met leaders of the National Union of Students to discuss charitable status for student unions.

  Mr. Boswell
  My discussions with the president of the NUS have covered the position of student unions as charities, on which the Attorney-General, in his role as protector of charities, issued guidance in 1983.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each financial year since 1990–91 his Department's expenditure on press and public relations, together with the budget for those items for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  The figures for Department of Education expenditure on press and publicity, including staff costs and relevant administrative expenditure, for the financial years 1990–91 to 1993–94 are given in the table. Figures for 1994–95 have not yet been agreed. The Department does not incur expenditure on public relations.

  Year

  £000

  1990–91

  5,275.6

  1991–92

  9,006.2

  1992–93

  8,036.9

  1993–94

  110,122.6

  1 Estimated.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Boswell
  In 1992–93, the Department spent £96,000 of its administration budget on providing official hospitality.

  Student Lodgings
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if students lodging in private houses are protected by regulations governing homes in multiple occupation.

  Mr. Boswell
  The type of private rented accommodation in which most students are likely to live may be classified as a house in multiple occupation—HMO. An HMO is identified in the Housing Act 1985 as a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household and this may cover a range of shared accommodation, bedsits and hostels. Local authorities have wide ranging powers under the Housing Act 1985 to control the standards in HMOs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will consult vice-chancellors on a code to protect students in lodgings from fire and from faulty gas appliances.

  Mr. Boswell
  Where students live in accommodation which can be classified as a house in multiple occupation, which is a house occupied by persons who do not form a single household, local authorities have wide-ranging powers to control standards under the Housing Act 1985.

  In addition the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1984 put a duty on those who install and service
  264
  gas appliances. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1984 places a duty on a person who runs a business to ensure that any persons not in his employment are not exposed to risk to their health or safety.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review the announced split between the postgraduate and undergraduate access funds allocated in England for 1993–94, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Further to my announcement on 14 June,Official Report column 421, at the request of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, I have agreed a reapportionment of the £18.98 million available in access funds for distribution to institutions in England. The revised allocations, which take account of the relatively greater increase in undergraduate student numbers, areas follows:

  £million

  Undergraduate

  13.34

  Postgraduate

  5.30

  Further education

  0.34

  Total

  18.98

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

Baroness Miller of Hendon
Mrs. Doreen Miller, MBE, having been created Baroness Miller of Hendon, of Gore in the London Borough of Barnet, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Seccombe and the Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.

Long Sentence Prisoners: Home Leave
2.48 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many grants of home leave and temporary release from prisons were made to prisoners serving terms of 20 years' imprisonment or more during the past year.
'The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister happy with the thought that that development—which, as I understand it, is spreading and could erode somewhat the deterrent effect of long sentences—is not even known to the Home Office?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Home Office is a fount of all wisdom and also of knowledge, but not actually in the form requested by my noble friend. There are only 237 prisoners who have been sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment or more in the system and only 78 prisoners who have been sentenced to life imprisonment, but it would mean checking the record of each prisoner to find out whether the person had applied for such leave and whether it had been refused or accepted. It would be quite an undertaking.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, on such an important matter would it really be too much trouble for the Home Office to go through the records, especially as the noble Earl has been assured there are so few prisoners to whom this matter applies? Is the noble Earl not aware that far too often Ministers say they do not have the information that is being sought and evade parliamentary scrutiny? That simply is not good enough.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite understand the noble Lord's anxiety on this issue. I expressed that anxiety when I inquired about these matters. I can inform the noble Lord, however, that 30,000 grants of home leave are granted per year and 35,000 grants of temporary release. However, in order to determine how
564
many of those grants of home leave and temporary release apply to prisoners serving terms of 20 years or more, one would have to examine each individual record.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, at this particular time there: is a great deal of concern about the position of people in prison. The views of various people who may express different opinions are taken at various times. At a time when the Home Office must take important decisions, does it not feel that it is absolutely essential to have this sort of information? For the Minister to say that this information is not available is simply not good enough.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is information as regards how much home leave is granted, but we do not have the specific information as regards how much home leave has been granted to prisoners who are serving terms of 20 years or more. That is rather like asking how much leave has been given to prisoners who have fair hair. To find the information the noble Lord wishes to have would involve going through every single record.
Lord Ennals: No!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord says "No" but I can assure him it would involve going through every single prisoner's record. That would be possible. but it could only be done at: disproportionate cost. That information is not available as a statistic.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords on an issue of research methodology—
Noble Lords: It is the turn of the other side!
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, has my noble friend any figures on the amount of crime committed by prisoners on home leave?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has just said in response to previous questions that to find out how many prisoners serving life terms or terms of 20 years or more were granted home leave and temporary release last year—he said it was a question of only a few prisoners—one would have to investigate 30,000 records. I suggest there is a much quicker way of finding out that information and that is to go directly to the prisoners who are serving terms of 20 years or life imprisonment terms and find out whether they have been granted leave rather than search for a needle in a. haystack.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, much to my surprise the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has got it wrong. I did riot say it would be necessary to go through 30,000 records. I said there are certain statistics which are held centrally and which are available. To satisfy the specific request of my noble friend it would be necessary to go through all those records of prisoners who are serving indeterminate sentences and those who are serving determinate sentences, find out how many have applied for home leave and temporary release and whether their

565
applications were granted. I am sure that that could be done but I suggest it could only be done at disproportionate cost.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not only would it be easy to find out that information but also the fact that it has not been done calls into question the nature of the contract that the Home Office has with the independent prison service.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that has nothing to do with it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would it not be perfectly easy, instead of going through the records as my noble friend suggests, simply to write to the governors of prisons and ask them for the information?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if there had been a simple way out I would have taken it, as I thought I would get into this kind of trouble by giving the Answer which I gave. That is the reason why I tested the system vigorously and was persuaded that this information could only be determined at disproportionate cost. I knew that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who is so concerned about public expenditure, would not wish that to happen.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, what action are the Government taking to ensure that statistics and information of this kind are more readily available in the future?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the statistics which the Home Office keeps are voluminous. I know that is a fact as I have seen them and they are perpetually flung at me. I can assure the noble Lord that many statistics are kept but when one asks how many prisoners have been released for whatever reason after having served five, 15, 20 or 36 years, one needs to engage in more than statistical analysis.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us would consider his Answer sensible? We all know that the Questions on the Order Paper seek to make a point. This Question too seeks to make a point. To nit-pick and to indulge in all kinds of expedients to obtain detailed replies from the Minister which neither add nor subtract anything from the principle of the matter is rather a stupid way of running the show.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, whose wisdom, as usual, comes to the fore on these occasions. I agree with him that the aim of the Question is to make a point but I am still not quite certain what that point is.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope I may remind the noble Earl what the Question really implies. Will he kindly tell the House, if he cannot give the information that was required, what is the policy of the Home Office, if any, in regard to those prisoners serving 20 years or more being granted'home leave or other liberty? If the Minister will kindly tell us the policy, we might excuse him the detail.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the policy is that category D prisoners are eligible for home leave every two months before 1st October 1992 from the parole eligibility date and after 1st October 1992 from one-third of the sentence expiry date. Category C prisoners are eligible for home leave once every six months. Category B prisoners have one opportunity for home leave and that occurs nine months before they are released. Category A prisoners are excluded from this eligibility. There is no quota for giving prisoners home leave or temporary release. Each case is considered on its merits and home leave or temporary release is granted only if no risk to public safety is envisaged.

Hong Kong: Ethnic Minorities
2.56 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the light of the Resolution of this House of 15th July calling for the granting of full British citizenship to members of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong who will be without right of abode elsewhere after 1997.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given very careful consideration to the views which were expressed by your Lordships on 15th July. While we recognise the particular circumstances of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong, the Government have no plans to introduce legislation to provide them with British citizenship.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that deeply unsatisfactory Answer. Will the fount of all wisdom give some slightly better reasons for neglecting the views of the two former governors of Hong Kong, the present governor of Hong Kong, LEGCO and, indeed, the resolution of your Lordships' House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this whole matter was considered when the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 was proceeding through Parliament. It was considered that there should be a scheme for applicants for British citizenship. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, knows perfectly well, that scheme accounts for 50,000 places, for which the non-Chinese ethnic minorities can apply just the same as everyone else.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, has the Minister re-read the speech delivered by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, which I thought made the case absolutely convincingly that the Government had to make a change in their procedures? Does the Minister agree that the people whom we are discussing are the only people who would be denied either Chinese citizenship on the one hand or access to Britain on the other? Does he also agree that there are no other people who will have been denied statehood as a result of a positive decision by Her Majesty's Government? Is it not absolutely vital that this matter be reconsidered?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, was most impressive, as indeed were a number of other speeches made by noble Lords. This is not a question of people being stateless. Those who hold British nationality before the transfer of sovereignty are guaranteed to retain or acquire British nationality in one form or another after 30th June 1997 and they will be assured full British consular protection. British dependent territory citizens are entitled to register as British nationals overseas and anyone who does not register and who would otherwise be stateless on 1st July automatically becomes a British overseas citizen.
Lord Chalfont:: My Lords, leaving aside for a moment the merits of the case, which were fully debated in your Lordships' House, can the Minister say what is the point of passing a resolution by a majority of the Upper House of Parliament if it can be summarily ignored by Ministers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it was not ignored by Ministers. If your Lordships pass a resolution, that is a matter of very great concern. My right honourable friend considered what your Lordships said but felt that it would not be prudent or proper for him' to introduce a Bill meeting the requirements of your Lordships' House when the principle of how British citizenship should be glinted had been considered and decided in 1990, and he did not believe that any new considerations now applied.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, agree that a number cannot be a principle? Earlier replies to this Question, and the Answer again today, have all turned on the figure of 50,000. That cannot be a principle. Surely it is possible to vary a number within the main principle of restricting immigration.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it was a principle because clearly way back in 1990 there was difficulty in deciding what number should be arrived at. It was a very difficult matter. The noble Baroness will remember the arguments that went backwards and forwards. It was decided that 50,000 original applicants plus their families and friends should come. Of course there are always arguments for extending the number. However, the point is that the non-ethnic Chinese have as much right as anyone else to apply to be among those 50,000.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may make a plea for one particular small group; namely, the widows of British servicemen, who are to be denied British citizenship unless they decide to abandon Hong Kong and come to this country. Is my noble friend aware that that is causing considerable disquiet among a group of elderly people who feel very vulnerable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am aware of the anxiety to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin refers. Those wives and widows can come to the United Kingdom now. A special arrangement has been made to allow them to stay indefinitely. That is a special concession. After they have remained here for five years they can apply to become British citizens. I believe that my noble
568
friend wants these people to become British citizens even though they have no intention of coming to the United Kingdom. We have made that concession specially for those people.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that those of us who have visited and have some knowledge of Hong Kong know that the British there are very loyal to Hong Kong and to our country? Their grave doubts about being able to return to the land of their fathers should be removed. Can the noble Earl now give an assurance that those British people in Hong Kong need have no such worries about returning to this island?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, those who have British citizenship need have no worries at all. Those who have British nationality will comply according to the rules relating to their nationality status.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in an earlier answer the Minister said that the non-ethnic Chinese could apply to be part of the 50,000 in the same way as anybody else. Does he not recognise that the non-ethnic Chinese are in a disadvantaged position compared with others who might apply, in the sense that Chinese citizenship, should they wish it, is not available to them? Has the Minister had talks with any noble Lords since the vote in this House on 15th July? I distinctly recall the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, saying to me that she would be urgently seeking an interview with the Home Secretary. Has she had such a meeting and was she satisfied with the answers which were given?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will have to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, whether she has had a meeting arid whether she was satisfied with the outcome. I cannot tell him whether she was satisfied.
Regarding the non-ethnic Chinese, I remind the noble Lord that there are 24,000 non-ethnic Chinese in total, of which some 7,000 have solely British nationality. They will receive British nationality after, or before, the requisite date. It is not a question of having Chinese nationality. They will get British nationality. However, what will happen to their children or grandchildren is a matter for the normal British nationality laws.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the noble Earl must be aware that British nationality overseas does not give a person a right of abode in any country and does not give protection in China. That seems a strong reason for giving something better. Does the Minister recall the speech of his noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who pointed out that the position has changed since the British Nationality Act was passed? Is he aware that while at that time it was believed that to give these people British citizenship might lead to destabilisation within Hong Kong, now opinion in Hong Kong is universally behind the granting of British nationality to this small group of people? Is he not aware of that very strong argument?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree that there is a strong argument. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord

569
Bonham-Carter, that there is also a strong argument on the other side. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary chose the latter.

Zimbabwe: United Kingdom Aid
3.5 p.m.
Lord Vivian Lord Vivian asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether overseas aid from the United Kingdom to Zimbabwe should continue when the Government of Zimbabwe are considering the confiscation of land from productive farmers for resettlement purposes.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, our aid to Zimbabwe aims to support its economic and social development. The Government of Zimbabwe have had a policy of voluntary land redistribution and resettlement since 1980. Farms acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1992 have, so far, been bought with compensation at full market rates. In the most recent round of designations under the Act, none has yet been acquired. A dozen designations are being contested.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her helpful reply. Is she aware that the Commercial Farmers Union has offered land for resettlement purposes and that that has been rejected by the Zimbabwe Government? Is she also aware that any land given for resettlement purposes does not have security for title deed, and that farmers who have been given resettled land have not farmed it and have left it to become waste and barren?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Commercial Farmers Union has worked closely with the Zimbabwean Ministry of Agriculture to draw up lists of farms agreed by both sides for designation. The Government of Zimbabwe have acknowledged that past resettlement schemes have not been wholly successful. Therefore, in future farms will be assessed for their suitability for sub-division. Trained farmers are to be involved and the Commercial Farmers Union is keen to help. It will seek to deal with land where livestock grazing per hectare will avoid land being overgrazed and unsuitable land will be considered further for suitable uses. I understand the anxiety about title deeds, but the Land Tenure Commission is to be set up in the next few weeks and will consider the issue of security of tenure for resettled farmers.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the difficulties is that much of the commercial land is under-utilised or held by absentee landlords, while soil erosion, siltation of rivers and extensive deforestation are turning other large areas into land which cannot support the people who live on it? Does she not agree that' in those circumstances regulated transfer is infinitely better than seizure and squatting, which seem all too likely to occur in the circumstances?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that seizure and squatting are not the way to go. That is why I welcome the fact that the Commercial Farmers Union appears to be working with the Zimbabwean Ministry to try to resolve the problem. We have always urged that the whole process should be on the basis of a willing seller and a willing buyer. I believe that it is right that we try to encourage the best land use possible. That means having great regard for the environment and not worsening the condition of the land, which can be due, first, to drought and then heavy rain.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, what is the current amount of British aid to Zimbabwe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the current out-turn this financial year will be about £30 million, including the Aid and Trade Provision which, as my noble friend knows, goes to British industry which is supplying goods to the people of Zimbabwe. Part of that money has been used for the recovery from the drought, which required special assistance.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, when I asked about the issue last year, before the passing of the Act, my noble friend the Minister was kind enough to say that nothing should be done to kill the geese which lay the golden eggs: the productive farmers, both black and white. Will she assure the House that if such a danger were to arise representations would be made?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend Lady Park that we have already made representations. I have had several discussions on the matter with members of the Government of Zimbabwe, including the Agriculture Minister Kangai, and I hope that they are taking developments made to the land and the investment in infrastructure into account when assessing compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1992. That was the basis of much of the discontent which existed before the Act came into being.

Nuclear Policy
3.11 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, having regard to the warnings contained in the letter they have received from Professor John Horlock, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Installations, they will set up an urgent review of their nuclear policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government have already announced their intention to conduct a review of the future prospects for nuclear power. The Government are currently considering options for the scope and format of that review and I cannot prejudge that.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In view of Professor

571
Horlock's public letter, which was an unusual course for the chairman of a government committee to take, it is thought that the Government are dragging their feet in respect of this matter. Will the Minister assure the House that that is not the case? Will he say when the review will begin and when it is expected to end? I shall not ask him to tell us the result, but ask him to inform the House a little more than he has done.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the Government are wholly committed to the review. However, I cannot tell him when the review will start.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, will the Minister reassure the House that, as has been suggested and contrary to what was suggested in the letter, there will be no danger of the suspension of normal democratic procedures, such as public inquiries into the disposal of waste?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that that is the case.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, while looking forward to this important review, will the Minister assure noble Lords that its terms of reference will be of the widest range? Will they contain full and true economic costing on a proper accounting basis, including decommissioning and waste disposal costs? Will the review also take into account environmental, social and health considerations?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government are still considering the terms of the review but, naturally, the noble Lord's comments will be taken into account.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as a result of Professor Horlock's warning that public health is at risk from existing nuclear waste and that if THORP were to open nuclear waste would greatly increase, the matter is urgent and important and should be given immediate attention?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate has the power to ensure that all stores are maintained in a safe condition.

