Sitting of 11 May 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords].
  Considered; Bill, as amended, to be read the Third time.
  COMMONS REGISTRATION (EAST SUSSEX) BILL Lords.
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Subsidence (Insurance)
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from British Coal regarding the refusal of insurance companies to insure properties previously affected by coal mining subsidence.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): British Coal has confirmed that from time to time it has been approached by individuals saying that they are unable to get insurance because their property has suffered subsidence damage. In such cases, British Coal has, in general, offered to contact the insurance company to spell out the extent of its remedial obligations in respect of any subsidence damage arising from coal mining.
    Mr. Illsley: I thank the Minister for that reply. He and I debated the matter on the Adjournment recently, but since that time I have been made aware of two further cases in which insurance cover has been refused—one in respect of subsidence damage that occurred 30 years ago and the other where the damage needed repairing by means of decoration only. Will he maintain pressure on the insurance companies, through the Association of British Insurers, to ensure that they are aware that such properties are usually sound properties and a good insurable risk?
    Mr. Eggar: I will certainly undertake to continue to do that. Of, course, as we know, almost all those properties are in any case covered by the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991.
    Mr. David Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently had a constituency case in which insurance was not so much refused as charged at a much higher rate than it otherwise should have been? In normal circumstances,
    302
    my constituent would have been able to get a much reduced rate. Is my hon. Friend further aware that there is therefore considerable concern that the coal mines in my constituency, which have been there for some years, have caused a problem in that regard?
    Mr. Eggar: I understand the problem, and I think it fair to say that, when examined in detail, most cases arise from a misunderstanding by the insurance companies of the provisions of the 1991 Act. If my hon. Friend lets me have details, I will see what I can do to pursue the case.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: But why is not the Minister getting tough on insurance companies that run seminars about exploiting the loopholes and avoid meeting the legitimate claims of customers?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman loves going for the cheap headline. He would have done both his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and me a bit more courtesy if he had been present to listen to the detailed Adjournment debate on the subject.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on measures he plans to assist small businesses.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy. The Government help small firms by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative and administrative burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate and are currently establishing a network of Business Links to provide high-quality business support across the country.
    Mr. Streeter: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that many businesses in the west country are well served by the low interest rates, low inflation and freedom from the job-destroying social chapter that the Government have brought about? Does he agree that what many small businesses now want is the early introduction of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill to blast away much of the red tape that is ruining their lives? Is not it a great pity that Opposition Members continue to delay and oppose that measure?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I entirely agree with him. The House debated the Bill yesterday, and I hope that it will complete its stages tomorrow.
    Mrs. Mahon: One traditional small business is the British pub. What will the Minister do to stop what is happening to it? What will he do to stop cheap imports, investigate the leases that are doing so much damage and prevent rents from going through the roof? Pubs are an endangered species, and the Minister is responsible.
    Mr. McLoughlin: In fact, the brewing industry has invested a tremendous amount in new pubs—as the hon. Lady would see if she visited a few.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Industry as a whole is immensely grateful to the Government for the steps that they have taken in respect of Business Links and other measures. More export credit is now available to smaller

    303
    businesses, for instance. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, of the press release issued today by the Engineering Employers Federation? He certainly should be, as one of his colleagues from the Department was present for the federation's breakfast-time briefing.
    According to the federation, industry believes that moves such as a further improvement in export credit and 100 per cent. capital allowances would benefit industry immensely, giving it the fillip that it needs so desperately in order to contribute further to the improvement of the British economy.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about Business Links. He has been fortunate, in that one of the first Business Links in the country serves his own constituency. I am glad that he recognises the important role that such links will play in providing for the competitiveness of the United Kingdom. It is, I think, no secret that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade intends to publish a White Paper on competitiveness in the near future.
    Mr. Fatchett: The Forum of Private Business estimates that small firms are owed £50,000 million in late payments, and every survey of small firms suggests that late payment is their key problem. When will the Government act, and introduce a statutory right to interest on late payment? Why is theirs the only major political party that does not support such a measure? Is it simply because they are so in hock to large companies and other contributors to their funds that they cannot help small business?
    Mr. McLoughlin: That is absolute rubbish. We issued a consultation paper last November; the hon. Gentleman just needs to wait a little while.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in so far as small manufacturing businesses are capital intensive —in contrast to small service industries—the abolition of capital gains tax would have a particularly beneficial effect on the unquoted manufacturing sector? As a Minister in the sponsoring Department, and as one who cares passionately about these matters, will my hon. Friend ask the Department's economists to investigate? There is now a growing suspicion that the abolition of capital gains tax could provide the biggest job creation programme that the country has seen in 20 years.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am always willing to consider the points that he makes, but he will appreciate that his question is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will probably be one of the first of many Budget submissions to my right hon. and learned Friend.

    Gas Industry
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the Director General of Ofgas to discuss consumer protection.
    Mr. Eggar: On Monday.
    Mr. Lloyd: Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with Ofgas the British Gas meter replacement programme, about which I have asked him before? Specifically, will he confirm that Ofgas has now agreed that British Gas can complete the programme by 1996, a year later than originally planned? Can he justify an
    304
    arrangement that will mean consumers paying more for gas that they do not actually receive, and the loss of jobs in the meter manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern. I have not had a chance to discuss the matter with the director general, but, prompted by the hon. Gentleman's question, I will be sure to do so.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that gas consumers will be protected from any real increase in gas prices, at least until 1997?
    Mr. Eggar: The price cap that currently applies to British Gas—RPI minus 4—will continue to apply. My hon. Friend will have had a chance to study the consultation document, and will know of the ways in which we are trying to deal with the various transitional issues surrounding, in particular, the elderly and disabled.
    Mr. O'Neill: After the general election in 1997 or 1998, will the Minister still be in a position to guarantee that there will be no losers? He will be aware that the regulator, the managing director of Alliance Gas and the director of the Gas Consumers Council have all said that there will be losers as a consequence of what was announced this week. Can the Minister guarantee that they are wrong, and that no one will have to pay higher gas prices—particularly the lower paid and disadvantaged, who, as everyone agrees, will be most vulnerable?
    Mr. Eggar: I share the hon. Gentleman's certainty that I shall be on the Government Benches in 1998 and will be the Minister for Energy at that time. The Opposition are scaremongering. In 1985, during a debate on the privatisation of British Gas, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said:
    "There is no evidence that the Bill"—
    the privatisation Bill—
    "will improve efficiency, provide a better service or produce cheaper gas."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c.780.]
    The Opposition were wrong then and they are wrong now. They were scaremongering then and they are scaremongering now. They should be more responsible.
    Sir Peter Emery: It is right that the consultative document should work to help the Government to obtain greater competition in the industry, but will my hon. Friend deal with the fears that have been whipped up by the Liberal Democrats, particularly in the west country, where they are saying that the west country will have appreciably higher gas prices than the rest of the country? I should like to hear my hon. Friend's view on that.
    Mr. Eggar: There is a lot of scaremongering by the Liberal Democrats as well as by the Labour party on this issue. It is true that, on certain assumptions, there may be an increase of about 17p per week for the average consumer in the far south-west as a result of transportation charges. However, competitors of British Gas believe that they will be able to reduce prices to the average gas consumer by about 70p a week. In other words, rather than being worse off, the average south-west gas consumer, will be considerably better off as a result of competition.

    Post Office
    Ms Hoey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the Post Office more commercial freedom.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): This is one of the issues being considered in the Post Office review.
    Ms Hoey: It is about time that we had the results of that review. Why is the President of the Board of Trade conducting such a vendetta against the Post Office? Why are not the Government prepared to give it the commercial freedom that would make it an even more profitable business than it already is? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about the recent Post Office survey in which 77 per cent. of those asked wanted to keep letters, counters and parcels together as one business and wanted that business to be given commercial freedom?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady will have read the Select Committee report, as have I, and will have welcomed the fact that it unanimously advocates change. The Government are deeply aware of the significance and importance of the Post Office and we wish to give the Select Committee report and a wide range of other representations proper consideration. As soon as we have concluded our review, we will make our results public.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Post Office is begging for privatisation? Will he explain the advantages that privatisation would bring to small and rural post offices?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend and the House will know that 19,000 of the 20,000 post offices in this country are already in the private sector, so they have considerable opportunities to trade commercially. They are interested in acquiring further opportunities and the Government are considering that. All these matters would be better considered when the Government respond to the review that we are now conducting.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Did the President of the Board of Trade see Monday's report to the effect that the chief executive of the Post Office has had talks about privatisation with Warburg in the City? As there is no Bill before the House dealing with the privatisation of the Post Office and as there has not even been a statement to the House about the Government's intentions for the Post Office, who gave the Post Office authority to have talks about privatisation? Was it the right hon. Gentleman? [Interruption.] The House will note the contempt in which its procedures are held by Conservative Members. As no statement has been made about the Post Office review in the two years since it was set up, will the President take some time off from his canvassing work among his Back Benchers to tell the rest of us whether the Post Office will remain where it belongs, providing a public service in the public sector?
    Mr. Heseltine: There we have it—we are begged by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) to let the Post Office be more commercial and urged by a Labour-chaired Select Committee unanimous report to make it more commercial, yet the official spokesman for the Labour party will not
    306
    even let the chief executive use the word. That is the best example of socialist suppression and totalitarian attitudes that I have ever heard.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Did my right hon. Friend note that the all-party Select Committee report unanimously observed that if the Post Office is to meet increasing overseas competition, it is essential that it should have commercial freedom? The report left open the question whether privatisation or any other method should be used to achieve that objective.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend played a distinguished part in the Select Committees's unanimous report, which I have read and to which we shall respond. The open-minded approach of hon. Members of all political parties to that report contrasts with the clam-like attitude of the spokesman for the Opposition.

    Nuclear Energy Review
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the terms of reference for the nuclear energy review.
    Mr. Eggar: I shall announce the terms of reference in due course.
    Mr. Rooker: When the Minister reverses the lethargy in his Department on this issue, will he be able to tell us whether the terms of the review will allow for the early closure of the out-of-date Magnox stations? As one who is not anti-nuclear in principle, may I ask whether the terms of the review rule in or rule out the construction of any new nuclear power stations?
    Mr. Eggar: The review will seek to address such issues. I have taken careful note of the hon. Gentleman's stance on the matter.
    Mr. King: Will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the nuclear power review takes full account of the remarkable improvements in performance achieved by our nuclear industry, not least the world-ranking performance of Hinkley Point advanced gas-cooled reactor?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree that Nuclear Electric has improved output and reduced costs considerably in the past couple of years. A major tribute should be paid to the senior management and work force of Nuclear Electric, who are committed to making a success of nuclear power in this country.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that the review was started in secrecy because of the links between the nuclear industry and the military and because of the Government's determination that the industry should be shrouded in secrecy?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman probably asks me more questions on this issue than all the other hon. Members put together. He is presumably busy trying to prove conspiracy theories of that sort, but he is wrong.
    Mr. Beith: Will the review take into account the full costs of insurance of nuclear power stations and the full costs of decommissioning? Will it ensure that those are not offset by subsidies or other devices that make it unclear whether nuclear power is viable?
    Mr. Eggar: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's desire to ensure clarity in costing, which I am sure will be one of the matters with which the review will want to deal.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Does my hon. Friend recall that at the beginning of last year, at the time of the coal review, he said that the nuclear review would take place in 1993? We are nearly halfway through 1994, yet we are still waiting for its terms of reference. Does he realise that the nuclear industry, its employees, plant and technology depend heavily on the review?
    Mr. Eggar: I understand my hon. Friend's impatience and I assure him that I will bear those factors in mind.

    Arms Sales (Indonesia)
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding the sale of Hawk trainer jets to Indonesia by British Aerospace.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): I have received a number of written representations from Members of Parliament and others about the sale of Hawk trainers to Indonesia.
    Mr. Heppell: Does the Minister agree that, with 200,000 people reported dead in East Timor and with John Pilger reporting that Hawk jets are being used for aggression against East Timor, there is now a case for stopping any licensing of arms sales to Indonesia?
    Mr. Needham: I have never seen a report from any reputable organisation which suggested a figure of 200,000. The maximum number that I saw in the United Nations report from the 1970s was some 80,000. I am not going to argue with the hon. Gentleman about the horrendous numbers of people killed in the 1970s, but if he believes that the problems of East Timor—which are, in any event, entirely different now from what they were 20 years ago—will be solved by an arms embargo, he is entirely mistaken. Furthermore, I note that as there are no aerospace companies or aerospace employees in his constituency—
    Mr. Heppell: There are.
    Mr. Needham: If there are, it is even worse. I note that he is only too happy to salve his conscience by putting at risk the jobs of people in the aerospace industry.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hawk trainer is the finest of its kind anywhere in the world, which is why it was bought by the United States and many other countries? If the Hawk were denied to Indonesia, would not the Indonesians buy an inferior aircraft and would not that mean that we would be exporting jobs to whatever country supplied that inferior aircraft?
    Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is right about the Hawk, but it is not only a question of selling the Hawk to Indonesia. The points made by people such as the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) put at risk sales of the Hawk not only to Indonesia but to other countries. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) would also be prepared to put at risk the most successful training aircraft and the jobs that go with it in this country.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister will appreciate the fact that this is a major humanitarian issue, whether the number of casualties was 80,000 or 200,000. He will be aware that Hawk aircraft have been observed on bombing runs in East Timor in most years since 1984. What assurances did he seek, before giving export licences, that the 24 Hawks that he approved last year would not be used in the same way? Can he guarantee that we can believe those assurances?
    Mr. Needham: I do not know which Hawk aircraft the hon. Gentleman is referring to when he mentions bombing in East Timor since 1984; nor do I know where he got that information from. He will be aware—it has been stated in the House many times—that we have received specific assurances. I repeat my question: is he saying that he is not prepared to support the sale of these aircraft to Indonesia? What criteria would he use for the sale of such aeroplanes to India? He says that he wants an industrial strategy, but, at the same time, he seeks to undermine the most advanced aerospace industry in western Europe.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is not it absolutely typical that the Opposition constantly ask the Government to do more for companies such as British Aerospace but still complain when they do? Is not that absolute hypocrisy and double standards?
    Mr. Needham: Yes.

    Shipbuilding
    Mr. Byers: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist the shipbuilding industry.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We provide the industry with assistance from the shipbuilding intervention fund and the home credit guarantee scheme.
    Mr. Byers: Is the Minister aware that it is exactly a year ago this week that the Swan Hunter shipyard on Tyneside went into receivership and that, since then, more than 1,300 jobs have been lost? Does he accept that, if shipbuilding is to survive on Tyneside, we need a new owner for Swan Hunter to take the yard out of receivership? Can he say today that the Government would welcome a new owner for Swan Hunter and can he give an assurance that the Government would give all possible assistance to a new owner to secure new shipbuilding orders on Tyneside, especially in the export market?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to confirm something that I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would know. The Government have been seeking for the whole year to assist the receiver to obtain a buyer for the yard and we seek to assist the yard now, as we have done consistently, to obtain further export orders.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main hope for shipbuilding areas may well come from attracting new companies such as Nissan rather than propping up high-cost, inefficient industries as happened in the case of British Shipbuilders? How much Government money was poured into British Shipbuilders? Was not it a great deal more than was given to Nissan to create long-term jobs in Sunderland?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that in public ownership British Shipbuilders was not

    309
    competitive, and absorbed a great deal of the taxpayers' money, without using it effectively. He is right to draw attention to the benefits of inward investment, which the Government have strongly encouraged, but which the Labour party has at times positively discouraged. I return to what I said earlier to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers): we wish to see a new owner for Swan Hunter, and we shall continue to assist the receiver to find one.
    Mrs. Ewing: When considering the overall pattern of the shipbuilding industry within the United Kingdom, does the Minister attach any weight to the effect on our offshore construction yards? We should look at what is happening in Italy, with the building of the Spirit of Columbus. That is extremely important for our offshore construction yards. Is it possible for the Government to consider how we can balance the needs of the shipbuilding industry with those of the offshore oil and gas industries? That is an important question in terms of the money contributed by the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Lady that the Minister for Energy and I keep in close contact about the possibilities of offshore construction for the oil industry, as well as for shipbuilding orders. If the hon. Lady has a specific point to make—about the Spirit of Columbus, for example—perhaps she would like to write to me about it.

    Post Office
    Mr. Hicks: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to introduce any changes in the administration and operation of the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heseltine: That is being considered as part of the Post Office review.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge, however, that in rural areas especially there is genuine apprehension about the possible introduction of fundamental changes that could adversely affect not only the sub-post office network but the Royal Mail delivery service, and in particular the uniform standard charge? Is not it possible for the Department to come to some agreement with the Treasury to lift the existing Treasury constraints to give the Post Office the commercial freedom that we all acknowledge that it needs as we approach the 21st century, so that we do not have to go through with the suggested fundamental reorganisation?
    Mr. Heseltine: I know of my hon. Friend's concern, but he will also know of the Select Committee's unanimous report that there has to be change. However, I can assure him that the universality of delivery and the universal charge for the services of the Royal Mail are not under review. They are sacrosanct. I have made that clear before, and I have pleasure in repeating it now.
    Mr. Hain: Why does not the President of the Board of Trade listen to the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and give the Post Office commercial freedom now? He could do that right away. All the delay is allowing European competitors to come into the British market and clean up, which is against the interests of the Post Office. Why does not he allow the Post Office to invest its own money, instead of being restricted by arcane Treasury rules? Why does not he allow it to enter joint ventures with
    310
    other European operators to conquer the European mail market? Surely his option of privatising the Post Office, whether in BP style or otherwise, will threaten the interests not only of the Post Office but of rural deliveries and post offices, so that all his hon. Friends will be swept aside at the next general election.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must know that the principal foreign-owned organisation that is entering this country is the Dutch post office, and that the Dutch Government are about to float shares in the Dutch post office in order to ensure its freedom to operate in the commercial market. I will not anticipate the outcome of our review, but the hon. Gentleman and the whole House will understand that the concept of major state organisations trading with taxpayers' money, and therefore being able to undermine and undercut the private sector, represents an extremely unattractive prospect for the jobs of all the people who work in the companies that could be affected, many of whom live in the constituencies of Labour Members.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abiding characteristic of the organisations in the long list of companies that we privatised during the excellent and successful privatisation programme under the previous Prime Minister, was that in public ownership they were by and large unsuccessful and loss-making? In the present case that is not so, and as the Post Office is already so successful and profitable—no commercial criticism of its functioning has been made by anybody outside—it will not need the upheaval that my right hon. Friend has in mind, provided that it can be freed from Treasury bondage.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend must not anticipate any changes that the Government may wish to decide on. However, I cannot agree that we privatised only unsuccessful loss-making organisations. For example, we privatised British Telecommunications, which was a profitable organisation. We privatised the electricity companies and the gas companies. What has happened as a result of the 1980s privatisation programme is that major nationalised industries serving a domestic market from a monopoly base have become competitive world-class companies, trading across the face of the earth to the greater benefit of the British economy.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the President realise that this summer it will be 330 years since Britain was last invaded by the Dutch? The Government may well be proposing to celebrate that event by taking a stiff gin—and who could blame them—but Admiral van Tromp's successors, as the President has recognised, are back, in the form of the Dutch post office. What plans does he have for our defence?
    Mr. Heseltine: It surprises me not one whit that the hon. Member draws for his philosophy and his practical proposals on the deep archives of history. My concern is tomorrow, not yesterday.

    Regional Assistance, North-east
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the expected benefits to the north-east from regional assistance.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Regional selective assistance is expected to continue to contribute to job creation and the safeguarding of jobs in the north-east.
    Mr. Devlin: Quite aside from the fact that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) is entirely wrong in his history, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that his view of the future is also wrong, inasmuch as regional selective assistance is now creating up to 16,000 jobs in the northern region and 175 companies currently have an offer of regional enterprise grant? Is he aware that one of the 40 companies that have successfully obtained that assistance from his Department is today expanding its number of employees from two to five? Surely that shows the seed corn of future prosperity in the region and in the United Kingdom generally?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to confirm the figure that my hon. Friend quoted. It is a remarkable tribute to the success of the regional selective assistance programme that there are 16,000 jobs in the north-east in current RSA projects. It is not irrelevant to the question asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that, since 1979, 36,000 jobs in the north-east have been associated with inward investment. I suppose that if they were in Dutch companies, the hon. Gentleman would not have allowed them in.
    Mr. Milburn: Is not the Minister aware that the level of industrial assistance to the north-east has almost halved since 1979 under his Government? How on earth does he expect the potential of regions such as the north or towns such as Darlington, to be realised when his Government are actively disinvesting from them? When will he realise that spreading economic prosperity to all the regions and all the nations of the United Kingdom relies on active Government?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The most important factors for the economic success of the north-east, and of the whole country, are having a sensible tax climate and sensible industrial relations and avoiding the social chapter—all of which the Labour party would not do. May I perhaps remind the hon. Gentleman that £1.5 billion of Government money in the form of regional aid has gone into the north-east since 1979?

    Non-wage Employment Costs
    Mr. Paice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the average non-wage employment costs for manufacturers in Britain, France and Germany.
    Mr. Heseltine: In 1992, non-wage costs as a proportion of total labour costs were 29 per cent. in France, 23 per cent. in Germany and 17 per cent. in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Paice: Those figures demonstrate beyond all shadow of a doubt the competitive position in which Britain finds herself. Does it not show that it is not the actual wages that matter in competitiveness, but the costs loaded on to employers by Governments, over which employers have no control? Is not that why German and French employers know that Britain was right to resist the social chapter and that their Governments were wrong, and is not that why Britain, alone in Europe, is experiencing economic growth on all fronts?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The certain message of the campaign that the country is about to see waged is that the Labour party and the Liberal party, with their proposals for adding social costs to our industrial costs, are hell-bent on the destruction of jobs in this country.
    Mr. Purchase: Is not it the case, however, that, while our labour costs, direct and indirect, are one fifth lower than those of Germany and France, and while their productivity is two fifths higher and their unit labour costs are more than 15 per cent. lower, labour costs, both direct and indirect, are not at all the best guide to competitiveness?
    Mr. Heseltine: They are just one guide. The vital issue is the level of productivity that goes with wage costs. The Labour party must ask itself just what it has been doing by encouraging the overmanning and restrictive practices of the trade unions that have done so much to undermine those matters down the years.

    Competitiveness
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will issue his White Paper on competitiveness.
    Mr. Heseltine: The White Paper on competitiveness will be published on 16 May 1994.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that the key markets in which Britain will have to compete in the future are those in the far east, and that we shall not have to compete just in Europe? Does he agree that the European idea that markets somehow require a level playing field is the antithesis of what we need, which is the development of this country's comparative advantages? This will require us to keep control not only of the regulatory structure under which our industries work but of the way in which we deal with and handle our labour.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will understand that if we are to have a market that is free and fair, there must be a regulatory system that is common to all parts of it. She can be very sure that if we are not able to influence the regulatory system in other parts of the market it will be rigged against the interests of British exporters.
    Dr. Bray: Before the President publishes his White Paper on competitiveness will he read the unanimous reports of the Select Committees on Science and Technology and on Trade and Industry that were published recently? These point out that there are a great many factors other than price competitiveness in the overall national competitiveness scene. Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the Committees' many recommendations on precisely the question he has raised —how to increase productivity?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has particular knowledge of, and a particular interest in, this matter. He will find that our White Paper on competitiveness does address the much wider horizon that he has in mind.

    British Exports (Promotion)
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received about the promotion of British exports overseas.
    Mr. Needham: I have received many representations praising the successful partnership between the Department of Trade and Industry and British exporters in overseas markets.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, rightly or wrongly, there is among British business men a widespread perception that too many of our embassies are better equipped to promote genteel diplomacy and cultural relations than aggressively to pursue British commercial interests? Can my hon. Friend, knowing the commitment of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to putting British interests first, expand on what further steps might be taken to make a profound cultural change?
    Mr. Needham: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, in that I think that the commercial posts overseas are professional, dedicated and extremely well run. I spend most of my life visiting them. As I thought that my hon. Friend might raise such a question, I have here 16 examples of letters written within the last month by companies praising the work of the commercial sections of our embassies. Of course, not every one of them is perfect, but 16 letters in a month is not a bad record. The partnership between the export promoters, the Department of Trade and Industry market branches and the commercial posts overseas that now exists is providing our exporters with an unrivalled service. In 1992, the Brooking Institute said:
    "Perhaps the most clearly presented and coherently marketed package of export assistance programmes is that of the United Kingdom."
    Mr. Tony Banks: As this question is about exports can the Minister tell us what is the current visible trade deficit? When was our trade last in surplus?
    Mr. Needham: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact figures. However, I can say that the current trade deficit is about 1.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. When trade was in surplus, the maximum under the last Labour administration was about 1.25 per cent. It is a very small percentage of our total trade. The fact is that we export 20 per cent. per head more than the Japanese and 80 per cent. per head more than the Americans. In export performance, we have the fifth highest figures on earth, with 1 per cent. of the world's population. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will start giving our exporters some praise.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: An area in which we hope to do well in future will be that of aerospace exports. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the skilled work force in Lancashire that is employed by British Aerospace and by many small contractors and which is involved in the production of the Eurofighter 2000, which had its international debut at Warton in Lancashire last week?
    Mr. Needham: I would be delighted to do what my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. Bell: The House will welcome the Minister's statement about trade with Vietnam and the fact that he has encouraged our exporters to penetrate that market. What
    314
    about that other tiger economy of Malaysia? Have we reminded the Malaysians that they have a £1.3 billion surplus with our country? Have these matters been taken up with the European Union? Have they been taken up with GATT negotiators? Where are we with the Malaysian Government?
    Mr. Needham: I can say to the hon. Gentleman—not to him personally—that one of the major causes of getting into disputes with Malaysia are the comments and activities of some of his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Forman: Is not one of the best ways to promote British exports to draw attention to some startling and positive facts that have emerged recently, including the fact that the UK machine tool industry was in surplus in 1993 on its balance of trade and that machine tool exports to the United States increased by nearly two fifths over the previous year?
    Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is correct in asserting that there are many sectors of British industry that are not merely world competitors but world beating. The only thing that stands between them and their continuing success is the possibility of Opposition Members being put in charge of our economy.
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made to recruit the expertise of exporters in the private sector to assist his Department to promote generally British exports.
    Mr. Needham: The President and I have invited leading United Kingdom companies and business organisations to second to our Department high-calibre senior managers with export expertise. These companies have responded very positively. We have recruited nearly 80 of these people and more are on the way. We are confident that some companies that have not yet seconded an export promoter will do so shortly.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. It demonstrates, possibly, why there has been such an improvement in recent years in the promotion of exports by our embassies overseas. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that one of the major industries in my constituency of Mid-Staffordshire is the pottery industry? He will be aware that Wedgwood has its headquarters in Barlaston, and that the well-known sanitary ware manufacturer of the name of Shanks in the town of Armitage—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member might save his descriptions for a debate on trade and industry and put his question now.
    Mr. Fabricant: So what is my hon. Friend doing to promote sanitary ware and china ware overseas?
    Mr. Needham: If my hon. Friend went to the countries round the world that I have visited he would not have to worry about the promotion of sanitary ware. As for fine china, we have established within the Department of Trade and Industry a group of tabletop manufacturers under the chairmanship of Royal Doulton to examine exactly how we can bring linen, cutlery, glass and china companies together to promote our exports across the world, and not least to ensure that all our embassies have the very best of British when anyone visits them.
    Mr. John Evans: Given the enormous amount of fence building that the Tory Government and Tory Ministers will have to undertake with the African National Congress, what steps has the Minister taken to improve and increase Britain's trading links with the new Government of South Africa?
    Mr. Needham: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be leading in the near future a major delegation of British companies to South Africa. The South African market has enormous opportunities for us. We are in the process of completing a strategic market plan for South Africa. We are analysising those sectors in which British companies can offer the best product, the best services and the best consultancies. The South African market will be a major target market for the Department of Trade and Industry, in partnership with British industry.
    Mr. Steen: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he is aware that exports will not be helped if we adopt the European Community circular of directive 92/58 which insists that, by 24 June, all exit signs for fire safety are replaced by those depicting a little man running downstairs, because they will create additional costs for all our manufacturing industries, our town halls, the House of Commons and every library and information centre in the country.
    Mr. Needham: I think that I can safely leave that question to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs who is very good at finding signs of little men running downstairs.

    Brewing Industry
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received about the activities of Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd in the brewery industry; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): Since the beginning of the year, my right hon. Friend and I have received three letters from or on behalf of IEL lessees. They were largely concerned with the rents charged by IEL for its pubs, the treatment of tenants and the compatibility of the IEL lease with European Community competition law. I also answered a written question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 21 March.
    Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister aware of the fact that, in the building at the moment, there are several hundred tenants of Inntrepreneur who are lobbying Parliament in Committee Room 14? Will he see those people and, when he sees them, will he tell them that although the beer orders may have been legally adhered to by Inntrepreneur, it has drifted away from the spirit of those beer orders? Would he further explain to them why it is that, although the Inntrepreneur lease is in contravention of article 85 of the European constitution of the treaty of Rome, the Government continue to take no action against Inntrepreneur?
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am afraid that, in the course of my busy day, I will not have the opportunity to meet those who the hon. Gentleman tells me are in Committee Room
    316
    14. Had I had notice of their being here today, I might have been able to arrange it. As the hon. Gentleman will know, because we have had several meetings on such matters, I take seriously the points that he and others make and I will always be prepared to take up with companies such points in future, as I have in the past. As regards allegations that the lease is in contravention of EC law, that is, of course, a matter for the European Commission and not for me.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Beith: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about progress on his proposals to privatise the remaining Government stake in electricity generation.
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced his intention to sell, subject to market conditions, some or all of his share holdings in National Power plc and PowerGen plc in the financial year 1994–95.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister tell us whether the forthcoming sale of shares has in any way influenced the Government in opposing the Energy Conservation Bill or in any way influenced them in their decision to table 216 amendments to the Bill? Before he formulates his answer, will he bear in mind the fact that it is not a good idea inadvertently to mislead the House in tactics for private Members' Bills?
    Mr. Eggar: As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the decision is taken by my right hon. and learned Friend and I cannot answer for him.
    Mr. Moss: As Nuclear Electric is still in public ownership, does my hon. Friend agree that privatisation of that industry is crucial to the future of the nuclear industry?
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware that Nuclear Electric wishes to be privatised and I am aware that a number of my hon. Friends support that aspiration. As my hon. Friend knows, we have to await the Government's decision on the terms of reference of the nuclear review and then the outcome of the nuclear review before I can make any announcement on the Government's policy on that matter.
    Mr. Dafis: May we now take it that we all understand the real reason why the Energy Conservation Bill was blocked? Does not that tell us what a short-sighted understanding of matters the Government have because they are not able to recognise the enormous economic and financial gains that would come from an energy efficiency programme? Why on earth cannot they understand that it is disgraceful to think that the promotion of privatisation will be successful—according to their terms—to the extent that they will encourage waste and unnecessary over-consumption of electricity? What a reflection that is on the bankruptcy of our economic system as well as the Government's privatisation programme.
    Mr. Eggar: No. Neither the House nor the country can come to that conclusion from my previous answer. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, whose dedication to the whole cause of energy conservation I recognise and, indeed, share, that I am surprised if he wished to bring up that particular subject, that he did not comment on the suggestions in the consultation paper, which I published with the Director General of Ofgas, which is important in

    317
    the gas market with regard to promoting energy conservation. He may like to consider that and I will be very happy to discuss it with him.