Railways Bill
3.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 130 [Pensions]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 289ZA:
Page 133, line 10, at end insert—
("() Nothing in this Act shalt relieve the Secretary of State of the duty, imposed under paragraph 7B and 7C of Schedule 10 to this Act, to guarantee the funding of occupational pension schemes.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the: first amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. Amendment No. 289ZC paves the way for Amendment No. 289C. The amendment. deals with the question of whether the Government should guarantee the closed fund which will be set up as a result of their own initiative. We are concerned with the pension rights of about 175,000 pensioners for a period of up to 50 years. It stands to reason that the: arrangements should not be informal. They should be indefeasible with firm guarantees. I say that with particular emphasis because during the years the question has been repeatedly visited by Parliament and. government and it is important that the pensioners should know exactly where they stand. We are dealing with existing, deferred and future pensioners of British Rail.
A closed fund is of its very nature vulnerable. It: cannot draw reinforcements from the employer or the employees—there is none. There are only pensioners and trustees. The fund which those trustees administer gains no refreshment in this instance, save from the Government or from the payment of dividends on its investments. Inflation, increases in taxation affecting; dividends, pensioners living longer than actuaries expected—and they have every right to do that
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: And, my Lords, errors or bad luck in making investments can wound the closed fund It is of elementary justice that, as the fund is being set up on the Government's own initiative, the least they can do is to guarantee it against those risks, which are in no way the fault of pensioners or their trustees.
The Government have greatly contributed to their own misfortunes. During the early stages of the Bill in another place they set out to defend the indefensible. was only during the Bill's proceedings in this House that there was a change and a memorandum of understanding was produced in a hurry. However, at least the part relating to this matter is clear in words and intent. It may be helpful if I read the relevant excerpt. It is not long and there are difficulties in obtaining a copy of the memorandum. The paragraph with which I am concerned reads as follows:
"the Government will provide an absolute solvency guarantee for retail price index (RPI)-linked payments from the fund (in line with the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 and the Social Security Act 1975) of pensions already in payment and those which have been deferred".
One could not want clearer words than those. The difficulty is that they are not binding on anyone. While I welcomed this move at the time, I suggested that it was most unsatisfactory, particularly against the background which I have sought to describe, unless it received a statutory guarantee; in other words, unless there was on the face of the Bill a duty imposed upon the Secretary of State to guarantee the solvency of the fund and its index-linking. At the time, my noble friend, who does not always have a very happy time with these Bills, did his best. He was forced to temporise. He said that he

573
would take the matter away and see what could be done. I do not see any point in expanding my remarks on this particular amendment; the arguments have already been well ventilated. I await my noble friend's reply with a great deal of interest.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say something at this stage. My noble friend Lord Peyton has recapped on the discussions that we have had in the past. There is no doubt that my noble friend has an important point. He reminded the House that I undertook last week to come back to the House with an amendment which gave the Secretary of State power to direct the board to guarantee pension schemes. At that stage, the House indicated that it wanted the Government to go further. It was agreed that I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport would further talk this matter through with my noble friend Lord Peyton. I can now tell your Lordships the result of those discussions.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Public Transport and I had a meeting this morning with my noble friend to discuss this issue. We assured him that we had given a great deal of thought, and indeed new thought, to the matter; and that we had considered that we should now put on the face of the Bill a duty for the Secretary of State to give a guarantee to a closed fund containing pensioners and deferred pensioners. We have conceded the point that my noble friend Lord Peyton asked us to concede—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have gone further. We shall also take power so that we can give a guarantee to the BR section of the joint industry scheme if, as the memorandum of understanding acknowledges, it becomes seriously unstable. I hope that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, accept that that is an appropriate power. We cannot know when and in what precise circumstances it might be exercised. That is the difficulty of foreseeing the unforeseeable.
We are working at this very moment on the text of an amendment which I propose to put before the House at Third Reading. I should like to recap to the House that we have fully conceded my noble friend's point. I believe that we have met his concern 100 per cent. in this important issue. We will put on the face of the Bill a guarantee for pensioners and deferred pensioners, and we will also take powers for a guarantee for the future.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, after that I can just manage to find the strength to rise to my feet. It was something of a shock. I am very grateful. I believe that the Government have done what is right. I shall not spoil the occasion by mixing my thanks with any regrets that it did not happen before.
I should particularly like to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench how much throughout this argument I have appreciated his unfailing courtesy and understanding and to express appreciation of the fact that those who sit behind him and raise these points really mean them. I am grateful both to him and to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the
574
comprehensive way in which they have met this very important point. I believe it will do quite a lot to change the climate.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say from these Benches how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for raising these issues and for pursuing them in such an assiduous way. We are also very pleased to hear this afternoon from the Minister that the Government have conceded the points that have been raised and which have been supported from this side of the House.
Noble Lords will be aware that many individual pensioners have been very concerned about whether or not their pensions would have security. The fact that we are now to have a funding guarantee written on the face of the Bill will, I feel sure, give them the guarantees that we have all wanted them to have. From this side of the House I am very grateful.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, without wishing to introduce a churlish note into the proceedings, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question. On this matter there are three related issues. So far as the solvency guarantee is concerned and the placing of it on the face of the Bill, I think that everybody will be grateful for that. However, I do not think that that is a great step forward. It is rather like someone coming along and stealing your wallet and your car. He hands you back your wallet, and says, "I do wish you would stop being tiresome about the car".
Secondly, to what extent, apart from the solvency guarantee, which is now pretty clear, do the exchanges of view on the matters that the noble Earl is looking at—I realise the difficulties, but we have had no opportunity to discuss or think about them—meet the problem of the memorandum of understanding in terms of the trustees' consent having to be sought as opposed to having matters discussed with them? The third issue is the scheduling of payments.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord on the particular points that he raises. Yes, those are important points. They relate to amendments that we shall come to. They are separate from this particular issue. I have to say to the noble Lord that I thought his analogy was perhaps not quite what it could have been. I think that the Government have moved a huge way to meet the will of the House, and I should like to pay tribute to what my noble friend Lord Peyton has done in this regard.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, these Benches also join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, on what is an important success. We also thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his part in inserting sense into this part of the Bill. He has been in a difficult position—as Ministers often are—with the Secretary of State somewhere in the gloomy background. But I am glad that, at last, common sense has prevailed and this guarantee is to be written into the Bill.
On a procedural matter, perhaps I may seek to clarify whether we intend to proceed with Amendments Nos.

575
289ZB and 289ZC. There is a matter that I wish to raise on the first of those two amendments. I think that congratulations are in order all round.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it just remains for me to say that I am very sorry that I did not get the total agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, with everything that I said. I thought that the noble Lord was a little ungenerous. I personally seize any opportunity to be more generous than that to the Government. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 289ZB:
Page 133, line 10, at end inser—
("() Nothing in this Act shall relieve the Secretary of State of any duty imposed by section 520(1A) of the Transport Act 1980.").
'The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment can be moved very briefly, though it deals with a rather more difficult thorny problem. I should like to say to noble Lords how difficult I found the whole of these negotiations. Pensions are very complicated and I could best describe the process in the following way. As I understand it, the Government have been trying to put an intention into words. They have found it extremely difficult. I therefore find it more difficult to understand an intention which could not be put into words. That is a slightly double-Dutch way of putting it but it is a fair commentary on the difficulties which I have experienced. It was stated very clearly in the memorandum of understanding, to which I have already referred. I should like to quote the relevant paragraph:
"the Government remains committed to support payments to certain BR pension funds. The timing of such payments will be agreed with the Trustees and will take account of the absolute guarantee now being provided".
The guarantee has been made absolute, and we are content with that. But the question is whether the word "agreed" can be understood possibly to mean just to involve consultations. I do not think that such a change of meaning is in any way possible. I understand that there are these difficulties.
When they are in a corner, governments are wont to fall back upon all sorts of constitutional difficulties which I am not always able to understand. I understand that trustees ought not to be given power to pre-empt a decision of Parliament, but I do not see why trustees should not be consulted about the contents of a statutory order before it is laid.
I hope that my noble friend will deal with that point. If he finds the difficulty so impossible to overcome in the way that I have suggested—I have made the point before at Committee stage—perhaps he could come forward with some other alternative but formal arrangement which will make certain that there are not merely consultations but that the trustees are content with what is proposed. That does not happen at the moment. It was the intention in the memorandum of understanding. That was very clear.
I am in some difficulty. I know that my noble friend is too but I hope that he will be able to help us on this matter. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like to take up the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, as I indicated a few moments ago because I have a clifficulty in this situation. Noble Lords will remember that before the recommittal proceedings of Schedule 10 a week yesterday, there was considerable discussion in this House about the large number of government amendments that had been tabled at short notice. Various assurances were given, and as we proceeded various other assurances were given to the effect that many of the amendments were of a technical nature. Some of them were huge. I draw attention in particular to Amendment No. 65 which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on that occasion. It takes us back again to the memorandum of understanding. The noble Earl said:
"During our earlier discussions in July I undertook to consider whether to incorporate the provisions of the memorandum of understanding on the face of the Bill … We have concluded that it is neither necessary nor practicable to incorporate the memorandum in Schedule 10 to the Railways Bill".—[Official Report, 12/10/93; col. 101.1
Later he said:
"The Government's Amendment No. 65 has been tabled because we need the cover of primary legislation to implement the particular provision of the memorandum with which it deals".
Two sentences later he went on:
"However, I can assure the House that it is our firm intention to abide by the memorandum of understanding … I should say that the Government regard the memorandum of understanding as binding. I make it absolutely clear that the Government regard it as binding".—[col. 101.]
I am sure that when he uttered those words the noble Earl meant precisely what he said. I impute no bad motives for what seems to have happened since. The memorandum of understanding—in the paragraph prior to the one which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, mentioned a few moments ago—stated:
"the Government will appoint a Director of the Trustee Company ("the Government Director"), whose consent will he required to the distribution of any surplus, strategic decisions on investment policy and other matters which could have a significant impact on the finances of the fund; and to any guarantee of benefits granted from a surplus".
So the House came to Amendment No. 65, just after 7 o'clock a week last Tuesday. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, moved Amendment No. 59 and spoke to Amendments Nos. 65 and 68. Amendment No. 65 took up more than three full columns in Hansard.At the end of his explanation the noble Earl said:
"The new Section 52D includes provisions relating to various directions contained in Sections 52A and 52C and the orders contained in Section 52B. The Committee will note that orders under Section 52B will be subject to the negative resolution procedure in common with the other order-making power in Part III of the 1980 Act. However, Section 52D requires prior consultation with the trustees on any such order".—[Official Report,12/10/93; col. 155.]
That is, not consent but "consultation". He continued (at col. 156):
"Turning now to the remaining government amendments … as I indicated earlier, they are technical amendments following on from Amendment No. 65".
Towards the end of his speech the noble Earl said:
"I believe that these government amendments fairly meet the understanding reached in the memorandum relating to changes in the arrangements for making government support contributions to new guaranteed schemes and also protect the position of the taxpayer. I commend them to the Committee".—[col 156]

577
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, then indicated that it was rather difficult in the circumstances to take on board all the detail of the amendments as they had been moved, and he asked the noble Earl to give a resume, which he sought to do. Again, he said:
"There is a new Section 52D, which provides for consultation with the trustees and for such orders to be subject to the negative resolution procedure".—[col. 157.]
There is a world of difference between consultation and consent. It is quite clear from the press release issued this morning that the trustees feel that they have been badly treated. Referring to the proposal to suspend statutory contributions, it says:
"This proposal coupled with the Secretary of State's decision to change the provisions of the memorandum of understanding in relation to current payments to certain BR pension funds under the 1980 Act from agreement with the Trustee to consultation with the Trustees undermines the confidence of the Trustees in Government intentions towards the Funds".
I cannot put it plainer than that. There are two points to raise. First, I believe that the noble Earl said what he said in good faith. I believe that he was misguided and misadvised in so saying. But in the promises that were given to this House—first that the memorandum of understanding was binding and secondly that the amendments that were being put through were of a general technical nature (because there was no reference in any of the speeches to a change in the memorandum of understanding)—I believe that this House has been misled. More seriously, I believe that the trustees of the pension fund have been misled. I ask the Minister what steps the Government intend to take to put that. right.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question. Is he saying to the House that the Government said that the memorandum of understanding was binding and yet apparently unilaterally they have changed it? Is that my understanding?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, that is my understanding from the trustees of the fund. I may be wrong, but that is my understanding at the moment.
Lord Shepherd: In that case, my Lords, how can that memorandum of understanding be binding on the Government?
Lord Marsh: My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, if the English language has any meaning or preciseness, it is a complete volte face.This is the problem which, with the greatest respect, the noble Earl fails to take on board—that the Government started from a point, in terms of the transfer of these pension funds, which was indefensible on the part of any reasonable employer. They have moved a long way, slowly and narrowly, fraction by fraction. But they started from a position in which no respectable employer would have been in the first place.
If one remembers the whole history of this subject, it has gone along with questions asked, great indignation, then suddenly a promise that the matter would be looked at and, without time to think about it and examine it, suddenly we have a new situation. On 20th July, when this issue was coming up for debate on 21st July, all of a sudden the memorandum of understanding appeared.
578
Why it appeared at that date is pretty obvious. Nothing had changed in the problem. The problem of transferring pension funds from one employer to another is well known. The problem of transferring pension funds from a nationalised industry to a privatised industry is well known. The Government left it to the very last moment that they possibly could. They got the trustees together in the evening—when I say the "trustees", they met the chairman of the trustees. I do not think that the chief executive of the trustees was present but he was also involved. But at six o'clock that evening, both those gentlemen, when that memorandum of understanding was still being discussed, were with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and myself, and at that stage all they had was a draft of the memorandum of understanding, which was subsequently changed. By lunch time the next day it had appeared. The whole debate on that issue centred around the memorandum of understanding.
It is now a pretty open secret to anyone who has been involved in this issue that the chairman of the trustees had a very difficult time with the other trustees. When they began to think about it they said that they had not been consulted and he quite rightly said, "I was over a barrel"—he probably chose different language—"There was nothing else I could do if I was to get anything. The only thing that was on offer was the memorandum of understanding, so I signed it". They said, "Fine, but we'll take legal advice just to be sure". They took legal advice and they found that the memorandum of understanding, which had been argued before this House as the solution to the problem, had no legal validity at all. The noble Earl, in answer to a question, was good enough to accept that, because it is a statement of fact.
The problem throughout this issue has been threefold. I believe that the other place, in discussing this issue and talking about the Government doing a "Maxwell" and stealing the pension funds, were misdirecting the whole debate. It is not about that. But as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said some time ago, Maxwell happened. Ordinary people in pension funds are frightened when their pension funds move. That is why they have been anxious. I have said in the House on three occasions that the trustees got the best deal they could because there was nothing else on offer. No one can provide the security they require other than this House. No one else. If one wants a brutal answer, no one trusts anything that is not in the Bill.
We do not know what the long term future of the British Railways Board is. Who can say what it will be? It will be fragmented. I am not arguing the virtues of the Bill. There are people who passionately believe in it. The Government do, and no one could accuse them of being motivated by a desire for political popularity or the hope of re-election. They are totally committed to it. But other people are not. It has nothing to do with the merits of the issue of privatisation. It has nothing to do with public expenditure. Not a penny is involved. The crucial issue is that people started off very concerned with the strange happenings of the memorandum of understanding which they were virtually forced to sign. They then discovered that it had no legal validity and

579
then subsequently discovered that the Government did not really like the wording of it and changed it a little on the way without any consultation.
Unless these things are made mandatory upon the Government, these people will not have confidence in their future. One simply cannot properly do that to 350,000 people who are asking Parliament for nothing more than that they get a guarantee not just of the solvency but of everything connected with the fund.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I join those noble Lords who have expressed deep concern about the situation which has arisen. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is absolutely right in summarising the issue in the terse way that he did and saying that no one believes assurances unless those assurances are written on the face of the Bill. Indeed, that has been our case throughout. It is only today that the Government have made in relation to the earlier amendment an important concession. But they need to go much further.
I should like to take the House back to that day when we discussed the memorandum of understanding, having been given such short notice that the agreement had been reached. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said that apparently the fox that I was pursuing had been shot. I am not sure that he was right in retrospect, because on that occasion I raised a number of points without any effective information from experts—points that were, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The House will recall from that occasion that time and time again the Minister, perhaps inadvertently, kept on saying that the agreement had been reached with, inter alia, the trustees. I sought to correct that because it was not consonant with the facts. The fact of the matter was that, on his own admission, the chairman of the trustees had had totally inadequate time even to consult all the trustees. It was a rather serious omission. We now know from the press release, but more than that, from the letter that was sent to the Secretary of State by the chairman of the trustees on 15th October, that there are deep prevailing concerns about the situation, concerns which the Government have not yet begun to address.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is right in saying that the chairman of the trustees was put in a thoroughly invidious position. One would not want to blame him for the fact that he did not have sufficient time or could not possibly have consulted with his colleagues. But he had a pistol at his head. The Government were basically saying, "This is better than nothing, so you had better accept that which is measurably better than nothing". But that is all it was. It was full of holes, a point which the Minister was unwilling to concede at that time.
So much for the history. We now know that the Secretary of State, faced with another significant defeat, has retreated, in part at least, from that appalling prospect for him, as the Bill moves towards another place in its final stages. But I think that they will be tested again. Against that backcloth one needs to look at the abiding concerns of the trustees as expressed by the chairman. He says that he wants to record his,
580
"grave concern, and that of the Trustee Board, at your [the Secretary of State] decision to change the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding in relation to support payments to certain BR pension funds under the 1980 Act from agreement with the Trustee to consultation with the Trustee. First, the change undermines confidence iu the status of the Memorandum which we have been at pains to generate since it was signed on 20th July"—
a point made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. That is precisely what it does and precisely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh; that is, that there is no confidence in anything unless it is in the Bill. The chairman continues,
"Second, it is inconsistent with the Minister of State's statement to the House of Lords on 12th October when he said that the Government regard the Memorandum as binding"—
a point already made. He goes on,
"Third, your proposals, as presently stated, will effectively eliminate any possibility of actuarial surpluses & rising. This is contrary to one of the basic principles underlying the Memorandum of Understanding".
That is three highly significant points made by a person of great authority, the chairman of the trustees, Mr. Derek Fowler. The Government must meet those points. I hope we shall not be told that there must be more meetings. The meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was rewarding. But this is a point which is of equal, if not greater, importance to the point which the Government have conceded.
We feel strongly about the matter. We believe that the trustees should be supported. After all, this is the kernel of the case made by the Government: that trustees are there to be supported. That is what 'was said in relation to the memorandum of understanding. In the light of what they are saying now, we say that deep anxiety is expressed and the trustees need the support of the House. There is no other recourse. The interests of hundreds of thousands of pensioners need the support of your Lordships. It is not a party point. It is a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, whom we greatly admire, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. The points demand attention by the Government. I hope therefore that the Minister will not resort to simple words of assurance. They will not suffice. I hope that he will concede this point, as he did the other.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the debate has developed from a narrow point moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton in the form of Amendment No. 289ZB into a much wider debate on pensions generally. Therefore I hope that the House will bear with me while I answer not only the specific point with regard to the amendment, but also take the House further into the general question of pensions.
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 289ZB and advise my noble friend that it is unnecessary because of the new Section 52D of the Transport Act 1980. The duty that my noble friend seeks is already imposed by that section and therefore the amendment is unnecessary.
I turn to the crucial issue on which the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Marsh, focused; that is, converting what is in the memorandum of understanding onto the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 289B seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to secure the prior written agreement of the trustees of the

581
scheme that it is appropriate in the circumstances to lay an order under Section 52B of the Transport Act 1980, substituting for the current government support payments the new obligations introduced by Section 52B.
The amendment would give to the trustees a power of veto over government expenditure under the Transport Act 1980 in respect of payments to the guaranteed BR pensioners' scheme. I accept that the memorandum provides for their agreement. But as I said in our earlier discussions on recommitment on 12th October, to put it in the Bill is unacceptable for this reason. It would be wrong for an outside party such as the trustees to have an effective veto over matters relating to government expenditure. That would not only be wrong, but would also be quite unprecedented. I must strongly emphasise that point.
The situation now is that the pensioners of the British Rail pension funds will be a great deal more secure than they are under the existing scheme. The Government have provided a copper-bottomed guarantee not just in the memorandum of understanding, but, as I said on the last amendment, on the face of the Bill. That guarantee, which relates to the rules of the scheme, is a guarantee of taxpayers' money. In addition to that, not only will the pensions be index linked, but they will be entitled to a share of the surpluses to 40 per cent. They may have had shares of the surplus before because the trustees happen to manage their investments extremely well. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, will know, the 1980s was a good time for pension funds; many pension funds did rather better than had been expected. But is it safe to say the same in regard to the 1990s?
If the pension fund does not perform to the same degree as it did in the 1980s, new pensioners under British Rail could have their pensions reduced. The existing pensioners cannot, but new ones could. That has been overtaken by the Government's guarantee of taxpayers' money. Not only is there a guarantee, but there is a share of surplus. It is an amazing deal for the pensioners and one which the Government are rightly proud to have agreed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would allow me to interrupt. I did not hear him clearly. Can he say precisely where the duty is laid upon the Government to consult and secure the agreement of the trustees? I do not know whether he said Section 52B or Section 52D. Can he say precisely where it occurs?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the point I was making is that it comes under Section 52D.
I wish to turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on the memorandum of understanding; it is an important point. I want to make absolutely clear that the Government do not consider the memorandum of understanding itself to be legally binding on the signatories. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, and I confirmed at recommitment, it does not have the force of contract. But I can confirm that the Government regard the memorandum as morally binding and firmly intend to implement it, just as the chairman of the trustees confirmed to us this morning that that is exactly
582
how he interpreted it and he would wish to remain bound by the terms of the memorandum of understanding. I believe that that answers the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in the letter from Mr. Fowler.
I want to make it perfectly clear that we are not trying to change the provisions of the memorandum of understanding in any way whatever. We intend to fulfil it. We regard it as morally binding. But the big question of whether it can or indeed should be translated into primary legislation is quite separate.
I know that my noble friend Lord Peyton will understand the difficulties of a third party having control and an effective veto over government expenditure. I know also that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, from his earlier experiences in another place, will feel exactly the same. We intend to reach agreement with the trustees and we are consulting with them. We had another meeting this morning and there was a meeting yesterday. We very much believe that, in the full spirit of the memorandum of understanding, we shall get that agreement. Putting it on the face of the Bill creates the very important problem which I have raised.
4 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I ask to speak with the leave of the House. I hope that noble Lords will understand that we are in some considerable difficulty procedurally because we are now at Report stage and we are not supposed to speak more than once, but in the, circumstances I hope that the House will be lenient. I do not believe that the noble Earl has answered his noble friend's question about where consent is contained in the Bill. It is certainly not contained in Section 52D. In fact it has been changed to "consulting" in that section, which is the point which I deliberately sought to make in an amendment which the noble Earl moved on Tuesday of last week.
I still await an explanation as to why, if the Government are so concerned to stick to the memorandum, that change has been made and, furthermore, why it was made without being drawn to the attention of your Lordships' House.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will respond to that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was about to respond, but I saw the noble Lord come to his feet so I sat down again quite happily. The point which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has made is that in the new Section 52D it requires consultation with the trustees before orders are made. What the memorandum of understanding says—which we consider to be legally binding, as does the chairman of the trustees—is that we wish to reach agreement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that that is exactly what any prudent government in this position would seek to do, as indeed would the trustees. But we have the difficulty of putting it on the face of the Bill for the very reason which I have stated and which I cannot stress strongly enough—that is to say, the veto by a third party over government expenditure.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with the leave of the House. I believe that we are having procedural difficulties as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said. This is an extremely significant matter and I am sure that the Minister will concede that. When he says that the trustees are content with the position, does he really mean to say that? Is he saying that all the trustees have concurred in that position and that they are all happy just with the memorandum of understanding? That is not my understanding of the situation. We would like some clarification from the Government as to that point.
As regards the second point concerning the Government's moral obligations, they are all very fine, but they are imprecise. In any event, the Government are not in a position to bind their successors. Moral obligations are all very well. I am not impugning the Minister's intentions here, but having regard to what has happened, moral obligations are not adequate.
I am sure that the Minister is already aware of it, but I wish to draw to his attention and to that of the House, the legal advice on which the trustees have acted in this matter. There was advice enshrined in the letter dated 15th October from the solicitors advising the trustees. I shall quote it. I do not offer my own resume. These are the words of the solicitors:
"The specific criticism given by the Minister [Official Report,12/10/93; col. 139.] is that 'the amendments cause us difficulty because they would give to the trustees a power of veto over Government expenditure under the 1980 Transport Act to the guaranteed BR Pension Scheme'".
That argument was rehearsed again today. He continued:
"'It would be wrong for an outside party—in this case the trustees—to have an effective veto over legislation relating to matters of Government expenditure'. Our interpretation is that the new sections give to the Government a far greater degree of flexibility than is envisaged in the memorandum, [that is, Sections 52B to 52D]. Under Section 52B(6) a substitution order may specify the date on which substitution payments are to be made and the circumstances in which they are to be made. These powers are very broad. Our amendment seeks not only to reflect the Memorandum in a way which does not offend the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty but also to provide some degree of control in the hands of the trustees to ensure that these new and very much more flexible powers are not exercised to the detriment of the scheme members. The trustees are not seeking to veto legislation relating to matters of Government expenditure. Only Parliament can do that, but Parliament can constrain Government's powers through primary legislation".
Of course that is right. The letter continues:
"The Government's control over public expenditure only exists because Parliament has given it the necessary powers through legislation. Parliament can therefore impose restraints on those powers. Because the Government now seeks to go far beyond what the Memorandum envisaged, we consider it is appropriate for the trustees to ask Parliament to impose constraints on those powers. … Even if the amendment were to give rise to constitutional difficulty"—
Of course, they are not admitting that—
"the problems lie with the Government in having to table amendments which reflect the Memorandum and give adequate protection to scheme members through some form of control exercisable by the trustees. Not only has the Government gone beyond what the Memorandum envisaged … but it has also failed to able amendments covering either the Trustees' Agreement to the timing of payments or RPI increases and the solvency guarantee."
In part that has been cured.
"It was only on the basis of the Government's commitment in this behalf that the Trustees gave their consent to the possible variation in the timing of payments under the Transport Act 1980".
584
Those are points with which the Government have to deal. All the trustees have to be satisfied and not just through a meeting with the chairman. It has to be to the satisfaction of all the trustees. I do not believe that all the trustees are satisfied or could be satisfied with what the Minister has said today.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we seem now to be focusing on Amendment No. 289B, which is not the amendment which my noble friend Lord Peyton moved. Perhaps I may at once correct something which I said a moment ago. By a slip of the tongue I am told that l; said that the memorandum of understanding was legally binding. If I said that, I believe that the House will understand that that is not what I meant to say. I said that it was not legally binding, but that we considered it to be binding and that we were morally obligated to it and, indeed, the chairman of the trustees confirmed to us this morning that he was of a similar disposition.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the board of directors of the trustee company has endorsed the memorandum of understanding as signed by their chairman, but I would not go as far as to say that the trustees are entirely happy. If they were, we would not be having this discussion. We have certainly met them on one of their points of concern, which is to put the guarantee on the face of the Bill. I have explained in full why we do not believe that we can fully interpret the wording in the memorandum of understanding and put that on the face of the Bill.
As regards the scheduling of payments, perhaps we can wait until we come to Amendment No. 289B before I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. However, I would like to respond to the third point which he raised from Mr. Fowler's letter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the amendments are all grouped.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raised a third point which was that Mr. Fowler claimed that our proposals, as presently stated, will effectively eliminate any possibility of actuarial surpluses arising. I have to say, on professional advice from the Government Actuary, that that is simply not the case. Our proposals do not eliminate any possibility of actuarial surpluses arising. It might be so if we were eliminating government contributions altogether, but we are certainly not doing that. They remain a liability for the Government and an asset for the fund. It is our intention to ensure that the value of that asset is maintained when the closed fund is established.
We do not disagree with the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has analysed the situation; but the point is that the Government would not be able to introduce an order providing for public expenditure without the consent of a third party—that is, the consent of the trustees—and that is why the amendment is inappropriate.
I turn now to the scheduling of the payments. Again, I know, that that matter causes anxiety to the trustees; but the question of the power of veto is the overriding point—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, as he has challenged some of the points that I made, perhaps I may put these points to him. First, as we are dealing with a number of amendments that are grouped, the Minister cannot seriously say that he cannot deal with the amendment in question now.
Secondly, when the Minister says that the trustees endorsed the memorandum of understanding as signed by the chairman, that is perfectly right; but is it not a fact that they subsequently rehearsed further arguments, which I have sought to represent to the House this afternoon, expressing their very deep anxiety about the situation? The trustees were far from being satisfied or even nearly satisfied with the position, hence the letter that was subsequently sent by the chairman to the Secretary of State.
Thirdly, today is the first time that we have had an opportunity to discuss the question of the actuarial surpluses. This is what the trustees have to say, and I can do no better than quote again from the letter. I did not quote from this part before, but feel that I must now provide the particulars. The letter states:
"If payments under the 1980 Act cease and are substituted by a non-marketable Government IOU, the implications for the Fund would be very serious indeed. We calculate that in 10 years' time the capitalised Transport Act payments would represent some 25 per cent. of the assets of the closed fund. 10 years later in (2013) over 70 per cent. of the assets might be represented by the Government IOU, thus moving close to an unfunded scheme, guaranteed by Government. In other words, a fund on lines envisaged in paragraph 37(ii), page 11, of the Government's Consultation Document. An option which you withdrew on the grounds that it attracted little support".
I am certain that those arguments are not based only on the thoughts of the chairman or any individual trustee. They are based on actuarial opinion which is in conflict with the Government's actuarial opinion, yet these are matters which we are embracing for virtually the first time today. That is why it is so inappropriate that we are dealing with this matter according to the rules of Report. These are matters on which the Minister has blithely said, "We have had an opinion. That should satisfy the House". It cannot possibly have satisfied those advising the trustees, and they are acknowledged actuaries in their own right. There appears to be a major conflict here.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I rise to speak again because I know that we have stretched the rules enormously today. I have done so deliberately in order to try to encourage a full debate and to give a full answer. I have already explained and answered the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on the point about which the trustees are not entirely happy. However, I must point out that Mr. Fowler's letter is based on a misunderstanding of the situation. We are in discussion with the trustees as to the question of payments. But let us not forget that the whole situation has changed because the Government have given the guarantee that was not there before. That is what the trustees wanted. That is what the trustees have got. They have got that guarantee. It is on the face of the Bill.
There is also the question of the surpluses in the memorandum of understanding. That puts the pension fund—and the future of the pensioners—in a much more secure position than is the case under the existing
586
rules of the scheme because of the fluctuations that can come from valuations. If an actuarial valuation finds the fund to be unstable, then the government guarantee is called. That government guarantee can be called before or after a payment of surpluses has been made. Therefore, in addition to getting 40 per cent. of the surpluses, if at the next valuation the trustees say that they need some money from the Government, they can get that money. At the moment, if the trustees had an actuarial valuation which showed a surplus, and if they envisaged difficult times ahead, the trustees would be quite entitled to say, "We are not distributing any of that surplus. We are putting it back into the fund to cater for the difficult times ahead that we foresee". That is no longer the case. If there is a surplus, 40 per cent. will go to the pensioners. If difficult times occur in the future, the trustees can push the button and the government guarantee is there. That is a totally different and much improved position for the pensioners.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I find myself in very great difficulty. I have no desire to add to the Government's difficulties on this matter, and—I hope that my noble friend will take note of this because I mean it—I would very much prefer not to divide the House but I must have some grounds for withdrawing the amendment.
Our difficulties are enormously added to and exacerbated by the fact that discussions on a highly technical, complicated and very sensitive subject are taking place at the time that we are attempting to pass an Act of Parliament. That makes understanding a complicated subject even more difficult than would normally be the case.
My noble friend has said fairly that the point that is covered by my amendment—other noble Lords have gone wider than I have—is a very narrow one. I quite agree. But that does not mean that it is not an important one. The Government have stated on a number of occasions that they honour and will be bound by the memorandum of understanding. The passage of the memorandum which I quoted earlier to your Lordships makes it clear that the agreement of the trustees is required. The difficulty here is that whatever the Government's intentions and whatever the Government have done (and I am extremely grateful for what they have done), the fact is—and it is difficult to get round this—that in saying that they are bound, the Government seem to me (and to outsiders) to mean that they regard themselves as bound by the memorandum except when it becomes inconvenient.
Amendment No. 289ZB, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, seeks to do no more than to reflect the paragraph in the memorandum of understanding which I have quoted. If the wording is offensive and if the Government can improve upon it, I shall withdraw the amendment without hesitation.
I should, however, like my noble friend to deal with a point that I have put to him previously. Why can there not be consultation with the trustees on the contents of a possible statutory instrument before it is laid? Surely

587
that would get us round the problem of putting the trustees in a position where they would be pre-empting Parliament.
My next point is one upon which I should like to express some sympathy with the trustees. In the very much changed climate that we now have, and in the light of legislation that the Government introduced recently, which placed added heavy burdens upon trustees, surely they deserve an effective voice in the fund. The arrangements for government support constitute an immensely important part of the fund. If the trustees are going to be merely informed or consulted, without agreeing, they will be reduced considerably in status, and they will feel very uncomfortable about it.
My last point—I am deeply worried about this—is that I want to know where in new Section 52D are the words which make my amendment unnecessary. At one stage just now my noble friend—I am anxious to know whether I understood him correctly—used words to the effect that the Government could not introduce a statutory instrument without the consent of the trustees. Did he say those words? If he did, that is satisfactory. I should like to hear whether he did say that.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may clear up one point. Is the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, speaking to his paving amendment and to the other two amendments?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am speaking to the amendments which are grouped together. I am sorry if I did not make that clear.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that was a helpful intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. It has cleared up that point, because some of your Lordships might not have realised where we were on this complicated and technical issue.
I believe that I can satisfy my noble friend's concern. I have explained why we cannot go as far as the trustees would like, and put this provision on the face of the Bill. We have tried wherever possible to meet the trustees and the concerns that they have raised. That was proven by the previous amendment. On this amendment, we cannot go as far as the trustees would like. My noble friend wanted an assurance on consultation. The new Section 52D of the 1980 Act requires consultation with the trustees. Let me read Section 52D(1):
"Any power to make an order under section 52B shall be exercisable by statutory instrument made by the Minister after consultation with the trustees of the guaranteed pension scheme to which the order relates".
There is the requirement for consultation.
Moreover, I would go further. I can assure the House that the Government intend not just to consult but to seek and obtain agreement on such matters with the trustees. That is what is in the memorandum of understanding. Surely it is in the interests of the parties concerned to reach that agreement.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sorry, but I find myself in a real difficulty here. What I understood my noble friend to say was that the contents of new Section 52B made my Amendment No. 289B unnecessary. Section 52B includes the words:
"after consultation with the trustees".
588
My amendment reads that the:
"Secretary of State shall not lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B unless he has first obtained the written agreement of those trustees".
There is a cardinal difference between the two.
I asked at an earlier stage whether my noble friend could undertake to introduce on Third Reading some formal alternative. If he finds the, I believe, not unreasonable amendment that I have moved unacceptable, is it not possible to introduce a formal and binding alternative which will make the agreement of the trustees unnecessary? My fundamental point is that all parties engaged in serious discussions agreed on the wording of the memorandum of understanding. The Government have said repeatedly that they are bound by it. It now seems—this is the appearance of it, and I cannot escape it—that the word "consult" is to be substituted for "agreement". I find that extremely difficult to accept. I hope that my noble friend will understand that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it would be wrong of me to say that I could go away and do what my noble friend asks me to do, because I do not believe that I can do that. When I have said that I would take things away to consult upon and discuss and, hopefully bring back amendments, I have meant that and, by and large, I have done so. We have given this matter enormous thought, but I do not believe that I can say that.
I return to the point. I could reach an agreement with my noble friend Lord Peyton. Then I could say to him, "Could you put that in writing?". He says, "No, I am not going to put it in writing". That is an effective veto. That is what my noble friend is saying in his Amendment No. 289B. It is an effective veto by a third party over government expenditure. That is what we find unacceptable.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's difficulty, but it is not possible to say what I have said on this amendment without taking the opinion of the House. It would render meaningless everything I have said. I do so with great regret.
4.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 289ZB) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Airedale, L.