    Electricity Prices
    Mr. Miller: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will meet the Director General of Electricity Supply to discuss electricity prices.
    Mr. Eggar: I meet the Director General of Electricity Supply regularly.
    Mr. Miller: Given the disquiet on both sides of the House about rumours of differential pricing of utilities, and particularly of gas, as we heard earlier, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not allow differential pricing of electricity? Does he agree that such differential pricing would be a huge disadvantage to people, particularly those in rural communities? He has an opportunity to give a clear commitment here and now.
    Mr. Eggar: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He should know perfectly well that there is already considerable regional differential pricing.
    Mr. Oppenheim: How seriously can we take Opposition Members when they express concern about electricity prices or the interests of consumers? If they had had their way, would not they have insisted that—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are dealing with Government policy and not with activities or policies of the Opposition. Will the hon. Gentleman transpose his question?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Did not the Opposition oppose Government policy to ensure that we had competition in electricity generation so that consumers' interests were paramount? Do not they always put the interests of producers and vested interests first?
    Mr. Eggar: Yes, as so frequently, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a result of the privatisation of the electricity industry, there has been a 7 per cent. real-terms reduction in the price of electricity to domestic consumers. I have to say again to Opposition Front-Bench Members that if they do not realise that there have been long-established regional pricing differentials on electricity, they really need to use their Short money more effectively.
    Mr. Beggs: When the Minister next has a meeting to discuss electricity prices, will he bear in mind the fact that the successful intervention of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and of Ministers in attracting companies such as Hualon to Northern Ireland, could be threatened because of the very high cost of electricity in Northern Ireland and the need for Northern Ireland consumers, both domestic and industrial, to have access to cheaper electricity?
    Mr. Eggar: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about that issue. He and I have discussed it in the past. I will again bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: In advance of my hon. Friend's next meeting with the director general, will he join me in
    318
    congratulating the Merseyside and North-Western electricity board which has announced not just a reduction in its electricity tariff, as have other boards, but a £10 rebate to every consumer in the north-west which will do most for those in greatest need?
    Mr. Eggar: I will indeed congratulate MANWEB on its £10 rebate and its 1 per cent. reduction. In addition, the Midlands board has reduced its prices by 2 per cent. The North Western electricity board has announced a 6 per cent. reduction from April 1994. The South Eastern electricity board has made a 2 per cent. reduction and given a £8 rebate. Time and again, the success of privatisation is recognised in the way in which regional electricity companies are bringing down their prices to domestic consumers.

    Research And Development
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase expenditure on civil research and development.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Information about my Department's planned expenditure on civil research and development up to 1996–97 was given in the recently published "Forward Look of Government-Funded Science, Engineering and Technology".
    Mr. Clapham: There was not a great deal of factual information there. The Minister will be aware that, in per capita and absolute terms, Britain spends less on civil research and development than our major competitors. Is he aware that a recent study by the Trade and Industry Select Committee on the competitiveness of British industry states that one of the reasons for that is short-termism? What is the Minister doing to overcome the short-termist culture that is holding back British industry?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman makes several points. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already said, we will be addressing some of those issues in the White Paper that will be published next week.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real relative shortfall in research and development spend in Britain is in the private sector? If companies do not maintain an adequate research and development capacity of their own, they are less likely to be able to implement innovative change. Will that be one of the issues that will be addressed in the competition White Paper?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend touches on an important point which needs to be addressed by private companies. A number of companies that I see are spending significant amounts on research and development. That is very important, and it is also important to create the right framework which enables companies to put their investments to one side. That is certainly something which we shall consider.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the chair of British Coal to discuss pit closures.
    Mr. Eggar: Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I meet the chairman of British Coal as necessary to discuss a variety of coal industry matters.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that it adds insult to injury for miners who have recently lost their jobs—there are no pits left in north Derbyshire now—to be told that they did not want the coal for the nation, when they are having to suffer massive imports and opencast coal mining on a massive production line? Is there anything more sickening for communities than to see bulldozers tearing up the countryside in areas where pits have been closed? The bulldozers will be there for 10 years, digging big holes and dumping toxic waste. Will the Minister tell British
    320
    Coal to stop these developments and will he tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to stop planning applications for opencast developments?
    Mr. Eggar: As occurs so frequently nowadays, the hon. Gentleman is wrong, wrong and wrong again. Coal imports are down.
    With regard to opencast developments, the hon. Gentleman should know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is at the moment consulting about a revision to MPG3. I seem to remember that the last time that the hon. Gentleman spoke to me about coal he argued for the protection of his own constituents, or nearby inhabitants, in relation to the opencast procedures which were to be followed by British Coal. He cannot have it both ways.

Complaint of Privilege
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: In view of the current comment surrounding the matter, I have decided to take the unusual step of informing the House of my decision on a privilege complaint that I have received relating to the statement in the House made last Friday by the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott).
My function in such cases is limited to deciding whether or not the matter should have the precedence accorded to matters of privilege. In the light of developments since I received the complaint—as a result of which the House is in possession of the facts and has received an apology—I have concluded that I would not be justified in myself granting precedence for this matter's further consideration. My decision in no way limits the right of hon. Members to pursue other ways of raising this matter.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I understand the ruling that you have just given, your decision as to whether precedence was given was determined by the fact that the Minister concerned made an apology to the House of Commons and that, in your view, the House is now in possession of the facts.
I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that a precedent has been set whereby Ministers can now come to the House of Commons and deliberately mislead the House in the knowledge that, if they are subsequently found out, they can come before the House and provide the House with the facts as they believe them to be. If that were to happen, contempt would no longer be of any relevance to the Commons. In fact, the last application for contempt may well have been brought, in so far as you have now opened the door for Ministers deliberately to mislead the House in the knowledge that they can simply apologise to the House.
With all the respect in the world to you, Madam Speaker, I have to say that I find your ruling utterly astonishing. It is of grave concern to many of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, which relates to the previous one, but, in a sense, casts a whole new light on the affairs of last Friday.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to look at the transcript of two radio programmes from this morning on which the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Social Security appeared. Their remarks throw a whole new light on what happened last Friday in the House. We on this side of the House believe that you should scrutinise those remarks because your decision today may have to be changed in the light of the revelations of the Leader of the House. What they said about how business in the House is manipulated as common practice was quite astonishing, and it goes against any tradition of private Member's business in the House.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister concerned is one of the most respected Ministers at the Department of Social Security that we have had, and he is recognised on both sides of the House as a great friend
322
of the disabled. He came to the House and said that he did not knowingly mislead the House but that now, realising that he may have done—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is obviously trying to be helpful, but I must deal with these points of order. We cannot have a discussion about the matter.
Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Other cases of possibly misleading statements to the House have been raised. Have you anything to say about the role of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)? Would not it be in the interests of the House if the Prime Minister were now to ask the five hon. Members to cleanse the Order Paper of the amendments, which we now know were not drafted by them, so that the Bill can make some progress on 20 May?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Arising out of your statement, it now seems apparent that Ministers are so arrogant—as they have been in power for 15 years—that they think they can get away with anything. They have now become judge and jury in their own court.
You should re-examine the evidence which has been given to you because, at some point, the Government have to be stopped in their tracks. As Speaker, you ought to bear in mind that you do not represent the Government; you represent everybody in the House, including Back Benchers.
Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has support from a clear majority of hon. Members who have signed early-day motion No. 2, that it has clear support from every organisation of disabled people outside the House and that the Government have provided assistance to their Back Benchers to sabotage it, what assistance can you give me to ensure that the motion passed by the House on 29 April calling for time to be provided for all the remaining stages is implemented?
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Was not the argument of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) slightly unworthy—I use the word carefully, as I have a high regard for the hon. Gentleman—by suggesting that any hon. Member would take a position on a Bill or a statement which he knew he could correct by an apology later? I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can really have meant that, and I do not think that that would happen.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I will not allow the House to get into a debate on the matter. I am dealing with serious points of order; we will not have a debate.
Ms Liz Lynne: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) to mislead the House—which I think was disgraceful—without coming to the House to make a statement?
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I will deal with all these points of order, but I hope that they will now be rather speedy.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to Monday's Hansard? The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said:
"On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to make it absolutely clear that I raise my own amendments. I sought consultation, but it would be totally unfair to suggest that they came from any other source."—[Official Report, 9 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 23.]
In view of what was said by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People yesterday, the hon. Lady's statement cannot possibly be accurate.
As the Bill, which would have given aid to disabled people, was lost last Friday as a result of lying and cheating by the Government, should not further time be provided? It would be quite wrong if people who desperately need the measure which is being advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) were to be denied their rights purely and simply as a result of cheating and lying by Ministers.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You know what lies at the bottom of these exchanges—the relationship between the activities of Tory Back Benchers and the private Members' Bill procedure. You will probably also know that my Bill, due for debate on Friday this week and unopposed on Second Reading, now has 108 amendments and five new clauses tabled to it. What protection do Back Benchers have from obvious Government interference in our time for getting legislation through the House?
Mr. Andrew Rowe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Did the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) notify my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) that he intended to mention her? Furthermore, should he have been allowed to use the word "lying", which I heard him say?
Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Arising out of your response to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet responded to any point of order.
Dr. Reid: I am referring to your response to the letter that he sent you. May I comment on the implications of that response for the future?
As I understood it, your statement that you felt you should no longer play a part in this matter—although other options are open—was based on two premises: one, that events have moved on since you received the letter, which they certainly have; and two, that we have heard a personal statement, which means that the facts have been laid before the House.
I believe that the facts have not been laid before the House. For the House to ascertain facts, propositions purporting to be facts must be open to question and to criticism. Your statement today implied that a personal statement from the Dispatch Box, which cannot be questioned or criticised and thus cannot establish any facts, can lay such a matter to rest. That will be used as a precedent by future Speakers, who may say that the facts have been laid before the House in this way.
324
In response to the points made today, may I ask you to reflect further on this specific point, because I fear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said, that your statement may undermine our rules of contempt?
Mr. Giles Radice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have taken into account the procedure rules for Ministers which, in paragraph 27, state that Ministers have a duty not to mislead the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has made it clear in a letter to me that if Ministers knowingly mislead the House they should resign.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In an earlier point of order, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said that his Bill had a great deal of support. Can you confirm that one of the reasons why the Bill did not make progress last Friday was the fact that 100 Members were not present in the House to vote for the closure?
Is it in order for Opposition Members to question your rulings in this shocking manner?
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Paul Flynn rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take just two more points of order on this matter.
Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are the defender of the rights of Back Benchers and the custodian of the reputation of this House. We all take pride in the quality of the democracy in this country. During the past couple of weeks, Bills that should have been fully discussed, without time limits, have not been discussed because spoiling amndts have been tabled, such as the 108 tabled in an attempt to wreck the Tobacco Advertising Bill.
Is there not a grave danger that our reputation abroad may be sullied and that the charge could be levelled—I do not make it myself—that hon. Members are abusing their elected office to further their own ambitions and financial interests?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: No. I am not taking any more points of order.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Madam Speaker: I will hear Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since the whole House knows that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) is scarcely capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, it beggars belief that she could have drafted any of the amendments. It appears that she is in Malawi at the moment. Do you have the power to call her back so that she can answer the very serious points that are being raised?
Mr. Alan Williams rose—
Sir Anthony Grant rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I have the flavour of the House. I do not want to curtail this, although it is not a debate; these are points of order to me. I will take points of order from two hon. Members—one on either side of the House—and that is all.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the ruling that you gave, you made two points: first, the possession of a fact; and, secondly, the receipt of an apology. May I make the point to you, Madam Speaker, that possession of a fact may in no way exonerate what those facts reveal? You have not said "because of the facts". It is simply because they have been revealed. Our contention is that the facts still indicate that the House was deliberately misled.
Therefore, what you are in danger of doing—quite unintentionally, I am sure, because I know of your concerns for the rights of Back Benchers in the House—is establishing a precedent under which merely giving the facts, even when they are self-condemning, then apologising for the fact that what one did was wrong, in itself exonerates an hon. Member from further action. I think that that ruling needs reconsideration.
Sir Anthony Grant: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. When you come to respond to all these points of order, will you reiterate that it is the long-standing custom and tradition of the House that a personal statement made by a Minister is heard without question and without debate? Will you further emphasise that attempts to get around that tradition and custom by the use of bogus points of order is an abuse of the House?
Mr. Terry Dicks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As someone who was here on Friday, I was upset by what happened, as are hon. Members who have intervened and who were not here on Friday. I accept what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. I am prepared to let things stand as they are. He is an honourable man; he has made a statement. I think that the House should accept it, and we should take it no further.
Madam Speaker: As the House knows, a personal statement should be heard in silence and not questioned later. As for hon. Members who believe that a new precedent is being created, that is not the case. I hope that there are no such incidents in future, but if there are similar incidents, of course, I will look at each case and determine it on its merits.
As far as the radio transmission is concerned, I have not heard it, although I am a keen radio listener. I shall certainly call for a recording of it.
326
The activities and comments of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) have been mentioned today. May I remind the House that only yesterday the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) raised a point of order with me, saying that he would be writing to me on the matter, because he believed that it was a question of privilege. I have not yet received any correspondence relating to that. [Interruption.] Order. This is a serious matter.
Other hon. Members have raised, in various ways, the question of the legislation, because they are now concerned about its future. The House will understand that the progress of legislation is not a matter for the Speaker; it is a question for the usual channels and for negotiations on the future of the Bill. Of course, hon. Members are well aware of how they can pursue the matter.
As far as the Prime Minister's actions are concerned, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) cannot hold me responsible for any actions that he might or might not take. I have sufficient responsibilities of my own in the matter.
Mr. George Foulkes: He is not responsible for his own actions.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am the custodian of the interests of the House. I have taken this decision— [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley makes light of a good many things. I take this matter very seriously indeed.
I have come to a decision about this after a great deal of consideration. As to precedents, I have seen a good deal of documentation. The decision has been made. It is mine and mine alone. My decision in no way limits the rights of hon. Members to pursue other ways of raising the matter.
May I end on this note? Sometimes—very often nowadays—the House becomes very bitter in its exchanges. We would do well to respect the different political parties here, and to respect each other. I ask hon. Members again to remember the words of "Erskine May", because we rely so much on that volume:
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
I hope that we shall watch our language in all our exchanges in the future.

Points of order
3.50 pm
Mr. David Blunkett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, the Government published a report by Professor Alan Wilson on complaints and redress procedure. I leave aside the fact that its criteria excluded the impact of national health service changes introduced in 1990, and the operation of professional misconduct procedures. An important report of that kind, dealing with issues of great moment to people using and working in the NHS, would normally have been presented to the House in the form of an oral statement.
What I wish to raise, however, is an aspect of the report's publication that I would expect hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider important. In the press release put out by the Secretary of State for Health when she launched the report this morning—at public expense —five individuals were quoted. At least one of those individuals, as chief executive of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, has a direct interest in the outcome and recommendations of the report. They had seen it before its publication, and the Department had allowed them to place their comments on record, for publication, before hon. Members—including the official Opposition—had had access to it.
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. Does not that extraordinary action by the Department of Health—finding a way around allowing hon. Members the privilege of seeing reports at the time of their publication and enabling those with an interest in such important matters to comment on them at that time—infringe the privilege to which I have referred?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House are well aware of my strongly held view that statements on Government policy, and other important statements, should be made in the House in the first instance, whether they are made orally or by means of written answers. It is for the Minister concerned to determine the category into
328
which he or she wishes the statement to fall. I am informed that, in this instance, the Secretary of State has written to all hon. Members, and that copies of the relevant document to which the hon. Gentleman has referred have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a completely different point, although it concerns a Minister misleading the House.
A few moments before the exchanges about the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, the Minister for Energy implied in his reply to my question that I had supported opencast. I know that the Minister has not the guts to come back and admit that he misled the House. The truth is that—as can be seen from the record of the Report stage of the Coal Industries Bill a few weeks ago—I have opposed every opencast application in my constituency since I came to the House 24 years ago; but I do not suppose that the Minister has the guts to withdraw what he said.
Madam Speaker: That was not a point of order; it was more like a personal statement.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 97 (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),
That the Matter of law and order in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition)(Defined Activities)(Housing Management) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Question agreed to.

Public Records (Amendment)
3.53 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the transfer of certain records in the custody of the Registrar General to the Public Records Office.
One of the unsung glories of the United Kingdom is the wealth of archives that this nation has at its disposal. In western Europe there is nowhere, except possibly the Vatican, where documentation illustrating the history of our nation survives, representing so many different institutions and encompassing the history of so many centuries.
There are two broad categories into which the archives might be divided. First, there are the records of the courts of law and the institutions of government. They are held today in the Public Record Office in its buildings at Kew and in Chancery lane, supervised, ultimately, by the Keeper of the Public Records, accountable to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. Secondly, there are the records of births, marriages and deaths held at St. Catherine's house in Aldwych in the custody of the Registrar General, accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
The history of registration in England can be dated back to September 1538, and anyone who, like myself, has imbibed his history at the feet of Sir Geoffrey Elton will know that the modern administrative history of our land began during the ministry of Thomas Cromwell. It was in 1538 that Cromwell's injunctions instructed every parson, vicar and curate to keep a book to record the wedding, christening and burial of every inhabitant of the parish. The parish was bound to provide
"one sure coffer with two locks and keys"—
one for the incumbent and one for the church wardens—in which to house the register. A fine of no less than three shillings and fourpence was imposed on anyone who failed in his statutory duty to maintain the register.
In 1597 an effort was made to bring the system of registration on to a national basis with a statute ordering that a parchment copy of each parochial register should be sent to the diocesan authorities. In later centuries the history of registration became bound up with the various efforts to establish a system of civil marriage in England and Wales.
Eventually, in 1833 a parliamentary Select Committee reported to the House that a national civil register of births, marriages and deaths should be set up. That gave rise in 1836 to the General Register Act. The significance of that measure could be seen by the fact that the Bill was introduced in the House by the then Home Secretary, Lord John Russell, the debate was replied to by the Conservative spokesman, Sir Robert Peel, and the Bill was introduced in the other place by the then Prime Minister, Viscount Melbourne.
The original purpose of the national system of registration was primarily to enable individuals to prove their identity, to prove rights of succession, and, in particular, to prove title to land. In recent years there has been a new surge of interest in the records of registration, largely as a result of growing and widespread public interest in family history.
In 1993 there were no fewer than 435,000 applications for certificates at the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys at St. Catherine's house and at Southport. That
330
development of family history has brought to light an operational problem. The public have access not to the registers themselves but only to the indices to the registers. In practice, that means that, if I go to St. Catherine's house and wish to search for the marriage certificate of my great-grandfather, I need to identify an entry in the index of what I believe to be the appropriate year, find what looks like the right name and roughly the right date and in what I believe to be the right district. I then have to pay £5.50 to obtain a copy of the original certificate enrolled in the register. I must then wait four working days for the copy to reach me. Alternatively, I can use the 24–hour service from the OPCS, but I must pay £20 for that privilege. If I am mistaken and I obtain the certificate of the wrong man, I am not entitled to a refund.
The only option left open to me is to make a further journey to St. Catherine's house or to write a further letter to Southport and to work again from the index. Someone with my surname probably has a 90 per cent. chance of getting it right from the index, but my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is sitting in front of me and for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), let alone the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), might find it more difficult to be certain that they were chasing the right name through an index without access to the original registers. Many amateur family historians who pursue their genealogical researches as a hobby and not as the means of making a living face inconvenience and immense cost in time and money.
My Bill intends to make those records available by transferring registers that are 100 years or more old from the Registrar General to the Public Record Office. There would be no logistical problem involved in making registers available; microfilms of the original registers already exist.
My Bill is not the first attempt at such a reform in Parliament. My noble Friend Lord Teviot piloted a Bill through the other place in 1983, but the intervention of the general election in that year meant that no progress could be made in the Commons and the Bill lapsed. At that time, his Bill had support from the Government and the formidable support and encouragement of the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone.
More recently, in 1990, the Government issued a White Paper on registration which acknowledged the problem, but, sadly, no action was taken to put its proposals into effect. The White Paper proposed an alternative route for making registers publicly available. It suggested establishing a central library separate from the Public Record Office because it was unlikely that suitable premises could be found in central London for a public search room and for the storage of the original registers. If my Bill is unsuccessful, I hope that the Government will press ahead to secure the wider public access promised in 1990 and that they will consider again the means to encourage such public access because, since 1990, things have changed.
In 1996, the Public Record Office extension at Kew will be completed, which will enable mediaeval and legal records at Chancery lane to be transferred to the new building at Kew. That will leave vacant the elegant Victorian building at Chancery lane, the first purpose-built record office in the modern world. It would be appropriate to turn that building into a national centre for the study of family history. The census rooms in the Public Record Office at Chancery lane already attract about 82,000

331
searchers every year. It would be logical to use the space made available in 1996 to make the registers publicly available on microfilm in search rooms in Chancery lane. Any genealogist would tell us that the two categories of record are complementary.
This is a common-sense Bill, which will do some good for some deserving people, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Lidington, Mr. David Sumberg, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Derek Enright, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Bernard Jenkin and Mrs. Cheryl Gillan.

Public Records (Amendment)
  PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. David Lidington accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the transfer of certain records in the custody of the Registrar General to the Public Records Office: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July 1994, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]
Opposition Day
[12TH ALLOTTED DAY] [1st part]
Opposition Day

  Europe and the Environment
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.4 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move,
  That this House recognises that the environment cannot be properly protected by national endeavour alone; acknowledges the importance of Europe-wide action to prevent pollution and improve environmental standards; applauds the work of the European Union and especially of the European Parliament in helping to safeguard the environment here in Britain; notes the lamentable record of Her Majesty's Government in failing to ensure that agreed standards for drinking water, bathing water, and air quality are achieved; deplores the Government's consequent attempts to diminish those standards; deprecates the inadequate implementation of provisions for access to environmental information, and of protection for wildlife habitats; recognises the need for further radical improvement in Europe's environmental work, especially in relation to the Common Agricultural Policy; and believes that Britain should be in the forefront of environmental progress in Europe, rather than lagging constantly behind its European partners.
  The motion and the Government amendment at the very least appear to establish some common ground between the Government and the Labour party. We agree that the environment in Britain cannot be properly and fully protected "by national endeavour alone"; we agree that pollution knows no national boundaries and that, therefore, "Europe-wide action" to combat pollution is necessary and worth while; and we appear to agree that the single market must not be allowed to lead to the down-bidding of environmental standards between member countries. We also appear to agree—although I must confess I was rather surprised to read this in the Government amendment—that we should applaud
  "the work of the European Union".
  I pause at this point to consider whether, in the current circumstances, all Conservative Members would endorse such a phrase. However, we appear to agree that we should applaud
  "the work of the European Union and especially of the European Parliament in helping to safeguard the environment here in Britain".
  But what are we agreeing on? What do the Government appear to be applauding?
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Before the hon. Gentleman presses on with what I am sure will be an excellent speech, will he tell the House whether all Labour Members will applaud the work of the European Union?
  Mr. Smith: I am absolutely confident that they will and I have not the slightest doubt that my party's vote will be solid.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Does the hon. Gentleman believe that my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), will be as enthusiastic about the work of the European Union as I am? And will the hon. Gentleman receive the same enthusiastic support from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?
  Mr. Smith: I am sure that I shall have their wholehearted support, and I shall be interested to see whether the Secretary of State has the wholehearted support of the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Just to put the record straight, I agree that many things in the world need to be done to improve the environment, especially in Bolsover. Some time ago, on at least 20 occasions, I called for a public inquiry into the dioxin-contaminated area around the Coalite works near Bolsover. The current Secretary of State for the Environment, then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, refused to hold such an inquiry and he still refuses to do so. If the dioxin-contaminated soil were around Chequers or Buckingham palace, an inquiry would have been held.
  Notwithstanding my opposition to the Common Market, which I believe has been an unmitigated disaster, if my hon. Friend can ensure that someone from one of the 12 member states comes to Bolsover, holds a public inquiry and forces the polluter to pay, he will have my support.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes his point strongly. He may be interested to see the proposals on contaminated land currently before the European Union, as they will be of considerable help in relation to the problems of dioxin pollution that he has so assiduously raised in the House.
  The Government's amendment endorses some of the work of the EU, but exactly what aspects of that work do they mean? Europe has demanded that we make mandatory the fitting of catalytic converters on new vehicles bought and sold right across the Community. That is absolutely right, so why was it the British Government who delayed the implementation of the directive? Why did they seek a derogation for a year to lessen its impact?
  It is right that Europe should be laying down standards for drinking water and bathing water across the whole continent. Yet it is the British Government who are busy saying that the standards are far too stringent, and that it is all a matter for subsidiarity—that is, in their terms, a matter for national decision alone. Yet that is one of the items on which they appear to want to tell us that Europe should be applauded.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: While the hon. Gentleman is talking about drinking water and bathing water, does he accept that the Government have agreed the standards? He has said that he wants us to comply with those standards within a much shorter period. Can he tell the House precisely what period? By what date should the standards be achieved? What would it cost consumers and the Government, precisely, in millions of pounds? In the hypothetical case of a Labour Government being elected, has the hon. Gentleman the permission of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to make that commitment?
  Mr. Smith: I shall come to some of those detailed points in a minute, but first I shall deal in some detail with the bathing water directive and the urban waste water directive. The Government that the hon. Gentleman supports are querying not just the pace at which standards are achieved in Europe, but the standards themselves, so he should get his own facts right first.
  Do the Government applaud the European Union's wish
  334
  for an environmental impact assessment of the policy making process to be carried out? They are currently blocking that proposal within the EU. Is part of what the Government want to see carried out at European level the decision of the Basle convention, made only last month, to prohibit the export of toxic waste to developing countries? In their European manifesto five years ago the Government said that they wanted to implement that, but only now, reluctantly, have they implemented it, joining Denmark and other countries in doing so one month ago. Is that European action part of what they want to applaud?
  Mr. Llew Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend will applaud the European Union's move to ban the movement of toxic waste within EC countries. Does he support the call by many of us that the transfrontier movement of spent nuclear fuel between EC countries should also be banned? I do not see how Europe can ban toxic waste yet at the same time refuse to ban spent nuclear fuel, which is a much more dangerous substance.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a trenchant point. He will know that the arrangements for waste substitution arising from the reprocessing of other countries' spent nuclear fuel in the United Kingdom are as yet totally unclear. The Government have not yet agreed them. I have consistently argued that the Government were foolish to press ahead with the opening of new reprocessing facilities at a time when they have not decided what is to happen to the waste arising from that processing.
  Are the Government in the business of applauding the European habitats directive? They have proposed no primary legislation to implement it. We have no statutory protection of hedgerows in this country. The Government are making no provision for the protection of the wider countryside beyond special sites. It seems that the habitats directive will be implemented poorly, if at all, in this country.
  Is the Government's applauding of action in Europe taken as far as the amendments considered in the European Parliament last Wednesday to improve the packaging directive? One of those amendments would have set target bands for recycling of between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. It was supported not only by the socialist group in the European Parliament, but by the European People's party, to which Conservative Members of the European Parliament are supposed to adhere. Yet the votes of Conservative Members against that amendment ensured that the amendment fell. I must ask the Government whether the Conservative Members of the European Parliament were operating in accordance with Government policy at that stage.
  The Government may say that they believe in European action to tackle pollution and to protect our environment, but on one issue after another they delay or object to or block the work of Europe in that sector.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: On packaging, one of the key parts of the Government's amendment is the point about cost-effectiveness. Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the type of proposal that the Labour party would support on packaging would add £2,500 million to the bill of industry in this country?
  Mr. Smith: The short answer to that is no, I do not accept that for one moment.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Tell us the figure, then.
  Mr. Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not paying full attention to what I was saying. The amendment to which I was referring was an amendment which set target bands for recycling of between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. The Government's own target is 25 per cent. Yet Conservative Members of the European Parliament—the hon. Gentleman's Conservative colleagues—were the people who ensured, by their votes last Wednesday in the European Parliament, that that amendment fell. So they were not voting against my policy; they were voting against their own Government's policy. That, supposedly, is the progress that the Government wish to be made in Europe.
  The Conservative party naturally tries to claim to be a fully green party, especially in Europe.
  Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No, I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point.
  As recently as a few weeks ago, the Conservative party issued a handsome but thoroughly bogus document entitled, "Europe's Environment—Conserving our Future." Let us consider some of the myths and untruths that are peddled in that document. On page 2—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way before reading that?
  Mr. Smith: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have already given way to him once. I have taken a substantial number of interventions and I wish to make progress. [Interruption.] I have told the hon. Gentleman that he will receive an answer to the points that he raised in due course when I discuss that subject.
  The first point made in the document, "Conserving our Future," is that John Major has been at the forefront of the international campaign to protect our environment. The idea of John Major at the forefront of anything at the moment is a little difficult to grasp. How does the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) explain that Britain is the only country in the European Union to have refused to set carbon dioxide reduction targets beyond the year 2000? How does he square his claim with the fact that the Government's programme, even to reach the target that they have set for the year 2000, is already in tatters? One third of it relies on the work of the Energy Saving Trust, which currently has no programme and no funding. The Government's repeated grand claims about how much progress they are making towards achieving their own carbon dioxide target are therefore completely bogus.
  Mr. Gummer: So that the House may not be misled, I should point out that two countries—Germany and Denmark—have fixed their targets beyond the year 2000. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are the only one not to have done so, but according to my mathematics the United Kingdom is one of 10 such countries.
  Mr. Smith: I think the Secretary of State will find that other countries have done so. He is certainly aware of the fact that we have not. If he looks at the commitments made by other countries in Europe, such as Holland and Denmark, he will find that there are targets in place.
  On page 4 of the document to which I referred is the following astonishing statement:
  "the private ownership of industry tends to raise environmental standards."
  I wonder if the Government would like to put that claim to
  336
  the customers of the privatised water companies. Were the customers of Severn Trent well served by the fact that its filtration systems were inadequate to the task of picking up a level of pollution which 150,000 people in Worcester and elsewhere were able to detect by looking at and smelling the water coming out of their taps? Are the customers of Severn Trent aware that in 1990 there were 780 km of poor or bad river and canal water in their area–12 per cent. of the total for which the company is responsible? Do Conservative Members know that Severn Trent customers faced 1,222 supply disconnections in 1992–93? I do not regard that as a raising of environmental standards.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Smith: Conservative Members should reflect on the fact that, in 1992–93, the chief executive of Severn Trent had a salary of £195,000 an increase of 37 per cent. on the previous year—and that, in addition, he has made £238,000 on his share options. Before claiming that private ownership of industry tends to raise environmental standards, Conservative Members ought to reflect on the fact that it tends to raise the salaries and perks of the people working for the privatised companies but does not necessarily raise the environmental standards of the work that they do.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not persist. The hon. Gentleman is obviously not prepared to give way at present.
  Mr. Smith: On page 5, the document says:
  "Open access to information on the state of the environment is imperative."
  That is absolutely true if we are to have proper environmental protection, so why are the environmental information regulations that the Government tabled and took through the House in December 1992 so tightly and restrictively drawn? Why are there wide exemptions, especially in relation to supposed commercial confidentiality? Why is there no definition of what constitutes a public authority for the purposes of the regulations?
  For instance, are the privatised water companies excluded from the provisions of the regulations as a result? Why is there no appeal system if an authority decides not to release information? Why, unbelievably, is information presented to a local or national public inquiry excluded from the freedom of information provisions in the environmental sector? When the Government say that access to information is imperative, they are not implementing what they say they believe in.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: If the Government are seriously concerned about environmental matters, does my hon. Friend agree that they would not have allowed consideration of the Coal Industry Bill to reach an advanced stage while those in the coalfield areas still have grave anxieties about the consequences of mine drainage and abandoned mines?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Government were seriously concerned about the impact of coal and coal mining on the environment they would have done two simple things: first, they would have accepted a Labour amendment which was tabled in Committee to ensure that pumping of flood water continued even after a mine was abandoned so that the flood water did not leach