Ardwick, L.

Alport, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L

605

Attlee, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Avebury, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Barnett, L.

Judd, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kagan, L.

Birk, B.

Kennet, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

KirkhiU, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Brimelow, L.

Lawrence, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Layton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lock wood, B.

Carnock, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McCarthy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cobbold, L.

McNair, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Craigavon, V.

Marsh, L.

Croham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Thornton le Fylde, B.

Molloy, L.

Donoughue, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormant) of Easington, L.

Monson, L.

Dundonald, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Eatwell, L.

MuUey, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkender, B.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Feversham, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Fitt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Foot, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Geraint, L.*

Redesdale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Glasgow, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Shannon, E.

Grey, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harrowby, E.

Stallard, L.

Haskel, L.

Stedman, B.

Healey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

[Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollick, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Varley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howell, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, 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.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Abinger, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Aldington, L.

Butterworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cadman, L.

Annaly, L.

Caithness, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Caldecote, V.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor, V.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Auckland, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Barber, L.

Chesham, L.

Birdwood, L.

Chilver, L.

Blatch, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Boardman, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cranborne, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Crathome, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Cumberlege, B.

606

Davidson, V.

Merrivale, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mersey, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Milverton, L.

Donegal 1, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dudley, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elibank, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Moyne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Munster, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Finsberg, L.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Flather, B.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gisborough, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goschen, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Granard, E.

Pike, B.

Gray, L.

Prentice, L.

Hacking, L.

Renton, L.

Haig, E.

Renwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Harlech, L.

Romney, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Sharpies, B.

Hemphill, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hives, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathclyde, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Hood, V.

[Teller.]

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Hothfield, L.

Swinfen, L.

Howe, E.

Tebbit, L.

Knutsford, V.

Teynham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lindsay, E.

Trefgame, L.

Liverpool, E.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Lucas, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L.

Wakeham, L.

(Lord Chancellor)

(Lord Privy Seal)

Macleod of Borve, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Melville, V.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 289ZC:
Page 133, line 10, at end insert—
("() Nothing in this Act shall relieve the Secretary of State of any duty to make payments in accordance with the provisions of the Transport Act 1980.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the timing of the payments made by the Secretary of State to the closed fund. One point that I should like to make at the commencement of my remarks is that under the 1980 Act, the cash-flow reflects precisely the liabilities. Payments are made into the fund, as required, to meet the liabilities. That is a source of satisfaction and comfort to the trustees. They would very much like to see that sustained.
It is not the first time in recent years that the question of timing of payments by the Secretary of State has come before Parliament. The 1974 Railways Act tidied things up. I believe that it could properly be described as an all-party Act. It was initiated and prepared under a Conservative Government; and modesty forbids me to mention the name of the Minister at that time. The 1980 Transport Act carried the matter further and provided

591
what the Minister then responsible—now the Chancellor of the Exchequer—described as a once-andfor-all final settlement.
As recently as May of this year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State used the following words in a Written Answer in another place:
"The Government will continue to make the contributions to BR pension funds fixed by the Transport Act 1980."—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/93; col. 238.]
The memorandum of understanding was equally clear on that point. It stated that the,
"timing of such payments will be agreed with the Trustees and will take account of the absolute guarantee now being provided".
The Government now propose a quite different set of arrangements in the new schedule which is now before the House. Various ideas have been put forward. One of the difficulties, to which I previously referred, has caused great embarrassment to the Government. I refer to the fact that discussions are taking place at the same time that we are trying to settle what the law should provide. It is a most difficult situation. I hope that my noble friend will deal with the point.
I heard a story that all payments into the fund were to be suspended until the year 2000, after which substitute payments would be made. I do not believe that to he remotely true, although it may have been aired during the course of the discussions. I mention it only as an indication 'of the sort of difficulties which arise as a result of present procedures.
The trouble here is the same as that with which we dealt when discussing the previous amendment. It would appear that unilateral changes are being made based simply on the Government saying, "We will do what is convenient for us to do and when it is convenient". I do not believe that that is the Government's full intention. I believe that Parliament is facing a very real difficulty when it is asked to legislate on the grounds of good intentions which the Government are unwilling or unable to put into the Bill. To take intentions for granted and expect them to endure over a period of 50 years, as mentioned earlier, is quite unrealistic and very unsatisfactory.
I have one further point to make. It relates to the question of surpluses. Again, the memorandum of understanding was very clear on the point. Perhaps I may quote the relevant paragraph, which reads:
"Pensioners may benefit from up to 40% of any surpluses generated in the fund. Up to 60% of any surpluses will be held in reserve".
The requirement here—and I hope that my noble friend will deal with it—is to make it quite clear that, under the arrangements which the Government now propose, far from being diminished, the prospects of a surplus arising will be changed for the better. I hope that my noble friend will be able to deal with that point. I do not see any need to expand any further on my remarks. The arguments have already been very well aired. The basic argument is that the timing of the payments must be of crucial interest of the trustees. Any alteration in that timing should surely be a matter of agreement. I say that with particular force as that was the intention of all of the parties to the memorandum of understanding. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that we trod similar ground on the last amendment, which took us considerably wider than the issue under discussion. Indeed, I answered many of my noble friend's concerns at that stage. However, perhaps I may readdress the situation. I have to tell my noble friend Lord Peyton that I just do not understand Amendment No. 289AA. I really do not understand why my noble friend seeks to remove the new Section 52A of the Transport Act 1980. I find that very difficult. It is a provision which is not new to the Bill. It was introduced in Committee in another place and is necessary to enable the Government to make final payment in discharge of their existing liabilities on unfunded pension benefits for new or amended pension schemes. It is intended to use it to pay off liabilities to small schemes early.
Sections 52B, 52C and 52D of the 1980 Act—which terminate the existing arrangements for support payments in respect of the Government's liabilities for unfunded benefits acquired by any new schemes and provide for substitution payments to be made in circumstances to be prescribed by order—-were, of course, introduced later on Recommitment in this House. We must be clear why the arrangements are necessary. The Government do not intend to extinguish their liabilities to unfunded BR pensions. The sections were introduced as a direct consequence of the solvency guarantee offered in respect of the closed fund which I have now agreed to put on the face of the Bill. If that solvency guarantee and the commitment on the distribution of future surpluses are to stand, the new sections of the 1980 Act are required to protect the interests of the taxpayer. It would be wrong to continue the supply of public funds under Section 52 of the Transport Act as if nothing had happened.
The point that I should like to reiterate—and, sadly, I cannot seem to get this through to my noble friend—is that we believe we are bound by the provisions of the memorandum of understanding. We regard it as morally binding on us. We intend to fulfil it. We have explained in some considerable detail to the trustees our very real difficulty in accepting the transposition from the memorandum of understanding to the face of the Bill.
I should also like to confirm what I said as regards the previous amendment. We have had it on professional advice from the Government Actuary that it is simply not the case that our proposals must eliminate any possibility of actuarial surpluses arising. That might be so if we were eliminating government contributions altogether, but we are not. They remain a liability of the Government and an asset to the fund. It is our intention to ensure that the value of the asset is maintained when the closed fund is established.
On the question of surpluses, perhaps I may answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Peyton. For the very reasons that I gave when responding to the last amendment, pensioners are a great deal better protected under the proposals of the Government than they are under the existing scheme. If there is a surplus on an

593
actuarial valuation, at present the trustees do not have to hand over that surplus. They can retain 100 per cent. of it and say they need it to protect against bad times in the future. That is not the position under the Government's proposal and under the memorandum of understanding. There will be a guarantee under the rules of the scheme that 40 per cent. of the surplus will go to the pensioners. There will be a Government guarantee. It is a case of belt and braces. Whereas other pensioners will have to face the vagaries of an actuarial valuation and the decision of the trustees, the pensioners in the case we are discussing are a great deal better protected and stand to gain.
My noble friend will be aware that we are presently in discussion with the trustees over a system of substitution payments equitable to both the trustees and the taxpayer. We are certainly not suggesting that payments should be postponed sine die.We have put an initial proposal to the trustees for them to consider. We await their response. We intend to reach agreement. That is the way things should be done.
My right honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport met the chairman of the trustees this morning. We entirely understand his concerns to protect beneficiaries of the fund. He mentioned the key elements of any agreement. We recognise the same key questions. I gee no reason why we should not reach agreement on this matter which involves difficult technical problems. However, time is required. We, and I hope the trustees, want to work within the spirit of the memorandum of understanding—certainly the chairman does. Parliament will, of course, have an opportunity to consider the outcome of this part of the package on pensions because it will be enshrined in a statutory instrument. That is, if I may say so, rather more than an uncashable government IOU, as it has been described.
I should add one other point. My noble friend repeated the words used by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in May. I know that on reconsideration my noble friend will consider that that was not perhaps the most apt quote. He quoted the comments of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in May of this year before we gave the government guarantee. It is the issue of the government guarantee and taxpayers' money that has changed the situation so markedly.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I start by asking my noble friend one simple question. I hope he will intervene if he has any comments to make. I understood him to say that he could not understand my amendment because he thought it would be damaging to the pensioners. I should be grateful if he would explain that. I am more than capable of tabling amendments that do not mean what I want them to mean, and that has been done by others before now. However, in this particular instance, I thought that both the paving amendment, Amendment No. 289ZC, and Amendment No. 289C meant exactly what I wanted them to mean. Is my noble friend saying that they are somehow damaging?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is Amendment No. 289AA that is grouped with this amendment. I
594
could not understand why my noble friend tabled that amendment because I do not understand why he wishes to delete new Section 52A.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not think it would be particularly helpful if I were to pursue the argument. My noble friend has made it clear that discussions are still continuing with the trustees and that it is the intention of the Government—I think I got him right—to pursue those discussions until they can find a mutually acceptable arrangement. If I am right in that understanding, I shall withdraw the amendment. But I should like my noble friend to make it quite clear that I have not misinterpreted him.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I repeat that it is certainly our intention to reach an agreement. That must be the sensible thing to do, as I have already said on this amendment and on the previous amendment. That is why we are discussing the matter with the trustees. There was a meeting this morning and there will be further meetings in the future.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I understand the negotiations are proceeding and they will clearly be confidential. Can the noble Earl give any indication of when he expects an agreement or a conclusion to those negotiations? If we have not received that notice by Third Reading, there is no way in which the measure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is trying to achieve can be achieved. I believe there are strong feelings in the House on this issue. If the noble Earl were to allow this amendment to be included in the Bill, it would mean that, if a satisfactory arrangement was reached between now and when the Bill returns to another place for reconsideration, the measure we are discussing may be unnecessary, in which case the amendment which the House could be invited to include in the Bill could be removed. It seems to me from the point of view of the House that, unless we seek to include this amendment in the Bill now, we may have lost any other opportunity of doing so. Is it not really a question of the time factor as regards the conclusion of the consultations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should say, with the leave of the House—I believe we have again stretched the rules of the House quite considerably but I did not intervene while the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was speaking as this is an important point—that that is probably the wrong way of legislating in your Lordships' House. I believe I have given a full answer to my noble friend. Obviously he must decide what he wishes to do with the amendment. I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when we will reach an agreement with the trustees as there are two parties to that agreement. I can only say that the Government wish to reach an agreement as soon as possible.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, this is a difficult matter but my feeling is that it would not be reasonable to ask my noble friend to give an assurance that an agreement will be reached because that would be to tie his hands hopelessly behind his back. I know from my noble friend, his right honourable friend the Secretary of State and from the chairman of the trustees that detailed

595
discussions are proceeding. I do not believe that they would be helped by a Division on this amendment in your Lordships' House, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 289ZD:
After Clause 130, insert the following new clause:
("Hybrid Instruments
.Any draft of an instrument containing an order made under this Act that would be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument shall be treated as such for 40 days beginning with the day on which it is laid before that House.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which stands in my name and that of others, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 289D to 289F. This issue concerns whether or not the Standing Orders of the House should be disapplied, and being disapplied would disallow individual people or groups of people who are concerned in the pension arrangements from petitioning. In effect, the Government introduced their Bill with a prohibition which took away a protection from those who have pension rights but who feel aggrieved—those who are particularly affected as individuals or as a group—as against the great majority of pensioners for whom the provisions have been made.
This Bill removes a fundamental protection. It was described by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on 21st July as a matter of civil liberties. I believe that he is right. Although this is a minor matter, it affects the petitioning rights of a small number of people. We do not know how many will be affected, but we know that certainly some will be. They should be considered no less than the majority.
It is on those grounds that I put forward the amendments today. Their purpose is to restore the Standing Orders of the House so that they shall be operative, as they would be without the Government provisions in the Bill, and thus to protect the privileges of the House as well as preserving the privileges of individuals who feel that they are particularly affected.
Perhaps I may go over the ground again as briefly and as fairly as I can. I do so, and I move the amendment, on an entirely non-party basis. I very much hope that we can come to an agreement on all sides of the House, and that the Government will see that there is a case for retracting their original provision for disapplying our standing orders and allowing matters to proceed normally as they would if they had not made that disposition in the first place.
We were fortunate enough to have a report from our Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers. That committee quite properly asked the House to consider whether there is sufficient justification for the exclusion of the hybrid procedure in this case and on this highly sensitive subject of pensions. In its first memorandum to the Select Committee, the department emphasised that the orders to be made under Schedule 10 are particularly important and as such are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which alone in the Bill attracts the hybrid procedure. In its second
596
memorandum to the Select Committee the Department of Transport sought to justify the disapplication of standing orders on the grounds that it was:
"thought necessary to ensure that the making of orders under Schedule 10 is not delayed",
and that,
"delay in the making of orders would give rise io uncertainty for those whose pension rights are affected".
In Committee on 21st July the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, moved to restore the status quo, principally on the grounds that there were many others apart from r.he trustees of the British Rail pension fund, whether groups or individuals, who ought to have the right of petition denied them by the Bill, as drafted. Accordingly, he sought to reinstate the standing orders disapplied by the Bill. When he pressed the matter to a Division, he lost by a small margin. In the proceedings on that amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, more or less repeated the arguments of the departmental memorandum from which I have already quoted. Therefore, I shall not refer to them in detail.
There then ensued the Recess. In Committee on Re-Commitment on 12th October my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale sought to substitute the accelerated hybrid procedure to meet the Minister's arguments about delay. However, that was not acceptable to the Minister on additional grounds that the Government were providing an alternative means for representations in the Bill. However, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon could not agree with the Minister that the hybrid instruments procedure was not appropriate to these particular circumstances. His amendments were withdrawn, but he said that he would revive them at Report stage.
My noble and learned friend and the other signatories to the amendments have asked me to move the amendments today. I do so in the sincere hope that they will be received in a non-partisan manner. That is certainly how I am offering them to the House. It is important that all matters concerned with procedure should be guarded jealously and approached sensitively by all, and in particular by the Government. In principle it is the case that each House is the guardian of its own procedure. It follows that neither House should interfere in the procedure of the other House. It also means that by and large it is intrinsically undesirable that the Government should seek to change procedures of either House by statute, although I can cite exceptional circumstances in which that can and has been done.
I think it fair to say that neither the department in its memoranda nor the Minister in speaking to the House have justified to general satisfaction the drastic: proposal in the Bill to deny possible petitioning rights to individuals or groups of individuals who may be affected. It is very hard to understand why they should disapply the well-tried and truly tested procedures of the House which protect that right of individual liberty and substitute a guarantee that the cases of individuals who are particularly affected will be duly considered by Ministers in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.
If, as is granted, there may well be petitions, that alone amply justifies leaving the petitioning procedures of this House to be available for those who wish to make use of them and prove that they have a locus standi. If,

597
on the other hand, all the arrangements made by the Government are so satisfactory that no petitions arise, the Government have nothing to fear. Therefore, in either case it is necessary that the petitioning procedures of the House should be restored. It is better to leave a tried and trusted procedure alone, at least until the House has had an opportunity to consider the matter at leisure in the Procedure Committee when a consensus may be achieved on whether to leave the matter as it is or to make the changes which the Government seem to wish to be made. It should not be done in a single case as is proposed by the Government in this Bill.
I suggest that the plea for exceptional treatment for pension schemes has not been made out and should not be enacted in this Bill. Meanwhile, until the reference to the Procedure Committee has been made, I ask the Government and the House to accept the amendments, or pcssibly a variant on them which I am sure my noble friends would be happy to discuss with the Government, which would go a long way to meet the Government's anxieties about delay, providing as they do a cut-off point for the length of time taken by the hybrid procedures. The cut-off point is 40 parliamentary days from the date of the laying of any draft orders under Schedule 10.
This is no small matter. We should be reluctant in the extreme to dispense with or suspend anything of such parliamentary importance as the rights of individuals to be heard on petition, just as we should not dispense with or suspend habeas corpus except in an extreme emergency such as the prevention of terrorism provisions. The hybrid procedures of this House are, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, part of the liberties of the subject. I ask the House to assist me and my noble friends in protecting them. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble friend, with his unexampled knowledge of procedure, and in particular the procedure of this House, has made out an overwhelming case. The Government should not be allowed to set aside a standing order of your Lordships' House. That standing order was established for the protection of individual interests where they might not properly be considered in a general scheme in a Public Bill. Moreover, the procedure was specifically endorsed by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1972–73 whose recommendations were accepted by both Houses. In fact, the report was debated in your Lordships' House on two occasions. The then Leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and on a separate occasion his deputy, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, accepted the report. I shall cite in a moment the crucial recommendation.
I am glad that my noble friend put the matter as one of justice and of the machinery and responsibilities of your Lordships' House in the face of what I am bound to say is an act of bureaucratic invasion. Originally that invasion was thought to be justified on the grounds that the hybrid instruments procedure would cause delay. That argument has disappeared and was barely adverted to by the noble Earl when the matter was discussed on
598
recommitment. It has disappeared for two reasons. The first is that we are now concerned with the expedited hybrid instruments procedure. The second reason is that the noble Earl, no doubt rightly, claims to have a scheme which will cause no disadvantage to any individual. I took down his words; he repeated them on several occasions. If no hardship is caused to any individual, the Hybrid Instruments Committee will not report that there is any grievance for consideration and the matter will proceed in the ordinary way as an affirmative resolution order. So that argument has gone.
The only other argument put forward in the departmental memorandum and by the noble Earl when the matter was first discussed was that there were precedents. Again, that argument has disappeared because on investigation there is only one precedent for the use of the expedited procedure. Moreover, the fact that on several occasions—on all too many occasions—bureaucracy has tried to obviate the procedure of your Lordships' House, instituted for the protection of individual citizens, will make your Lordships more wary that on this occasion now that we have the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee there may be an attempt to establish a new precedent.
It is incumbent to call to mind why the hybrid instruments procedure—which is a procedure peculiar to your Lordships' House—was instituted. As is known to every Member of this House, there are Public Bills which are introduced by a Member of either House and which affect the public generally. There are Private Bills which are introduced by way of petitions from outside Parliament. They do not affect the public generally; they affect some particular interest which is, generally speaking, to aggrandise in some respect the interests of the petitioner who is seeking to promote the Bill and thereby to derogate from the interests of other persons who can petition against the Bill.
It came to light long ago that there were hybrid Bills in which a Public Bill affecting the public in general might, nevertheless, in some particular affect adversely an individual. Therefore, the hybrid Bill procedure was instituted. As regards the interests of the private individual, the Bill was considered as if it were a private Bill with the Minister as promoter and the individual adversely affected voicing his grievance.
That was most inconvenient to the Executive. Administrators like to lay down broad schemes in which individual interests may be a considerable nuisance. They are liable to be brushed aside in the interests of the general line. So what was discovered ingeniously in Whitehall was to evade the hybrid Bill procedure and instead to put the hybrid provisions into a statutory instrument under the Bill. That thereby evaded the procedure which examined the hybrid Bill. That drew the response from your Lordships' House to set up the Hybrid Instruments Committee at the beginning of every Session to examine hybrid instruments in the same way a hybrid Bill is considered. The matter was expressly considered by the Joint Select Committee to which I referred. It stated:
"Your Committee conclude that this procedure has for nearly 50 years provided valuable safeguards for private interests affected by delegated legislation and should be retained".

599
It said "should be retained", not swept away, as in this Bill, whenever it may be inconvenient to Whitehall. That is what is at stake here: an institution of your Lordships' House, exclusive to your Lordships' House, which is, for no good reason, being swept away.
I mentioned that the two arguments originally put forward seem now to have disappeared. Instead, at a late stage on recommittal, the noble Earl put forward a new argument: namely, that those individuals who might be adversely affected had trustees who could speak for them. There is not a word in the report of the Select Committee about the procedure being inappropriate where there are trustees. There was one circumstance in which the Select Committee held that it might be justifiable to dispense with the procedure. That was when there was an alternative method of inquiry. That is not the case with trustees. The committee knew all about trustees. Its chairman, the late Lord Brooke of Cumnor, had great experience of trusteeship and other fiduciary relationships and responsibilities. So that argument will not do either.
In the end, the matter comes down to what was said by my noble friend Lord Henderson. If the Government are right and no individual pensioner will, in any circumstances, be adversely affected, the Government lose absolutely nothing by not intruding on the normal procedures of your Lordships' House. The Hybrid Instruments Committee will report, in effect, that there is nothing to consider.
If, on the other hand, some individual pensioners can show a real grievance that demands reconsideration, then the hybrid instruments procedure is necessary. The Hybrid Instruments Committee will so report and the usual procedure then is for the Government to withdraw the order and lay a new order. I shall support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, like most sensible Members of your Lordships' House, I am hesitant about entering into any discussion on points of procedure with either the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, or the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who are acknowledged to be the two great experts on the subject in this House. Therefore, it is with some diffidence that I venture to put two points on the amendment.
The first is that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, indicated—I think rightly—that the subject matter of the amendment might well be considered by your Lordships' Procedure Committee. But, by introducing the amendment at this late stage, it becomes impossible to get the views of the Procedure Committee before your Lordships' House decides on the amendment. If, therefore, it had been thought wise to bring it forward, with the advice of our Procedure Committee, surely the amendment should have been put down in our own Committee stage a long time ago.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it was. I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. We have already obtained the views of our own Select Committee, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. There would really be little point on this Bill in seeking a further opinion from the Procedure Committee.
600
Moreover, it was always open to the Government to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee if it was thought that that was the appropriate course to take.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I see that the noble and learned Lord is in disagreement with his noble friend Lord Henderson on the reference to the Procedure Committee. So there are two views on the point among the supporters of the amendment. I therefore leave it, as being clearly a matter on which there is a division of view.
The other point is that it seems to me that the amendment seeks not only to apply changes to the procedure of your Lordships' House—which, of course, we are perfectly entitled to do—but also to intervene in the procedures of another place. I should have thought that that was quite unusual and likely to be rather critically received in another place if the amendment were put into the Bill. I should have thought that we should confine ourselves to our own procedures.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for one moment. The drafting by the Government of the original amendment forces one to put down the amendment in the form in which it has been proposed. It will not interfere with the procedures of another place. It does not have that procedure.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord would, however, agree that, on the face of it, the amendment appears to apply to the procedures of another place. I suggest that that is not very good from the point of view of the relationship between the Houses.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I quite agree. But the same applies to the Government. The noble Lord's criticism applies to the Government. In order to be able to amend the Government's Bill, one has to follow their amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, we are not discussing the Government's proposals; we are discussing the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is, unusually, mistaken. In fact, the boot is on the other foot. By putting into the Bill in another place something which seeks to prevent your Lordships' House fulfilling a standing order—namely, to deal with hybrid instruments in a particular way—it is another place which is interfering with the standing orders of your Lordships' House. That is a fact.
I do not wish to add much to what has been so ably said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, they are supreme in the House on matters of procedure and in defence of public and private liberty. It is a matter of liberty—the liberty of the individual to come before the court of Parliament to petition in those cases where his or her rights are being undermined, as they could be in certain circumstances.
There have been suggestions in the past—I merely reiterate something that I said at an earlier stage—that the trustees are quite satisfied with the situation as it is.

601
However, as I sought to show previously, the trustees do not represent all the pensioners. They may do their best to represent the views of the pensioners, but there are no pensioner representatives on the board of trustees. That may come as something of a surprise to noble Lords, but it is a fact.
Therefore, it could quite easily be that some groups of pensioners or some individual pensioners who do not feel themselves represented by the trustees in certain cases may feel the need to come before your Lordships' House on a hybrid instrument. Therefore it seems to me—and has seemed to me and my colleagues all the way through—that it is wrong to remove this safeguard for individual liberty. Only this House can do anything about it; only this House has the procedure capable of coping with that situation. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for moving this amendment so eloquently today. I hope that noble Lords on all sides will support him.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I wish to associate myself and my noble friends with the remarks that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I should like very briefly to add one or two points.
When the noble Earl the Minister indicated that the trustees have accepted this, I wonder—this was the point that he made at the very outset when we considered these matters in Committee—whether they have given further consideration to these issues; and who has explained the issues of hybridity to them? They are essentially matters which are highly germane to the procedures of this House, and uniquely so. I do not in any event see how the fiduciary duties of the trustees carrying out their duties as a generality for the pensioners will be adversely prejudiced by what we propose here. Indeed, I think it is a completely wrong connotation to put on the matter. There could well be individual pensioners who feel aggrieved, who feel that they may be prejudiced, and who would be without an effective remedy. I do not believe that what the Government have suggested represents an effective remedy for individuals.
The Government have raised two contradictory arguments: first, that the House will be inundated with petitions—they seem to have run away from that point now; secondly, that pensioners are so protected that we are not likely to be troubled. Those are somewhat contradictory arguments. I do not believe that the Minister can sustain what is a very serious breach of the procedures of this House; not for the sake of the territoriality of this House—that is not a matter of any great consequence—but because it is a matter of great consequence to individuals in the protection, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, put it, of their civil liberties. The Government should not lightly dispose of the very powerful arguments.of the Select Committee. It is not as though the Committee considered the issues in general; it considered this specific point. I do not accept from this
602
side that the hybrid procedures as suggested by the amendments are at all inappropriate. Indeed, they should be sustained.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, put it very well. It may be inconvenient for the Executive. But, in the nature of things, we are there to make life difficult for the Executive from time to time, whatever sort of government are in power; to make sure that basic rights and liberties are not removed. That is how we view the matter.
The Minister has rehearsed his arguments. We all have. But I hope that he will not have found that the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on this occasion were at all relevant. They were not. The noble Lord misunderstood the procedure that had been accepted in this House. We had discussed these matters. We were not at all late in introducing an amendment here. The amendment was occasioned by the fact that the Government had decided to remove the hybrid procedure. The noble Lord said that we should not interfere with the procedures of another place. We are not interfering with the procedures of another place. It is only this place which is concerned with this particular procedure. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I think that the noble Lord was wrong—uncharacteristically so; I have a great deal of admiration for the noble Lord, as he very well knows—and that the arguments were irrelevant on this occasion. I hope that we shall get a positive response from the Government.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened carefully again to the arguments advanced in support of these amendments. As has been said, we discussed these issues exhaustively in Committee. We even voted on them then. We discussed them again at recommitment on 12th October, and we are now covering the ground for the third time. For two important reasons, which will be familiar to your Lordships, the Government remain unconvinced that any form of hybrid instrument procedure is appropriate for orders under Schedule 10.
The first is the appropriateness of the procedure, and the second is the delay, and thus the uncertainty, that would result from applying even the expedited hybrid instrument procedure.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, prayed in aid the Brooke Report. So do I. Paragraph 72 of that report of July 1973 recognised that there are circumstances where to exclude the procedure would be justified. I put it to noble Lords that such an exclusion is genuinely justified in this case.
First of all, and to refer to paragraphs 70 and 71 of the Brooke Report, that committee concluded that the purpose of the criteria against which to judge the need for a Select Committee inquiry under Standing Order 216—which in the terms of Standing Order 216A also applies to an inquiry under the expedited procedure—is,
"to obviate further enquiry in the case of orders the content of which have already been the subject of an adequate local, departmental or other enquiry".
It seems to me that there will have been "adequate other enquiry". Under the provisions introduced by the Government at Committee stage on 12th October, the pension fund trustees are required to be consulted by the Secretary of State about the proposals contained in the

603
order in question. And the Secretary of State is obliged to lay before Parliament any comments they make on the order in question. My Lords, it seems to me that the trustees are best equipped and placed to ascertain and express the views of members and other beneficiaries.
In considering that, noble Lords should take into account the protection available to individual scheme members under pension law generally. That protection should be sufficient in that the relationship between the trustee and the individual pensioner is a stronger one than that of mere representation.
In further considering paragraphs 70 and 71 of the Brooke Report, it is worthwhile to observe that the committee commented that the criteria used to help determine whether further inquiry was necessary were,
"more appropriate to orders affecting interests in land than to other types of orders."
Inquiries about orders affecting land are often about reconciling public interests with those of private interests. But the orders that we are concerned with today are those safeguarding pension arrangements. The majority of the problems that are likely to arise relate to reconciling the private interests of those involved with the pension scheme, and I do not believe that inquiry by this House under the hybrid instrument procedure is the means to deal with that.
I repeat what I said on recommitment. If there is a petition from t group of beneficiaries, and they succeed, it will almost certainly be at the expense of other beneficiaries or employers.
The conclusion which we draw from all this is that the hybrid instruments procedure, and its expedited version which is derived from the Brooke Report, was not intended to cover the case of orders such as these. I believe that the hybrid instrument procedure is ill-suited to arty disputes which may arise between private interests.
I have already made clear that it is the fiduciary duty of trustees to represent the interests of all the contributors and beneficiaries of a pension scheme. This House would be providing a further route in addition to the courts for dissenters within a pension scheme to circumvent the trustees and their representations made on behalf of all contributors and beneficiaries.
I turn now to the question of delay. I would say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who has disappeared, that this is not a problem. We are still concerned at the uncertainty and worry that this delay could cause pensioners. As I said on 12th October, so far as we can establish, the expedited procedure appears only once in a statute—the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Act 1975—and has never been used. We are therefore wholly in the dark as to how it would work in practice. The amendment specifies a period for consideration of 40 days. But I have to return to what I said in committee on 12th October: would it stop there? Would 40 days be sufficient in practice? Is there not a chance that the committee would find that 40 days were indeed insufficient, because from that 40 days, 10 days are lost for petitioning, plus short adjournments, plus' a further unspecified period for representations and counter-representations, if they were to be allowed? The temptation would be to let the
604
procedure continue until the Government have heard the committee's report. As noble Lords well know, that is not an impossible outcome. I do not want to dwell overly on delay, but I want to warn the House what might happen in practice.
Therefore, while delay is an important factor, we believe that the use of the hybrid instrument procedure, even the expedited procedure proposed by this amendment, is the wrong process. Your Lordships' House maintains its right fully to examine legislation that appears to intervene between public and private interests. But I believe that will not usually be the case here. Moreover, we are providing an alternative means for representations. The BR pension trustees will report each and every time an order amending a scheme or transferring pension rights is I o be debated in the House. Your Lordships will therefore have an adequate opportunity to consider the views of those responsible for representing the interests of the pension schemes.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I cannot help but be disappointed by that reply. I had hoped that the noble Earl would take into consideration the seriousness of disapplying long-standing Standing Orders of the House. I submit that it is no way to approach the delicate relationships between the Government and the two Houses of Parliament by putting this matter in a Bill on a take it or leave it basis instead of putting it directly to the House through the proper channel, which is the Procedure Committee. Then there would have been due consideration at leisure instead of this shotgun approach.
I still hope that the noble Earl will take back the matter in view of the great trouble in which the Government find themselves over their presentation of the Bill. They could have got rid of one source of disagreement and discontent by meeting us on this essential House point, in which the House has expertise and the Government have not.
However it would not be profitable to argue this matter on the Floor of the House. It is not the proper place. I hope that the whole matter will go to the Procedure Committee, whatever results from this amendment, and that it will give due regard to the Government's view, having just heard it from the Minister. I merely say that there is no prospect of the accelerated procedure being obviated in the way that the Minister suggested. The 40 sitting days, if put into the Bill, represent a statutory limitation. They cannot be exceeded. That is a fear which is totally non-existent.
In conclusion, in view of the Minister's attitude I am forced to ask the opinion of the House. I very much regret it, but I feel that I have no alternative.
5.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 289ZD) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 123; Note Contents, 124.
[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 123 names, the Tellers for the Not-Contents 124 names. The Clerks recorded 124 and 124 names respectively.]
5.52 p.m.
Schedule 10 [Pensions]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 289ZE:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert ("who may include persons whose employment in the railway industry commences after the date of the passage of the Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 289ZE is designed to provide some form of pension provision for employees who join the railway industry after the date of the passage of the Bill. Your Lordships will be aware that in Committee I argued for a living industry-wide pension fund which all employees of the industry would be eligible to join.
As we know, the Government have chosen the path of a closed fund, designed to protect those already in employment at the date on which the Bill becomes law or people who have been in employment in the industry and have therefore built up some kind of entitlement. I am not happy about that. It will create a two-tier workforce with different and possibly better pension