  337
  out and pollute surrounding water courses and rivers; secondly, they would have included far tougher provisions than they have yet set out in their draft planning guidance for opencast coal mining to insist on a presumption against new opencast applications being agreed. Opencast operations are enormously detrimental to the environment and they help to finish off the deep-mined coal industry, which the Government have been so anxious to see put in its grave.
  On page 7 of "Europe's Environment—Conserving our Future" we are told:
  "We need to get right the relationship between international trade and environmental protection."
  Why was there no mention in the GATT negotiations of the needs of the environment? Why are the Government, through the European Community, not adopting our proposals for reform of the world trading organisation to ensure that the environment becomes a fundamental part of its remit?
  When we reach page 9 of "Conserving our Future" the Government compeletely lose touch with reality. They claim, first, that Labour has at some stage in the past proposed the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel when we have not. At no stage have we done that. I will come to the question of a carbon tax in a moment. For the Conservatives to say that the Labour party has at any stage advocated the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel is an untruth, and they know it. Secondly, the Government state that we favour a Europe-wide carbon tax. We do not. For the Conservative party to say so is to perpetuate a further untruth.
  Thirdly, the Government say that we wish in some sense to abandon the national veto. Again, we do not. We welcomed the provisions in the Maastricht treaty relating to environmental matters—at least to the majority of such matters—and qualified majority voting. Indeed, the Government supported qualified majority voting on most environmental matters. However, the Labour party does not wish to abandon the national veto on matters of taxation, for example, and the Government should know that that is our position.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I understand that he was quoted about a year ago in Green Magazine to the effect that the Labour party would consider imposing VAT on environmentally unfriendly products. The hon. Gentleman must accept, and I urge him to do so today, that fuel consumption conflicts with environmental objectives. Will he please clarify his party's policy on that in the light of statements that he has made about increasing VAT?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is reading his Conservative party briefing rather than the article or the document on which the article was based. If he had read those, and if he had also listened to the reply that I gave to an identical point several months ago in the House, he would know that what we proposed in the past was a raising of VAT on some small items, such as heavy metal batteries and items containing chlorofluorocarbons, and a corresponding reduction in VAT on items such as insulation materials. If the hon. Gentleman cannot tell the difference between a heavy metal battery and someone's quarterly gas bill, he is somewhat dimmer than I took him to be.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I will give way for the last time, but then I must make progress.
  Mr. Hughes: I intervene only because it is important and because the Government are under pressure—and no doubt will continue to be under pressure. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the Labour party's current policy on energy taxation and environmental taxation?
  Mr. Smith: As I said a moment ago, we do not accept the proposal from the European Commission for a carbon energy tax, for two reasons. First, it has a potentially severe social impact in exactly the same way as VAT on domestic fuel has had. Secondly, even if it is a 50:50 proposal between carbon and energy content, the carbon element discriminates unfairly in favour of some sources of power, such as nuclear, as opposed to other sources of power. We therefore do not accept the proposal currently coming out of Europe.
  I wish to deal with two particular issues. The first relates to the bathing water directive and the point in which the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) may be interested. At present, one in five of all beaches in this country fails to meet the mandatory quality standards for water quality and two out of three of all our beaches fail to meet the guideline standards for water quality. Evidence from recent surveys, including the Reader's Digest survey, shows that we are getting worse rather than better in Britain.
  The Government's response is to try to get the standards lowered. They have circulated a memorandum throughout the Community saying that, with the French Government, they want to see the bathing water directive withdrawn, amended or repealed. The Prime Minister came back from the December Council of Ministers meeting saying that our restrictive water quality requirements were to be eased as a result of a deal that he had done. When it transpired that, in fact, water and the water directive were not even mentioned at the December Council meeting, and that the rest of Europe were absolutely firm in saying that standards should not be in any way reduced, the Government none the less seemed to be persisting in saying that water quality standards in the bathing water directive—the standard of water at our seaside resorts—ought to be diminished rather than strengthened.
  Labour Members insist that standards must be maintained. We want to meet the mandatory standards for bathing water quality and to see the investment in place to ensure that that happens. If the water companies were sensible about it—if they were looking not to their own profits and their directors' salaries, but to the way in which they spread their borrowing, where it comes from, to what they devote it and what their investment programme is —they would be able to meet the standards, and to do so a jolly sight sooner than they are currently doing, without imposing additional costs on the water customer.
  However, the Government appear to think that it is perfectly all right for our children to go to the seaside and paddle or swim in sewage-contaminated water. We do not believe that that is right, and we want our bathing waters to be cleaned up. If the Government were sensible about environmental protection, instead of trying to diminish standards they would be trying to ensure that that protection was put in place.

  339
  The other point that I promised the hon. Member for Gravesham that I would consider is the urban waste water treatment directive. That directive relates to the treatment of sewage from our urban areas. The fact that the city of Hull discharges all its sewage untreated into the Humber estuary is of obvious concern to many people. However, the Government—and the Conservative party echoes this point in its document—say, "Ah, but we didn't realise how much all this was going to cost." The Conservative party document states:
  "The cost of implementing the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive … is far higher than was first thought."
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No, I will not give way as I have already given way many times. Other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate and I want to make progress.
  By saying that the figures are far higher than they first thought, the Government are ignoring the fact that they were told very clearly when the urban waste water treatment directive was under discussion, and before the Government signed up to it, what the cost implications were going to be.
  In clear evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee in 1991—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I hope that it is a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Arnold: It is a point of order for the Chair, I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is no good hoping. That is not good enough.
  Mr. Smith: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I—
  Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you consider, with Madam Speaker, whether it is satisfactory for a debate to be held on a motion in the name of six right hon. and hon. Members, of whom only two are present in the Chamber, when the average attendance on the Opposition Benches has been 13? Would it not be better if we introduced a rule stating that 50 right hon. and hon. Members had to call for a motion to be tabled on the Order Paper—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be much better if the hon. Gentleman knew the procedures of the House. That is a matter for the Procedure Committee. It is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) may be confusing the procedures of this House with the procedures for leadership elections in the Conservative party.
  Before the Government signed up to the urban waste water treatment directive, they were told what the likely cost would be. The Water Services Association and the Fellowship of Engineering gave evidence to that effect to the House of Lords Select Committee, which determined that the estimates indicated expenditure of more than £8 billion. For the Government to say, "Oh, but no one told us
  340
  at the time," means either that they do not read Select Committee reports as they should or that they are displaying even greater incompetence than I expected. On all the issues—bathing water, drinking water, sewage treatment, access to environmental information, protection of habitats and air quality monitoring—Europe is far ahead of us. The progress that we have made in this country has been led by the European Community and the European Parliament. I commend especially the work of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament and its chairman, Ken Collins. The lead has certainly not come from either Marsham street or Downing street.
  Of course, there are things that Europe could, and should, be doing better. Agriculture is an obvious case. There is a need to move away from highly intensive methods of agriculture towards less intensive agricultural methods. The new procedures of set-aside may in some cases compound the problem and encourage even more intensive use of land that is not set aside. No serious thought appears to have been given to how set-aside land could be used ecologically.
  Improvement in the use of the structural funds may also be worth while. Regulations now refer to sustainable development and the need for environmental safeguards in the use of structural funds. I wish at times that the same principles could be applied to the trans-European road network.
  In Britain, as always, we lag behind. Britain has made some bids for structural funds without separate environmental assessments. English Nature and the Countryside Commission in England have not been formally involved in drawing up plans for submissions for structural funds although, interestingly, Scottish Natural Heritage has been involved in that process. When will the Government start to ensure that the environmental aspects of applications for structural funding from Europe are included as Europe expects them to be?
  The case is clear. Europe has a good record on the environment—much of it proposed, nurtured and campaigned for by Labour Members of the European Parliament. Of course there is room for improvement in what Europe does, but the present British Government have an outstandingly poor record on the environment. From the complacency of the post-Rio documents to the paucity of the "Third Update on Common Inheritance" which was published yesterday, and the content and tone of the Government's amendment today, there is precious little prospect of any improvement forthcoming in what the Government do in relation to our environment or in their contribution to the positive progress that Europe is, and should be, making in preserving and protecting our environment in Britain.
  4.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'recognises that the environment cannot be properly protected by national endeavour alone; acknowledges the importance of Europe-wide action to prevent pollution and improve environmental standards; applauds the work of the European Union and especially of the European Parliament in helping to safeguard the environment here in Britain; welcomes the lead taken by Her Majesty's Government in ensuring that the European Union plays an effective part in global environmental matters and implements the principle of sustainable development

  341
  in all its activities; insists that Britain should continue to press for sensible and cost-effective environmental decisions on those matters which are properly the concern of the European Union; welcomes the progressive policies of the United Kingdom in all those other areas where national measures are appropriate; is saddened by the failure of Her Majesty's Opposition and of the Liberal Democrat Party to support the necessary fiscal measures to reduce energy consumption; highlights their failure to evolve effective policy towards the environment and their desire to remove the United Kingdom's influence in the European Union by their insistence on majority voting and the abolition of the veto; and regrets the way in which they fail to support the Government's insistence that in internal matters it is for the United Kingdom Parliament to decide upon the most appropriate ways of reaching sustainable development goals.'.
  The House may have been rather surprised by the speech that we have just heard. At the end of it, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that much of what was good in Europe had been proposed, nurtured and campaigned for by the Labour party. Yet it is extremely difficult to understand what the Labour party stands for on any of the issues that he raised.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—with whom I do not always agree and have sometimes been sharp—asked what the Labour party's policy was. He received a clear answer: it was what the Labour party's policy was not. It is not Labour party policy to support a carbon tax, although 11 out of 12 countries do support it.
  I have a picture—to which I will not refer, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of the leader of the Labour party signing a statement in the manifesto of the European socialists for the European elections. He has signed up to the principle that majority voting will be the rule in the Council.When this fact was put to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—he used to be the Opposition spokesman for transport, but I am not sure what he speaks on now—he said that we were quoting from the French edition of the document. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman could have known that in any case, but we were actually quoting from the English edition which was signed by the Labour party.
  How will the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury square this fact? He says that we have to support all that comes from the European Community. Indeed, the burden of his speech was that on every occasion when the British Government had even questioned something that had been agreed in Europe, we were wrong and they were right. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that although 11 countries want the carbon tax, he and the Labour party do not want it. But he did not explain how the Labour party would deliver the reductions in carbon levels which can be delivered only by the sort of taxation system which we have put forward and to which he is substantially opposed.
  We could not meet our targets without that taxation system. The hon. Gentleman would not go along with the alternative of a carbon tax, which he rightly said was disadvantageous to the United Kingdom; that is why I have opposed it continually. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept either proposal, he is admitting that, far from having a policy of reducing carbon levels after 2000, he does not even have a policy for reducing them before 2000.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury had his facts wrong all along. He was challenged about his general statement that we are the only country in Europe which has not signed a policy for the reduction in carbon levels after the year 2000. But we are in the majority. We are one of 10 countries which have not signed a policy;
  342
  only two countries have such a policy. Even if we were not in the majority, this country believes in the European Union and therefore we believe that countries should set those targets together. That is the only way of ensuring that the whole of Europe signs policies which matter to the whole of Europe.
  The real problem with the motion before us is that, although it pays lip service to the Opposition's support for Europe, it betrays the Opposition's history with regard to Europe. The Labour party has had six changes of mind about Europe. It has been against Europe for far longer than it has been in favour of Europe. The only distinguished former Labour Secretary of State for the Environment hates the European Union and everything to do with it. He opposes it on every ground and if he votes for the motion this evening it will be with his eyes closed to the first half of the motion.
  The speech by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was sad not just because it was inaccurate or unacceptably vague about Labour party policy, but because it did not seek to establish a consensus with regard to the environment. Consensus is essential if we in this country and other nations in the European Union and beyond are to create the sustainable development on which the future of the globe depends.
  Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I will give way in a moment.
  We should establish consensus in this area, but, sadly, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has seen fit only to trot out a few inaccurate, party political statements.
  Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. In supporting his broad vision of the total absence of Opposition policies, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that even at the lowlier, purely factual, level there are further great holes in the argument of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. He referred to sewage and bathing water directives and so on, but it was his party which cut spending on sewerage by half and left many of my constituents in areas of population growth with sewage problems in their gardens. However, we have had the largest capital programme ever in this area.
  Mr. Gummer: I promise my hon. Friend that I will return to that and I will do so accurately, unlike the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who tried to push off a direct question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) about the cost of his proposal on water. The hon. Gentleman revealed that he had no idea what that cost was. I will tell the House that it would cost £10,000 million. It would take a large number of directors' salary reductions to make up £10,000 million pounds.
  The hon. Gentleman does not have a policy. When he was pressed on a carbon tax, he had no answer. When he was pressed on the figures relating to the way in which we are meeting the requirements of the urban waste water directive with the extra speed that he demands, he did not know them. The answer that he gave was clearly trumpery and rubbish because he did not want to give the real answer, which is that if we speed up the application of the directives, the cost falls upon the consumer. It can fall nowhere else.
  The hon. Gentleman also had the gall to mention Hull's infrastructure. Who does he think was responsible, until

  343
  relatively recently, for the investment in that? The people responsible were his friends in the Labour party, and we have difficulties today because of the constant failure of the public sector to invest. When the Conservative party says that private sector investment provides the answer, it is right, and the answer is £3,000 million a year in investment.
  That investment makes up in large measure for what happened particularly at the time of Denis Healey, when the Labour Government cut investment because they would not stop paying inflationary wage increases to their friends in the Labour-supporting trade unions, such as the Transport and General Workers Union and General and Municipal Workers Union.
  Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend remain seated for a moment while the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury intervenes to tell him what the Labour party's policy is?
  Mr. Gummer: I should be happy to do so, but the hon. Gentleman had three quarters of an hour and the position as far as the House is concerned is as befogging as it was when he began.
  Mr. Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend let me move on? I will come back to him in a moment, and I am sure that we will come back to this point.
  I want to get back to the issue of the environment. The Labour party is in no position to criticise the failings of others on the environment. It has never done anything memorable for the environment, either in or out of government, and today shows that it has no hope of doing so in the future.
  All the key environmental legislation in the past 25 years has been introduced by Conservative Governments. A Conservative Government created the Department of the Environment. All Labour has ever done is what it is doing today—carp, criticise and whinge from the sidelines. It has not even done that effectively.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Secretary of State tell the House which Governments introduced the Town and Country Planning Acts, the national parks and the country parks? Would he like to tell the House that those were Labour Governments and that the Labour party in government has a proud record on the environment?
  Mr. Gummer: It is sad that the hon. Gentleman has to go back to the 1945–1950 Government to produce two of his three very miserable suggestions. That was an amazing statement. "We have not had a policy since 1950, and we do not have a policy," says the Labour party; that is what we hear from the so-called environmentalists on the Opposition Benches.
  I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey: it looks as if he will be the only representative of the Opposition parties who will need some direct criticism. That is a sad situation and I think a question of ignorance.
  Let me cite a few examples. On climate change, we were the first country in the Union to ratify the climate convention. We were the first in the Union to produce the detailed programme for fulfilling our commitments to
  344
  return carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. We were the first to suggest how to it could be done: we did not just vaguely sign up.
  On sulphur dioxide, we have already reduced our emissions by 30 per cent. since 1980 and 40 per cent since 1970. In doing so, unlike some of our most vociferous critics and despite the fact that we were attacked by Opposition Members, we achieved the targets set by the so-called 30 per cent. club under the first United Nations Economic Commission for Europe SO2 agreement.
  We did not sign up when we did not know whether we could meet those requirements. We sought to meet them, and we have done so. Where we sign up, we deliver and where we do not sign up, we seek to deliver. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition, who have only generalities without a policy to back them.
  We are on course to meet our target of reducing nitrous oxide emissions to 1987 levels by the end of the year. We have one of most sophisticated networks for monitoring air quality anywhere in Europe, and an equally sophisticated network—the radioactive incident monitoring network—for monitoring radiation.
  About 95 per cent. of our rivers are of good or fair quality, compared with an average of only 75 per cent. in the rest of the Union. Why did not the hon. Gentleman say that the Union is good with 75 per cent., but we are better with 95 per cent.? Can he never praise Britain? Must he only praise other people? Is there not a place in the House for supporting the United Kingdom, or is the Labour party committed to pulling the nation down whenever possible?
  Mr. Tracey: My right hon. Friend will have noted that the motion talks about
  "applauding the work of the European Union and especially of the European Parliament in helping to safeguard the environment here in Britain."
  Coming much closer to home, has my right hon. Friend noted the difference in certain London boroughs where local councils deal with the environment? The hon. Gentleman represents a part of Islington. If one moves from Islington to Hackney to Lambeth and then to Wandsworth, one will notice a considerable difference in the environment. The point is that Wandsworth is controlled by the Conservative party.
  Hon. Members: It gets more grant.
  Mr. Gummer: The highest support per head is in Hackney, as a matter of fact, and those who live in Hackney will know which council out of Hackney and Wandsworth picks up rubbish.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury goes wrong in other areas. Some 98.7 per cent. of nearly 3 million drinking water tests in this country met the standards last year. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could say the same about Spain, Portugal, France, Greece or even Germany. I do not believe that many countries even test their water on that kind of scale, let alone meet those figures.
  Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister criticises Labour's environmental policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "What policy?"] If Conservative Members shut up for a minute, I will tell them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I make a plea that hon. Members should use normal English language, and not the language of the street.
  Mr. Smith: If Conservative Members keep their lips closed for a few moments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will tell them Labour's environmental policy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not on an intervention.
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: It would be a short intervention.
  Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has criticised Labour's environmental policy, part of which is to end the commercial trade in toxic waste between countries. Do the Government support that policy? If so, would they use their powers to ban toxic waste from being dumped from other countries in parts of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Gummer: I have not criticised Labour's environmental policy. I have complained that there is not a policy to criticise. I am sorry that the rules of the House —which I entirely accept—did not give an opportunity for those on the Back Benches to achieve something which those on the Front Bench did not manage, which is to explain what the Labour party's policy is. It certainly would not take long to describe Labour's policy in full.
  There is no dumping of toxic waste in this country, so the question does not arise. My aim is to ensure that toxic waste is dealt with in the most environmentally friendly way possible, so as to protect the people of this country and the rest of the European Union. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) will find me steadfast in that. I will not allow dumping, wherever it may be done.
  Moving on to our bathing waters, 80 per cent. of them meet EU standards already. I always like to look at what is happening elsewhere. I do not know how recently the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has been abroad, but if he was to travel the length and breadth of the Union he would probably learn that not every country even approached that percentage—I put it no more definitely than that. Why does the hon. Gentleman not point to the fact that we have already achieved 80 per cent. of the target, despite the virulent public spending cuts under the Labour Government? The hon. Gentleman should urge us on to achieving the other 20 per cent. instead of claiming that Britain is wicked because that 20 per cent. has not been achieved.
  We are committed to spending £30 billion over 10 years to improve the quality of our water. If that is not good enough, how much more is the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury asking for? Who will pay for it? How much will the money buy? Will it be cost-effective? What will the hon. Gentleman do about the things that he will not be able to pay for because he is spending the money on water? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] These are questions that the hon. Gentleman cannot and will not answer. That is why it is not reasonable to accept his credentials as a spokesman for the green sector.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I guessed that the Minister had reached the end of the section—hence my intervention now. In the Tory party manifesto for the European elections of five years ago, the Government stated, under the title "Cleaning up the sea and the rivers":
  "We want to do still better. We will ensure that all our bathing waters meet relevant European community standards."
  By what date was the promise of five years ago intended to be achieved? Surely it was implied that all the standards would be imposed 100 per cent. of the time.
  Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that in five years we have achieved 80 per cent.—not a bad start. I do not intend to derogate in any way from European standards of bathing water cleanliness. My arguments, in so far as I have any, are simple: for instance, how much longer should we attempt to implement methods of delivery that have been superseded by better methods? Should we not be less prescriptive, and examine the time limits that have been set in certain areas to see whether they are cost-effective? Should we not hold the sort of discussions that sensible people would hold if they were doing anything besides hurling comments at each other across the Chamber? Would it not be better to compare the £30 billion being spent over 10 years with the pathetic sums achieved when water was in the public sector?
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the National Rivers Authority are two of the toughest, most respected and most admired environmental regulatory agencies anywhere in the Union. Can the Opposition spokesman name me any two agencies in the whole Union with such a good worldwide reputation for efficacy? In English Nature and the Countryside Commission, and in their Scottish and Welsh equivalents, we have some of the most effective bodies in Europe for protecting our national heritage—bodies which other countries copy when they come to set up similar agencies.
  Our planning system is more effective at balancing economic and environmental considerations than are systems found in many other countries in the EU. We can use it to deliver sustainable development, and it is widely envied elsewhere.
  Today, Labour has clearly shown that it has no policy on the environment. Moreover, Labour is wrong to claim that the Government have not taken the lead in Europe in delivering policies that are the envy of other countries. It is we who are forcing the pace, not a few members of the Labour party in the European Parliament who appear not to have caught up with the fact that, here in Westminster, there is no policy for them to support or nurture.
  The fact is that there is no greater obstacle to sustainable development than the common agricultural policy—and who has done most to reform it and to bring the environment to its centre? The answer is: the United Kingdom. In four years, we have changed the whole EU attitude to the CAP; the environment has become not an add-on extra but a central issue.
  The mechanisms used in the common agricultural policy were pioneered by this country—environmentally sensitive areas, protected landscapes and the like. These were British inventions, now accepted throughout the European Union.
  Mr. George Stevenson: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to tell the House how much of the extra £6 billion—the Commission's figure —that the CAP will cost between 1991–92 and 1995–96 will be devoted to environmental improvement?
  Mr. Gummer: Far too little; we have sought all the time to make that a much larger part of the policy. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury tried to attack me, saying that we had not played a leading role in this campaign of bringing the environment to the centre. I should add that we have had precious little support in our effort from socialist Governments in the rest of Europe. The hon. Gentleman, if he wants to attack anyone, should

  347
  attack socialist Spain, from which I received no support on environmentally friendly farming. He should attack the then socialist France. The French prevented my every effort to improve environmentally friendly farming while I was fighting for Britain's cause and the environment at Agriculture Councils.
  The hon. Gentleman might have a word or two with socialists throughout Europe, who put fine words in documents and nice pictures of roses from "The Plantsman's Catalogue" but who say not a word when it comes to voting in meetings of the Council of Ministers [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) seems to have a lot to say, but I advise him to say it elsewhere to his friends in the Labour party.
  It is Britain which pushed and prodded—I had written down "a sometimes reluctant", but "an almost entirely unhelpful" is more to the point—Commission into getting its eco-labelling scheme up and running. From socialist France there came not a word. The French spent their whole time trying to stop it. Now, thank goodness, the Conservative Government in France are supporting us.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How many eco-labellings have been awarded in this country?
  Mr. Gummer: We have just got the system through, and the first has just been awarded—
  Mr. George Howarth: None, then.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should not shout out the first thing that comes into his head. We have fought hard and have only just got the first lot through—not because we failed but because the socialists in Europe did not support us. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to laugh, but he was infinitely out: he said none, whereas the answer was one. The hon. Gentleman would have received a better answer if his friends in Europe had supported the British Government.
  Our system of integrated pollution control is the most advanced in the world. Britain promoted the idea within the European Union, and it provided the foundation for the draft directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have not been here for the whole debate; had you been here, you would not have heard a word from the Opposition about integrated pollution control—the most important pollution control system in the world. Perhaps the Opposition spokesman's advisers did not tell him that the rest of the world is now copying it. As usual, we have led the way. It is Britain that pushed for the European Environment Agency when its establishment was being obstructed by the pettiness of others. We led the charge to put in place the eco-audit regulations.
  I shall remind the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury of what happened with the Basle convention on hazardous waste. The developing countries said that they were not happy with a framework in which we told even those countries with a method of dealing with hazardous waste that they could not have it. Some of them said that that would be an imperialistic way of dealing with the matter. We therefore said that we would not export hazardous waste to any country that either could not deal with it properly or did not want to have it. We thought that a perfectly reasonable argument.
  348
  Then, the group representing the developing countries changed its mind and said that it wanted there to be no export of hazardous waste, so the United Kingdom wrote the necessary keynote document and persuaded every other EU member to support that. We led the way and brought on board a number of countries that did not want to come on board. Why not praise the UK? Do not praise me or the Conservative Government, but for goodness' sake praise our nation rather than always trying to undermine it from Islington.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the Minister's comments on hazardous waste, will he here and now reject the document on hazardous waste published by his business-led deregulation task force, which asks the Department of the Environment to
  "examine the EC directive on hazardous waste…with a view to pressing for appropriate deregulatory change"?
  Mr. Gummer: I find the hon. Lady's attitude rather odd. In her professional life, would she honourably say that she would never discuss or investigate any matter with a view to taking appropriate decisions? I certainly would not say such a thing. On first reading, I think that the appropriate decision is to keep matters as they are or to do a number of things of which she might well approve. I am sure that no academic or anyone with a rational approach would say that he would not even consider any matters. I will consider anything that the hon. Lady proposes, and so far she has no reason to complain about my response.
  Time and again, we have argued that the EU's trade and environment policies should support each other. I am sad that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury cannot find it in his heart to acknowledge that Britain led the campaign to ensure that the World Trade Organisation would have an environmental input. We brought together the French, Spanish and Germans so that we could have a common view and we led the argument in the European Council to ensure that we achieved that. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that is something that Britain has done that we could both support. Why cannot we both say that? We should argue about the matters on which we disagree rather than the hon. Gentleman's inventing criticism and throwing it not at the Government but at this nation, working within the EU.
  Unlike some, we have nothing to fear from more rigorous enforcement of EU legislation. The hon. Gentleman managed to go through the whole of his speech not only not revealing Labour party policy, but not even mentioning enforcement. It does not matter what the EU decides if it does not enforce those decisions. Enforcement is the only thing that makes decision anything more than the outcome of a debating society meeting. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman's attitude to politics is that of a debating society, he does not mind if decisions are not enforced provided that he can attack Britain and the way that we deal with these matters.
  Subsidiarity means nothing more than allowing the Commission to concentrate its legislative and enforcement resources on those areas where Europe-wide legislation is essential. It must ensure that that legislation is complied with. We are able to take the leading role in Europe because we do what we say we will do—unlike those who agree to ambitious, headline-grabbing targets one day only to revise them when the spotlight of publicity has moved