607
provision for those employed prior to the passage of the Bill, with those who come later having different arrangements. It is bad as it creates a situation in which those with better protected entitlement could be vulnerable. In a market situation there may be a temptation for some private employers to undercut. Redundancies could therefore affect those with superior protected conditions and they could find themselves having to leave first.
It is clear from the correspondence that I and I am sure other noble Lords have received that existing employees feel that anxiety quite keenly. I know that we have already rehearsed these arguments. However, my amendment tackles the issue a little differently. As it stands, the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to establish new pension schemes and sets out precisely who would be eligible for such schemes. It makes it clear that new employees joining the railway industry after the passage of the Bill could be eligible. They do not have to join. There is no compulsion either on employers or employees. But the amendment writes into legislation some entitlement to consideration for new employees for pension purposes. It may encourage the development of schemes to look after their interests. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not believe that there is a great deal between the noble Baroness and the Government on this point. Perhaps I can refer the noble Baroness to the definition of "eligible persons" in paragraph 1(1) of the schedule which applies to the whole of the schedule including paragraph 2. It makes clear that the definition of "eligible persons" already covers future employees of the railway industry. The definition does not limit such persons to those in service at the passing of the Act and provides for any person to be a member provided that their membership would not prejudice Inland Revenue approval of the scheme.
I believe that covers what the noble Baroness is trying to do, unless I misunderstood her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation. I thought it necessary to table the amendment because there has been some confusion on the point among people who have been corresponding with us. As I indicated, there is a desire that there should not be a two-tier workforce in the future and that new employees should have some entitlement to provision. In view of what the noble Earl says, it would appear that to some extent that is covered in the new schedule. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 289ZF:
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("after consultation with") and insert ("with the consent of').
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am not certain whether or not Amendment No. 289ZF is necessary in view of the fact that we have already had a successful vote—from our point of view—on the matter of the consent of the trustees. When I framed the amendment, I was aware that the section that I was seeking to amend
608
included important issues like providing for persons who are not eligible to become members of the scheme; decisions which could deprive a member of the scheme of accrued rights; determining contracting out for the purposes of the Pension Schemes Act, and so forth.
In most pension schemes those would be matters entirely determined by the trustees. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State would have to consult the trustees; but if they are not happy he could presumably still go ahead with whatever he wanted to do. Since Is framed the amendment, we have had a vote on another area of the Bill in which there is a rather more sweeping requirement in relation to the consent of the trustee;. I shall be grateful if the Minister will give me his view on the matter, in view of the fact that we have just had a vote and my amendment may be unnecessary. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Division that took place altered the Bill in a way that the Government did not recommend the House to accept. The noble Baroness is probably right in what she says. I have not looked at the matter in detail but to a large extent what she is seeking to do has already been achieved.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 289ZG:
Page 5, line 9, after ("favourable") insert ("in every circumstance").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 289ZG is grouped together with Amendment No. 289ZH. I believe they are rather more substantial amendments. It is true that similar amendments were moved in Committee. At that time I explained that the intention was to write into the Bill what had been agreed in the memorandum of understanding, which provides that anyone retiring from the railway industry will do so on terms no less favourable than hitherto. I gave an example of a situation in which, without that firm guarantee, it would be possible for an individual retiring from the industry in the future to do so on a less advantageous basis than hitherto. I gave as an example the case of someone entitled to a lump sum on retirement. I should like to spell out a little more clearly what could happen in such a case because I have since received further information in that regard.
As I understand it, the BR pension scheme provides accruals on the basis of one-sixtieth per annum for pension and one-fortieth per annum for a separate lump sum, each of which is based on final salary. Under the proposed arrangements the pension will still be based on final salary for all service. However, a member having two or more railway employers will find that his lump sum has been adversely affected. Instead of the lump sum being based on all eligible service it will be divided into periods of service with the various different employers. Only the lump sum for the last period of service will be based on final pay at retirement, The lump sum for all previous periods of service will be

609
based on the service and the final salary at the point of terminating that service, and then index-linked to retirement date.
Members' retirement lump sums will not therefore fully reflect their final salary and service, first, because wages move ahead of prices by approximately 2 per cent. per annum and, secondly, because the value of increased wages and salaries derived from promotion with subsequent employers will not be fully reflected. This is one instance where individuals could land up being worse off than before privatisation. The addition of the words in my amendment "in every circumstance" might meet this situation and give a further guarantee to prospective pensioners that their rights have been fully protected.
I recall that during the discussion in Committee a number of us found that the Minister's responses on the "no less favourable" point were rather unsatisfactory. We therefore said that we would come back to the matter on Report. I hope that this time round, with slightly different wording, the Minister will accept the validity of what we are saying and will be prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the effort that she has made to meet the concerns that I raised at an earlier stage. I regret to have to say that I find this wording almost even worse than the previous wording. There is not much between us in trying to protect the pension rights for the pensioners and to make them no less favourable. The point that concerns me on this amendment is the wording "in every circumstance". The purpose seems to be to ensure that every single benefit or entitlement which makes up the relevant protected pension rights of protected persons is protected. If that is what the noble Baroness has in mind I am not persuaded that such provision would be in the interests of all protected persons. I would put it to her that the fairer way is to look at the overall package of benefits and entitlements and to protect them in the round. That is what we have sought to do. Indeed, if protected persons were to gain an advantage because of their particular mix of benefits or pension entitlements, it might have repercussions for contribution rates.
I think that the amendment would not allow flexibility on such matters except for the flexibility to top up and to pay more. I wonder whether on reconsideration that is not quite the intention that the noble Baroness wanted and will not be to the benefit of the pensioner in the way that she thought it might.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not certain that I understand what the Minister is getting at. It seems to me that an individual in the circumstances that I have described, comparing himself perhaps with someone who retired earlier and had retired as a BR employee with a lifetime's work for BR, coming to retirement after several different employments within
610
the railway industry, would feel that a guarantee that there would be no less favourable conditions had not been applied to him.
The Minister says that it is not appropriate or correct that individuals should have every single benefit regarded as protected. I am certain that individuals in this situation would regard a no less favourable guarantee as requiring that they would have the benefits that they were expecting prior to privatisation protected in every aspect. If that is not the situation I do not think that they will be very happy in the future.
However, I do not see myself making much progress with the amendment at this stage. I shall look in Hansard tomorrow at what the Minister has said. I know that a number of people have written to me, particularly the people who gave me the example that I quoted to your Lordships. They still feel rather unhappy about the nature of the guarantee that they are receiving. Nevertheless, I shall not press the matter at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 289ZH and 289ZJ not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 289ZK:
Page 6, line 14, at end insert:
("() where—

(a) an occupational pension scheme established under paragraph 2 above or amended under paragraph 3 above provides pension benefits exclusively for pensioners and deferred pensioners who are protected persons; and

(b) the scheme's actuary determines on a valuation of the scheme that the assets of the scheme exceed its liabilities by an amount ("the surplus"), the Secretary of State shall by order provide that no less than 40% of that surplus unless otherwise agreed with the Trustees shall be available for application by the Trustees of the Scheme for the benefit of the pensioners and deferred pensioners, in such manner as the Trustees may in their discretion decide.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with a matter which we discussed at Committee stage, although we did not make a great deal of progress with it. It relates to how the surplus is divided. As we discussed earlier on the basis of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the issue of the surplus has been a very difficult one for pensioners and prospective pensioners. For all kinds of reasons, not least the Maxwell scandal, people feel very touchy about surpluses. The BR pensioners are no exception.
That is not surprising because I understand that in the BR scheme it has been customary for there to be discretionary payments as well as RPI indexation paid from the surplus. It has to be understood that the pensions we are talking about—this has been mentioned in previous discussions—are often not very large ones. Basic pay in BR is not all that great, but a lot of overtime is worked. Pensions, when they are paid, relate to the basic salary or basic wage. In the past surpluses have been used in this way. Moreover, as we know—the noble Earl himself has made reference to it—there is in the memorandum of understanding an acceptance that 40 per cent. of the surplus could be set aside to be utilised for a type of share out after privatisation.
When we moved this amendment last time round there was some objection to the wording. It was felt that

611
"no less than 40 per cent." was far too rigid. This time round there has been an alteration to the wording. The amendment states:
"no less than 40c of that surplus unless otherwise agreed with the Trustees".
In other words, it would be a matter for the trustees. If less surplus is available, or they think that the surplus should be otherwise utilised, they are not bound to utilise the 40 per cent. referred to in the amendment.
We have received strong representations from representatives of the workforce—the unions and so on. They are very concerned about writing into the Bill the requirement that the surplus can be used and that the same kind of considerations in regard to the share out of the surplus should apply after privatisation as have occurred hitherto. In view of the statements that have been made this afternoon, and in view of the fact that the noble Earl has referred to this matter when responding to earlier amendments, I hope that this time he will accept that it would be sensible and an instance of the Government's desire to ensure that people are satisfied and feel secure in their pension entitlement and that he will agree that this amendment can be written onto the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this amendment seeks to make available, subject to the discretion of the trustees, not less than 40 per cent. of any surplus for the benefit of pensioners and deferred pensioners. It raises difficulties of definition and application which, as I will explain, confirm my view that the Government's commitment to such pensioners is best dealt with, as we originally proposed, through giving effect to the memorandum of understanding in the scheme rules.
So it is not a question of principle, but how we achieve the end result. The noble Baroness and I have our eyes fixed on that point. But there is a difference between the way in which the noble Baroness wishes to reach that point and how I wish to do so.
The noble Baroness asks that not less than 40 per cent. of the surplus determined by the scheme's actuary should, unless otherwise agreed with the trustees, be available for the benefit of pensioners and deferred pensioners in such manner as the trustees in their discretion decide. But that raises exactly the same problem as I put to the noble Baroness at an earlier stage. On what basis would the scheme's actuary determine the surplus? It would appear to be the total surplus by which assets of the scheme exceed liabilities. But would such an amount take into account future index-linking, as is normal? Would it be reduced to take account of any anticipated additional call on resources (or a slump in investment return) before the next revaluation? Are the trustees indeed obliged to consider distribution if, for example, the costs of doing so would be disproportionate or when not all beneficiaries could benefit because of tax requirements?
For those reasons—and there are many other questions which I could pose on the problem—I remain unconvinced that it is right to attempt to circumscribe in primary legislation the means of dealing with such complex matters. Uncertainties in the definition could
612
present difficulties for all concerned, not least the trustees in the exercise of their fiduciary duties. That is no doubt why there are, I believe, no precedents.
I put it to the House that it would he better for the rules of the scheme to make provision for the distribution of the surplus. This House will have sight of those rules when the order establishing a scheme under paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 or an order amending a scheme under paragraph 3 are put before it. That is the appropriate time for such matters to be considered. It is also the appropriate way in which to seek to achieve what we have set out to do, as defined in the memorandum of understanding.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, again it is not my intention to press this issue to a Division tonight. But I still do not understand why the Minister has difficulty over how to define a surplus. We are thinking in terms of a surplus defined in normal actuarial terms where the actuary makes his report and the trustees—as they would do in a private scheme—make their decisions utilising the discretion which they normally have. I do not see the difficulty to which the noble Earl referred.
The noble Earl has not changed his view that this is not a matter appropriate for legislation. He has said that the House will have sight of the rules when I suppose that we can look at the matter again. In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that we have already had several votes this evening, I do not intend to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 289ZL:
Page 7, line 7, after ("broken") insert ("ex cepr. where the person's employment remains within the railway industry, when paragraph (9) below shall apply").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the part of the schedule which this amendment seeks to amend deals with protected persons who therefore have an entitlement to pension provision. However, paragraph 6(8) (a) makes provision for orders in that respect to cease to have effect if the continuity of the period of employment is broken. However, the person concerned may have worked for a series of different employers within the railway industry. Had there been no privatisation, he probably would have continued all his life with the one employer; namely, BR. But now his career may take him, while still remaining in the industry, into the employment of a series of different employers. The purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that such a person would be no worse off than if privatisation had not taken place. His periods of employment with different employers in the industry will count as if he had worked just for the one employer and his continuity of employment would be completely preserved. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that that is reasonable and that he will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there will be two cases where a pension scheme member at the time of Royal Assent subsequently moves between jobs within the railway industry: where the undertaking in which he works is transferred to another owner, and where he decides to move of his own accord, perhaps in order to advance his career.
In the first type of case, it is our intention that the employee should continue to be covered by the relevant protection order made under paragraph 6. Subparagraph (9) of that paragraph will enable us to prescribe such circumstances as ones which shall be disregarded when continuity of employment is broken.
In the second sort of case, I believe that it is reasonable that the protection order should cease to apply. The person concerned will be moving voluntarily, taking into account all of the benefits and disadvantages of his present and future jobs. Pensions will be one aspect that he will consider. His future employer may offer a better deal, or he may not. If he does not, no doubt there will be compensating advantages in the employment terms which he is offering. But the decision is for the individual employee. We should not oblige him to continue to retain his status as a protected person when he may prefer to have a different combination of employee benefits from his future employer. We meet the noble Baroness on 'one point. As regards the person who leaves voluntarily, we have a difference of view. We have had that in the past and it remains today.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments as regards the first category of person. However, I still maintain that if someone moves around voluntarily but remains within the same industry, it is reasonable to regard him as not having broken service so that all his service within the industry counts towards ensuring that his pension provision is protected. I am sorry that we have been unable to persuade the Minister that that is a reasonable view. I am certain that we shall not be able so to persuade him at this late stage of the Bill.
I can only hope that people who want to move around within the industry in future are well advised that they may very well be losing out and damaging their pension prospects if they do so. That is a great pity and does not augur well for future industrial relations within the industry generally. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 289A and 289AA not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 289B:
Page 18, line 25, at end insert:
("(IA) Secretary of State shall not lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B unless he has first obtained the written agreement of those trustees that it is appropriate in the circumstances for the order to be made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 289C, 289D, 289E and 289F not moved.]
Clause 131 [Concessionary travel for railway staff etc.]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 290:
Page 133, line 21, at end insert:
("() The conditions referred to in subsection (1) above shall include a requirement upon the licence holder to provide free travel and travel at concessionary rates to employees of transport undertakings within the United Kingdom and abroad who enjoyed such facilities under agreements made with the Board at the date upon which this Act was passed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group deal with questions relating to staff travel facilities. I am aware that Amendment No. 294, which has been tabled by the Minister, also covers this area and perhaps it would be convenient if I discuss not only Amendments Nos. 290 to 293, but also Amendments Nos. 294 and 294A, the latter standing also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I shall deal with my Amendments Nos. 290 to 293 in numerical order.
Amendment No. 290 is designed to establish that railway employees will not suffer any reduction in their free and privilege travel facilities by reason of the enactment of this Bill. Reciprocal travel facilities exist between railway administrations in this country and overseas. It is important to safeguard those facilities, which have been agreed over a considerable period of time. It is possible, for example, for BR employees to travel on London Underground at privilege rates, and vice versa. There is also heavily discounted travel on British Rail for employees of overseas railway administrations. Quite a large number of such travellers visit the United Kingdom—in excess of 57,000 in 1991—and they bring money into this country. Therefore, the loss of such reciprocal facilities would represent a blow to our tourist industry for no very good reason.
Amendment No. 291 seeks to deal with the real anxiety among BR employees and their families that even if privilege travel facilities continue to be offered by railway employers, their actual use could be restricted by train operators to off-peak travel. That could have severe implications for railway workers who use their privilege facilities for travel to work. There could also be hardship for the families of railway workers who use their free or privilege tickets for travel to holiday destinations if such facilities were prejudiced. There is no point in being able to travel to work only before 7 o'clock in the morning, for example, and in being able to return home only after 8 o'clock in the evening. There is no point in being able to visit Cornwall only between November and February. It is true that BR already imposes a limited number of restrictions on the use of free and privilege tickets, but the anxiety is that those restrictions could well grow after privatisation.
It is fair to add that the Government have endeavoured to give reassurance on this issue. I should like to incorporate into the record the contents of a letter that was sent to my honourable friend Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody on 17th September by the Minister in another place. It states:
"As I have explained in earlier letters, after privatisation franchised passenger rail service operators will be obliged, through the terms of the franchise contracts that they will have with the Franchising Director, to provide staff concessionary