  349
  on. Few other EU Governments set out specific policy objectives year onyear and then report on both the successes and the failures.
  The hon. Gentleman lauded certain countries in the EU—countries of which Britain can be proud to be a partner in the European Union that I so enthusiastically support. However, I also have some criticisms of them. How many of them have an annual update report on what they are doing on environmental issues and tell the public what they have failed to do as well as what they have done? None, as far as I know, but I hope that in the end all of them will do so because they tend to follow Britain.
  We have delivered on the commitments that we made in Rio. Our national strategies on climate change, biodiversity and sustainable development were published in January, which is when we said they would be published. What other countries have done that with such directness and completeness?
  Mr. Elliot Morley: When does the Minister intend to deliver on the Government's commitment on hedgerow protection?
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the House turned down the Hedgerows Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), with Government support. The hon. Gentleman knows that now we must find some form of protection that the House will support.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend may wish to confirm that my Bill received the full support of the Department of the Environment.
  Mr. Gummer: The Bill also received the full support of MAFF, where I was a Minister at the time.
  We have put in place the machinery of government, the networks of green-oriented Ministers, a permanent Cabinet Committee, annual reports, a high-level advisory panel appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and a round table of all the interests to maintain progress on delivering sustainable development.
  I have listed all the things that the Government have done to meet our commitments in Rio, in the conferences on sustainable development and in our documents—yet not one of them was mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Why is he afraid of saying how well we have done? Is it because he does not know or because it would again show us how little the Labour party has to offer to those who care about the environment?
  Mr. Chris Smith: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last comment, it is because I know that those things do not add up to very much. For the completeness of record about hedgerow protection, the right hon. Gentleman might like to inform the House that it was Conservative Back Benchers who ditched the Hedgerows Bill. The Labour party offered the Government full co-operation and support in bringing forward a Government Bill to protect our hedgerows, but the Government have failed to introduce such a Bill.
  Mr. Gummer: No one could accuse me of being anything other than very supportive both of the Hedgerows Bill and of the principle of protecting hedgerows. I hope that it will not be misunderstood when I say that I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Gentleman can come to this House without policies on energy, on water or on
  350
  any other subject on which he has been tackled. Yet his final fling is to complain that some individual Conservatives happened to hold a different view from him on hedgerows.
  That the official Opposition descend to that level of argument seems to me to be extremely worrying. I can promise that we will continue to look at the whole of the environment and not be led astray, as the hon. Gentleman would like us to be. I would have been much more receptive to criticism about any failure to support the Commission's fifth action programme on the environment, which was one of things that the hon. Gentleman flung at me, were it to come from those, including the Commission, who had done as much as we have to put powerful institutional momentum behind their promises. We have done more than those who are criticising us.
  It is because we do what we say that we have such a good record on implementation within the Union. Because we have such a large number of environmental organisations with a strong commitment to Europe, some 22 per cent. of all the complaints about infractions come from Britain. Yet they result in only 2 per cent. of the European Court of Justice environmental judgments being held against Britain. We have a better record than Germany, Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece. Why did the hon. Gentleman not mention that?
  We have heard much today about the difficulties and dangers of misleading the House, and I am very conscious of the need never to mislead the House. But is it not possible that one can mislead the House by failing to say something? Is it not misleading the House to say that Britain has a worse record than its neighbours when one fails to mention that it has a better record than Germany, Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece? Is not that in a sense not giving the whole story as it is?
  It is because we have such a good track record, because we are forcing the pace on the environment within the Union, because we do what we say and because we are prepared to make the difficult choices that we are in such a good position to protect all our interests.
  I shall now deal with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. The House will hear a large number of wonderfully flowery phrases about the Liberal party's commitment to the environment. The fact that they will fall on no other Liberal ears, for he is the only one here to tell us about it—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Out there they will.
  Mr. Gummer: Perhaps they will come back in to hear what they are supposed to say. The hon. Gentleman is incredible, because he has failed to support any measure that helps the environment and is tough. He will support any wet measure, any woolly measure, any proposal that his constituents do not have to pay for, anything that he can claim is rather nice on his manifesto. But when it comes to having to take the measures to reduce the waste of energy, when it comes to having to increase the cost of motoring because of the very issues that he raises, does he vote for them? Oh, no; he has a different way of doing it. It is not quite the same, and, of course, it would not pain anybody. It does not cost anything—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We never say that.
  Mr. Gummer: Ah. If they do not say it, perhaps he will own up to the fact that the Liberal party policy on the carbon tax plus their statements on VAT would mean that the effect on the price of fuel would, if anything, be greater than the VAT that we have introduced. I have not heard that said in any of the by-elections. I notice that he suggests that, if we cut out VAT on fuel, there would somehow or other be no other tax. The carbon bit and the basic VAT bit is kept for another day. I expect today to hear about it.
  I expect also to hear whether the hon. Gentleman has joined the environmental club, because the price of joining it is to agree to pay the admission charge, not expect other people to pay it—the other countries of Europe, the countries of the European Union, which he claims to support—but not pay it himself. But, of course, he will not pay it. He will do what he always does. He will say to the people outside, "If you vote for me, you will not pay the bill. Someone else will." If it is in the south-west, it will be the water consumers in Northumbria. Then his right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) says, "Hang on a moment." If it is not Northumbria, it will be the water consumers of Severn Trent.
  The hon. Gentleman is the ideal Liberal. Not only does he have a policy for every election, constituency, ward and street, but a policy for every house. And if there are two people in the house there are two policies. We know why, because his canvassing booklet has been leaked. It says you bang on—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does it say very much about the environmental policies?
  Mr. Gummer: I refer specifically to the section on the environment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the environment and everything else, it says very simply, "You ask the person on the doorstep what they are worried about and what they think, then tell them that that is what you are worried about and that that is what you think." Carrying the environmental message next door, they then ask what those next door think and, although they have always hated the people living on the other side because they think the opposite, that same candidate discovers—surprise, surprise —that he is absolutely in harmony with what those people think and want. House by house, and not very silently, the Liberal vote increases. But once they are in power in Tower Hamlets, what happens? They are rumbled. If one looks at the elections in Richmond, and I must say that I was pleased—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The local elections are now over.
  Mr. Gummer: I am hoping to defend our policies on the environment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because no doubt that will be a central part.
  We see the single market as an increasingly green market in which we have every intention of competing vigorously and successfully. This is an issue that should rise above partisanship. We will not solve the problems of the environment in this Parliament or the next, or for many thereafter. The issues are complex and difficult and affect all of us. They require difficult trade-offs to be made. If one spends non-cost-effectively in this area, one does not have the money to spend properly in another area needing environmental help. If one does something that one has not thought out properly in one area, it very often has a non-environmental effect somewhere else. Above all, if
  352
  one promises to deliver the goods without spelling out the cost, one misleads the people of Britain and does not deserve to enter in the debate. We serve no one's interest by allowing them to become mixed up in another bit of the daily round of debate.
  We cannot solve the issues in isolation. Britain has a great deal to contribute to the common effort, as we clearly demonstrated when John Major became the first world leader to go to Rio and lead the campaign to make it a world summit. We have carried that on through. We cannot do it on our own. We must do it as part of the European Union. It is in the European Union that we have been leading the way. It is with the European Union that we have forged the relationships with India and many other southern nations. It is with the European Union that we are able honourably to say not only that Britain one of the best environmental records in the world but that this Government have put Britain at the top of the environmental tree. It is the Labour party that has consistently failed to present any kind of policy or any good reason why anyone should take them seriously.
  Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The attendance of Opposition Members dropped to eight during the last part of that speech. If it goes below six—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with the Chair.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It was disappointing that the Secretary of State devoted almost all his allotted time to yah-boo politics; he would have done better to use some of it to discuss some of the problems with which the Government must deal. Three examples are eco-labelling, the Energy Saving Trust and legislation on hedgerows. It is extremely disappointing that the Government are making so little progress on all three.
  Let me deal first with eco-labelling, or green labelling. For at least five years a substantial number of people in this country—at least 30 per cent. of the population—have clearly been prepared to buy environmentally friendly products in preference to others, but most have found it difficult to identify the more environmentally friendly. They need a labelling system—the kind that the Germans had nearly 10 years ago and other European countries have subsequently adopted.
  The Government have said that it would be illogical to develop an eco-labelling system for this country alone, and that such a system should be EEC-wide, or rather European Union-wide. I accept that, if we are to have environmentally friendly products, it is far better to have them throughout Europe. It is sad, however, that because of bureaucracy in Europe, a lack of drive and the Government's inability to persuade other European Union countries, five years on only one product has been awarded an eco-label.
  That product is a relatively expensive washing machine produced by Hoover. The eco-labelling board is clearly reluctant to advertise it, not wishing to be associated with Hoover because of its problems. A cynic might say that Hoover had produced not only an environmentally friendly washing machine but environmentally friendly free trips, given that those trips do not actually happen.
  Because of all the difficulties, eco-labelling has been given no publicity. The one product to which it has been

  353
  applied is too expensive for many people to buy: they might buy eco-friendly soap powder or tissues, but they cannot afford to make the choice when it comes to washing machines. But, instead of telling us that the Government are trying to breathe new life into the eco-labelling system, the Secretary of State simply argued with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about whether having no labels or having one label was more important.
  Mr. Morley: The Government and the British eco-labelling board have consistently refused to consider animal welfare as one of the criteria for the eco-labelling scheme, although the subject has a direct bearing on cosmetics, shampoos and a range of other unrelated products. Other member states are interested in the matter, and we could set the pace.
  Mr. Bennett: I intend to refer to early-day motion 1208, which concerns eco-labelling and makes that very point.
  I hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, he will give us a progress report on eco-labelling. Perhaps he will venture to tell us how much Government money has been spent on each eco-labelled product that has been sold so far; I suspect that setting up the system has cost thousands of pounds for each washing machine costing a few hundred. As I have said, progress over the past five years has been disappointingly slow. The Government need to find a way of ensuring that a large number of products are labelled quickly in the European Community, thus returning some credibility to the scheme.
  Not only have the Government failed to get the system going, however; they have failed to deal with the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. As was made clear at the outset, one of the problems is caused by the false claims of many companies that their products are environmentally friendly. Some claim simply that their product is "green", which it is virtually impossible for a trading standards officer to investigate; others claim that certain ingredients are not included in the product—usually a detergent—when rival products do not contain those ingredients either. It would have been very simple for the Government to table an amendment to the Trade Descriptions Act, making it clear that any attempt to make environmentally friendly claims that could not be justified breached that legislation.
  The Government must carry public opinion with them —and this is where testing on animals comes in. Many people who would be prepared to buy environmentally friendly products are concerned that those products should not have been tested on animals. I realise that this is a difficult subject, and I do not entirely accept the "holier than thou" arguments of the Body Shop: many of the products that originally went into shampoos were originally tested on animals. If the Government and the eco-labelling board want to carry public opinion, however, they must come up with some method of assessing whether it is essential for a product to have been recently tested on animals.
  The Body Shop also argues that labels should be awarded to only a small proportion of products. That is a mistake: I think that we should try to ensure that virtually 100 per cent. of some products, especially detergents and shampoos, eventually meet the eco-labelling requirements. I understand why one or two shops want environmentally
  354
  friendly products to have a certain exclusiveness, but if we are concerned about the environment that is the wrong attitude.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: One of the problems is the fact that the scientific base on which such judgments are made is constantly moving on. For instance, many people have switched to buying diesel cars, only to be shell-shocked on reading a recent report that diesel cars may well be considerably more damaging to the environment than the cars that they bought previously. How would the hon. Gentleman deal with that problem?
  Mr. Bennett: I am quite prepared to accept that eco-labelling is not easy, but the west Germans have managed it for a number of years; besides, it is much easier in the case of certain products. I submit that, if it is difficult for people to award the labels and for hon. Members to make judgments now on the Floor of the House, it is equally difficult for other people to make such judgments when they are going around supermarkets and stores.
  I believe that in many areas it is possible to make a scientific judgment. Such judgments must be made on the basis of the best information currently available, and alternative views may well be advanced in the future. It is difficult to say that certain products are environmentally friendly throughout Europe, which is one of my reasons for criticising the authorities for starting with washing machines. I have always thought that it must be hard to find a washing machine that would be environmentally friendly in the lake district and southern Italy. In the lake district, water consumption will not be particularly important, whereas energy and heat consumption for drying will be, while in parts of southern Europe where water is much more expensive it will be important for the machine to use the minimum amount; the drying may not be nearly so much of a problem.
  It was the Government who said that, rather than establishing a British system, they would introduce a European system and encourage the rest of Europe to go along with it. As I have said, it is disappointing that, after five years, only one product—an expensive washing machine—has been given a label.
  The Secretary of State made great claims about our signing up to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000. When the Environment Select Committee—of which I am a member—looked into the matter, it found that the Government's main delivery mechanism was to be the Energy Saving Trust. It was to have a programme involving energy conservation, and it was hoped that it would provide at least 30 per cent. of the reduction in emissions.
  The problem faced by the Environment Select Committee six months ago was where the money would come from to fund the Energy Saving Trust. It was suggested that it should come from a levy on the gas industry. The Select Committee wanted to know what the electricity and other industries as well as the Government would contribute to the Energy Saving Trust.
  The Government have now appointed a new gas regulator and she does not believe that there should be a contribution from the gas industry to the trust. She believes that such a contribution would be pure taxation and would be illegal. It is time that the Government told us from where the trust is to obtain its money if it is not to receive it directly from the gas industry. Unless the Government

  355
  can find some money for it, it will not be able to deliver the 30 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. It is an urgent and serious problem. How can the Energy Saving Trust plan a programme for energy saving if it does not know how it is to be financed?
  I think that there is a great deal of scope for encouraging people to move towards energy efficiency. We should also look towards solving the problem facing many low income households where it is difficult for them to find the capital to insulate their homes in order to reduce energy consumption and to make savings in their gas and electricity bills. It is important that the Government or the Energy Saving Trust should talk to the building societies and others to ensure that there is an assessment of how much energy is being lost from each property and then to see whether loans can be made to enable people to carry out the necessary work.
  It is urgent that the Government tell us how they intend to finance the Energy Saving Trust. If they cannot come up with a system of finance, we will not be able to deliver our commitment to reduce emissions by the year 2000.
  It was unfortunate that the Government did not have the courage in the previous parliamentary Session to introduce a Bill on hedgerows. They put it in their manifesto and I suspect that 90 per cent. of hon. Members would have supported them. They did not have the bottle to do it. They left it to the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) to introduce a private Member's Bill. They then allowed a small handful of their Back Benchers to filibuster and thwart the legislation.
  I am disappointed that the Government have not introduced legislation in this Session. Several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), have offered to introduce such a Bill, but the Government have rejected all their suggestions.
  We know that the Government are talking about introducing a Bill in the next Session, possibly to merge the Countryside Commission with English Nature and to set up the environment protection agency. I do not know whether the rumours are correct, but it is being suggested that the Government are trying to draw up the Bill in such a narrow way that it will simply be a bureaucratic measure dealing with the procedures of those organisations but that it will not spread over into any other environmental issues. That would be an insult to the House. If the Government are to introduce such a measure in the next Session, they must include hedgerows.
  When the Minister replies I hope that he will make it clear that the Government intend to do that. They cannot go on ducking the issue. Hedgerows are disappearing and, worse still, many have not been maintained appropriately over recent years. I strongly believe that, if the Government can provide money for set aside and other things for farmers, they should provide money to regenerate many of the hedgerows that are disappearing.
  The Government keep claiming that Britain does better than many of the other EU countries. If that is correct, how often have the Government gone to the Commission demanding enforcement across the rest of the EU? It is important that they tell us that. It is no good just complaining about a lack of enthusiasm from other parts of
  356
  the Common Market. The real issue is how far and how often the Government use the mechanisms within the EU to ensure that there is enforcement.
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): Constantly.
  Mr. Bennett: If that is the case, I hope that the Minister can give us one or two examples of his success when he replies.
  I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says about what the Government intend to do to take forward eco-labelling, where they intend to find the money for the Energy Saving Trust, when they intend to do something about hedgerows and what they intend to do about enforcement throughout the EU.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I was so enraged by the comments by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that I should like to put on record the fact that the last Labour Government made the largest cut in the sewerage programme that there has ever been in this country. They cut it by about half. Areas such as that covered by Canterbury council, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) had growing populations and when I arrived as a new Member I found that many of my constituents suffered from the most appalling sewage problems.
  Privatisation has enabled the largest ever programme of sewerage investment to take place in this country. In the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North and myself, we have seen a brand new, ecologically sensitive, sewage works to replace an unbelievably filthy and smelly old one. The product that comes from that sewage works is used as fertiliser by the farmers. There has been a complete reworking of the sewerage system of Herne Bay, and many new pipes, including a major one at Seasalter in my constituency.
  I want to deal mainly with metal recycling, particularly the EC directives on waste management and waste shipments. I have a good news story to tell. We were close to a Christopher Booker style horror story when the rapid and effective intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), who was the new Minister responsible, averted what could have been a serious cock-up.
  There are essentially two scrap metal industries—ferrous scrap metal and the British Secondary Metals Association. I have links with the BSMA because one of its past chairmen is a constituent of mine—he is our deputy lord mayor.
  These are important industries. The BSMA embraces 30,000 jobs and hundreds of millions of pounds worth of exports. Even more relevant to this debate, it is by far the best established and most effective recycling industry in the country. A casual observer with only a mild interest in politics might imagine that, when the Government are committed to recycling and when we have a deregulation initiative in hand, we might be looking at ways to reduce regulations for such a highly successful recycling industry. In fact, as a result of the two EC directives to which I have referred, we were on the brink of having a string of new measures which would have had a devastating effect on the industry.

  357
  The waste management directive is something which I believe that nearly everyone here would support in outline. It is a thoroughly sensible idea that, in the public interest, we should have more regulation of waste disposal facilities such as rubbish tips and so on. The problem is that it appears—we will not know for certain until July—that its definition of waste includes metal recycling. We must bear in mind the fact that, on the average BSMA site well over 90 per cent. of what goes in through the gates comes out again, mostly in the form of high-cost, high-quality metal products, whether it is tungsten, copper, zinc or whatever. It is an extraordinary anomaly that the industry could be categorised with rubbish.
  Also, our industry is concerned about what the regulations mean for them and about what is being done in other parts of Europe. Concern focused on two areas. First, there was the proposal for a duty of care which could mean, in principle, a lot of extra metal work and, in a business where there are many small transactions, it could lead to a great deal of paperwork.
  Secondly, and even more serious, concern focused on arrangements for surrender. It is not always known what preceded a secondary metal site, which is usually built on 9 in of concrete, with the bulk of the site indoors. If people are made responsible for the sins of previous site owners, the impact on the value of their principal asset—their site—will be tremendous, and the willingness of bankers to lend and insurers to insure may evaporate.
  I do not want to bore the House or my hon. Friend the Minister with an account of what other European countries are doing. The good news is that my hon. Friend has secured a five-month delay on the implementation of the regulations. The industry and his Department are investigating practice in other European countries. The BSMA and I are confident that that those countries have made less onerous proposals for implementing, the directive and that we can learn from experience abroad.
  I am particularly encouraged that my hon. Friend the Minister has said that we will have our own title. Although it is only a matter of the label, that shows a change of mind. The regulations will be called the metal recycling regulations to distinguish them from ordinary waste management—a fundamentally different activity.
  We have had a lot of hot air from hon. Members about toxic waste, about which everyone is concerned. No one wants toxic waste to be dumped in an unsatisfactory fashion or to be transported in ships along coastlines.
  In introducing new regulations, we must be careful that they do not catch perfectly legitimate businesses. Products are classified into green, amber and red categories. Batteries are amber items. It is in the interests of people who want a good environment that batteries should be purchased and sold to customers, whether in this country or abroad, for recycling and reuse.
  Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the highly developed industrialised world could assist countries that are striving to achieve that same level of industrialisation by taking some of their most hazardous waste and dealing with it in ways that we have painfully developed over many years?
  Mr. Brazier: Indeed. My hon. Friend anticipates my comments. He and I share in our county the university of Kent, the world leader in the biodegradation of hazardous waste products. We could make that technology available
  358
  to the world, to the benefit of the whole world. We must be careful that the regulations do not frustrate the objectives that they are designed to achieve. Other Departments might like to take note of the example of the Minister who recognised a potential problem and that serious worries had been exposed, but who was willing to listen and to say, "Let us take this slowly and carefully to see whether we can achieve our objectives in a way that is satisfactory to everyone." For that, I am most grateful.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: As always, this is an important debate. It will be all the more interesting because none of the three parties' manifestos for the European elections has been officially published yet. My colleagues—
  Mr. Simon Burns: And I.
  Mr. Hughes: My colleagues and I will vote for the motion and not for the amendment. We welcome the Labour party's interest in the subject, which has grown over the years, although it is still weak at the top: the Leader of the Opposition is still not overtly interested in the matter and has said less about it than even the Prime Minister.
  In my objective opinion, today the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) did not make one of his best speeches, whereas, in terms of performance, the Secretary of State did.
  The fundamental flaw in the Labour party's justified attack is that it does not have adequate answers to some of the key questions. Until the Labour party sorts out the answer to the difficult question of how to pay for what it wants, it will have no credibility on environmental policy, environmental taxation and eco-taxation.
  Mr. Burns: How will the Liberals do it? Answer the question.
  Mr. Hughes: I shall answer the question, but let me deal with other matters. After about 10 minutes of expectation, the hon. Gentleman will have three minutes of fulfilment.
  All the opinion polls show that environmental policy has been one of the most successful and most popular in the history of the European Community. The environment was not part of EC policy when it was created, although it was vaguely referred to in the preamble to the treaties in the early 1950s. It was included formally only when the heads of Government resolved to do so at their 1972 summit. One of the mischievous bits of history is that it was Lady Thatcher who signed up to the environmental commitments of the EC, to which the European Commission then paid attention and submitted proposals. When Prime Minister, it was Lady Thatcher who took the Single European Act 1986 through the House. It was only as a result of that Act and only after 1986 that we have really been committed to environmental policies as part of the European Community.
  That Act, by which an article to the treaty of Rome was introduced, states:
  "Action by the Community relating to the environment shall have the following objectives: to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment; to contribute towards protecting

  359
  human health; to ensure a prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources."
  An article in the treaties then allows legislation for environmental activity.
  There have been European environmental action programmes—we are up to the fifth, which runs from 1993 to 2000 and is referred to in the motion. The debate on the Maastricht treaty touched on how much the Government would backtrack from their environmental commitments, which is a serious concern. Some of us believe that, were it not for the European Community, environmental attainment standards in Britain would be far lower.
  We are naturally sceptical, therefore, if subsidiarity provisions under Maastricht will mean that the power to make decisions on environmental matters will return to the Government, not remain in the European Union. There was much suspicion—not all of it proven, but some of it apparently was justified—that during negotiation on the Maastricht treaty, the Commission did not pursue environmental issues against the Government, for example, in relation to Twyford Down, because it wanted to keep the United Kingdom on board.
  The environmental impact assessment directive has been one of the best achievements of European legislation. It was passed by the House and it ensures that the effect of many proposals, such as road and power schemes, are assessed for their impact on the environment. Other directives raise our standards and tighten targets on air quality and emissions, including vehicle emissions, which, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) will remember, followed an initiative from the European Community. Bathing water is probably the most urgent, controversial and topical matter, even before the publication today of the National Rivers Authority report on the quality of our beaches. Promptings on all those matters came from the European Community.
  We may be good at enforcing directives that we have agreed compared with other member states. At least the law binds us, and the Government normally agree to sign up to a directive. For instance, the Conservative party manifesto for the previous European election gave a commitment to honour the bathing water directive.
  The Government are aware that they are also being judged on other proposals that are in the pipeline and to some of which other hon. Members have already referred.
  The Labour motion criticises the Government for their substantial failures. If the Government are honest they will admit—and anyone observing the environmental agenda will certainly admit—that they have as yet made no commitment to ensuring that the rest of the habitats directive is implemented in domestic law. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) rightly reminded the Government that they have not honoured their manifesto commitment to legislate to protect hedgerows. Such legislation would have been passed had the Government been determined.
  The Government appear to have backed off completely, but I hope that they will reconsider a Europewide system of civil liability for environmental damage. It is very important that there should be a legislative remedy for such damage, but the Government have tried to ensure that no such remedy exists.
  We have not heard details of the implementation proposals of the fifth action programme; nor have the
  360
  Government been positive about the proposed amendments to extend the environmental impact assessment directive. There is a list of similar items, some of which have been alluded to in today's newspapers, because yesterday the Government produced their checklist of what they had and had not done. Knowing that that list was coming, the Labour party rightly chose today for this debate.
  The Government should not really need to be reminded of what still needs to be done, but I hope that they will now honour their commitments. We have not yet had details of the air quality targets which were due in 1993, nor have we received details of the minimum construction standards for chemical and oil stores which were due in 1992. We were also expecting proposals for the removal of lead solder from water pipes which were promised in 1992.
  We are still awaiting proposals for the adequate protection of sites of special scientific interest, especially after the National Audit Office today confirmed that one in five—or 20 per cent.—of them have been partly or wholly damaged since the legislation to protect them came into operation. We are also awaiting the draft legislation for the environmental protection agency. There is still no sign of the terms of reference, let alone the timetable and details, of the nuclear review. In addition, contaminated land registers appear to have dropped off the agenda altogether.
  Mr. Atkins: Yes.
  Mr. Hughes: Long-term targets for limiting CO2 emissions seem to have disappeared.
  Mr. Atkins: No.
  Mr. Hughes: In that case, I look forward to hearing what they are.
  Most vividly and most recently, the Government were wholly determined to thwart the energy conservation proposals outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—the Minister himself ensured that the Energy Conservation Bill was talked out.
  There is a further worrying suggestion in today's newspapers. The Government yesterday published their third yearly report after "This Common Inheritance". It was eight months late, but the Government's lame excuse was that they had to wait for their proposals on sustainable development. Any logical person would realise that the report could have been published on time eight months ago; the sustainable development proposals, which were meant to have been in place by the end of last year, could have been published later; and the fourth report could then have been published on time later in 1994. However, the third report appeared only yesterday.
  It has been reported today, especially in The Daily Telegraph, that the Government may be deciding not to produce another report. I expressly ask the Minister to give an undertaking that, as the Government promised in 1990 when they issued the first report, there will continue to be annual reports, that they will in future be published on time and that they will contain a checklist of what has and has not been achieved. I agree with the Secretary of State that it is a good thing for the Government to produce annual reports. The Government gave an undertaking to do so and, if they are now dropping it, it would severely weaken their accountability.
  Mr. Atkins: This is the first that I have heard of any such intention. It is certainly not my intention or that of the Secretary of State that such reports should be dropped.
  Mr. Hughes: I am encouraged by the Minister's reply. However, I refer him or his officials to the suggestion in The Daily Telegraph today. I had not heard the suggestion before. The Government clearly made a commitment in 1990 that there should be annual reports. We were frustrated because this year's report was eight months late, which was inexcusable. It would also be far better if there were an opportunity annually for the report to be sent to the appropriate Select Committee, for the Select Committee to issue a report on it to be put before the House and for us then to assess annually the national and global environment, as happens in the United States.
  I deal now with two issues in which I know that all hon. Members are interested. I accept the Secretary of State's proposition that, if we are to join an environmental club, we have to pay the admission cost. By way of a preface, may I say that there was nothing in the Conservative party's 1992 manifesto or in the Labour party's 1992 manifesto about energy taxes. However, my party's manifesto did mention them and our proposals were costed. In order to make it clear, I shall put our proposals on record.
  Our view is set out clearly, and it will save Tory central office sending people for the brief—
  Mr. Burns: "Costing the Earth".
  Mr. Hughes: No. Our view has been set out most recently not in "Costing the Earth" but in another document, properly adorned—it is the European policy document passed by our conference at the beginning of the year, in March.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: It is the same as "Costing the Earth".
  Mr. Hughes: No, it is not the same as "Costing the Earth". I have never before written a document which has had such a wide readership among all parties as "Costing the Earth". Had I known that it would be so popular, I would have increased the price and insisted on taking royalties. I shall not bore the House with details of our policy process, but it clearly fascinates Tory Members, so I shall relate a quick history of it.
  As Conservative Members know now, we considered and rejected the idea of value added tax on domestic fuel and we now have this policy, which I commend to the House. The new policy is contained in one and a half columns of the document—in other words, there is plenty of it. I shall not read it all; I shall paraphrase.
  We propose a shift in the burden of taxation towards taxing resources rather than people. We also propose a carbon energy tax along the lines of the European suggestion, which we could not accept as it stands because it stupidly leaves out some of the biggest polluters, which is clearly nonsense. Such a tax should be phased in and we believe that the rate should vary according to the energy content of the fuel and the amount of carbon dioxide that it releases. That would mean making cleaner sources cheaper and the polluting ones more expensive.
  I come now to the party political issue—let us not mess around. Such a tax would be revenue-neutral, because the money raised would be put back into the economy in one of three ways. First, there would be compensation for those who were especially vulnerable to higher energy and transport costs. Secondly, there would be targeted investment in energy efficiency schemes and public
  362
  transport. Thirdly, and interestingly—especially for a Government who say that we must retain VAT on domestic fuel—there would be a reduction in other taxes such as income tax, national insurance contributions and employers' national insurance contributions and, perhaps, a reduction in VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent.
  We cannot get rid of VAT on fuel now because we are committed to it under European legislation. However, as I have told the Secretary of State to his face, we do not believe that levying VAT on domestic fuel was the right way to tax fuel. In any event, the paradox is that in last year's Budget the Government also proceeded to levy taxes on petrol which were higher than we had proposed.
  We voted against them, but not because we did not believe that fuel costs should go up. We did, and do, believe that they should. That view has been shared by all three parties and all three have gone on the record on the subject. But we did not believe that the Government should impose the combination of VAT on domestic fuel, increasing in two stages up to 17.5 per cent., and the increase in petrol duty.
  Mr. Burns rose—
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Hughes: I did not think that I would get through my speech without having to give way. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), as often, was the first to indicate his interest.
  Mr. Burns: As the hon. Gentleman is in such helpful mode, I should be grateful if he would help me a little further. On the revenue-raising side of the equation, will he tell the House how much would be raised by the proposals that he paraphrased? On the other side of the equation, has his party made an assessment of the impact of the proposals, before any reliefs, on rural parts of the country?
  Mr. Hughes: Yes. At the risk of being tedious, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have. I have another document here, which I shall let him see afterwards. It contains costings from our 82 manifesto—
  Mr. Burns: Eighty-two?
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, 82.
  Mr. Nicholls: Eighteen eighty-two?
  Mr. Hughes: No, it was 1982—or rather, 1992. I meant to say 1992. Two whole pages—pages 5 and 6—of our 1992 manifesto set out the yields for proposals linking car tax to fuel efficiency, the cost of a 1 per cent. cut in VAT phased in over five years, increases in benefits for the poorest, and other compensation measures for people with disabilities and people in rural communities. All that is set out year by year.
  Mr. Burns: How much?
  Mr. Hughes: In the first year nil, in the second year £80 million, in the third year £240 million, in the fourth year —but I need not go on. It is all here. We have all the details for the graduation of vehicle excise duty with fuel efficiency, and for environmental grants and subsidies. Because it is all so detailed, I shall not amplify my explanation any further, but I assure the hon. Members for Chelmsford and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—
  Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman send me a copy?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a copy, and I shall not charge him for it. As the hon. Member for Teignbridge, too, always quotes Tory central office briefings during such debates, I shall let him have a copy as well.
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Hughes: I shall allow one more intervention; then I shall say a few words about bathing water; then I shall finish.
  Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We always enjoy his contributions, even when he turns round and says, "Forget about that previous document; we've got another document now." From what he has said, we now understand that there has been a terrible misunderstanding and that the Liberal Democrats actually supported an increase in petrol prices, but not quite as large an increase as the Government chose. So will he remind us whether, during the passage of the Finance Bill, he tabled an amendment calling for an increase in petrol prices, but not such a large increase as ours? I cannot recall such an amendment, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remind me if there was one.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is hoist with his own petard. He should remember the procedure. In this place we first vote on the money resolutions; a selection is made of those on which we are to vote. There was a vote on that resolution, and we opposed it.
  Mr. Nicholls: Did the hon. Gentleman table an amendment?
  Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Treasury spokesman of the Liberal Democratic party, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), who participated in the Committee proceedings on the Finance Bill, made our position clear.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge is unusually badly informed, for him. I can send him chapter and verse, showing that we have argued for increases in petrol prices, but that before the 1993 Budgets we argued that they should be less than the increase that the Government eventually chose. Thereafter we said, "Look, you have gone over the top. Even you need not have done that much."
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Hughes: I shall send the hon. Gentleman chapter and verse.
  Mr. Nicholls: So the answer is no.
  Mr. Hughes: The answer is not no. The argument went on in Committee almost ad nauseam. We voted accordingly and the speeches are on the record.
  My last point is about the bathing water directive. The issue is not only topical but extremely important. There is a programme under way to ensure that we comply with European standards. Many of our beaches do not comply. When people go to resorts such as Blackpool and Brighton, they often have to swim in sewage. That is a disgrace. It is unacceptable. At a time of high environmental awareness, we cannot expect to persuade people to spend their holidays here if that is what happens when they go to many of the beaches round our country.
  364
  We believe that we must honour the commitments; we must not water them down. Of course, a politically acceptable formula must be found, and that means a variety of things. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) suggested, it means changing the basis on which people pay their water rates. It means changing the way in which the cost is shared over the whole country. It should not be borne disproportionately by the region with the most beaches, such as the south-west. I have supported proposals by hon. Members to alter that, whichever party they come from. Finally, there must be more public investment by the Government. The problem is not insuperable. The Government can deal with it, but standards must not be reduced.
  I hope that our clarity on this and other issues will be rewarded when in many places we are returned as the party with the best environmental commitments—[Laughter.] —at the European elections next month. I assure the Government that their inadequacy in honouring their commitments means that they will find it difficult to defend their record.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Harold Elletson: I shall not take up too much of the time of the House, but I want to make a couple of general points and one specific point on a subject that, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, has not been touched on so far. I congratulate the Opposition on choosing a debate on this subject, although it is a bit of a shame that the speech by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) did not match the magnificence of his theme.
  None the less, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, because the environment is a sphere in which Europe has an important role to play. Clearly, many environmental problems cannot have a purely national solution. Pollution does not respect international frontiers; it works its way through the air, the sea and the rivers of Europe, oblivious to any notion of national sovereignty. So it is right that we should seek solutions to those common international problems at a European level.
  The question is how Europe can best address those problems. What institutions and organisations are best equipped to provide solutions, and how far should their competence extend? That is a developing area of European policy, where targets, strategies and institutions are being fashioned to meet the challenge of protecting our common environment. The environment is an area of great public concern, in which the legitimacy of Europe's competence is widely accepted, and where European solutions are expected. It is also an area in which Europe has already demonstrated its determination to bring about significant improvements in the quality of our environment. As the Secretary of State has already outlined, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in shaping European policy, institutions and legislation.
  However, several issues concern me, and they will present Europe with real dangers, difficulties and challenges in the years ahead. Those issues must remain at the forefront of the Government's approach to the European environment.
  The first problem is the damage that the European Union could do to itself and to its long-term ability to provide solutions to environmental problems if it fails to get the balance right between issues best tackled at a