615
travel on their services. This will be subject to similar restrictions on times of travel, etc., that British Rail presently apply. As you may know, currently BR revises the availability of staff concessionary travel twice-yearly in the light of commercial demand. It would be wrong to state that there will be no changes to travel concessions as exact details will have to be arranged by the Franchising Director who might, for example, wish to raise the documentation to be had in future by the beneficiaries. However, it will be important that the entitlement remains broadly as usable, to all intent and purpose as it is now. In future, the Franchising Director will co-ordinate restrictions applied by the franchisees in order to satisfy himself that the requirements he makes in franchise contracts about the provision of staff concessionary travel are not eroded".
I am glad that that was a helpful reply, but we are seeking to give such assurances statutory force.
Amendment No. 292 deals with the implications of TUPE for travel facilities. On 25th March, Mr. Steve Norris, the Minister for Transport in London, said that TUPE would apply to staff travel facilities, stating:
"It is beyond argument that those rights are earned in the course of employment. As hon. Members have pointed out, clause 82 makes it clear that TUPE applies. Employees therefore carry those rights with them. Those rights enjoy exactly the same protection as other rights afforded by TUPE".—[Official Report,Commons, Standing Committee B, 25/3/93; col. 992.]
That was a significant move forward in an industry in which employers had argued for decades that travel facilities were a concession granted through generosity on their part rather than a condition of service enjoyed by right. Unfortunately, doubts have recently emerged concerning the validity of the Minister's remarks. The experience of negotiations surrounding the privatisation of London Transport Advertising is an example of that.
Employers have made certain difficulties as a result of making certain observations with which I shall not weary the House at this stage. It may be that the Government have tabled Amendment No. 294 as a result of what the employers have said, but the Minister will explain that later. If I may anticipate a point relating to Amendment No. 294, the trouble with that amendment is that it is couched in terms of obligations on the train operator to accept privilege tickets rather than on the railway employer to provide them. My amendment dispels any doubts concerning employers' obligations.
Amendment No. 293 complements Amendment No. 292 by ensuring that train operators will be under an obligation to accept the privilege tickets of railway employees, pensioners and dependants. It also complements Amendment No. 291, forbidding the imposition of restrictions on the use of those facilities.
I should like to colour what I have said by referring to what has happened on previous occasions in relation to the privatisations of British Rail's subsidiary companies which has given rise to the sort of anxieties that I have expressed. British Rail had told employees who were to be transferred that the free and reduced-rate travel facilities that they enjoyed would be safeguarded following transfer to the private sector. It tried to do that by writing into the sale agreement a requirement that the new company should purchase those facilities from BR for a per capita sum each year. Travel over other railway systems—for example, continental railways—would also have to be provided and purchased directly by the new owners. It was made clear that any general improvements to travel facilities granted to BR
616
employees in the future would not apply to ex-BR employees of the new company—neither would new entrants to employment in the privatised organisation receive any travel facility concessions at all.
In practice, that meant that BR transferred the cost and responsibility for providing those facilities to the new owners, and BR now maintains that it has no obligations towards its former staff. Many of those staff have long railway service. The obligation is reneged upon when things go wrong.
A number of situations have arisen, post-privatisation, which have meant that former BR employees have lost their entitlement to such facilities or have found that it has been reduced. British Rail has told the trade unions that entitlements are frozen at the time of sale and in all recent privatisations has refused to alter the terms of the sale agreement beyond that. Employees had personal expectations of improved facilities, such as more free passes and first-class: travel based on completion of service or on promotion. That is now being denied to employees who are transferred and their personal entitlement is frozen at its level at the time of sale. It seems as though BR has reneged on its word and on the obligation that it had sought to imply.
That situation is very unfair to the staff. Moreover, it is illogical because single employees will continue to receive an extension of the facilities which they enjoy in their own right to their spouses in the event of their marrying after privatisation. The same applies to any dependent children born to that marriage.
Other conditions of service—for example, entitlement to annual leave—are unaffected by the transfer of the contract of employment. Staff can look forward to extra days' leave after a qualifying period of service. A further irony is that any improved personal entitlement to travel facilities which arise from service or promotion does not cost the private company any extra in buying the facilities from BR, because that is done by means of a standard per capita amount, irrespective of the grade of the employee.
A further discrepancy is that in certain earlier privatisations—for example Sealink, and British Transport Advertising to which I alluded earlier—a progressive entitlement applies, but not for the staff of ABB Transportation (previously BREL) or Travellers Fare. BRB has made it clear that staff transferred as a result of impending privatisations of Red Star Parcels, BR Savings Company, and Meldon Quarry are riot to have personal progressive entitlements.
Those are serious matters which do not put BR in a good light when dealing with such matters. I could quote other examples; for example, Parkfield Castings, where the parent company, Parkfield Group, went into liquidation. That is a small organisation which was sold separately from British Rail Engineering. Redundant and retired staff lost all their BR facilities because there was no organisation to continue the payments to BRB. Unfortunately, BRB declined any responsibility for such employees, even though many had already qualified for facilities in retirement on their past. BR service alone. Of course compensation receivedl through the liquidator was minimal.
There is the case of Wightlink Services. The passenger steamers on the Solent were owned and operated by Sealink as a wholly owned subsidiary of BRB. Sealink was privatised in 1984; but in 1990 the parent company, Sea Containers Limited, sold its cross-Channel and Irish Sea services to the Stena Line. Sea Containers Limited, however, retained the ports of Newhaven and Heysham, and, in particular, the Isle of Wight services owned by the Sea Containers subsidiary, Passro Limited, operating under the name of Wightlink. Agreements between BR and Sealink on the reciprocal exchange of travel facilities passed to Stena Line, but BRB and Passro became involved in a dispute which resulted in Passro refusing to honour BRB's travel facilities documentation on its Wightlink services. Subsequently, Passro agreed to facilities for retired BR staff, but the present position means that active BR staff are still denied leisure travel at free or concessionary rates on the Wightlink steamers.
There is then the question of BREL. BREL unilaterally altered redundancy arrangements and intimated in November 1990 that the BREL redundancy arrangements no longer contained provision for redundant staff to retain travel facilities; that is to say, staff who retire in the normal course continue to receive facilities. That ruling by BREL has meant that many long-serving staff who already have the age and service qualifications on BR service even before the sale of the company have been denied facilities as a result of being forced out of employment just a few years before normal retirement.
In the light of those examples, we are not convinced that relying on TUPE is enough. Something should be done within the Bill to make watertight the assurances that have been received. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said on Amendments Nos. 290 to 293. In due course, I should like to comment upon the Government amendment (Amendment No. 294) which solves many of the noble Lord's anxieties.
Let me begin by making one thing absolutely clear. The Government stand by the commitment given in the White Paper in July 1992, and repeated by my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in the other place on 25th May, 1993, that staff concessionary travel arrangements for those who are entitled to them will be safeguarded. The Government understand the principles which are being advanced in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and do not in general disagree; but we believe that there are better ways of dealing with them.
Some explanation will be helpful. First, it is one of the terms of employment of BR staff that they and their eligible dependants are entitled to travel on BR's services at free and concessionary rates. That entitlement is an established right and is part of the employment conditions of BR's employees. The entitlement will therefore transfer with them if and when they are transferred to a new employer. The terms
618
of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 which implement the EC acquired rights directive in the UK, require that. However, it will be open for new employers to negotiate with their ex-BR employees any changes thereafter, if they wish.
The entitlement survives retirement, and in certain cases, also redundancy. Retired staff and their eligible dependants therefore retain the entitlement as a condition of the employment contract they enjoyed before retirement. Amendment No. 292 is therefore unnecessary. TUPE already ensures that terms and conditions of employment will transfer from one employer to the next where employees are transferred as part of an undertaking. Therefore new employers inheriting staff from BR will be under an obligation to provide the same entitlement to travel facilities, unless of course they reach some other agreement with employees.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he explain how, in those other instances of BR subsidiaries being sold, those TUPE obligations appear to have been breached or ignored? That is the anxiety that I have been trying to convey.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord describe his anxieties. I hope that I shall be able to allay them as I continue to answer his amendments and speak to the Government amendment. The entitlement as at the date of subsequent transfer will pass to successor companies, and so on.
Amendment No. 292 would require new or successor employers to continue to provide the entitlement, as it stood at the time of passing of the Act, for their employees who had been transferred to them from BR. It would remove the ability of new employers to negotiate with their employees about the entitlement. The House will not agree that that is right. That cannot be right. The details of terms and conditions of employment are something between employees and their employers and it is not for legislation such as this to seek to determine that certain travel facilities must be part of a remuneration package. In one past case of privatisation of a part of BR, for example, the employees who were transferred agreed to replace part of their concessionary travel entitlement with private medical insurance. We should retain that flexibility. I do not know whether that answers one of the noble Lord's concerns. It shows that another side of the argument can be put in each and every case.
As I say, TUPE provides the necessary protection for employees. It remains only for provision to be made to ensure that future passenger service operators will be obliged to allow all those entitled to travel at free or concessionary rates on their services. This is where I turn to the government Amendment No. 294.
At the moment, BR provides travel on its services at free and reduced rates for its staff and for those of other bodies with whom BR has contracts or reciprocal arrangements. For the future, the Franchising Director will take over BR's obligations to arrange the provision of such travel to those entitled. He will contract with BR

619
and franchisees to provide travel at free and concessionary rate; to all those entitled. In return, he will undertake to arrange the provision of such concessionary travel for their own eligible employees on the services of others. He will inherit by transfer scheme the rights and obligations under BR's existing concessionary travel agreements with other bodies, whether on a repayment or reciprocal basis. And he will be able to promote and enter into similar new agreements with other employers who need to provide the entitlement to their employees.
Amendment No. 294 therefore introduces a new clause to replace Clause 131. It retains the previous provision that passenger licence conditions can include conditions in respect of the provision of staff concessionary travel. But it adds further powers to ensure that the franchising director is able to carry out the functions that I have just described. Subsections (2) to (14) of the new Clause 131 are intended to remove any doubt about the franchising director's powers to include the appropriate conditions in franchise agreements.
In addition, because he may need to enter into completely new agreements with employers and other service providers, the new clause ensures that he is able to promote staff travel facilities generally. The clause further provides that any sums required by the franchising director in making these arrangements will be provided by Parliament and that receipts will be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Accordingly, we envisage that franchisees will be obliged, by means of a condition of their franchise, to provide travel at free or concessionary rates to those presently entitled to them. The franchising director will be able to enforce the terms of that contract.
I believe that the government amendment which I have now explained to your Lordships covers many anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I speak now to Amendment No. 294A, which is an amendment to the government amendment to which the noble Earl has spoken. In doing so, I am in no way questioning the Government's good faith and the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for having reinforced what has been said before both in the White Paper and by Mr. Norris in another place.
However, we must ask how the arrangements will be safeguarded and what the franchising director will do. What does the promise of safeguarding mean? My amendment simply deals with those points and builds on the government amendment, which will undoubtedly be welcome.
The amendment is designed to ensure that the franchising director acts in such a way that the arrangements into which he enters are no less favourable to individuals than the existing BR arrangements. They may not be precisely the same. One should not build that degree of rigidity into a Bill of this kind. As I understand it, the current arrangements allow a considerable amount of flexibility by BR. But the travel concessions would not be safeguarded if the franchising director had the option, in performing his functions, to seek a
620
reduction of the facilities overall. That is where we enter into the realms of the "may" and "shall" argument. The Government always say that "may" means "shall" until we actually come to it, and then it means "may".
It is possible that a franchisee may go to the franchising director arguing that he should be relieved of some or all of his obligations in certain economic circumstances. If the franchising director were able to agree—I am not saying that he would do so—then staff travel would not have been safeguarded in a way in which a reasonable person might consider the meaning of that word. To a certain extent, that takes us hack to some of our earlier discussions in terms of the meaning of words.
Safeguarding does not and should not mean that nothing can ever change. My amendment allows for that. Provided that proper negotiations take place between employer and employee, they can together negotiate changes. Therefore, I am not trying to lock this completely into concrete.
The Government may well say that because the Secretary of State will give the franchising director instructions, then what I have suggested will not happen. But what exactly will those instructions say? There is nothing about staff travel in the draft objectives which were issued to a committee in another place earlier this year. It may be that the instructions would say the same as that which is in my amendment. But even if they do, I ask the Minister how binding those instructions will be and for how long they will last. If they are to be different, perhaps we can be told how different they will be.
The Minister may say that all the details have not yet been worked out. In that case, I submit that the sooner there is a statutory duty on the face of the Bill, the better, so as to set out the broad skeleton of what is required by your Lordships.
It may be said that such arrangements would be extremely complicated and that there would need to be agreements with other railway operators as well as with the franchisees. It may be difficult for the franchising director to decide what arrangements might be less favourable. But if the Government really want travel concessions to be safeguarded, safeguarding must mean "no less favourable". Therefore, the franchising director must decide what arrangements will deliver that safeguard.
If there is difficulty as regards the franchising director achieving that safeguard, perhaps the Minister will tell us today what that difficulty is so that the concessionaires will know the position.
Will the Minister confirm that the statement in the Notes on Clauses on the original or previous Clause 122 is correct that:
"Conditions in licences will only be needed where a non-franchised passenger operator is to provide services which BR provide at the moment"?
Will there be payments by the franchising director to the franchisees for providing free or reduced-rate travel?
I ask all those questions because they are clearly relevant to safeguarding and to my amendment. We

621
need to be satisfied that the franchising director will be forced to make arrangements which are no less favourable.
The amendment may be totally inadequate, but again we have had very little time to consider government amendments in the period since they were set down. Therefore it is difficult to know precisely how to amend those amendments. I am advised by people who are intimately involved in this matter of concessions, and the questions which I have asked and the propositions which I have put forward stem largely from their anxieties. Anything which the Government can do this afternoon to allay those anxieties would be of the greatest possible interest. I do not propose to press my amendment this evening, but I believe that it is an opportunity for the Government to allay some of the anxieties which still exist among people working for British Rail at present.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for some of the amendments in this group, in particular the amendment tabled by my noble friend as modified by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, which takes the matter further. I welcome also the restated commitment, although I hope that we may hear it repeated a little more strongly, to the White Paper undertaking which my noble friend made in his opening remarks on this group of amendments.
I do not overlook what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out; namely, that international and long-standing commitments are involved in this regard. However, I am concerned, in particular, with the staff of British Rail. We must do all that we can to make sure that staff are reassured that the existing facilities will be safeguarded and preserved.
We are all aware that on 1st April, the existing staff of British Rail will face what can only be called a big bang. Many things will change. I listed them when speaking to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton which concerned British Rail bidding for franchises. I was delighted to see that my noble friend Lord Goschen quoted them, although he did not attribute them to me, when discussing one amendment last Wednesday. There will be a big bang and some of the existing staff will go eventually to franchisees and the MEBO, and they will have all manner of incentives. Others will go to Railtrack where such incentives are not immediately apparent because we know that Railtrack will remain in the public sector for no short time. Others will remain with residuary BR. Yet others will become staff of the franchising director or the regulator. Others will leave. Whatever they do, we must do all that we can to motivate them and to preserve their morale. That word has not been used so far in the discussions on this group of amendments.
Whatever one believes about the Bill before the House, one must remember that, although we make policy in Parliament, at the end of the day it is for the staff on the ground to carry it out after 1st April. Therefore, I believe that a properly motivated staff is essential if all the changes of my "big bang", are to have
622
any chance of succeeding. That is why I believe that the preservation of morale is vitally important. I also believe that preservation of existing facilities for present staff and their dependants is vitally important.
As I have argued, it seems to me that staff must be motivated. I believe that travel facilities are a part of that motivation. The situation is not unique to railways; indeed, many people go to work for ferry companies and, especially, for airlines because of the travel facilities which they perceive, like pensions, wage or salary, as part of the total remuneration package. I believe that that may be only a small part of the remuneration package, but we must do all we can to ensure that existing staff—that is, the staff who will have to do the work after 1st April—are reassured about their ongoing privileges.
Many is the time that I have declared an interest in the British Rail context in the House. Those noble Lords who, to coin a phrase, "read behind the lines", will realise that I obviously know many BR people at all levels. It is their concern about travel privileges which I am seeking to articulate tonight. I very much hope that we shall find a way of reassuring them in that respect; that is, a way that is readily understandable. As I said, I heard and enjoyed what my noble friend said in his opening remarks. However, I hope that he will be able to go further in his concluding speech.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, say a word about the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, which seeks to amend my amendment, Amendment No. 294. Its purpose is to impose an express duty on the franchising director to perform his functions under the new Clause 131 in such a way as to secure that staff concessionary travel arrangements for those entitled at the passing of the Bill continue on a no less favourable basis, unless a person and his employer agree otherwise. An express duty is not needed because the franchising director will already inherit liabilities with respect to the provision of staff travel.
I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that what are needed are powers. That is what the new clause supplies. The amendment presents real difficulties because, as the noble Lord knows, the precise details of the concessions vary from time to time. In our view, such a duty on the franchising director would impose an unreasonable strait-jacket and put the beneficiary in a position of being able to dictate terms. We believe, rather, that TUPE can be relied upon to safeguard the employee's interests, while still allowing a degree of flexibility—as now—to recognise operational considerations.
I turn now to a further point in respect of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. He did not mention it by name, but covered it in a different way. I refer to open access operators. Such operators will generally be operating services which were not previously provided by British Rail. Travel facilities will not be available on such new services—BR did not previously provide the service and, therefore, BR employees or those of other parties contracted to BR could have no reasonable expectation of using them.