  365
  European level and those that are best left to national Governments. A failure to make that distinction would undermine all the good work being done. It would create disillusionment and, ultimately, destroy European institutions. That is why subsidiarity is so important, and why the Government are absolutely right to pursue it as doggedly in the environmental sphere as in any other.
  My constituency was recently threatened by the over-zealous encroachments of a Greek Commissioner, Mr. Paleokrassas, who decided to try to ban bathing on Blackpool's beaches. It would not surprise me if the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) agreed with that idea, because he talked about people swimming in raw sewage off Blackpool. Of course, that was absolute nonsense. The very thought of banning bathing off Blackpool's beaches is absurd, and was rightly recognised to be a monstrous piece of Greek cheek.
  In the event, Mr. Paleokrassas's attitude proved completely unnecessary. After a campaign by Michael Welsh, the Member of the European Parliament for Lancashire Central, the Commissioner agreed that his proposed bathing directive would have been unnecessarily intrusive and that decisions on whether to close beaches were best left to national Governments and local authorities. If he had not had the good sense to accept Michael Welsh's argument, he would have done untold harm—harm which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey still seems prepared to do—to Blackpool's lifeblood, its tourist industry.
  He would also have failed to put in place any more effective solution to the problem than was already being provided by North West Water, because the north-west now has a £5 billion programme to modernise the water and sewerage infrastructure of the region. That will include a brand-new, high-technology waste water treatment plant at Fleetwood, along the coast from Blackpool, which will mean that Blackpool and the Fylde coast will be able to meet the, quite rightly, high standards of the bathing waters directive by 1996. It could not be done any quicker than it is being done at the moment and the European Commissioner's attitude was as irresponsible, before he reconsidered, as that of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey currently appears to be.
  My second anxiety is about the problem of implementation and enforcement. A common criticism of European legislation is that it never appears to be universally applicable. In this country, we ensure that it is enforced rigorously. We have an excellent record of implementing Community environmental legislation in full and on time. The same cannot be said for many of our European partners. Between 1988 and 1992, of all the cases in which the European Court of Justice identified infractions of environmental legislation, only 2 per cent. were against the United Kingdom, compared with 10 per cent. against France, 16 per cent. against Germany and 24 per cent. against Italy.
  To return to my example of the bathing waters directive, it is very irritating to find that while the European Commission was turning its attention to Britain's beaches, where a multi-billion pound programme was under way to meet the new standards, other European countries appeared able to get away with staggering levels of pollution.
  The Secretary of State mentioned some of the appalling horror stories from the rest of the European Community. A
  366
  recent report in the Daily Express revealed the pollution in some other European resorts. It said, for instance, that in France, untreated sewage is discharged in Nice, and
  "at Cannes, special filter boats battle to clean up the water.
  In Italy, the Bay of Naples is muddy brown, churning raw sewage and oil from tankers…
  In Spain, a high water stain of pollution and sewage rings the resorts of the Costa Brava and Costa Blanca …
  In Portugal, raw waste from shanty towns flows directly into the sea along parts of the Algarve."
  For all the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey speaking about people who visit Blackpool swimming in sewage, which is nonsense, he should consider, as should Labour Members, what is happening in other parts of the European Community, not spend his time talking down British resorts, and British tourism, which is Britain's second-largest industry.
  The Government are absolutely right to make implementation of environmental legislation a major priority. We should hold all member states to account and insist that the Commission monitors implementation and publishes its findings.
  The third problem that I wanted to mention, which has not been mentioned but which none the less strikes me as very important, is the scale of the environmental catastrophe confronting Europe and our efforts to tackle it.
  Little has been said about what I would refer to as "the forgotten half of Europe". Communism in eastern Europe has left a tragic legacy of environmental devastation and pollution. The countries of eastern Europe and of the former Soviet Union have inherited massive air and water pollution, degradation of the soil, deforestation and loss of biological diversity. Lakes, forests and seas are dying or disappearing. Marshes are turning into sandy wastes. Noxious emissions have polluted scores of cities. The number of cases of terminal cancer and respiratory diseases has increased in industrial areas. The nuclear industry in certain areas continues to be a serious problem.
  That is happening throughout eastern Europe, but the problem is especially bad in the former Soviet Union and in Russia. Water pollution, contaminating drinking water, has led to outbreaks of disease in the former Soviet Union. Water pollution has reached crisis proportions in parts of Kazakhstan and the rest of central Asia after decades of improper agricultural practices, such as the over-use of pesticides. In Siberia, Lake Baikal, the largest freshwater lake in the world, is polluted by a pulp and paper mill, which every year disgorges into the lake 100 megatonnes of cellulose waste, only partially treated by an inadequate purification system. The condition of Lake Ladoga, outside St. Petersburg, in which levels of phosphorous have increased by 300 per cent., and those of nitrogen by 30 per cent., in the past 30 years, is alarming.
  All that is happening on our doorstep. That is only one example of water pollution, but one can go through every sphere of environmental concern—soil degradation, industrial and radioactive waste—and find the most horrific examples of massive environmental catastrophe on our doorstep. It is extraordinary that that has not been mentioned in the debate. It is perhaps a measure of how seriously we treat the problem. However, I think that the Government are starting to take it seriously. Some measures are now in place which begin to tackle the problem.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The subject of the former Soviet Union and the eastern bloc was mentioned earlier. My hon.

  367
  Friend may remember that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) deplored the role of the private sector in this country in environmental policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the appalling human and environmental tragedies in eastern Europe occurred under state control, and that many British companies, including privatised water and power companies, are now active in eastern Europe, helping to sort out the problems that state control created?
  Mr. Elletson: My hon. Friend is right. That was one of the more ludicrous arguments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury in what was pretty well an entirely ludicrous speech. Of course state control, state communism and state planning have created the problem in eastern Europe, and the British private sector and European private companies are helping to clean it up.
  My plea to the Minister is that we should consider further ways of helping British and European companies to tackle that problem. We have begun to do that through initiatives such as the know-how fund, and through organisations such as the London Initiative on the Russian Environment, but I hope that we shall find further ways of helping to solve a major environmental catastrophe on our doorstep.
  6.27 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I shall speak briefly and offer one cautionary example of what I believe is the threat posed to all of us by the implications for the environment of the Government's policy on the environment within their policies on Europe.
  We heard much from the Secretary of State about how a good environmental policy must be operated internationally within the European and the international frameworks. We totally agree with that. Indeed, the members of the European Community who have gained most from being members of the Community are those whose national Governments work closely towards commonly held goals with the European Commission and with their regional governments.
  Britain at the present time, with the current Government, is hopping along in a three-legged race on one leg, because we have no regional structure at all and the Government will not participate wholly in European goals because they believe that the most important policy on Europe is to opt out of everything to do with the social chapter.
  I suspect that at least half of Conservative Members would, if they were honest, quite like a second opt-out, on the environmental issues of Europe, despite the protestations of the Secretary of State for the Environment earlier. In the deregulation task force's proposals for reform, which we have pored over long in the Committee considering the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, there are no fewer than 12 pages of recommendations from big business, the masters and controllers of the Conservative party, of ways in which they want to deregulate; to remove what they consider to be burdens on business, including some imposed by European directives and some imposed in this country. In contrast, there is only a page and a quarter about the employment element. Twelve whole pages are devoted to regulations that are
  368
  considered to be burdens on business. My guess is that there is a desire to deregulate the environment out of existence.
  One of the most welcome environmental initiatives of the European Commission's grant regime is the requirement that applicants for help under grant-aided projects should spell out an environmental impact assessment. That has put pressure on both private companies and big public authorities to look to the long-term effects of their proposals, rather than consider just short-term gains. When we read, under the heading "Environmental Assessment", that one of the recommendations of the task force is that
  "Existing requirements should be reconsidered and any further European Community proposals vigorously resisted",
  we should be extremely concerned. This is one of the major benefits from Europe that business interests have wanted to see removed.
  The same thing applies to utilities such as water, about which we have heard a good deal today. The task force says that there are often
  "unnecessarily high standards in new drainage and sewerage requirements."
  The public do not believe that high standards in this field are unnecessary. Whatever business says, they want to see high standards retained, as has been pointed out by other hon. Members.
  It is in this context that I relate my cautionary tale. As chairman of the recently formed all-party parliamentary group on water, I was approached last week by a delegation of business men involved in the manufacture of clay and plastic pipes. They came to say how concerned they were —so concerned that they offered me a briefing paper pointing out that Britain's sewers are under threat because of what has happened since the privatisation of water, following which the major water companies set up their own water industry certification scheme, commonly known as WICS. The problem here is that the industry itself is both giving certification and setting standards—not necessarily European standards—for this crucial aspect of sewer pipe work and drainage. This is clearly important for public health.
  The most recent event of great concern to the Clay Pipe Manufacturing Association is the granting of a certificate outwith any European certification, for fairly thin plastic pipework—I was shown an example—currently used to take surface water away from motorways but proposed for use in sewerage. According to the association's tests, there is no doubt that such plastic pipes would not last the 100 years that we have heard Conservative Members say sewer pipes have to last. What concerns the association is that approval has been granted for the first time through an unprecedented private agreement with a single manufacturer.
  My point is that, if we lose to bodies financed by private companies the control of the standard of products in industries as crucial as water and sewerage, the public will be deprived of the guarantee that the European Union offers through its certification schemes—the guarantee that we shall have healthy systems.
  As the Secretary of State said, we must not talk this country down. Over the centuries, the United Kingdom has led the way in the provision of water of a high standard and sewerage and plumbing systems second to none. That is the result of the pre-war drive of public authorities to ensure good water and sewerage systems.

  369
  Our concern is that the damage resulting from the weakening of controls that has occurred over the past 15 years and the drive towards the privatisation of these crucial public utilities will become apparent not next week or next month but in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years' time. That would be the effect of 15 years' non-compliance with the very high standards that are necessary in this area.
  I do not want to be accused of scaremongering, but I must draw attention to the fact that, according to one of today's newspapers, South West Water has had to agree to pay £400,000 in settlement of claims from people whose health was affected by contaminated drinking water six years ago. There are long-term dangers. In the case of the River Severn, recently there was major pollution. We are extremely concerned at the way in which individuals with particular interests in chemical companies are being appointed to water companies up and down the country, and to the Ofwat customer services committees.
  We do not believe that the thrust of the Government's policy on the environment will have other than extremely dangerous consequences for the public in the long term.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: This whole debate is misconceived. It is based on highly dubious premises. It is a terrible mistake to think that it is good for Britain to work with other countries on a matter of this kind. How much easier it would be if the United Kingdom were not part of the European Union. What possible national advantage do we derive, for example, from efforts to clean up the Mediterranean? The only possible way of enhancing the attractions of the newly gilded Blackpool tower would be to ensure that Mediterranean beaches were filthy enough to make the one at Blackpool attractive despite the weather.
  If only we were to withdraw within British territorial waters and ignore the European Union, we could spend the money that is currently being spent to clean up our drinking water on adjusting our methods of dealing with sewage. If, for example, we could build stores for it until the wind was in the right direction, we could use our new long sea outfalls to ensure that it ended up on some foreigners' beaches rather than on our own. At the moment, companies such as Southern Water are buying a channel tunnel drill to bore a huge and expensive tunnel under Brighton beach to deal with a bit of flood water.
  What about the birds, which seem to preoccupy so many of our environmentalists? If, instead of trying to reverse the progress of this century, we were to accept that birds are messy creatures that spend an unacceptably large part of their time dirtying our lovely shiny motor cars, we could stop worrying about trying to protect them. What is more, so many of the birds about which people like the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) are worried are foreign. They come here only to mess up our eaves or eat our cereal crops or generally make a nuisance of themselves. In addition, they are probably unqualified birds that have not taken an exam in their lives.
  Then there is all the fuss about trees. How can the rapidly expanding United Kingdom forests possibly compete with Scandinavian or Russian forests unless we are allowed to kill off large tracts of foreign forests with our industrial emissions? Hon. Members who want to confine European action to market activities are quite right. Take the common agricultural policy. Why go on arguing about set-aside when there are thousands of hectares of
  370
  land in the European Union so poisoned that it beats set-aside hands down? Let us not waste valuable cash trying to clean up the poisoned hectares. Instead, let us refer to them as set-aside land.
  Another advantage of cutting loose from the European Union would be that many large United Kingdom companies that have plants in Europe and elsewhere could stop trying to equalise standards across their plants and return to the United Kingdom, where we could set our own standards well below those of other countries and thus repatriate many British jobs.
  It could be argued that I am advocating a risky strategy. For example, what if European Union countries resent our acid rain or sewage outfalls? What if they retaliate against our trade? We need not worry about that. After all, if we were outside the European Union we would trade with countries so far away from us that they would not be directly affected.
  Some suggest that we have a duty to our grandchildren to protect the environment. That is a dangerous argument. Generations of nannies are reputed to have said that a speck of dirt harmed no one. Natural selection will ensure—if we do not waste time and money on reducing fumes, for example—that we shall breed grandchildren who are immune to asthma, lead and many other current bogeys.
  As I have said, the debate is ill-founded. We need to return to little England outside the European Union, setting our own robust standards of protection and giving not a fig for all those ridiculous foreigners across the channel. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister secretly shares my view that true Brits can swim anywhere and that all the talk about European Union or Rio standards is just a fiendish foreign conspiracy to take away our sovereignty, and should be resisted.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I think that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) directed his remarks more to the Government Front Bench than the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that he was not speaking seriously. It seemed that the Minister did not take his remarks seriously and, that being so, I shall not take them up. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  It has been a useful and interesting debate. I compliment my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). They demonstrated their usual grasp of the subject and their concerns in extremely useful speeches.
  The Secretary of State made some very ambitious claims. Sadly, they seem not to be matched by specific actions on the Government's part. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was a catalogue of extravagant claims which, unfortunately, had little substance. It was outrageous when he claimed that the Government have a better record overall than any other European Union state. I shall not go through all the criteria—[Interruption.] I note that Conservative Members shake their heads. I shall take only one example—the Government's compliance with the bathing water directive.
  I have the figures for 1993, which are the most recent to be published. The Secretary of State said that Britain was at the top of the list and that Greece, Germany, Italy and all the other member states were at the bottom. When it comes to complying with the directive and meeting guidelines, Britain is not at the top of the list, as the Secretary of State

  371
  extravagantly claimed. In fact, it is the second dirtiest man in Europe. Greece meets 95 per cent. of the criteria and values. Ireland and Denmark respectively meet 86 per cent., Italy comes in with 85 per cent. and Portugal 75 per cent. Next to bottom of the list is Britain, with 36 per cent. The facts hardly meet the Secretary of State's rhetoric.
  Problems are building up throughout Britain as a result of toxins. There are problems in Derbyshire, as there are with bathing water at Blackpool. It is a sorry state of affairs, and the Government should be ashamed of their record rather than trumpeting it.
  No amount of hot air from the Minister, or from any other Ministers—we get plenty of it—can lead us away from the fact that airborne pollution in Britain, for want of a sensible strategy, has increased at the same rate as the incidence of asthma since 1979. Regional levels have increased by between 100 and 200 per cent. These are inescapable facts that reflect on the Government's record. The Secretary of State tries to disguise those facts, but he is unable to do so.
  The Secretary of State claims that the imposition of value added tax on fuel is a green policy that proves the Government's green credentials to the British people and to Europe. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He has never been able to refute the assertion that the imposition of VAT on fuel will reduce by only 1 per cent. the amount of fuel that is consumed. That is the reality. That is what should be set against the Government's exaggerated claims.
  If the Government are serious about protecting the environment and reducing emissions, where is their energy conservation strategy? There is no such strategy. The Government do not have one. Where will the money come from for the Energy Saving Trust? The Minister will not be able to answer my question. The Government's policy is in tatters. I pay credit to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who attempted to introduce energy-saving legislation, but his Bill was wrecked by the Government's tactics.
  A sensible energy-saving strategy would go far beyond anything that could be achieved by the imposition of VAT. If it were introduced sensibly—it would be quite cheap —emissions could be reduced by 4 per cent. That would indeed be a green measure. Instead, the Government have been panicked into imposing VAT on fuel because of the economic mess for which they are responsible.
  Time does not permit me to tell the House of the difficulties that I have encountered in obtaining information from the Government or their agencies on sites of special scientific interest. Today, however inadequate it is, we have a report published by the National Audit Office on the protection and management of SSSIs. What is the truth about the Government's attempts, and those of their agencies, to protect wildlife and natural habitats in Britain? Since 1987, the instances of reported damage to SSSIs have increased from 94 in 1987 to 218 in 1991–92, the last year for which figures are available. Such instances have more than doubled. That is another failure on the Government's part.
  The list continues. There are numerous examples of failure, but time does not permit me to refer to them.
  Last week, in local government elections throughout the country, the people demonstrated that the Government's
  372
  overall performance is woeful and inadequate. They will do so again in next month's Euro-elections. The environment will be one of the key issues against which they will judge the Government. We need positive action, but all we get from the Secretary of State is froth and bubble. It is not good enough.
  6.48 pm
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I can say only that the speeches of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—my view is shared by my hon. Friends—were ineffective and not appropriate to the debate. In one of the best speeches that I have ever heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make—I have heard a good few in my time, believe you me, in one way or another—he touched on every important topic that relates to the environment and to Europe generally. He dealt with each one in great detail. We are proud of our record and, as I say, my right hon. Friend spelt it out in some detail.
  I shall comment on the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson). My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, in his inimitable fashion, talked with some knowledge about scrap metal and the recycling of metals, which he knows about through his connection with a prominent industrialist in his constituency. The British Secondary Metals Association and the British Scrap Metal Federation have spoken to me at great length about what they believe, with some justification, to be probably the oldest recycling industry in the world.
  The point they make about their concerns and the effects of the European directive is one that we take to heart. I was pleased to be able to go on a visit to see what was involved in relation to the various sorts of recycling of waste and scrap metal and I have given them, as my hon. Friend said, a few months to consider the proposals which we have come up with. Incidentally, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the point that he made about sewerage in Canterbury. He spelt out clearly the obvious difference between the Government and the Opposition, in that the money spent by a private water company on improving sewerage facilities in his constituency compares favourably with what happened before.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North, who spoke with great authority on matters relating to the eastern bloc, raised a very interesting point. Only the other day, the Minister for the Environment for the Ukraine came see me to talk about the special problems in his country. Incidentally, keen as he was to hear of our success stories on the water front, he also came to tell me and the Government about the problems of the former Soviet countries of one form or another.
  It is interesting that the debate has been brought to the Floor of the House by the Opposition. They performed abysmally from start to finish and they are not interested —it has to be said—in the summary of the debate. Indeed, not many Opposition Members were here, but some have arrived belatedly, presumably to vote for a motion which did not really address the subject at all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North talked about the beaches. He knows better than anyone how important Blackpool is to the tourist industry, not only of this country, but, arguably, of Europe as one of its

  373
  biggest tourist resorts. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend talk about our friend Michael Welsh, the MEP for that area, who has done so much to safeguard the beaches of Blackpool and its tourist industry. I know that the electors of Lancashire, Central will do their best to ensure that he is re-elected.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North also made a point about the fairness of enforcement. I am delighted to agree that enforcement of the directives brought to this country is crucial. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and those of us who are involved in negotiating in Europe on those directives, fight so hard to protect our corner, from the British point of view, and to ensure that when a European directive becomes effective in this country it meets our interests and fits well with what we require.
  Other hon. Members have raised points with which I would like to deal. Much has been made of the Energy Conservation Bill. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has dealt in considerable detail, and rightly so, with that Bill.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, North suggested that we had no policy in that respect. The Government spend £100 million a year on energy conservation—something like a doubling of the amount previously allocated to that area. Investment in the home energy efficiency scheme, which is directed at the more vulnerable members of society, the low-paid and those who need assistance, has been increased to some £75 million, yet the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to say that we do not have an energy efficiency policy. It is simply not true. The hon. Gentleman would do well to read the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in some detail and learn precisely what has been and will be done.
  One aspect of the Opposition motion that I find wholly unacceptable is the expression that we are somehow "lagging behind". They say that Britain should be at the forefront of environmental progress, rather than lagging constantly behind our European partners. It simply is not true and my right hon. Friend demonstrated cogently and articulately why that is the case. As he pointed out—it is worth reiterating—of the 22.5 per cent. of complaints laid against Britain, in terms of the European Commission, only 2 per cent. result in anything like infraction proceedings. The Labour party allies itself to any campaign to knock the United Kingdom and most of those campaigns are based on inaccuracies and false information.
  Of course, we all recognise that we do not all meet the objectives that we set ourselves or which are set for us. However, the point worth reiterating to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and to Opposition Members is that we are better than Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece. We argue our corner. We fight our corner from a position of support for the European Union, but for what we believe are sensible directives in Britain's best interest.
  For example, how would the Labour party's support for the Euro-socialist manifesto, which removes the veto and advocates majority voting on everything, help? My right hon. Friend made particular reference to the carbon tax. How would the Labour party cope with something which it could not prevent from happening when it says that it supports that manifesto?
  As everyone knows, there is a balance to be struck.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister clearly cannot have heard what I specifically told him earlier in the debate. The Labour party wishes to retain the national veto on matters relating to taxation. That is precisely the point that he is now ignoring.
  Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman is in a minority of one and he believes in majority voting on everything, how will he prevent the carbon tax, to which he said earlier he was opposed, from happening? He cannot. His policy does not make sense, like most of the rest of the stuff that he used this afternoon.
  Therefore, there is a balance to be struck.
  Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend talks about the balance. Does he share my concern at the effect of European judgment 57–89, which means that, once an area has been designated as a protected area, member states are unable to alter that designation for industrial or economic reasons? That means that rampant environmentalism could yet achieve for the expansion of our ports what the dock labour scheme failed to do. Is there not a balance that must be achieved between industry and the economy and the environment, and is it not highly suspicious that, this evening, we have heard not a single word about that threat from Opposition Members?
  Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is a lawyer and he doubtless reads such matters with a great deal of interest and expertise. I can only say that, since he has raised the matter in such a way, I shall look at it closely and doubtless I shall have his help in so doing. However, he is right to say that a balance needs to be struck between environmental requirements and the costs of them.
  We did not hear much from the Labour party about whether those costs had been examined and whether the commitments that it was making had been approved. Sustainable development must be sustainable if it is to be successful. That means carrying with us all sections of society. On every count, the Labour party shouts loudly and knocks our country's achievements. It offers not policies but panaceas—uncosted, unco-ordinated, uncontrolled and mostly illogical and ill thought out. It does not understand the effects on industry and commerce, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) referred, and it does not understand the effects on ordinary people.
  Tagging along behind the Labour party, we have the Liberal Democrats, nodding and winking to every populist issue, never mind what was said the day before. Whatever doorstep they arrive on, they say what they think is appropriate for that doorstep and nothing else. What is more, both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have been rumbled by the many environmental organisations that are interested in those matters in the country.
  Many of those organisations criticise Government, and rightly so. That is what they exist to do. However, often, they are privately complimentary for what we have achieved and, notably, what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has achieved. But they have little or no time at all for the Opposition, whether Labour or Liberal. If we could harness the wind and hot air that emanates from Opposition Members, the country's energy requirements would be met from now to the end of the century.
  By contrast, the Government, under the leadership of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, have faced,

  375
  are facing and will continue to face up to the difficult, sometimes costly and controversial decisions required to protect our environment for the future. The balancing that we need to do of the needs of the environment, with those of industry and commerce, which have to pay, are paramount in our considerations. That is why we have got it right and the Opposition have got it wrong, and that is why I urge my hon. Friends to support the Government amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 298.

  Division No.237]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dixon, Don

  Ainger, Nick

  Dobson, Frank

  Allen, Graham

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Alton, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Eastham, Ken

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Enright, Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Etherington, Bill

  Austin-Walker, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Barron, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Battle, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fisher, Mark

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Flynn, Paul

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Benton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fraser, John

  Berry, Roger

  Galloway, George

  Betts, Clive

  Gapes, Mike

  Blair, Tony

  Garrett, John

  Blunkett, David

  George, Bruce

  Bradley, Keith

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Burden, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Byers, Stephen

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caborn, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Callaghan, Jim

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hall, Mike

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hanson, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hardy, Peter

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Henderson, Doug

  Clapham, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clelland, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ingram, Adam

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

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

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  376

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jowell, Tessa

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Alan

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Prescott, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Radice, Giles

  Lewis, Terry

  Randall, Stuart

  Litherland, Robert

  Raynsford, Nick

  Livingstone, Ken

  Redmond, Martin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Reid, Dr John

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Rendel, David

  McAllion, John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  McCartney, Ian

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rogers, Allan

  McFall, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  McKelvey, William

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  McLeish, Henry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McMaster, Gordon

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  MacShane, Denis

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Simpson, Alan

  Madden, Max

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Alice

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

  Mandelson, Peter

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marek, Dr John

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Spellar, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Maxton, John

  Stevenson, George

  Meacher, Michael

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Meale, Alan

  Straw, Jack

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Milburn, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Miller, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Vaz, Keith

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wallace, James

  Morley, Elliot

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mudie, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Worthington, Tony

  Olner, William

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Parry, Robert

  Patchett, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Pickthall, Colin

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baldry, Tony

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bates, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Beggs, Roy

  Ashby, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bendall, Vivian

  Atkins, Robert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  377

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Booth, Hartley

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gorst, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hague, William

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butcher, John

  Harris, David

  Butler, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Cash, William

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hicks, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clappison, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Couchman, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Devlin, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan, Alan

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Eggar, Tim

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

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Evennett, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Faber, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Madel, Sir David

  Gallie, Phil

  Maginnis, Ken

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malone, Gerald

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mans, Keith

  Garnier, Edward

  Marland, Paul

  378

  Marlow, Tony

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mates, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Spring, Richard

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stephen, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Stern, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Streeter, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Sumberg, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Sykes, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Norris, Steve

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Paice, James

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

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tracey, Richard

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Trend, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Trimble, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Trotter, Neville

  Pickles, Eric

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Walden, George

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Richards, Rod

  Waller, Gary

  Riddick, Graham

  Ward, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Watts, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wells, Bowen

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Whitney, Ray

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Whittingdale, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Willetts, David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shersby, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises that the environment cannot be properly protected by national endeavour alone; acknowledges the importance of Europe-wide action to prevent pollution and improve environmental standards; applauds the work of the European Union and especially of the European Parliament in helping to safeguard the environment here in Britain; welcomes the lead taken by Her Majesty's Government in ensuring that the European Union plays an effective part in global environmental matters and implements the principle of sustainable development in all its activities; insists that Britain should continue to press for sensible and cost-effective environmental decisions on those matters which are properly the concern of the European Union; welcomes the progressive policies of the United Kingdom in all those other areas where national measures are appropriate; is

  379
  saddened by the failure of Her Majesty's Opposition and of the Liberal Democrat Party to support the necessary fiscal measures to reduce energy consumption; highlights their failure to evolve effective policy towards the environment and their desire to remove the United Kingdom's influence in the European Union by their insistence on majority voting and the abolition of the veto; and regrets the way in which they fail to support the Government's insistence that in internal matters it is for the United Kingdom Parliament to decide upon the most appropriate ways of reaching sustainable development goals.

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

  WEIGHTS AND DIMENSIONS OF VEHICLES
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11504/93, relating to weights and dimensions of vehicles; whilst supporting the proposal to consolidate the existing legislation, questions on grounds of subsidiarity the harmonisation of maximum lorry weights for national journeys; and considers that the proposed general weight limit of 44 tonnes for 6-axle vehicles conflicts with Community and United Kingdom policy intended to encourage combined road/rail transport for environmental reasons.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

Deregulation Orders
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
7.10 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I wish to support the recommendations of the fourth report of the Select Committee on Procedure. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there is far too much noise in the House. It is extremely discourteous. If those present do not wish to listen, they will kindly leave the Chamber.
Sir Peter Emery: I refer to the report entitled "Parliamentary Scrutiny of Deregulation Orders" and to the response received from Her Majesty's Government, which is House of Commons paper No. 238.
Before dealing with the details of the report, I will attempt to clear up three matters. First, it was not—and is not—for the Procedure Committee to consider whether Ministers should be given the power to repeal or amend primary legislation by deregulation or any of the principles arising from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. That is a matter for the House as a whole, and the House is proceeding to make a decision about it.
Secondly, it was argued that the Committee should not proceed or report until the Bill became an Act as it was suggested that that would prejudice its legislative passage. The Committee rejected that suggestion, because many people wanted to know how the House would deal with the deregulation orders. If amendments to the Bill were considered necessary because of the Committee's recommendations, it is unlikely that they would be made after the Bill had become an Act.
Lastly, there were adequate examples to allow the Committee to proceed once the Bill had reached the Second Reading stage. The Opposition will understand these illustrations. In 1966 the ombudsman was appointed before the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill received a Second Reading. In 1978, before the Scotland Bill became an Act, money was spent to bring the school in Edinburgh up to the required standard for an assembly. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds were spent but to no avail. So the Committee was quite certain that, at the request of the Government, there were enough precedents to allow us to proceed while the Bill was before the House.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is a tradition of the Procedure Committee that it attempts to get all-party agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he rushed ahead with this inquiry in the face of opposition from the Opposition parties and that he has devalued the report because he made no attempt to carry the whole House with him in the discussions about it?
Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is absolute nonsense. We wanted to attain as much agreement as possible. All the parties on the Committee agreed that we should proceed.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: All Members on the Committee.
Sir Peter Emery: All members of the Committee, representing all parties, agreed that we should proceed. All the members decided initially whom we should ask to appear before the Committee.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery: I will finish this point and then I will be delighted to give way.
The Committee remarked in the report that the hon. Lady the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) refused to give evidence before the Committee. She was invited to do so—with the agreement of all members of the Committee—at the same time as other people were invited to appear. That is the first time that any person has refused to give evidence to the Committee. One must remember —but I hope not remember well enough to encourage a repetition—that at that time resolutions between the usual channels had broken down. So as far as I am concerned, the matter would be soonest forgotten, quickest mended.
Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman chairs the Committee and he knows that it is my view that the Committee works far better when the Conservative majority on the Committee does not act at the behest of the Government. Does he accept that Labour Members voted against the report because, while we accepted that the inquiry should take place—the right hon. Gentleman is correct in that respect—we did not believe that the report should come to the House before the Bill had been passed? That was the issue at stake, and that is why the hon. Member was quite right to refuse to come to the Committee. She was courteous and explained her reasons, and the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that.
Sir Peter Emery: I hope that, in my speech, I have tried to make it clear that the Committee proceeded in a normal manner. As I have suggested, Labour Governments have taken action and made preparations before a Bill has been enacted. I must thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Committee and has made his view clear. He took a considerable part in the Committee's deliberations. I am certain that he can make his own speech and that I shall not have to make it for him.
Let me turn to the recommendations which—I am glad to say—were not amended. To explain how they work, I must stress that the deregulation orders will be substitutes for primary legislation. The Committee did not consider that the Government's proposals went far enough, and all Committee members felt that. That is made clear in paragraph 21 of the Committee's report.
We considered that a deregulation order should not be considered as just another statutory instrument. After all, a statutory instrument is secondary legislation and provides for regulations which are empowered by the original Act. A deregulation order is entirely different and must be considered as such by the House, the Clerks and the lawyers outside. It is in effect primary legislation or, if it is not accepted as such, it is a substitute for primary legislation.
To illustrate that, let me point out that the Committee said in paragraph 16 of the report:
"In our recommendations we have sought to ensure that no Act of Parliament is repealed or amended under this new power without examination at least as thorough as if the change had been made by a Bill passing through the House."
Mr. Spearing: The statement which the Chairman of the Procedure Committee has just made is very important. He said that a deregulation order would not be a substitute but would be primary legislation. He also said that it should not be subject to any different form of examination from ordinary legislation. However, it does in the Bill.
The Committee about which we are talking will recommend but will not dispose of matters and it will not necessarily amend the statutory instrument. Does the Chairman of the Procedure Committee agree that there is a major distinction? The central part of the current Bill, through primary legislation, does exactly what the orders would do.
Sir Peter Emery: I understand the argument made by the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect. He has experience as an ex-Chairman of the Committee on Statutory Instruments. That matter was not for my Committee to consider; it was for the House. If the House gave Ministers that power, my job was to try to ensure that a full and thorough investigation was carried out
"at least as thorough as if the change had been made by a Bill passing through the House."
The House therefore, we have argued, must be given the power to do that.
The Bill allows a Minister to make an order which is subject to an affirmative resolution in both Houses to amend or repeal primary legislation which imposes a burden, providing that necessary protection is not removed. As a first step, the Minister must consult representatives of those who are likely to be affected. He then lays before Parliament a deregulation proposal, which is a draft of the order, with an explanatory document giving reasons for the measure, the benefits which would result from it, details of any necessary protection provided by the existing legislation, how the protection would be maintained, details of the consultation and how it had been taken into account.
It is at that stage that we must consider how the House should act. The Committee set out certain criteria which are set out in paragraph 21 of our report:
"from the start the Committee would need to establish that the proposal for a deregulation order was within the powers conferred if the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill is enacted … a Committee would have to examine the merits of a deregulation proposal to see whether it did remove a burden without reducing necessary protection … an opportunity should be provided for those affected by a deregulation proposal to express their concerns to the House … Members other than those serving on the Deregulation Committee should have an opportunity to express their views before the proposal is finalised in an order … there should be an opportunity to put forward changes to the deregulation proposal … the House should have the advice of a Committee on whether the proposal, as amended following the period for parliamentary consideration, should be made … when the House would want to have an opportunity to debate and vote on the final version of the order."
Anybody would accept that those are fairly strong criteria. Having established them, we decided that the Deregulation Committee should be one of the most senior Select Committees of the House, that it should comprise 16 members and that it should be given powers which were different from and greater than those of any other House of Commons Committee. How, then, will the Deregulation Committee work?
Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, on his casting vote, he came to the conclusion that the Deregulation Committee should not be chaired by an Opposition Member? Would not the Deregulation

383
Committee have been strengthened for obvious reasons —as Labour and Liberal Democrat Members believe—if it had been chaired by an Opposition Member?
Sir Peter Emery: As I said at the time, the chairmanship of Select Committees is normally decided by the usual channels and between the Whips. The numbers which are established in the break-up is left to the usual channels and it seemed that, whatever we said, that was going to happen anyway.
Dr. Tony Wright: This is an important issue. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the great strength of the Public Accounts Committee is that it has a Chairman from an Opposition party and, far from diminishing the standing of that Committee, it vastly enhances its status in the House. In these exceptional circumstances, would not it have been sensible to include such a provision in the report?
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) has made a point which I hope was heard by the usual channels. I can understand it and the point could well be argued, but that does not alter the fact that the decision will be made by the usual channels. I believe that it is right that the usual channels should take into consideration the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Peter Emery: Yes. I am trying to get on, but I am not succeeding.
Mr. Steen: Is it not true that the House has passed far too much legislation during the past 30 or 40 years, and that there is a surfeit of legislation? We are now getting thousands of directives flooding in from Europe. Will not the Deregulation Committee try to speed up the repeal of legislation which has become antiquated or which is no longer working?
It is important that the Chairman of the Committee is a Member of the ruling party in order to expedite the deregulation and the repeal of laws which are hostile to the revival and the future of this country, and to speed up the process by which industry and commerce are no longer hidebound and restricted by regulations. The Opposition may appreciate those regulations, but the Government recognise that they must be repealed to expedite the future of our industry.
Sir Peter Emery: The usual channels will have heard that intervention as well.
The Committee therefore believes that the issue will be decided by the usual channels—it will be up to them to make the decision.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during proceedings on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill the Minister envisaged a system involving a Chairman's sift? The idea was to control the number of matters coming before the Committee. Did the Procedure Committee realise that, in the exceptional circumstances of the operation of a Chairman's sift, it would indeed be right for the Committee Chairman to be a member of one of the Opposition parties?
Sir Peter Emery: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The Committee decided that there should be 16 permanent members serving throughout a Parliament so that they could become expert in the work.
To return to how the Deregulation Committee would work, it would greatly assist hon. Members if they turned to the appendix to the report, which contains a flow diagram showing how the Committee would carry out its tasks.
I have explained how the Government will lay the draft order. Then, legal views on the vires should be sought. At the same time the Committee should ask the Clerks to consult the Clerks in the House of Lords to find out whether, if evidence is to be taken, it can be taken jointly.
Once the Committee has considered this advice, it will decide whether it needs further evidence or advice, or whether oral and written evidence should be taken. Once again, the Clerks should be consulted.
One of our recommendations was that the Committee should be able to call Ministers. As shown by the Government's response, this was the only recommendation that the Government did not agree with. Indeed, they say:
"The power to summon Ministers, which would be unprecedented, is unnecessary, since Ministers with responsibility for a deregulation proposal will be anxious to assist the Deregulation Committee with its work".
The Government cannot see a time when Ministers "would refuse to attend the Committee as witnesses if their attendance is requested."
That is the strongest statement I have ever heard by the Government about the attendance of Ministers at such Committees.
Having decided whether or not to take oral evidence, the Committee would then make its first report to the House. That report would say that the proposals had been unanimously agreed, or that amendments were necessary, or that the order should not be made at all. If the order should not be made, the Committee recommends that the proposal be withdrawn, or that the Government revise it, or that they introduce primary legislation.
If the Committee decides, on the evidence, that amendments to the order should be made, those amendments should be sent to the Government. The Government have made it clear that they would pay particular attention to any amendments or proposals recommended by the Committee. When the Government eventually lay an order, the Committee will be able to see whether it has emerged exactly as drafted—if it was unanimously agreed to—or whether the Government have altered it in any way.
If the Committee decides that the Government's amendments are unsatisfactory, it will adopt a certain approach. If the order has been unanimously agreed to, of course, the Committee will adopt a different approach. If, on the other hand, a majority of the Committee has merely approved the measure, a third approach will be taken.
Mr. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the new Committee would take advice from Speaker's Counsel and from counsel in the House of Lords to decide on the vires. Does he agree that the deregulation Bill is so widely drawn as to make it difficult to decide that any deregulation measure was ultra vires? Both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments look not only at the vires of a measure but at the clarity of its drafting. Would

385
it not therefore be logical for some committee to examine those areas right at the start, instead of discussing the merits?
Sir Peter Emery: In many ways the hon. Gentleman is correct. I believe that, as with the Statutory Instrument Committees, this Committee should make a decision on the vires at the outset, because it would be nonsensical if the Deregulation Committee started on its work before an order had cleared the hurdle that a Statutory Instrument Committee would usually put before it. To that extent, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remark.
If there is not unanimous agreement to an order, it will be reported back to the House and a debate of 90 minutes can take place, if that is wanted. Opposition Members or those who voted against the order may, however, decide that a debate is not necessary—but that decision rests with the House. If the Committee unanimously supports an order and believes that it should be proceeded with, it will be put forthwith; but if the Committee considers that the amendments are unsatisfactory and is against approving the order, it will make a recommendation to the House in those terms.
Before the order can be presented for approval, the Government must put down a motion to disagree with the Committee's recommendation, so an order cannot proceed unless the House disagrees with the Committee. As a number of hon. Members have argued strongly, the House should have a chance to say how it would like an order to be amended. The motion to disagree with the recommendation of the Committee is amendable, so the House will have the chance to express its feelings about the order as amended and about the Government's motion to disagree with the Committee.
Mr. Steen: I recognise my right hon. Friend's distinction as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, but is not the whole point of the deregulation Bill to reduce the amount of bureaucracy and information gathering in the system? Surely the procedures that my right hon. Friend has outlined will be a nightmare for all involved.
Sir Peter Emery: What my hon. Friend must understand, and I tried to make absolutely clear at the start, is that the deregulation order is the equivalent of primary legislation. If it did not exist, the Government would have to introduce individual Bills to deal with it. It is right that there should be a fast track. If everybody agrees with it, that is fine. My hon. Friend has what he wants, but that is only if everybody agrees with it. If there is some doubt, there must be a debate on the Floor of the House. But if there is disagreement in Committee, the Government must show the House that they disagree with its views. There must be a three-hour debate to do that, and that motion can be amendable. I believe that that is right when one is dealing with primary legislation.
The Government recommended that 40 days be available for the Committee to deal with matters. In paragraphs 78 and 79 of our report we suggested that in some instances, particularly in the event of a detailed inquiry, 40 days might not be sufficient. In that circumstance, the period should be extended to 60 days. I am glad to see that the Government are willing to go ahead with that.
What powers did we recommend that the Committee should have? I ask hon. Members to turn to paragraph 117
386
of the report, where we make it absolutely clear that it should have the power to send for persons, papers and records. It says
"(including Ministers of the Crown)",
but I have already dealt with that. It continues:
"to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
to report from time to time;
to appoint specialist advisers;
to adjourn from place to place (within the UK)—
it is not to be a Committee that travels around the world—
"to meet with the equivalent Lords Committees to take evidence; to appoint a sub-committee with a quorum of two to meet with a sub-committee of the Lords Committee—
if necessary;
to exchange evidence with other Commons Committees;
to have the assistance of Counsel to the Speaker;
to be nominated for a whole Parliament;
and
"to admit Members who are not members of the Committee to ask questions of witnesses when evidence is taken".
Because a Committee of 60 cannot cover every interest and geographical area, and because it will be open to hon. Members to give evidence, a Member may well want to question the Minister or a witness. We have suggested, therefore, that the procedure is used, as in the European Committees, whereby a Member gives notice to the Chairman that he wishes to question the Minister or witness, and the Chairman is given the freedom to call such a person to put a question within the time scale that he has set for the questioning of the Minister. It does not ensure that the Member will be called, but it does allow the Member to argue why he needs to be called—he may be the only Member from the area affected; or perhaps he is the only Member representing a certain industry. I have no doubt that the Chairman would therefore want to ensure that, where there was special pleading, it could be put. That is indeed a new way of proceeding.
I am pleased that the Government were asked in paragraph 121 to report to the House on our recommendations. In their report on Monday, they did so. The power to call a Minister and the addition of bringing to the House a deregulation order prior to the Committee's report in exceptional circumstances, which they suggest at the end of a Session, are the only basic alterations to the whole of our recommendations.
The Procedure Committee, in the words of the Financial Times of Monday last,
"had recommended tough new powers … to scrutinise all deregulation proposals."
They are powers that will work. Close examination will allow evidence to be given in detail from whomever the Committee wishes, with a call on Ministers and the use of outside experts advising the Committee. That would ensure a thorough and exhaustive consideration before any recommendation was made to the House, with the Committee ensuring that the House has the last word.
Although our recommendations are tough and comprehensive, the Government have shown that they are willing to go along with them. I congratulate the Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who has given evidence and has considered the matters in full, on being so wise.
7.44 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I am glad to be able to respond to what I think were the wishes of the House, and the expressed wishes of the Procedure

387
Committee, by arranging an early debate on its report on the important issue of deregulation orders. I shall be fairly brief, partly because the Government's views were, I hope, clearly set out in the report on Monday, and I cannot add a great deal at this stage, and partly because the principal purpose of the debate is to hear the views of the House on the report and, indeed, the Government's response.
I sense also that a fair number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to make a contribution, and I am anxious to hear them. I am also conscious that there is some pressure tonight on my opposite number on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I shall take this opportunity to say that I appreciate that he will not be able to stay throughout the proceedings as he would have wished.
The whole House should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his Committee, both for their work and for carrying it out so quickly. That has enabled us to hold this debate—I realise that this is a point of controversy with some—before the House deals on Report with the clauses of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill which provide for the deregulation orders. I disagree with those who think that it was inappropriate. If the House was to be invited to decide on whether there should be such orders, it was sensible that it should have a fairly clear idea of the basis on which the machinery should operate before it came to that decision.
As the House will have seen from the detailed response that we published on Monday, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton kindly acknowledged, the Government were able to respond positively to the Committee's report. There is just one exception—one could say one and a half, but essentially one, on which I will touch later—where we were not able to agree; apart from that, however, we have agreed to all the Committee's recommendations. I shall not attempt to rehearse them all in view of the effective and comprehensive way in which my right hon. Friend set them out.
As I have said, we shall listen carefully to the views expressed in the debate. Once the Bill is enacted—as we hope and expect—we will introduce proposals for new Standing Orders so that when the first deregulation proposals come before the House the scrutiny procedures will already be in place. In saying that, I should re-emphasise—I am sure that it will come up when my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton addresses the matters in our debates tomorrow—that the Government do not propose to use, or even try to use, the procedure to deal with large and controversial amendments to primary legislation.
The Bill provides that the power cannot be used to remove any "necessary protection". I appreciate that that entails a degree of subjective judgment, but if the new Deregulation Committee thinks that the Minister's judgment is wrong, it will be able to say so when it considers the proposal that the Minister lays before Parliament. I can give the House an assurance that the Government would be bound to take an adverse recommendation from the Deregulation Committee extremely seriously, and in normal circumstances we would expect either to submit a revised proposal or to withdraw the proposal altogether.
Mr. Spearing: We understand the different views about protection. Leaving that aside, however, is not the Leader of the House falling into the trap, as have so many Leaders of the House and Ministers over the years, of saying what the present Government are willing or not willing to do, whereas the Standing Orders that he has talked about and the legislation to be debated tomorrow will exist for Government after Government? The right hon. Gentleman seems to be falling into that rather serious trap.
Mr. Newton: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman sees that as a trap; I see it as a point that he can legitimately make. I forget whether he and I entered the House at the same time—he may have been here a little longer than my 20 years—but I must tell him that I have rather more confidence in this place, and in Members of Parliament. In the end, Governments can pass only what this place is prepared to let them pass.
This may seem a curious thing for someone who has been a Minister for 15 years to say, but in my experience Ministers do not lightly ignore clear, strong feelings in the House, and those expressed by Committees of the House. There is a degree of independence among hon. Members which goes beyond what the hon. Gentleman appears to believe.
Mr. Bennett: If the Leader of the House really wants to reassure us, would not the simplest way be to ensure that the Government do not have a majority on the new Committee?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman and others have already raised that point, and he will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton said about the chairmanship. He will also know that, under Governments of both parties—for as long as I have been here and, indeed, rather longer—the convention, and the normal expectation, has been for those with a majority in the House to have a majority on its Committees.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose—
Mr. Newton: I give way to the Liberal Benches.
Mr. Kirkwood: I would certainly be prepared to concede that point, but I would be much more confident about doing so if the right hon. Gentleman would concede the point about the chairmanship being in the hands of the Opposition.
Mr. Newton: I have to say—I had better say it straightforwardly—that I am not convinced that that would be appropriate, but I will not go beyond what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is, in terms of his own specialised version, "a bit of the usual channels"; he will therefore understand the way in such matters are discussed and—hopefully—resolved.
To return to the thrust of my speech, in no circumstances will we simply brush the Committee aside. As I told the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I do not believe that the House would collectively allow this or any other Government simply to brush aside a Committee of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has described. If, when the draft deregulation order is laid, the Committee is still not satisfied, it can recommend the rejection of the order. Again, the Government would want to think very carefully

389
—indeed, they would have to—about whether they should nevertheless proceed. As my right hon. Friend explained, if the Government thought it right to do so, there would have to be a three-hour debate on an amendable motion. I really do not think that it can be suggested that changes could somehow be smuggled through without scope for proper parliamentary debate.
In acknowledging the special nature of the proposed orders, I must draw attention to an essential ingredient in the arrangements—the fact that the initial proposal itself is not presented to the House simply on a "take it or leave it" basis. One of the reasons for requiring a Committee to look into a deregulation proposal—with provision for the involvement of other hon. Members—is to enable any possible amendments to be considered at the preliminary stage, before the final version of the order is laid.
We have tabled an amendment to the Bill—we hope that it will be moved tomorrow—to require the Minister to report to Parliament any changes made to the proposal as a result of representations made, or resolutions or reports of either House or their Committees, during the scrutiny period. If the Minister does not make the amendments that the Committee wanted and fails to give it an explanation for not doing so that it accepts, the Committee will be entitled to recommend the rejection of the order, with the consequences that I have described.
As I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton acknowledged, we have also tabled—and hope to move tomorrow—an amendment to give effect to the Procedure Committee's recommendation about the length of time needed for the Deregulation Committee's inquiries. The Bill gives the Committee 40 days in which to carry out any inquiry into a proposal, excluding any period when either House is adjourned for more than four days. The Procedure Committee has suggested that in a few cases 40 days might not be enough, and that in those cases the period should be extended to 60 days. As we have always intended the Deregulation Committee to have enough time to conduct whatever inquiries are thought necessary, we have readily tabled an amendment to meet the Procedure Committee's concerns.
The only issue on which we cannot go quite so far as the Procedure Committee wanted was the question whether the Deregulation Committee should be empowered formally to summon Ministers to appear before it. That is simply because rather wider issues are raised, including—I hope that this will not be dismissed—the question whether one House should be able to require the attendance of a Member of the other House, which would clearly be implicit in such a power.
I see no reason to suppose, however, that the absence of such a formal power would hinder the Deregulation Committee's work. Ministers will co-operate fully if the Committee needs to take evidence from them; indeed, they will normally be keen to meet the Committee to explain their proposals and gain support for them. Frankly, I cannot envisage circumstances in which the responsible Ministers would refuse to appear.
Finally, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and the Procedure Committee again for the thoroughness with which they have examined these matters. As a result of their work, we shall be in a position to present the House—at the appropriate time—with proposals for a scrutiny procedure which I believe will be
390
both robust and flexible. I expect that to be both an assistance and an assurance to the House when it debates the deregulation order-making power tomorrow.
7.55 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for presenting the report of his Committee. I also thank the Lord President for being so understanding, and for accepting my apology for not being able to stay for the whole debate. It is no wish of mine not to be present, but I apologise to the House none the less. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Honiton on having secured time from the Leader of the House for a debate on the Floor of the House, although I suspect that it comes too late to have an impact on the legislation.
The Government's approach to the provision of time for the debate of Procedure Committee reports is episodic and essentially pragmatic. It is worth exploring that topic before dealing specifically with the report. The Procedure Committee has an uneven record of success in securing debates in the Chamber on its reports. Last year we were able to discuss its first report on parliamentary questions and related matters—a valuable piece of work—but the other reports from last year, and two from this year, have still not been debated.
Sir Peter Emery: Press for them.
Mr. Brown: I do. I have pressed particularly vigorously for discussion of the report on budgetary reform and this year's follow-up report on Budget procedure, which have not been debated on the Floor of the House, but the Government have gone ahead and introduced the new unified Budget without seeking the House's views on procedure.
There is a marked parallel between the handling of the unified Budget issue and the report that we are discussing today. On the unified Budget procedure, the Government made key changes in the Finance Bill of 1993 before the Procedure Committee had even reported; they have continued to refuse time to debate the two relevant Procedure Committee reports, and they have ignored the Committee's principal recommendations. They guillotined the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House and on a day-to-day basis in Committee, and encouraged their own Back Benchers to filibuster on less controversial matters so that more controversial issues ran up against the guillotine, thereby relieving Ministers of the task of explaining the clauses to the House. Ministers may have found that convenient, but the House did not. As for the public spending aspects of the unified Budget procedure, the Government have not allowed the House to debate the details of their public expenditure plans since May 1991 —so much for the unified Budget.
It should be clear to the House that, when considering questions of procedure, including reports from the Procedure Committee, the Government are insistent—occasionally brutally insistent—on putting the narrow interests of the Executive before the interests of the House. They dealt with Parliament in a high-handed way over the unified Budget, an issue on which—in principle—Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour agree. The Opposition were also willing to discuss and reach agreement on the practicalities, but to no avail.

391
No such consensus in principle underpins the debate on the deregulation orders. The Labour party is strongly opposed in principle to such an enhancement of the powers of the Executive: there is no precedent for conferring on Ministers the generalised powers on which the Government intend to ask the House to vote tomorrow. The principle is completely unacceptable to the Opposition and we are unable and unwilling to offer the Procedure Committee any advice on how practical effect should be given to the Government's desire to extend the power of Ministers.
The Opposition's view is clearly stated in the letter dated 23 February sent by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). The letter is helpfully reproduced as an appendix to the report, although it is incorrectly dated 24 February. The reply from the right hon. Member for Honiton is dated 24 February. In his letter, the right hon. Member for Honiton argues the case for examining the procedures before the Bill receives a Third Reading. He argues that representations from his Committee, if received before the Third Reading debate, could mitigate the worst excesses of which he implicitly believes the present Government to be capable.
The experience of the unified Budget inquiry does not bear that out. In practice, the Government ignored the views of the Procedure Committee and, indeed, pre-empted some of them. If it is any consolation to the right hon. Member for Honiton, I can tell him that the Government did not take any notice of the Opposition either, and I have no doubt that the same is intended today.
There is a clear disagreement between us and the Government on this fundamental issue of principle. We are opposed to the implementation of the Bill, so we have no view to put to the Procedure Committee as to how it should be done. Our view is that it should not be done and the House has not yet agreed that it should be done.
Opposition Front-Bench Members have taken part in the scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through the House and we have debated alternatives—that is the function of a Standing Committee—but no one, except possibly Conservative Members of the Procedure Committee, could possibly conclude that by seeking to amend the Bill in Standing Committee Opposition Members were conceding the principle underpinning the legislation. For the avoidance of any doubt, I make it clear that we do not concede such a principle.
Disappointingly, the report is partisan. The inclusion in the report of paragraph 6, which refers to the Opposition's unwillingness to elaborate on our written submission, is unfair and offensive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South had written to the Committee stating the considered views of the parliamentary Opposition. In summary, we do not agree with what is being done, so we are unable to give the Procedure Committee evidence as to how it should be done. Conservative Members of the Committee are perfectly entitled to disagree, but I do not accept that a Committee of this sort should vote into its report, on the casting vote of the Chairman, a paragraph as snide and unfair as paragraph 6.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman might have recorded that the second letter, written with the agreement of the entire Procedure Committee—including, at that time, Labour Members—was not even acknowledged.
Mr. Brown: There is no need for any acknowledgement. Our response had been clearly stated in the letter that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South sent to the Committee and which has been recorded as an appendix. That is all that we have to say on the matter. For the right hon. Member for Honiton to use his casting vote to include in his Committee's report, with the votes of only Conservative Members—no Opposition Member voted for it—such a snide and unpleasant paragraph as paragraph 6 is completely against the spirit in which Committees of the sort over which he usually presides should proceed.
I notice that the right hon. Member for Honiton is trying to impose on the deputy leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South, a requirement to attend in person before his Committee to explain party political decisions taken inside the Labour party. Yet Ministers of the Crown are not willing to accept an obligation to attend the Committee to explain matters of public legislation. However that can be described, it cannot be described as even-handed. It is clearly politically partisan.
Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that Labour Members on the Committee fully accepted the explanation offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)? That is why we voted against the paragraph and against the report. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) understands the reasons why. Although this is the most political place on earth, does my hon. Friend agree that there are strong arguments for a Committee such as the Procedure Committee to try, as far as possible, to avoid the strong party politics of the Chamber? We have done so to a large extent in previous Parliaments, certainly in the last Parliament. Is it not unfortunate that the Procedure Committee is increasingly being looked upon as an instrument of the Government?
Mr. Brown: I accept my hon. Friend's case entirely. I shall deal with his second point later. From reading the report, I appreciated the point that he made about the Opposition accepting fully the views that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South put to the Committee.
Mr. Newton: In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman spent the first five minutes of his speech denouncing the Government for not acceding immediately to every recommendation of the Procedure Committee in respect of the unitary Budget. That was followed by apparent agreement between the Opposition Front Bench and Back Benches that the Procedure Committee is somehow the Government's poodle. That raises questions of consistency.
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is right to be fair to his right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, and his right hon. Friend was fair to him. There is nothing inconsistent in what I have said. The Leader of the House knows that we wish to debate the report on the unified Budget because there is wide agreement underpinning the issue of principle that there should be a unified Budget and that tax and spending decisions should be brought closer together if possible. The Government say that that is their view in principle, but they refuse to do it in practice.
This is something entirely different, and there is no agreement on the question of principle, so it is invidious to

393
suggest that somehow the Opposition should take part in the discussion on how the principle should be put into practice. We do not agree that it should be done at all, and when we are the Government, all this will be repealed.
Sir Peter Emery: There needs to be some consistency and fairness in the argument. Labour Members took part in the cross-questioning of witnesses and in all the discussions prior to the final vote. They did not vote against or amend any of the recommendations that we had talked about, but voted only against a factual recording about not giving evidence. The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I would not try to impute otherwise, but it is not fair for him to suggest that the Opposition played no part in the working of the Committee when in fact they did.
Mr. Brown: With respect, I was not trying to suggest that the Opposition played no part in the workings of the Procedure Committee. Whatever our complaints about partisanship, we have not yet reached the stage of boycotting the Committee. However, I notice that the Committee's procedures were characterised by a series of partisan votes—votes which could be categorised as being on party political lines alone. An example of that is the paragraph raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). He attempted to make hon. Members who wished to question individual deregulation measures—presumably Opposition Members—appear as witnesses to be cross-examined before the scrutinising Committee, rather than having the right to cross-examine other witnesses if they had some special interest.
Since the propositions that are to be discussed by the Committee will all have originated with Ministers and their civil servants, it is surely the role of Members of Parliament to question Ministers and civil servants and not the other way round. One can see how such a proposition would be a partisan advantage for the Government; it would not be an advantage for anyone who wished to question the Government.
Fortunately, the proposition of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South was so outrageous that it was voted down in Committee; I pay tribute to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) for resisting what I believe was the most absurd of the tyrannies that his fellow Conservatives had in mind for us. Nevertheless, the fact that such a proposition was even considered by the Committee demonstrates the partisan way in which it was proceeding.
Another example of partisanship occurred when the Committee came to consider the proposition that the Deregulation Committee should be chaired by a member from an Opposition party. Again, that was thrown out on the casting vote of the Chairman. That did not seem an unreasonable proposition for a report to contain if it is aiming at bipartisanship. After all, the Committee only makes recommendations, suggestions or submissions. A report is not binding on the Government. It is not mandatory that the Committee should produce only things that the Government can accept.
It is especially important that we have a recommendation of that sort, given what we heard earlier about the Chairman sifting proposals before they are put to the Committee. I understand that the Clerks have advised that it cannot be done, but some consideration at least was given to doing it. The Government investigated whether it would be possible, as they thought that it would be to their
394
advantage. Presumably they thought that the Chair would listen carefully to the Government rather than take a more independent view—hence their opposition to the proposal that the Chair should be drawn from the Opposition parties.
There is an interesting parallel with the Public Accounts Committee. It is almost a parliamentary cliché to say that Public Accounts Committee reports command great authority because of the unanimity among its members which underpins its reports. The Public Accounts Committee deals with contentious issues—losses to the taxpayer as a result of privatisation, fraud at the Ministry of Defence and corrupt Conservative quangos in Wales —yet it is always able to present a unanimous and clear view to the House. Tribute is routinely paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including PAC members, Treasury Ministers and Opposition Treasury spokesmen, to the work and skill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon); his Committee's reports are important and are taken seriously.
This Procedure Committee report has no such value: its only function is to provide a vehicle for the Leader of the House and the Minister for Industry to set out in detail how the Executive will allow the House to deal with deregulation orders. Conservative Members agree with what is being done and Opposition Members do not—that is all that the report tells us.
8.11 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I do not want to be the odd man out—I seem to be the only Conservative Member who proposes to speak in the debate—but I have to say, with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has done a magnificent job in a short time, that the report is another example of bureaucracy. It contains an amazing amount of paper and a complicated flow chart, which I cannot easily follow, showing an immensely complicated means of repealing measures.
Regulations are passed very quickly in the House. Statutory instruments flow in here quickly; we pass them upstairs in a moment. The deregulation procedure, however, will be immensely complicated.
Mr. Newton: I hope that my hon. Friend, whose interest in deregulation I share, has not misunderstood. Where regulation exists in a statutory instrument, it can be removed by another statutory instrument. We are debating regulation in primary legislation. That is the important point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) sought to make.
Mr. Steen: Perhaps my right hon. Friend is making an important intervention, and I am grateful to him. [Laughter.] I shall not be deterred by the mirth of Opposition Members.
It is much easier to pass measures in the House than to repeal them. Directives flood in from Europe, which we are unable to stop but which, once on the statute book, are very difficult to repeal. A good example is directive 92/58, which proposes minimum requirements for safety signs in the workplace. All fire safety signs that do not show a little man running up or down stairs will not meet the requirements of the directive and will have to be replaced when it comes into force on 24 June.
The directive will impose enormous costs on offices, businesses and local authorities. Officials in this place will