623
However, there may be cases where open access operators will be providing services which were previously operated by BR. In those cases, it is only right that such services should be available to persons using their staff travel concessions. Therefore, because the services concerned will not be provided under franchise contracts, it will be necessary to include staff travel facility conditions in operating licences in respect of those services only. That was the original intention of Clause 131, and is the purpose of subsection (1) of the new Clause 131. The subsection is deliberately permissive because such conditions will not be required in all licences.
I hope that that explanation will go a long way towards meeting the concern of my noble friend Lord Mountevans. He was concerned that all staff should be aware of the true situation, especially regarding whether or not the continuation of their travel concessions would be guaranteed. I believe that it is guaranteed by TUPE. Indeed, TUPE does protect the employee. I also think that my noble friend will be reassured by what I said about open access operators. It will give the added bit of protection and the added boost to morale that he seeks for those services which are presently provided by BR but which will be operated by an open access operator and will include other services.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall certainly consider most carefully what he said. I am a little concerned to note that TUPE has not protected employees in the instances that I cited. Therefore, I think that we are put on inquiry about its effectiveness. The Minister adverted to only one area of previous privatisations, where he said that some flexibility had been required and that that would not have been possible if the amendments that I moved today had been put in place.
However, despite the fact that he puts such emphasis on TUPE, it is very clear that it had no major effect on protecting the interests of employees in such respects. I believe that we need to look carefully at what the Minister said. Perhaps he will find it possible between now and Third Reading to reflect on my remarks on the specific instances to which I referred, and let me have his comments. That would enable us to be in a position, if necessary, to raise the issue further at the next stage. Of course, that means that I am putting the Minister under some pressure, because such a reply would be needed by the end of this week to enable us to do so—-or, at least, by Monday morning at the latest. Even then, I appreciate that it would be quite difficult.
I do not wish to cast any doubt upon the Minister's bona fides in the matter. I hope that he will accept that fact. I am merely trying to explore what happened in the past in order to see how it relates to the present as regards the permissive approach adopted by the Government in the new clause. I also welcome the opportunity to take advice during the next few days on the effectiveness of the new clause. It is possible that my anxieties will be allayed in that way.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, is right to emphasise the importance of staff morale. Whatever happens to the Bill, staff morale is a matter of
624
the highest significance in running the railways in terms of safety, of reliability and of all the duties that railways have to undertake. However, over all, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that, effectively, duties are rather better than powers in such instances. That argument has connotations elsewhere. Nonetheless, I agree with the noble Lord's approach.
We have had a most useful debate. Indeed, we have ventilated many issues which are not party political but which are germane to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans; namely, the morale of the staff. We must not do anything to prejudice such morale. Having regard to what has been said during the debate, and while thanking the noble Lords who participated in it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 291 to 293 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 294:
Leave out Clause 131 and insert the following new clause:
Concessionary travel for railway staff etc
(" .—(1) The conditions that may be included in a passenger licence include conditions in respect of arrangements for the provision of staff concessionary travel.
(2) The Franchising Director may promote the provision of staff concessionary travel.
(3) The Franchising Director may enter into agreements or other arrangements concerning the provision of staff concessionary travel.
(4) Franchise agreements may include conditions with respect to the provision of staff concessionary travel.
(5) Agreements or arrangements under section 47 or 48 above may include provisions with respect to the provision of staff concessionary travel.
(6) The Franchising Director may perform any of his functions—

(a) under or by virtue of subsections (2) to (5) above, or

(b) under any agreements or arrangements entered into, or conditions or provisions included, by virtue of those subsections,

by entering into agreements or arrangements under which other persons (in this subsection referred to as "sub-contractors") are to perform the function in question; and subsections (2) and (3) of section 47 above shall apply in relation to agreements or arrangements under this subsection as they apply in relation to agreements or arrangements under subsection (I) of that sect ion, but taking references to sub-contractors, within the meaning of that subsection, as references to sub-contractors, within the meaning of this subsection.
(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, the agreements or arrangements that may be made under that subsection include agreements or arrangements under which the Franchising Director undertakes to secure the provision of staff concessionary travel (as well as agreements or arrangements under which some other person undertakes to provide, or to secure the provision of, staff concessionary travel).
(8) Subsection (7) above applies, with the necessary modifications, in relation to—

(a) the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) above, and

(b) the provisions mentioned in subsection (5) above, as it applies in relation to the agreements and arrangements mentioned in subsection (3) above.

(9) This section is without prejudice to the generality of—

(a) the conditions which may be included in licences, or

(b) the provision which may be made in franchise agreements or in agreements or other arrangements under section 47 or 48 above,

whether or not with respect to free or concessionary travel; and subsections (4) and (5) above are without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above.
(10) Any sums required by the Franchising Director for making payments under or by virtue of this section shall be paid by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament.
(11) Any sums received by the Franchising Director under or by virtue of this section shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
(12) Any reference in this section to the provision of "staff concessionary travel" is a reference to the provision of free travel, or travel at concessionary rates, for, or for some class or description of, persons, or dependants of persons, who are or have at any time been employed by—

a person carrying on a business of providing railway services; or

a person providing welfare or health care services to persons employed by a person falling within paragraph (a) above.

(13) In the application of subsection (12) above in relation to any such agreement, arrangements, conditions or provisions as are mentioned in this section, it is immaterial whether or not the provision of free travel, or travel at concessionary rates, mentioned in that subsection extends, in the case of the agreement, arrangements, conditions or provisions in question, only to persons falling within that subsection or to such persons and others; and the reference in subsection (2) above to promoting the provision of staff concessionary travel shall be construed accordingly.
(14) Expressions used in this section and in Part I above have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Part.").
[Amendment No. 294A not moved.]
Clause 132 [Grants and subsidies]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 295:
Page 134, line 28, leave out ("of a general nature").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will be pleased to know that we now move on to somewhat easier territory. The above is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 296:
Page 134, line 48, leave out (" The obligations imposed by any directions under subsection (6) above") and insert ("Without prejudice to any right which the Secretary of State or the Franchising Director may have under this Act to bring civil proceedings in respect of any contravention or apprehended contravention of any directions under subsection (6) above, the obligations imposed by any such directions").
Clause 133 [Payments by the Secretary of State in respect of track access charges in connection with railway goods services]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 297:
Page 135, line 32, leave out ("a") and insert ("any permission or").
Clause 134 [Grants and other payments towards facilities for public passenger transport to and from airports, harbours etc.]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 298:
Page 135, line 37, at end insert ("shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Where a relevant local authority proposes to make payments under subsection (2) of this section in respect of any facilities, that authority may enter into an agreement with the Franchising Director under which the Franchising Director undertakes to exercise franchising functions of his, or to exercise such functions in a particular manner, in relation to the use of the facilities in question.
(2B) In subsection (2A) of this section, the following expressions have the following meanings respectively, that is to say
"the Franchising Director" means the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising;
"franchising functions", in relation to the Franchising Director, has the same meaning as it has in relation to him in section 50 of the Railways Act 1993; "relevant local authority" means—

(a) a non-metropolitan county or district council in England or in Wales;

(b) a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London; or

(c) a regional or islands council in Scotland; and any reference to a relevant local authority shall be taken to include a reference to any two or more such authorities acting jointly."

(3) That section").
7 p.m.
Clause 139 [Regulations and orders]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 299:
Page 139, line 1, leave out from beginning to first ("different") in line 2 and insert:
("() Any power under this Act to make regulations, and any power of the Secretary of State under this Act to make an order, may be exercised—

(a) in relation to all cases to which the power extends, or in relation to those cases subject to specified exceptions, or in relation to any specified cases or classes or descriptions of case;

(b) so as to make, as respects the cases in relation to which it is exercised").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another technical amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 140 [Directions]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 300:
Page 139, line 14, at end insert:
("and a Passenger Transport Executive shall, in particular, comply with and give effect to any direction under section (Re-negotiation of section 20(2) agreements as a result of this Act) or section 31(14) above, notwithstanding any duty imposed upon the Executive by section 9A or 20 of the Transport Act 1968.
("() Without prejudice to any right which any person may have to bring civil proceedings in respect of any contravention or apprehended contravention of any direction given under this Act, compliance with any such direction shall be enforceable by civil proceedings, by the person by whom the direction was given, for an injunction or interdict or for any other appropriate relief.").
Clause 144 [Service of documents]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 301:
Page 140, line 39, leave out ("registered") and insert ("constituted under the law of a country or territory").
Clause 145 [Crown application]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 302 and 303:
Page 141, line 14, after (" 16") insert ("(Access agreements: contracts requiring the approval of the Regulator), (Access agreements: contracts for the use, on behalf of the Franchising Director, of installations comprised in a network)and 17").
Page 141, leave out line 15.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 300 to 303 have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 304:
Page 141, line 18, leave out (", 86,") and insert ("to").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 304 I wish, with the leave of the House, to speak to Amendments Nos. 305, 308 and 309. These amendments concern the Crown application. They are essentially technical and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 305:
Page 141, line 18, at end insert:
("() subject to, and in accordance with, section 48 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, section 116 (other than subsection (5)) so far as affecting or relating to provisions of, or regulations under, Part I of that Act which bind the Crown;").
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 306 to 309:
Page 141, line 21, at end insert:
("() section (Statutory authority as a defence to actions in nuisance etc.);").
Page 141, line 23, at end insert:
("() Schedule (Access agreements: applications for access contracts);")
Page 141, leave out line 24 and insert:
("(j) Schedule 5, to the extent that it applies, amends or modifies the operation of provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 which bind the Crown so far as affecting or relating to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 434 of that Act;
(k) Schedule 6;
(1) Schedule 7;
(m) the amendments and repeals made by Schedules 11 and 13, to the extent that the enactments to which they relate bind the Crown.").
Page 141, line 32, at end insert:
("(4) No person with whom the Franchising Director enters into an agreement or arrangement pursuant to section 47 above shall be regarded, by virtue of that agreement or arrangement, as a servant or agent of the Crown, or as having any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.").
The noble Earl said: These amendments have been spoken to. I beg to move.
Clause 146 [General interpretation]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 310 to 314:
Page 141, leave out lines 35 to 39 and insert:
(""body corporate" has the meaning given by section 740 of the Companies Act 1985;
"company" means any body corporate;").
Page 142, leave out lines 4 and 5.
Page 142, line 20, leave out from (""securities"") to end of line 22 and insert ("has the meaning given by section 142 of the Financial Services Act 1986").
Page 142, line 45, leave out subsection (4).
Page 143, line 7, at end insert:
("S.I. 1981/1794
() Nothing in this Act affects the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, in their application in relation to the transfer of an undertaking, or part of an undertaking, within the meaning of those Regulations.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.315:
Page 185, line 6, at end insert:
("() Section 45 of that Act (duty of the Board periodically to review its organisation) shall cease to have effect.
() Section 48 of that Act (which confers power on the Boards and the new authorities to undertake activities including manufacture for sale) shall cease to have effect in relation to the Board.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has; already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendments Nos. 316 and 317:
Page 185, line 17, at end insert:
(3A) In section 55 of that Act (amendments concerning Transport Consultative Committees under section 56 of the Transport Act 1962), in subsection (1) (services and facilities in relation to which Consultative Committees' duties are to apply)—

(a) for the words "the Consultative Committees established under that section" there shall be substituted the words "the Central Committee and the consultative committees, within the meaning of that section,", and

(b) the following shall be omitted, namely——

(i) in paragraph (a)., the words from "or provided" onwards,

(ii) paragraph (b),

(iii) paragraphs (i) and (iii), and

(iv) the words from "and for the purposes" onwards, and subsections (2), (3) and (4) (duties of Consultative Committees in relation to certain services and facilities provided in Scotland, and provision as to office accommodation for, defrayment of expenditure incurred by, and certain payments to members of, Consultative Committees) shall cease to have effect.").

Page 185, line 41, at end insert:
("The Railways Act 1974
In the Railways Act 1974, section 9 (which provides for an alternative basis of remuneration for chairmen of Consultative Committees set up under section 56 of the Transport Act 1962) shall cease to have effect.").
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 318 and 319:
Page 186, line 14, at beginning insert:
In section 11 of the Competition Act 1980, in subsection (3) (public bodies and other persons who may be the subject of a reference to the Monopolies Commission under that section), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(aa) any publicly owned railway company, within the meaning of the Railways Act 1993, which supplies network services or station services, within the meaning of Part I of that Act; or".
(1A)").
Page 186, line 14, leave out ("the Competition Act 1980") and insert ("that Act").
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendments Nos. 320 to 322:
Page 188, line 23, after ("(4),") insert ("there shall be omitted
(a) the words "Subject to subsection (6) below,"; and (b)")
Page 188, line 25, leave out ("shall be omitted.").
Page 188, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert:
("(5) Subsection (6) (which precludes the committee from considering charges for services and questions relating to the discontinuance or reduction of railway services) shall be omitted.").
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 323 and 324:
Page 191, line 2, at end insert:
("The Insolvency Act 1986
In section 413 of the Insolvency Act 1986, at the end of subsection (2) (which imposes a requirement to consult with the Insolvency Rules Committee, except in the case of certain provisions there specified) there shall be added the words "or by any of sections 57 to 63 of, or Schedule 5 or 6 to, the Railways Act 1993."").
Page 191, line 35, at end insert:
("The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991
In section 10 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (application of the Fair Trading Act 1973 etc in relation to persons authorised by virtue of that Act to charge tolls for the use of roads), in subsection (2), paragraph (b) (which provides that, for certain purposes, section 51(3) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 is to have effect as if the Secretary of State for Transport were among the Ministers listed in that provision, and which is superseded by the amendment made by section 64(2) of this Act), and the word "and" immediately preceding it, shall cease to have effect.").
Schedule 12 [Transitional provisions]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 325:
Page 195, line 38, at end insert:
("Saving for section 41 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987
—(1) Section 41 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 (which applies certain statutory functions of consumer committees to complaints about international railway passenger services as they apply in relation to services and facilities provided by the Board and its subsidiaries) shall continue to have effect as if section 76(1) of this Act and paragraphs 6(3A) (b) and 17(3) to (8) and (10) of Schedule 11 to this Act had not been enacted.
(2) In the application of subsection (5) of section 40 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 by virtue of section 41 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, for the words in that subsection from "those services or facilities are within the competence of the Committee" onwards there shall be substituted the words "those services or facilities are provided within the area which is for the time being "the Greater London area" for the purposes of section 2 of the Railways Act 1993."").
Schedule 13 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 326 and 327:
Page 196, line 47, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 92(1), in the definition of "subsidiary", the words "(taking references in that section to a company as being references to any body corporate)".").

Page 196, line 53, column 3, leave out ("45(6) (b) and (c)") and insert ("45").
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendments Nos. 328 and 329:
Page 196, line 55, column 3, at end insert ("In section 55, in subsection (1), in paragraph (a), the words from "or provided" onwards, paragraph (b), paragraphs (i) and (iii) and the words from "and for the purposes" onwards, and subsections (2) to (4).").
Page 197, line 36, column 3, at end insert ("Section 9.").
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 330:
Page 197, line 44, column 3, leave out ("and 2") and insert ("2 and 4").
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 331:
Page 198, line 4, column 3, leave out ("in subsection (6), paragraph (b);") and insert ("subsection (6);").
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 332:
Page 198, line 20, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 33(11).").
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 333:
Page 198, line 20, column 3, at beginning insert ("In section 41, in subsection (3) (b), the words "and section 41(3) and (5) to (7)", and subsection (5).").
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 334:
Page 198, line 22, at end insert:

("1991 c. 22.

The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.

In section 10(2), para—graph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.").

Clause 148 [Power to make consequential modifications in other Acts, etc.]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 335:
Page 143, line 23, after ("Act") insert (", or of any instrument made under or by virtue of this Act,").
Clause 149 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 336:
Page 144, line 18, leave out ("and (6)") and insert ("(6) and (6A)").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment I wish to thank all your Lordships who have taken part in this Report stage of the Bill. I also wish to thank all the officials and clerks for their help. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I echo what the Minister has just said. It has been an interesting Report stage and the Minister has acquitted himself well despite the criticisms I have made of his department. I have tried to divorce him from those criticisms, stern though they have been from time to time. He and his noble friends have been extremely courteous to the House. They have listened intently to what has been said and they have been forthcoming in some of their responses, although not in all of them by any manner of means. I wish to thank my noble friends on this side of the House who have participated in the debates, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
Report received.
House adjourned at six minutes past seven o'clock.

  NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE AND GREENWICH UNIVERSITY
  NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE AND GREENWICH UNIVERSITY
  ETHIOPIA: ASSISTANCE
  ETHIOPIA: ASSISTANCE
  RUSSIAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS: MONITORING
  RUSSIAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS: MONITORING
  GREECE AND TURKEY: NATO WEAPONS TRANSFER PROGRAMME
  GREECE AND TURKEY: NATO WEAPONS TRANSFER PROGRAMME
  GREECE AND TURKEY: WEAPONS BUILD-UP
  GREECE AND TURKEY: WEAPONS BUILD-UP
  EC BODIES' MEETINGS: PUBLIC ACCESS
  EC BODIES' MEETINGS: PUBLIC ACCESS
  EC MEASURES: THE QUALIFIED MAJORITY SYSTEM AND THE UK
  EC MEASURES: THE QUALIFIED MAJORITY SYSTEM AND THE UK
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, LUXEMBOURG, 18TH AND 19Th OCTOBER
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, LUXEMBOURG, 18TH AND 19Th OCTOBER
  CROATIA: FRESH MEAT EXPORTS TO EC
  CROATIA: FRESH MEAT EXPORTS TO EC
  CEREALS AND TOBACCO: EC SUBSIDIES
  CEREALS AND TOBACCO: EC SUBSIDIES
  DEER IN VELVET: TRANSPORT CONDITIONS SUPERVISION
  DEER IN VELVET: TRANSPORT CONDITIONS SUPERVISION
  WANDSWORTH: ROADWORKS
  WANDSWORTH: ROADWORKS
  CIVIL SERVANTS: AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF
  CIVIL SERVANTS: AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF
  WATER CHARGES
  WATER CHARGES