395
want to ensure that we are ahead of the game. Every door in the Palace of Westminster will show a little man running up or down stairs. Do not existing signs—for example, those that say, "Fire Exit"—give sufficient information? Apparently they do not. According to the Health and Safety Executive, the directive is mandatory. Doors on every public building will need to have such signs so that everybody will know that there is a fire exit.
I listened to the brilliance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) in explaining this complex procedure—I believe that it is more complex than Opposition Members think—under which fire exit signs in cinemas, theatres and concert halls will have to change overnight on 24 June and at an enormous cost.
Dr. Wright: Would the hon. Gentleman be perfectly happy for Ministers of a future Labour Government to have the power to sweep away primary legislation by ministerial order?
Mr. Steen: That is a hypothetical question. It is also speculative: the hon. Gentleman is making assumptions about whether there will ever be a future Labour Government. I understand what he is saying, however, and the public should have some protection against what a future Labour Government might do. I am talking about something slightly different—the bureaucracy that we are introducing for past rules and regulations as opposed to the ease with which new rules and regulations are introduced without so much as a by your leave.
I gave the example of the little man running up and down on the fire exit because it is a good one. I wonder how many hon. Members or people outside are aware that this directive is mandatory. Nobody knows about it, yet millions of pounds of taxpayers' and private enterprise money will be spent on implementing it.
It is similar to the directive that has crept in in respect of filing cabinets that are not fitted with anti-tilt devices. I wonder how many people know that that Brussels directive was interpreted by the Health and Safety Executive to mean that it is unsafe to have any item of equipment at work that is not secure. The Serjeant at Arms, like many others, has interpreted that to mean that filing cabinets are dangerous. They are dangerous only if one opens four drawers and the cabinet falls over and knocks one on the head. Once someone has made that mistake, they will not repeat it.
New regulations are eating away at the public and private purse and destroying our economy's ability to revive. They are constantly reducing the profitability of private enterprise and increasing the amount of public money that must be spent on implementation.
I have nothing against a lengthy and complicated procedure, as suggested in the report, but can we please try to do something about the directives, which, as I said, are being allowed to creep in and destroy the economy? I am attacking not my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House but the way in which directives flow into this country and are passed only for the public suddenly to wake up and find such dreadful things happening.
8.19 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The House and the public owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) because, despite the levity that greeted his remarks, what he said was genuine vox pop: he expressed what many people think. There may be a great deal of truth in what he said about directives from outside but we are discussing a different issue. I commend to him a weekly report published by the Select Committee on European Legislation which details all the directives.
The hon. Member for South Hams spoke about the regulations that emanate from Whitehall either with the signature of a Minister or that of someone whom a Minister has designated by law to authorise him. In other words, they come from the Executive, who are appointed by a majority of hon. Members and are accountable to them. I think that we can all agree on one matter. Suppose that a filing cabinet falls over, causes a serious injury to or even kills someone and the case ends in a coroner's court. The event may lead to a multiplicity of regulations that may appear necessary after a disaster but which, in practice, might be simple over-regulation. That is what the hon. Member for South Hams was complaining about.
I became involved in events following the Marchioness disaster, which was a great tragedy. It was rumoured—I emphasise that it was only a rumour—that the Department of Transport was going to order river boat operators above Teddington lock to have on board lifeboats, rockets and rations for 14 days. It did not go that far—it was only a story—but we can all cite practical examples of over-regulation from our daily life. To some extent, therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for South Hams.
Mr. Steen: I thank the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for his generous remarks and I am pleased that he recognises that there is a serious problem. However, the problem is rather different from that which he describes. The problem has to do not only with rules and regulations but with their interpretation by a large number of officials. In addition, we have to contend with notes and guidance notes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the subject under discussion. I always permit a little latitude, but he has now had sufficient rope.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, the interpretation is contained in the regulations themselves; it is not, as I understand it, a matter for the courts.
I thank the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for his courtesy in inviting me to give evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure and for the courtesy accorded to me while I did so, even though the thesis that I advanced in my initial letter to that Committee has not been dealt with in the Committee's report or elsewhere. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene earlier, when he was saying, in effect that the procedure must be at least as thorough. The right hon. Gentleman nods, thereby emphasising the fact that we have a new type of regulation equivalent to primary legislation. He nods again, and I believe that the complexity and thoroughness with which the advice is given in the

397
Committee's report proves that very point. I shall later make a constructive suggestion in this connection which may appeal to the Leader of the House.
The problem that we are discussing—let us call it the South Hams question—needs to be tackled in a democracy, but not necessarily by giving greater power to the Executive of the day, because the Executive might be responsible for inappropriate, outdated, over-complex and ill-balanced regulations, and might inflict a larger burden than is warranted by the importance of the case. Is not the whole process of statutory law, especially Acts of Parliament, about the balance between private rights and freedoms and protection and the carrying of burdens? Is not that what parliamentary democracy is all about?
I understand that in Elizabethan times there was uproar in the House when it was decided that one should only drive on the left. What about income tax and taxation in general? Taxation is a burden and a privilege—it is a matter of getting the balance right. The crossrail legislation, or any public or private Bill, involves argument about collective advantage versus private protection. In a sense, Acts of Parliament are about the balance between burden and privilege.
The Government have recognised the problem—the South Hams question—but have come down on one side only. They have chosen to stress the reduction of the burden and have not given sufficient attention to the other aspect, which is the collective advantage. Indeed, they have done so in a way that gives the advantage to the Executive. There is no doubt about that. The diagram on page xxv of the Select Committee's report is complex but the Deregulation Committee can only advise, not dispose. I was asked how I would give the Committee more power and I said that it could be given the power to dispose—the Standing Committees have them and the Government have them.
I thank the Leader of the House for his courtesy in giving way earlier. I know his views on parliamentary democracy but he will not be the Leader of the House for ever. He said that no Leader of the House and no Government would brush aside the Committee's recommendations. At one time, the Select Committee on European Legislation—this is the sort of thing that worries the hon. Member for South Hams—could call for time to be allocated on the Floor of the House or in Standing Committee to discuss outside regulations and directives. The Government decided that that was rather too time-consuming and that all such debates should take place in Committee but said that, if there was a request to debate the issues on the Floor of the House, they would consider it carefully. That was said in the Chamber when we were discussing directives.
On 30 March, the Select Committee strongly recommended that there should be a debate as soon as possible on the Floor of the House on the proposals for the enlargement of the Community. It is a very important issue, but the weeks have passed and still there was no debate. The issue is to be discussed by the Council of Ministers next Monday but we have not debated it in the House.
I do not have a copy of it with me, but the Leader of the House wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee in which he said that such a debate would be impractical. He has had since 30 March to make the necessary arrangements but has brushed aside the recommendation of what is not, but what is supposed to be,
398
an analogous Committee, whose very purpose was to make recommendations about debates. He has brushed aside a recommendation that he said would not be brushed aside if we adopted the proposals in question.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's point and the spirit in which it is made. I do not remember whether he was present during business questions last week, when I made it clear that the circumstances are not quite as he describes them. We did not know that it was a proposal until it was cleared by the European Parliament only last week, at which point it became clear that it would be put before the Council of Ministers next week. That left very little time, and it is against the background of a full debate on Europe next Monday.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue—I had not mentioned it because I did not want to make my speech too long. I am sorry to hear what he said, because it means that the Government had to wait for another Parliament to reach a conclusion before agreeing to discuss a matter recommended for debate by a Committee of the House. Surely that is what he is saying, in effect, and I am sorry to hear it.
Mr. Newton: I hope that there is no misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman has put his point in an uncharacteristically tendentious way. The fact is that accession could not go ahead until it had been agreed by the European Parliament. Until then there was no proposal, in the full sense, to be debated. That is all I meant.
Mr. Spearing: I hope that the Leader of the House will accept my next remark in the spirit in which it is meant, but I must remind him that the proposal was certainly on the cards, because the Prime Minister came back and told us all about it some weeks ago, and there has been much discussion about the content of his statement.
I now hasten on. We are talking about the balance between the Executive and the House. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the document HC 588, which is the 1977–78 report of the Select Committee on Procedure —the Committee that is now chaired by the right hon. Member for Honiton. Referring to Lord Glenamara, who was then the Leader of the House, the report said:
"The essence of the problem, as Lord Glenamara himself recognised, is that the balance of advantage between Parliament and Government in the day to day working of the Constitution is now weighted in favour of the Government to a degree which arouses widespread anxiety and is inimical to the proper working of our parliamentary democracy."
If that was true in 1977, it is at least as true now.
That was a unanimous report, backed by the following hon. Members:
"Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Michael English, Mr. John Grant, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Richard Luce, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. John Peyton, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. Giles Radice, Sir David Renton, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Nigel Spearing and Sir Thomas Williams".
We are suffering at least as much now. In the context of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which we are not discussing now, I suggest that, if the recommendation for the Committee is accepted, that uneven weighting will become far worse, for one simple reason. That was the thesis of my letter, and I do not believe that any hon. Member could disagree with it. Although statutory and primary law is available for contention in the courts, and involves the total balance between advantage and privilege

399
with which Acts of Parliament are always concerned, regulations are administrative law. They are designed to allow officials to take executive action to carry out in detail the will of the House.
In the example that the hon. Member for South Hams used, if the regulation says the Minister "shall" or "may" specify something concerning a certain number of inches, or a certain number of little men running up and down stairs, that is it. That is quite a different matter. To use secondary legislation to change primary legislation wholesale would be in breach of the constitution.
The Chairman of the Committee pointed out that, if law is made, it should be unmade in exactly the same way; otherwise, it would be devalued. The hon. Member for South Hams may not have heard of amending orders, annulment orders, or orders made for a certain period of time after which they expire and have to be renewed. That is how we could provide an opportunity, perhaps not in the Chamber but by consultative machinery, for overregulation to be dealt with if it occurs.
Mr. William Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman is now talking about the same sort of system as has been used to govern Northern Ireland for the past 25 years. Why should hon. Members who have supported that system being applied to Northern Ireland for 25 years not welcome its extension to the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has illustrated what may be in store for us.
Mr. Ross: Exactly.
Mr. Spearing: I do not think that anybody could question that.
In respect of that type of regulation, I shall conclude—
Mr. Steen rose—
Mr. Spearing: No. Time is limited.
Mr. Steen: I shall be very quick.
Mr. Spearing: Go on.
Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although statutory instruments tend to get passed in three minutes in Committee, the procedure likely to result from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will take much longer to unwind or repeal them? I should like to hear what he thinks about that.
Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is right, but for the wrong reason. We have to put in place something that, however skilfully it may be constructed, will be an enormously complicated procedure. That is because regulations are being used for the wrong purpose. It would be much easier to amend an Act, as does the middle part of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which we shall discuss tomorrow.
I finish by suggesting an alternative procedure to deal with what, while it may not be described as the West Lothian question, could be described as the South Hams question. Over-regulation and unnecessary regulation have to be dealt with. Why not have an annual deregulation Bill? We have one this year, and there are bits in it about public vehicles and all sorts of other things; it affects regulations about this, that and the other. Such a Bill could even be
400
amended, if the House wished. Indeed, a spectacular amendment was made yesterday to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. So there would be an opportunity for the hon. Member for South Hams, or anybody else, to say that something was wrong. But the law should be changed in the same way as it was made.
There may be a danger in doing that, because if we use the same procedure as we use for Standing Committees on Bills, such a Committee, like the Committee on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, would have to deal with a vast range of all sorts of different issues. Its membership could not be hand-picked, so there could be difficulties. If such a Bill were to be introduced every year, therefore, there ought to be outside consultation before its introduction. That arrangement could be part of some overriding Act. I have attempted to suggest how that could be done with my amendment No. 90—which, of course, I cannot talk about now, because that would be out of order, but which hon. Members can read on the amendment paper.
Instead of going to a Standing Committee, why should not the annual deregulation Bill be dealt with separately? The Army Bill is dealt with separately, and so is the Finance Bill. Initially it would go to a Public Bill Committee—the sort of Committee that I think we should have, and which was advocated by the Procedure Committee in 1977. There would be a Select Committee procedure for a period—perhaps the membership could change with the subject—and then a normal Standing Committee, after which the Bill would return to the Floor of the House.
I suggest that that would be using the House in the proper way. There would be pre-legislative consultation, scrutiny and questioning of Ministers in the House where necessary. That might not be necessary; let us hope that it would not. I hope that that would deal with the problems that concern the hon. Member for South Hams. It would also help the Government, and would avoid the great complications, and the enormous manpower and extra work, that the Procedure Committee's recommendations could entail.
8.37 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution. I start by paying tribute to the work of the Procedure Committee. I was lucky enough, if that is the phrase, to be summoned, and I was received with courtesy and listened to attentively for a happy 15 or 20 minutes. That was a worthwhile exercise. The Committee's work has been most valuable, and the House should be grateful to its members.
The Leader of the House has something to answer for in that he has brought us to this position. Here we are in the middle of the week having to insinuate the debate in between two days of a Report stage. We are in the middle of the consideration of the Bill. The Government should have seen that problem coming when they conceived the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in the first place. It is wrong to have to hold such a debate, and to force the Procedure Committee to make such a hurried report—although it was executed with dispatch, with proper expedition and with expertise.
We should not be having this debate in the middle of a two-day Report stage. The question should have been resolved clear of the final stages of the Bill, so that the

401
House could have had more time to contemplate some of the profound changes that will result from the legislation. I do not think that it is right that this important debate about the work of the Procedure Committee should be sandwiched in the middle of the debate on Report.
The Leader of the House must bear in mind the wider worries that some Members on both sides of the House have, to which the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has adverted, in relation to regulations. There is a widespread view that the House is suffering from overload at every level and in every direction. I do not think that the Government are doing enough about that. We have mentioned the Jopling report and the distinguished work that the Procedure Committee has done in the past. It has made plenty of recommendations. There is a growing sense, especially among my generation, if I can put it that way—although I am older than I look—that the House is overloaded. At some time or another, someone will have to grasp that nettle.
I am in favour of the fast-track procedure, subject to safeguards, but I do not think that it is enough. I should not want the Leader of the House to go away thinking that, if he obtains the agreement of the House to the procedure, that is the end of the matter, because it is not. Europe will produce more important legislation, and anxieties will grow in Scotland and in Wales that inadequate time is available on the Floor of the House of Commons. I am not by any means suggesting that that leads one to a conclusion about separation. There are all sorts of other ways, in a federal context, in which those problems could be tackled. There is a long agenda, which we ignore at our peril and which is not tackled by the narrower but nevertheless significant changes that are proposed in the Bill.
While I have the attention of the Leader of the House, I want to tell him that the measures that we are considering should only be temporary. If we accept the fact that in the past there has been over-regulation and over-legislation, presumably the penny has now dropped: the day has dawned; we all now see the error of our ways; and after the forthcoming Queen's Speech, all those problems will be solved. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman lacks the bottle to say to Departments in future, "Up with these excessive attempts at legislation we will not put in future," he will fail the House and will not be doing his duty properly. He must take that seriously, and the measures should be temporary.
I am worried that the work that the Procedure Committee has done, in rightly and thoroughly scrutinising the problem that it was set, will turn into a procedure that will be built into the bricks of this place and that, in future, we shall have primary legislation that will need to be stripped out by the fast-track procedure in due course. If the House gets into that mind-set, it will fail in its duty. The procedures should be used, appropriately and thoroughly, for the next few years, until we return to the situation in which we want to be, which is that we only introduce legislation in this place when it is essential.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) rightly argued that rights, checks and balances must all be borne in mind. I must say in parenthesis that I am attracted by the solution that he proposed, which would provide a viable alternative, and I wonder whether the Government have given that suggestion the serious consideration that I believe that it deserves.
402
There are some anxieties about the context in which the debate is taking place and I hope that the Leader of the House will realise that he has a duty to go away and think longer and harder about some of the longer-term issues that stand behind the proposals that we are considering.
Putting all that to one side, speaking for myself, I am willing to contemplate a fast-track procedure and I think that the Committee was right to propose it. I would add the qualification that it is essential, for the procedure to operate safely, that the House has ultimate control of the way in which the legislation and the new provisions are executed.
I say to the Leader of the House that I believe that an important factor in that—it may be a minor point—is that the Government should seriously consider offering the chairmanship of the Committee to an Opposition party. It is a special Committee and we must mark it out as a special Committee. The Leader of the House gave me an understandable response to my intervention, that the usual channels will dispose of questions such as that. From my perspective as someone who plays a minor part in the usual channels, I am not convinced that that will not be lost in the normal carve-up of perfectly ordinary and acceptable party interests. It will simply be lost.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is right in saying that the Committee should be set slightly apart from Select Committees. One of the ways that we can slightly set it apart—it is done in terms of the Public Accounts Committee and it works perfectly well in that regard—is to select and nominate a chairman from the Opposition ranks.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman said that he was hoping that the Chairman would come from a minority party, or rather from an Opposition party. How many minority party Members does he think will be on that Committee?
Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that there will be at least one; perhaps two. It depends on the size of the Committee.
We can have an argument about the rights and the balances and the opportunities that minority parties have —and as shop steward for the minority parties on the Committee of Selection I try to do my best, within the confines of the contest between the two major parties, to protect our interests; however, although I accept what the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said, my argument is slightly different. By virtue of our allowing the chairmanship to fall into the hands of the Opposition parties, the Committee will be given a certain distinction. Such a move would set the Committee apart and give the House added protection in the sense that the Committee would not then be driven simply by the perceptions, needs and desires of the Executive, which is a significant worry.
If the Government are not willing to do that, and if they are not willing to put proper safeguards into the fast-track procedure, which gives the House some sense that it has ultimate control, they will fail in what they are setting out to do. That would be a retrograde step.
I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the longer-term issues as well as some of the shorter-term ones. In particular, I hope that he will give some added thought to the question of offering the chairmanship to a party that is outwith the party of government, because if those Committees are to be enshrined for all time, Governments will come and Governments will go. I know the Leader of the House well enough to trust him. I do not

403
subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the procedure will be taken over and used in some nefarious way for Government political purposes. I do not believe that in the current context, but we cannot say that that will not change in future Parliaments, with different incumbents in the office that he holds. He must tackle those genuine anxieties to assure the House that that is being done properly.
8.48 pm
Mr. George Galloway: That was a terribly disappointing close to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I think that he might have been better informed about the true nature of the measures and the procedural infrastructure that is being instituted this evening to bring the measures into effect. If the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) had been here last night or this evening, he would have been better informed. He at least was able to see the beast face to face.
Although the Government have fielded some jolly decent coves this evening, and have shown us a decent face —although, as one paragraph made clear, the report is not as nice as the person who introduced it looks—the measures are an affront to the constitution. They are an abuse of democracy. That is something that has not been fully reflected during a debate in which we have ranged very widely: we have had the latest battle in the hundred years war over Britain's membership of the European Union; the Jopling report; and all sorts of other essentially extraneous issues.
What we are talking about is the procedural infrastructure to give the Government what have been described as Henry VIII powers, so draconian are those powers in relation to Parliament and to the further accretion of control on the part of an Executive who have done more than enough over the past 15 years to lead us to conclude that their purpose is ignoble. The Government's accretion of executive powers is an ignoble crusade, however nice the gentlemen sent here to argue for it may have been.
I said in the Committee that considered the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill that the Government were ill advised to choose Henry VIII as a role model at this parlous time in the Conservative party's political history. Henry VIII was a mass murderer; he was a serial adulterer, leaving what I think are known as love children all over the country; he disposed of parliamentary and any other opposition in the most brutal and undemocratic fashion. He even tucked his trousers into his socks. They were not actually trousers—more a kind of frock. But perhaps I had better not go further down that line.
All in all, Henry VIII was a very unsavoury character in British history. It is inappropriate for any Government in a modern democracy to be bent on taking powers so dictatorial that they have now become known universally as Henry VIII powers. From some mail received today I see that the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists is to bring Henry VIII back to life with a personal appearance, including axes and stocks, on Westminster bridge at 11.15 tomorrow. No doubt the country's media will be there in force.
We are talking about giving a discredited Executive, a discredited Cabinet, a discredited Government, draconian
404
powers to dispose of primary legislation that the House, in its proper way, has passed in years gone by. This is no laughing matter. A reading of the speeches of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and of other Conservative Members during the Second Reading debate on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill makes it clear that attitudes to the constitutional aspects of this matter are shared by Members on both sides of the House and will be shared in another place. I, for one, am not at all sure that the other place will tamely roll over to the constitutional implications.
I come now to the very emollient and gentlemanly discourse that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee gave at the beginning of the debate. In the few minutes available to me I shall deal with one or two aspects of it. The idea that we can be satisfied with the proposals that the Procedure Committee has come up with, especially with regard to the issue of the chairmanship, simply will not wash.
The very decent Leader of the House made it clear by implication that an Opposition Member will not chair the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), in an intervention today and repeatedly in Committee, elicited, by implication, the answer that there will be a Chairman's sift. There is to be a Conservative placeman in the Chair, and that Chairman will have power to sift. There will be a majority of Government placemen, as is clear from responses to interventions during this debate. There will therefore be no real protection whatever.
I am very sure that the usual procedures, the Government's powers of patronage, fear of the Whips and the inducement of promotion and of other favours will be such that the Minister bringing forward a deregulation proposal will manage, no doubt with 40 or 60 days' huffing and puffing but ultimately with very little difficulty, to get it through by partisan vote. After that, we shall have only a 90–minute debate at the end of the evening, when the press have gone home and the nation sleeps. Primary legislation will be swept away as the Whips whip the majority through the Lobbies.
This is a coarsening, cheapening and brutalising of the procedures of the House of Commons that sits well with the coarsening, cheapening and brutalising project that the deregulation legislation itself represents. The legislation chips away yet more of the edifice of civilised British society. This is the necessary concurrent procedural infrastructure. I am very disappointed at the tame response of the Liberal party, as enunciated by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, whom I admire very much and with whom I very rarely disagree. It will not be the tame response of the Labour party. We reject these proposals, as we reject the Bill.
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman, in the course of his hyperbolic defence of democracy, that the reason for others taking a different view is that, unlike him, they think that deregulation is a good idea?
Mr. Galloway: If it is a good idea, why cannot it be brought to the Floor of the House with debate on an annual deregulation Bill? If it is such a good idea, it would no doubt stand the test of parliamentary democracy and would be approved by a majority of the House after due debate. If it is such a good idea, let the Government put it to the test. The truth is that it is a rotten idea, at least in so far as

405
it exists in the minds of Ministers, who are engaging in the exercise at the behest of vested interests, many of whom have stuffed the Conservative party's coffers with gold in exchange for deregulation measures.
It is because it is such a rotten idea that the Government want to push these things through in a 90–minute debate, after normal parliamentary business and while the nation sleeps. The purpose is to dispose of the business as quickly and in as much shadow as possible. This is to be done precisely because it is a rotten idea conceived by the rotten lot opposite.
There is undoubtedly legislation that should, and could easily in a bipartisan way, be dispensed with. We could take a couple of hours upstairs night after night and, with the statute book in front of us, agree among ourselves that this or that piece of legislation is no longer necessary. However, we know that this project, this bonfire—how inappropriate that term may turn out to be in the context of the deregulation of fire protection with which we dealt last night—of civilised society in Britain is something that the Government would prefer to hold very quickly and quietly and, if possible, when no one is looking.
8.58 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall be brief because I know that several of my colleagues wish to contribute to the debate.
It is a privilege to be able to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), for what he said was essentially correct. It is true that the entire exercise that we are debating is ideologically driven. It is true also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, that if the Government wanted to clear away the legislative undergrowth they could do so annually in a deregulation Bill. They could repeal redundant legislation by that means.
I smiled wryly to myself when the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made his ignorant contribution. We know from the Minister and his ministerial colleagues —this was made clear in Committee—that 71 per cent. of the regulations that the Government want to sweep away were introduced since 1979. They are Conservative, not Labour, regulations. A full fifth of the regulations have been introduced since November 1990, when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) moved into No. 10. The idea that satanic socialists from previous Administrations are responsible for all the regulations is nonsense.
Who will chair the Deregulation Committee? It should be a member of one of the Opposition parties. The Chairman will have the power to sift. He will decide what goes to the full Committee. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government
"do not intend to introduce many draft orders initially. We shall begin with a small number, depending on how many proposals the new Committee wished to inquire into in greater detail. That aspect may not have been appreciated. We anticipate that a Chairman's sift would identify those which the Committee wished to spend time on, or call witnesses to, or have further papers on."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 24 February 1994; c. 231.]
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, who is not in his place, gave evidence to the Procedure Committee. He said:
"For example, if a procedure were adopted that did entail a sift, a chairman's sift, of the kind that exists under some other
406
arrangements, or perhaps a sift by a sub-committee to decide which one seemed not to require a great deal of attention by the proposed new committee and others which really did require some investigation, then there would be the possibility, for example, that the Government would put forward a number which appeared, on the face of it, unlikely to be felt by the committee to require a major investigation."
So the role of the Chairman and the Chairman's sift is crucial.
Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prentice: I shall give way in a moment.
I move on to the evidence that was given to the Procedure Committee by no less a person than the Clerk of the House, Sir Clifford Boulton. He was asked specifically about the proprieties of the Chairman's sift by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire). She wanted to know whether it was established procedure in the House for a Chairman to act on a Committee's authority without the Committee actually meeting. Sir Clifford said:
"it is … not the practice of our Committees to give devolved powers to the Chairman and then ask for some kind of restrospective approval of action he had taken, if that was going to go to the extent of certifying to the Leader of the House that the Committee would not be bothering with certain proposals or something like that."
Later, he said:
"our Committees do not have power to sub-delegate authority to the Chairman."
Sir Peter Emery: May I make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that there was no intention in any aspect of the recommendation in the Procedure Committee's report that anything but every regulation should go to the complete Committee for its consideration? That is absolute. It is most important that the hon. Gentleman should realise that that was the Committee's judgment.
Mr. Prentice: I do not know for the life of me how it will work in practice. The whole thing has not been thought through.
Sir Peter Emery: It has.
Mr. Prentice: It has not been thought through. One of the problems was that the Standing Committee which was considering the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill was running in parallel with the Select Committee on Procedure and the latter could not realistically be expected to know what was being discussed and being debated in the Standing Committee. I forget the number of occasions on which we were speculating on what would be the response of the Procedure Committee. We did not know because the Procedure Committee had not got round to dealing with the matters with which we were wrestling in the Standing Committee.
I say to the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that a fundamental contradiction exists. If there are a large number of deregulation orders and lots of legislative undergrowth needs to be cut and hacked down, there has to be a Chairman's sift. If there are not many deregulation orders, why bother in the first place? The whole thing is ideologically driven.
I shall say bluntly what, perhaps, my hon. Friends would not say. I do not think that the Procedure Committee report measures up. It falls far short of what we are entitled to expect from such a senior Committee of the House. The genesis of the proposal was in the minds of Conservative Members who could not conceive of Britain ever electing

407
anything other than a Conservative Government. It was Conservatism in perpetuity. After the local elections and after what happens next month, Conservative Members ought to start considering—not chortling—that the boot may be on the other foot.
Sir Peter Emery: I was chortling at the hon. Gentleman's comments. We have considered that.
Mr. Prentice: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has considered that. It is a problem that we are considering tomorrow in the final stages of a Bill that will dramatically alter the constitutional landscape of the country. The report that we are discussing does not measure up to that.
9.6 pm
Dr. Tony Wright: We are, in a sense, discussing clause 4 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill tonight. Clause 4 has a certain history in the annals of my party and I suspect that the present clause 4 will acquire a certain historical significance in the annals of the Conservative party. Perhaps it was because Conservative Members had been in power too long that they thought that the time had come when they could start to legislate by order. They began to get worried, because people—some in the other place, some constitutional lawyers outside and, indeed, some citizens—said that they did not think that they should proceed like that, and, if they did, there would be certain consequences.
So Conservative Members thought to themselves, "Well, we had better introduce a certain parliamentary device to make it all right and to legitimise what we want to do." So clause 4 was introduced. Clause 4 refers to the role of Parliament in the order-making process. There will be a device for parliamentary consideration and it is, of course, that device, that clause 4 mechanism, that we are being asked to consider. I believe that that mechanism will acquire a significance when the current period is considered, as our own clause 4 has over the years.
I want to consider the Procedure Committee report at face value. I shall not say what the report should have contained or, as some of my hon. Friends have said, how it is inadequate generally and that its genesis has problems. I shall take it as it comes because, remember, it is the device that we are being offered to make the process of the Government doing what they wish all right.
In its own terms, the Committee tried to do that. Indeed, it came up with what it called five safeguards, which, if any hon. Member would care to consider them, are in paragraph 102. Those safeguards are the bottom line that the Committee offers the House as the device to make the process all right. I will not read out all five of those safeguards as they are in the report.
However, it is most revealing that two of those extremely important safeguards have been rejected by the Government. They are:
"the Deregulation Committee should have the power to summon Ministers to give evidence."
and:
"a Deregulation Committee report that the order-making power should not be used for a specific deregulation proposal would prevent a final deregulation order being laid".
The Government rejected that and said that they would prefer to use the process in relation to draft orders rather than proposals. [Interruption.] The Chairman of the
408
Procedure Committee wants to know whether that is correct. He seems to be asking the Leader of the House whether that is correct.
Sir Peter Emery: I wanted to know whether the Government's rejection of that was correct. I do not believe that the Government's rejection has ever been suggested.
Dr. Wright: That is very interesting. Time is short, but I simply advise the right hon. Gentleman to consider the Government's reply contained in paragraphs 15 to 18, which state precisely what I have just described.
The Procedure Committee report refers to the importance that the Committee attaches to the rejection power. Paragraph 64 states:
"We recommend that, if the Deregulation Committee reports that the order-making power should not be used in respect of a specific deregulation proposal, no deregulation order should be laid before the House in respect of that proposal."
That could not be clearer. It is a bottom-line demand in relation to the safeguards that are being suggested, but the Government have rejected that bottom-line demand.
We have five safeguards, but two of them have been rejected. In addition, the Procedure Committee's report states that the existing Government suggestions do not go far enough and paragraph 104 states very clearly:
"We recommend that acceptance of these recommendations should be signified by the Government before the third reading of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in this House."
There we have it.
There is a clear declaration that the order-making machinery is acceptable to the Procedure Committee only if those five safeguards are met and the acceptance is given before the Third Reading of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. However, two of the five safeguards have been rejected and we are to have Third Reading tomorrow. The Chairman of the Procedure Committee may be happy with that. Indeed, the House may be happy with that. However, I warn against the consequences of having embarked on a road of providing protections, but having two of those fundamental protections rejected, and then still pressing on.
I have raised important points and I want briefly to add a further point. During consideration of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill we offered the Government several tests of good faith. One test asked whether the Government were sure that nothing controversial would be introduced under the order-making power. We were not given that assurance in Committee. The Leader of the House seemed to give that assurance tonight, but there is great uncertainty about that point.
The Government do not know whether the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill is a little Bill or a big Bill. If it is a big Bill, the order-making power is not appropriate. If it is a little Bill, how on earth can it deliver the promise of deregulation? That is the contradiction which is more exposed the more we talk about it. The Government would not respond to the tests of good faith that we put to them.
When we asked that certain key areas of protection, such as health and safety and employment protection, be written into the Bill so that they could not be included in the order-making powers, the Government refused to do so. They failed that test of good faith.
We asked the Government to accept in full the Procedure Committee's report. We specifically asked the Government to accept the recommendation of the Procedure Committee if it said that it was not appropriate

409
to use the order-making power for a particular proposal. That was one of the Committee's five recommendations, but the Government rejected it. All tests of good faith, such as the suggestion about an annual renewal of the Bill, were rejected. Yet we are being asked by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee to say that it is all right and that we can proceed nevertheless.
I am tempted to conclude my remarks here, but I want to go a little further. I cannot really join in the paeans that some of my hon. Friends have delivered to the normal legislative process in the House. I wish that there were enough time for me to share all the information that I have with the House. However, I will share some and my hon. Friends can tell me when to stop.
I have just emerged from the Committee which considered the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill—which I suppose in one sense is an untypical Bill, but in another sense is very typical. It is the first big Bill that I have considered in Committee in this place. I hear regular descriptions in the House—I have heard them today—of the glories of the legislative process. Frankly, it is an illusion; it is self-delusion. It is a collective delusion of the Parliament. We have been rumbled outside, but in here I presume that we still believe this sort of thing.
I have made a quick analysis of exactly what happened with the deregulation Bill in Committee. The Committee sat from 15 February until 28 April. We sat for 35 sessions and for 88 hours. About 200 amendments were moved. Shall I give the House the terrible details? The 100 amendments moved by the Government went through and two of ours went through. One of those was passed because the Whip on the other side was asleep—I hope that it will not do irreparable damage to his political advancement. I am giving the House only the barest details.
I am afraid that this is the reality of the legislative process in the House. It is a case of Members not being present, Members conducting business in the corridors, being summoned by bells and doing their correspondence in Committee. The textbooks call it "scrutiny". It is an hilarious situation, and the hilarity was compounded when the Bill came back to the House last night.
We spent many hours in Committee talking about markets. We explained to the Government that we thought that we needed new liberalising legislation to clear away some of the antique provisions and to regulate where unregulated markets were causing trouble. We were assured that this was not an issue at all and that the thing to do was simply abolish charter market rights. Of course, all hon. Members from the Government party voted happily for that provision when the bell rang and they were required to do so.
After that process was completed, the Minister came into the House last night and told us that what we had said all along was right and that it would be sensible to bring in some new provisions. But this did not happen as a result of scrutiny in the House or because of the legislative process; it happened because the Opposition could not get away with it. That is the only way that changes are made. To make it even worse, there was a new provision about racing which had never been discussed in Committee and which had had no scrutiny at all. The Minister said that he was sorry that the matter had not been not consulted upon, but it was introduced and passed. That is the reality of the legislative process.
Mr. Bennett: I accept the cynical view which my hon. Friend is putting forward, but I would suggest that, on markets, perhaps spending those 80 hours in Committee did something useful. While the Committee was consuming time, an awful lot of people were lobbying outside. Therefore, while the scrutiny in the House may not have been very effective, the scrutiny in the country perhaps was.
Dr. Wright: There is a little truth in what my hon. Friend says, but I am afraid that the big truth still lies with my description of the process.
I have a certain ambivalence about the whole matter. In some ways, I find the new scrutiny machinery quite interesting. I do not like it in so far as it allows Ministers to legislate by order, but in so far as it begins to address some of the problems with the normal legislative process in the House, I begin to get interested.
Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that, for 10 or 15 years, those who understand what he has been saying have made strong efforts to introduce a public Bill procedure where, prior to the legislative procedure of amendments, Ministers appear as witnesses in a Select Committee format to justify their Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that that would improve things enormously?
Dr. Wright: I agree very much. I feel myself being lured towards territory which I would like to enter, but I must prevent myself from doing that.
There is a reform agenda, and there is no difficulty in knowing what we ought to do. The Hansard Society produced the definitive reform agenda for the legislative process two years ago. The weight of evidence which came in from every part of society to that learned commission showed that there was massive and profound dissatisfaction with the way in which this place operates.
The society produced an agenda for reform which incorporated some of the ideas which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned, and it included First Reading Committees and a wider consultative process. Those ideas were available to us. The tragedy is that the House is not taking advantage of them.
I am not going back to the Jopling report, because I do not think that Jopling begins to go far enough. However, I shall quote from the Leader of House, who said on 2 July 1992 in reference to a debate on the Jopling report on the following Monday:
"I hope that the debate … will pave the way for the House to reach some decisions very soon after it returns in the autumn." —[Official Report, 2 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 964.]
That was two years ago.
Of course, the problem is that the House seems incapable of reforming itself. Everyone outside knows that we have to do that, but the House seems incapable of understanding that.
A result of our not acting in this case is that we will allow an order-making power to be introduced. We will do it in a way which does not have adequate safeguards built in, and which does not incorporate the safeguards which were suggested by the Procedure Committee. More important, the House is refusing to reform its own procedures in a sensible and comprehensive way.
Worst of all is that the House does not care about this at all. Tomorrow night, hon. Members will troop through to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill which has

411
inadequate protections. The Government will have got the Bill, but the House will have fallen a further notch in the public's esteem.
9.23 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The deregulation Bill will not solve the problem of the number of regulations produced by the Government. I have some sympathy on that score with the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), although I think he missed the point about the sheer number of regulations that Ministers produce.
While the debate was going on I slipped out to the Board to collect my agenda for the Select and Joint Statutory Instrument Committees, just to see the number of instruments that we shall have to scrutinise next week. There are more than 30 of them, and the Government turn out that many week after week.
Last year the Government introduced more than 3,000 sets of new regulations and already this year the number has reached more than 1,000. Although the Government continually churn out regulations, Ministers do have a choice. They have tried to tell people that, because there is too much regulation, they intend to introduce a deregulation Bill—but the Bill is irrelevant to the problem. They have therefore tried to devise a new parliamentary procedure which I would suggest is wholly inadequate, as was the whole Procedure Committee report. It did not even consider the crucial issues.
Most regulations confer freedom on one group of people and restrictions on another group. I therefore can see no constitutional difference between a Bill that deregulates and a Bill that regulates.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten to point out that many of the pieces of legislation that we scrutinise in Committee every week are defective, so we often have to look at them twice or three times before the Government get them right. Does he agree that if Departments did their work properly there would be a great deal less work for us?
Mr. Bennett: Certainly, but the whole problem with legislating by regulation is that it offers the temptation of not drafting regulations particularly well.
If the Government will go along with my proposal for new legislation, I will accept that the procedure they propose is reasonable. Let us imagine, in the next Parliament, that an Act is passed to allow, by regulation, for the safety and good governance of the United Kingdom, and to ensure the fair distribution of wealth and power. If we passed such an Act and then proceeded by regulation to achieve those ends, would the Conservatives think that that was a fair use of parliamentary procedure? I suspect not. But that has not stopped the Government arming themselves with sweeping powers to make legislation under the terms of our accession to the European Union. The sort of Act that I have described might provide my constituents with much speedier remedies for many of the problems that they face. Still, I think that it would be constitutionally unacceptable.
The Chairman of the Procedure Committee said that deregulation measures should be treated like primary
412
legislation. If so, I find it puzzling that the Committee failed to analyse the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that there be a deregulation Bill every year. I believe that such a Bill, scrutinised on the Floor of the House, would take up less time than the proposed new procedures might take.
We are told that there is a possibility of 20 or 30 deregulation orders. Assuming that many of them are controversial, that would mean an hour and a half for each, or 30 or 40 hours of parliamentary time. If there were a deregulation Bill, it would mean some six hours for a Second Reading. A small group of people would discuss the Bill, possibly for a long time, in Committee. There would then be 10 or 12 hours for Report and Third Reading. So in terms of efficient use of parliamentary time, an annual deregulation Bill would be a more efficient procedure than the hybrid mess that the Procedure Committee has come up with.
The main safeguard of a proper piece of legislation would be the amount of time that would be taken. I tend to accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) that the time spent in Committee often is not very useful. But while that time is being consumed, debate often takes place outside. Groups of people lobby Ministers and come to see individual Members of Parliament. It is an important part of the parliamentary process that a certain amount of time is taken up. One of the problems with the deregulation measure is that the time will be compressed, and there is a possibility that things can be stampeded through.
On the proposals for markets, I find it remarkable that, although I spoke to one or two of my constituents when the Bill was first published, only in the past fortnight have a substantial number of letters begun to come in. We are talking about almost six months from its publishing to this stage. It is a sad fact, but in a democracy it takes a lot of time for the information to be disseminated to the country. One of the fatal flaws of the procedure suggested is that it does not allow sufficient time for trade associations, trade unions and lobbying groups to get the information out to their members, find out whether people are concerned and start the lobbying process.
We are told that, under the new procedure, 40 days will be allowed. If the Committee thinks that the matter is more extensive, it can be extended to 60 days.
Mr. Newton: I am beginning to wonder increasingly whether some hon. Members who are making speeches —I say this with due deference to the hon. Gentleman—have read the proposals. No proposal goes to the Deregulation Committee unless it has already been the subject of consultation, and a report on the outcome of that consultation is made to the Committee with the proposal.
Mr. Bennett: Who does one consult? The proposal will not be widely publicised. I find it amazing that the Leader of the House does not understand what happens with the general public. There is a substantial time lag. One can write to a particular group if one knows that a regulation affects a trade union or an industry, but that is the limit of the consultation. Only when it gets into the public domain do people become concerned about it.
If the Government are saying that there will be a 12–month process from the point at which a Minister proposes the deregulation to the point at which the order goes through, they might as well go along with the

413
proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood to have a deregulation Bill each Parliament. The only excuse for the procedure is that it is supposed to be a short cut—a quicker way of doing it than having legislation. The Government cannot have it both ways. If there is to be all the consultation and safeguards that I think there should be, they might as well do it through primary legislation rather than their intended short-cut.
Mr. Newton: I do not wish to prolong the proceedings or be unduly tiresome, but I will make the point that while I happen to believe—as do my colleagues generally—in consultation wherever possible, although there is a requirement to consult here before introducing the proposal, there is no such requirement in respect of introducing primary legislation.
Mr. Bennett: I accept that there is no need for that requirement. I do not think that the proceedings of the House are particularly well reported, but almost always on Second Reading there is a reasonable debate in the House about the proposals, and from that point on people begin to become interested in the matter. I think that the consultation process is pretty effective; certainly most of the organisations that would be formally consulted, as required by the legislation, would spot anything in primary legislation.
Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under consultation procedures, the Department of Transport sent out a letter on 11 February asking various official bodies what they thought about getting rid of three schedules of the London Transport Act 1982, taking away the burden of running a lost property service? I do not think that many London Transport passengers know about that—and I did not until yesterday, despite having asked a question to which I received a misleading answer.
Mr. Bennett: I accept that it takes time. If the Government are anxious for the consultation process to be effective, they should look to primary legislation.
Primary legislation, moreover, gives the power to amend. Again, the markets provision, which was discussed last night, is a good illustration. The power to amend in detail allows the possibility of cross-party activity in the House and the defeat of the Government. Regulations, because of the way in which they are presented, give the Government much more power: there is a "take it or leave it" approach. I understand that some power to amend has been suggested, but that would be a result of the Committee's scrutiny rather than any opportunity to make amendments in the House.
Appointing 16 Committee members for the duration of a Parliament would be a disadvantage. Although they may follow the procedures, my experience in the House suggests that during such a long period at least some members of the party in government will be promoted—perhaps not very far, but at least to parliamentary private secretary—and will leave the Committee. There may be a turnover of members for various other reasons.
I think it is easier to persuade people to volunteer for involvement in primary legislation—which will give them the interest to follow through the issues involved—than to hope for good attendance in a Committee that meets week after week, often dealing with matters in which individual members have very little interest. I can say from my experience of the Select Committee on Statutory
414
Instruments that it is very difficult to maintain good attendance, although members are appointed for the duration of a Parliament.
I believe that there are major defects in the new procedure. If the Government cannot secure agreement, it will start at a disadvantage: people will be aiming to wreck it, rather than to make it work. I suggest that, even at this late stage, the Leader of the House should scrap the Procedure Committee's report and think again about finding some consensus—perhaps through the usual channels—if the Government are determined to bring about deregulation of Acts of Parliament by regulation. It would be far better to scrap the whole Bill and start again, perhaps promising an annual deregulation measure.
9.37 pm
Mr. William Ross: I shall be brief. I read paragraph 16 of the Committee's report with interest. It consists of only one sentence, stating that the Committee has sought to ensure
"that no Act of Parliament is repealed or amended under this new power without examination at least as thorough as if the change had been made by a Bill passing through the House."
As I said earlier in an intervention on the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), Northern Ireland has been governed by Order in Council for some 22 years. I was astonished and delighted this evening to hear so many Opposition Members condemn that procedure as applied to their constituents; I hope that they will now understand how those of us who represent the Province have felt for the past 22 years, 20 of which I have spent in the House.
Our experience is that the procedure suggested by the Government invariably results in legislation by civil servants rather than by Parliament. That is literally what happens with Northern Ireland legislation. I do not think that we should adopt such a procedure and I commend what was said by the hon. Member for Newham, South. A deregulation Bill each year might not be particularly satisfactory, but it would be a sight better than what the Government propose.
9.39 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: We have had an important debate on the Select Committee's report.
I should like to preface my remarks by referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who raised some important issues about the role of the House and ministerial accountability. It would do us all a great deal of good to explore that agenda because it is important for our democracy. It is extremely relevant to the debate that we have had this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood referred to the issue of the markets and the three clauses that were deleted last night from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I offer my hon. Friend one thought: if the procedures recommended in the report had been in place, I contend that the clauses dealing with markets would have been enacted speedily without the process of consultation and opposition that eventually occurred. The short-cut procedure would have led to bad legislation which would have been highly unpopular. It may be a warning to the Government that, if the procedures

415
that they are now trying to implement had been in place, they would have pushed through some unpopular measures on markets. That is one of the lessons that we need to draw.
Mr. Newton: That was in the Bill because the Government judged that it was not a proper use for the regulation-making power. It is a good illustration of where we think that it is appropriate to have new primary legislation.
Mr. Fatchett: With respect, there is no definition in the Bill or in the Procedure Committee's report of what is to come in the future, what is defined as important and what Bills or proposals can be used via the mechanism. The right hon. Gentleman's argument falls on its face because that sort of measure can come in the future.
The situation was well summed up by a telling intervention made by the Minister for Industry during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). The Minister said that many people want to get on with the deregulation initiative. That was an interesting perspective and it was embodied in all our debates in the Standing Committee. It was highly and wholly practical, with no reference to the underpinning constitutional issues. The Minister's primary concern was to deal with a deregulation initiative. That is an extremely dangerous approach to legislation and administration. The best approach takes account of our constitutional principles and tries to bring legislation within those principles.
We objected to the Bill on Second Reading, and we shall vote against it tomorrow on Third Reading, because it gives extensive powers to the Executive to repeal primary legislation. I shall quote a passage from the evidence of the Procedure Committee which has not been quoted by any of my hon. Friends. It sums up our key objection. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—
Mr. Bennett: Where is he?
Mr. Fatchett: I have received a note from the right hon. Gentleman saying that he has to fulfil another appointment.
The right hon. Member for Honiton asked the Clerk of Committees the following question:
"do you know of any other instances where primary legislation has been altered, other than by a Statutory Instrument which arises from the primary legislation"?
The Clerk said:
"No, I do not, Sir. I think this is recognised to be an innovation".
Is not the crucial point the fact that, under the Bill, the Government are taking the power to repeal and amend primary legislation? That is the key constitutional point.
It is a sad reflection on the House that no Conservative Member has felt this to be an important enough principle to come to the debate and to speak on these issues. Once that principle is accepted, others may use it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood said, Conservative Members believe that they will be the Government for ever and that they will implement the powers for ever. That is a foolish view in terms of their stewardship and of our political processes. It is also a dangerous and arrogant view which the House and the country should note.
Once the Government take that direction, one precedent will lead to many others. Do not Conservative Members
416
recognise the danger that others with different motives and objectives may wish to use the same procedures? They will not have the right to come back to the House and object. I should not want a Labour Government to use the executive powers proposed in the first four clauses of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, or anything like them, but the Government have introduced them, to which we object in principle.
The Government argue that safeguards are included in the procedures, which is swallowed by the Procedure Committee report. It relies on two phrases—"burden" and "necessary protection"—which arose time and again in Committee. The report and Ministers believe that those words have an objectivity that can be applied in each circumstance, which is nonsense. Those terms are highly political; they are charged with political controversy. A burden on business or a cost to an employer may be a safeguard for an employee or a consumer.
The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is not in his place, but I would have said this even if he were. Time and again, he has gone on about fire regulations and environmental health inspectors. Many consumers prefer to eat in a restaurant or hotel that is subject to environmental health standards. They regard that as a necessary price to pay in a civilised society. For some, including the hon. Member for South Hams, however, that price is seen as a burden.
Those terms are not charged with objectivity. They are at the heart of the political controversy. Last night, the debate on health and safety regulations at work and fire protection regulations divided the House. It is no use the Select Committee's report or Conservative Members trying to pretend that those words will enable to us make objective judgments; they will not.
The next argument of Ministers and in the Committee report is contradictory. We have been told by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and by Ministers that the deregulation Bill is a modest Bill. That slightly contradicts the great fanfare of trumpets at the Conservative party conference that heralded this great deregulation initiative. Many great ideas at Conservative party conference suddenly become modest ideas; deregulation may be one.
Is there not a clear contradiction? If these are modest measures, and the deregulation Bill is a modest measure, why, in the words of the Clerk of the House, must we invent a new constitutional procedure to deal with this modest Bill? Is there not a better way of proceeding?
If the other side of the equation is correct and these are not modest but extensive measures, as the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs told the Conservative party conference last year, and if we believe the rhetoric of that conference, is that not a greater warning to the House? If the powers are extensive, should not we be saying that we shall not give the Government innovative powers to do things differently and undermine our constitution? The more extensive the powers, the greater should be the vigilance and scrutiny by the House of Commons. It saddens me that these powers are being taken by the Executive without one voice being raised on the Tory Benches, despite the fact that the Government's arguments about the nature of the Bill do not add up.
We have also been told that the Bill is an on-going process. That makes me extremely cautious because, if we regard it as an on-going process, we must remember that what is on today's deregulation agenda may not be on

417
tomorrow's. The present Ministers may disappear, and it is not impossible that the Conservative party could lurch even further to the right and be even more out of touch with public opinion. I could write the hypothesis of how that could happen. What would happen to these powers in such circumstances?
We tried repeatedly in Committee to control the scrutiny powers and to put a time limit on them, but our attempts failed. The Minister for Industry said that deregulation was an on-going, rolling process. He forgot the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that 71 per cent. of regulations have been introduced by this Government in the past 15 years. If deregulation is an on-going process, today's menu could change tomorrow and the new menu could be even more damaging for the interests that we should be protecting.
On the day the Bill was published, I said that the new powers contained in it would allow the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to be repealed. I received a letter from the Minister of State, Department of Employment, saying that I was scaremongering, that there was no truth in what I said and that it was not the Government's intention to operate in that way. Let us consider what could happen; I offer the House an hypothesis.
The Minister of State could tell the Deregulation Committee that the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is a burden on employers and that, if we are to compete against the Government's new model of industrial economies—against Taiwan and South Korea, where he sees Britain's future—we have to get rid of that Act. He could say that, because we have good employers, we have the necessary protection, so the two categories—burden and necessary protection—are satisfied. The Scrutiny Committee, under the control of a Conservative majority, could agree that, as the two conditions of "necessary protection" and "burden" have been met, the Act should be repealed. What is there in the Committee's report or in the Bill to stop the 1974 Act being repealed in that way? There is absolutely nothing. That is the real danger of this Bill.
The problem is not what is happening now but what will happen if new powers are given to the Government and the Government remain in office. My colleagues said many times in Committee and again tonight that the Bill and this initiative have been driven by people who have made substantial contributions to the Conservative party. The list of such people has been published and it is self-evident. The agenda can be pushed even further. There are no safeguards in the report or in the Bill to protect employee or consumer interests. That is why we asked for time scales and have disagreed strongly with these powers, but the Government persist in their strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned an alternative way of doing things. I am sure that he read the proceedings of the Standing Committee, and he will have seen that, for the first four clauses, we advanced the same argument. My hon. Friends and I said that there were other ways of dealing with the deregulation proposals.
I say the same thing again now. If the proposals are modest, small in number and limited in scope, why do the Government not take up the Opposition's suggestion? It would in no sense stop the Government's deregulation initiative, but it would help them to say that each year a miscellaneous deregulation Bill would pass through the House. That would have the advantage of providing greater scrutiny, accountability and openness. Why do the
418
Government not take up that proposal? Why use the back door? Why do things through a scrutiny Committee, which will not have the powers to operate as we think it should?
I shall say a few final words about that Committee. In Standing Committee, I argued strongly that there should be a Chairman from among the Opposition parties. That is vital. But there is something else that we need to understand about this place. Flanked as I am by two Opposition Whips, I had better be careful what I say and how I phrase it, but I suspect that that crucial Committee defined in the report will consist of those whom the Whips know that they can manage—the ambitious, and those self-important enough to do the Whips' bidding. It will be a Government-controlled and Government-sponsored Committee. That will not help the reputation of the House, or answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood about the way in which the general public regard the House. We need a Committee with more independence. There will be little faith in it if it is fixed by the Government Whips, like everything else these days.
We voted against the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill on Second Reading because of the extensive powers being given away. I ask my hon. Friends not to vote against the Select Committee's report now, but to join me in the Lobby tomorrow night to vote against Third Reading of the deregulation Bill. That will not be because, unlike the Government, we believe in red tape—after all, we did not introduce 71 per cent. of the current regulations—but because we believe in the House, in the accountability of Ministers and in a rolling scrutiny by Members of Parliament. That is why we shall vote against the Bill, and that is why we reject the report, which does not deal with the principal issues that the House should have tackled.
9.57 pm
Mr. Newton: I see that I have only three minutes in which to reply, so clearly I shall not be able to make any substantial comment on what has been said. I make no complaint about that, but I shall make one or two observations.
First, there has been some unfairness in attacks made on my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and the Procedure Committee for the alleged inadequacies of the report—I do not share that view of it —by a party that declined to take a full part in its proceedings.
Secondly, there is something slightly peculiar in the implication of the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that proposals for orders that would allow the Patent Office to accept documents in forms other than paper—such as electronic filing—or exempt purchasers of small and statistically insignificant annual tonnages of corn from the requirement to make returns of information under the Corn Returns Act 1882 somehow constitute an astonishing attack on the whole of our parliamentary democracy—
Mr. Fatchett rose—
Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way.
Thirdly, with due deference to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who made an interesting speech, and to one or two others, I must say that the repeated emphasis on executive powers and the

419
Government's power to legislate by order implies something verging on contempt of the House. We are speaking about orders that have to be passed by the House, whereas people persistently speak as if we are talking about government by fiat. To return to the argument that I made to the hon. Member for Newham, South, it is perhaps curious that I, standing here, have greater confidence in the House than many of the Members who have spoken.
Most of what the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood wanted was closer to what we have in the proposals from the Procedure Committee than to an existing study of legislation. Most of the things that we are speaking about would have been passed on the nod in some schedule in a primary Bill. Here we have a Committee that will have to consider them. The hon. Gentleman should consider whether we are moving in the direction that he wants. I sense that he recognised that in many of his remarks. I leave the matter there.
Mr. Timothy Wood (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITIONS

  Section 11 Funding
  10 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I should like to present to the House on behalf of 2,000 of my constituents a petition which was presented to me recently by teachers and parents concerning the proposal of the Government to cut section 11 funding. Such funding, as the House knows, has provided a great deal of support for teachers, especially in our inner-city areas. The petition has been signed by teachers, parents and other people who are affected by the cuts. The petitioners request the Government to change their mind and to restore the section 11 funding, which is to be severely cut.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Goodwood House
  Mr. Vaz: I also wish to present to the House a petition that is signed by 1,725 of my constituents, living predominantly in the areas of Evington, Thurncourt road and West Humberstone. The petition calls on the Secretary of State for Social Security to intervene in the proposals of Leicestershire county council to close Goodwood house, which is a home that provides services and residence for a number of elderly people in my constituency. The proposals are opposed by a large number of people, and the petitioners request that the Secretary of State intervenes so that provision may be allowed to continue and the residents of Goodwood house who have lived there for so many years may be allowed to continue to live there.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Alcohol Sales (European Single Market)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to mention an issue that is of great interest to many people involved in the drinks business throughout the country. It is the single market and the effect that it is having on our domestic drinks business, whether that be brewing, on-sales or off-sales. The industry employs about 1 million people, and even in the north-west it employs up to 150,000 people. I am an executive member of the all-party beer group and I take my duties extremely seriously.
  There are three breweries in and around my constituency. The first is a small brewery in Moorhouses, Burnley. It employs 11 people on the brewing side and 30 people in its six pubs. It also supplies 150 other pubs in the area, employing about 750 people. Thwaites is a larger brewery, but still in family hands, based in Blackburn. It was established in 1807. It employs 332 people on the brewing side and provides employment for 2,000 other people in its public houses. Finally, there is Whitbreads in Samlesbury, which employs more than 500 people on the brewing side and a considerable number of other people in pubs and clubs that sell its beer. It was established in 1742. I have been to all three breweries and I am proud of their contribution to the local economy.
  In addition to the breweries, some of the finest public houses in the country are in my constituency. The British pub is an institution that is not properly replicated anywhere in the world, but it is the envy of the world. Seventy per cent. of visitors to Britain prefer British pubs to their bars at home. The one aspect in which we could learn something from the continentals is our licensing hours, and I hope that we can tackle those at a future date.
  Although we have some of the best pubs in the world, and certainly some of the best beers in the world, that is now seriously under threat.
  I applaud the single market. It is a trading bloc without frontiers of 350 million people. We have 12 countries in the European Community. Soon the number will expand to 16, which means 16 different taxes and 16 different Governments—long may that remain the case.
  We have a policy in this country of switching taxation away from direct to indirect taxes and I applaud that policy. That has led to the top rate of direct tax being reduced from 83 per cent. to 40 per cent. and the bottom rate of tax being reduced from 33 per cent. to 20 per cent. at its lowest rate and 25 per cent. otherwise. We also have the lowest rate of corporation tax in the European Community. Where we are almost top of the European Community league table is in the taxation that is imposed on alcohol, and I shall refer specifically to beer this evening.
  Beer drinkers in this country account for 21 per cent. of the European Community's total beer consumption, but we pay 55 per cent. of the total Community beer duty, whereas our German neighbours account for 40 per cent. of total beer consumption in the Community but pay only 14 per cent. of the duty yield. The excise duty on a typical pint of British beer is 24.5p and the VAT is 20p, whereas in France drinkers pay, on average, less than 5p in excise duty per pint. That means that beer sellers in France start off with an advantage of 25p a pint over their British
  422
  counterparts when other factors are taken into account. Nor should we forget that French beer is stronger than British beer. The last thing we should be doing is encouraging people to drink more beer with a higher alcoholic content.
  As we celebrate the coming down of the international barriers to trade, the chances are that we shall be toasting the frontierless trade with a glass of beer that originated abroad. Last year 330 million such pints of beer were drunk in this country. That is almost as much as is brewed in Norway.
  I do not blame people for getting into their cars and vans and making the trek across the channel. It is a bit of fun, and, with the difference in the rates of tax on beer, there is a great incentive to do so. Nor is the ferry industry slow to encourage as many people as possible to use its services. Special offers appear in some national newspapers. The average customer will see a very quick return on his fare outlay.
  The single market means that one can now bring back as much as one likes as long as it is for personal consumption. I fear for the health of the nation and I marvel at the physical capacity of some of my fellow countrymen to put away so much liquid. It cannot be doing them any good. I refer to those people who come back with their cars heavily laden with beer and tell Customs officials that it is all for their own consumption. What are the officials supposed to do with such evidence?
  The trade is getting so big that British-owned store chains such as Sainsbury and Tesco are opening up across the channel, and others will soon follow. I am sure that Mr. Sainsbury will be relieved to learn that in my retail store in Swansea I do not intend to follow suit.
  There are worrying signs on the horizon. I shall mention just one or two of them. On the question of smuggling, I refer the House to early-day motion 165, which has been signed by 125 hon. Members. Organised crime and the Arthur Daleys of this world have a nice little earner in the sale of massive quantities of their contraband. So prolific is the practice that it has reached the heights of Reg Holdsworth's minimarket in "Coronation Street".
  The Minister will be alarmed, as I was, to learn that Britain's favourite landlady, Bet Lynch of the Rover's Return, could see her livelihood hit thanks to her boy friend's frequent illegal imports of cheap lager, which he brings back in his empty lorry on the return leg of his visits abroad. He sells the lager to Reg, who then sells it to his customers. Reg is a decent sort of bloke and probably thinks that he is not doing any wrong. Bet Lynch would probably think otherwise, as would Newton and Ridley, the brewery landlords of the Rover's Return.
  However, I fear that in this practice Reg is not alone. A local brewery told me that the landlords of three of its pubs have been approached by people offering to sell them vanloads of imported beer. Someone even offered to supply the brewery's managing director with beer in this way.
  I know that Customs and Excise has a dedicated task force visiting stores, pubs and car boot sales. Its members use the intelligence that they have built up from various sources, but it is not enough. Nor are there enough of these people. There must be more stops and searches. If they are successful in finding illegal supplies, these must be confiscated and prosecutions must take place. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell the House how many prosecutions there have been to date and how many goods have been confiscated.

  423
  Potentially more worrying than smuggling is a practice called distance selling and buying. The practice may start and it has not been tested in the courts. It would involve someone using a middle man or agent to place an order and to receive imports of beer from France into the United Kingdom without accompanying the goods. If we think that smuggling has proved to be damaging to the trade as it stands, distance selling will lead to the decimation of the brewing industry.
  When the single market was first introduced, swift action was taken by the Danish Government because they could see that there would be a problem. As a result, beer duty decreased by 47 per cent. That approach has worked. The Danes were fearful of the cross-border trading that would take place.
  The specific problem to which I am drawing attention has been recognised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he mentioned it in his November Budget. Only 40 per cent. of travellers take the opportunity to buy beer on their trips abroad, so there is scope for an even greater increase in the practice. That will be especially so when the channel tunnel comes into full operation and doubles the capacity for cross-channel travel from 28 million to 56 million passengers a year.
  We are exporting our taxes and our jobs. The problem will be eradicated only by decreasing the differential between taxation systems. I would not dream of telling the French what to do with their domestic taxes, and I would be especially offended if the French told me what we should be doing with our taxes. We must recognise, however, that a problem exists and that there is a stark difference between our taxes on beer and their taxes.
  I cheered with everybody else when Her Majesty the Queen travelled through the channel tunnel for the first time. I look forward to travelling through the tunnel myself. A new market will be created and many more people will be able to make the journey. As Her Majesty looks forward to the marriage of her youngest son to Sophie Rhys-Jones, I trust that she will not be toasting their future happiness with a glass of smuggled champagne, but all too many will.
  The need is pressing for the Government to introduce tighter controls and tougher penalties on smugglers who abuse the single market. It is time to look again at the present tax regime in the United Kingdom, which is preventing the drinks industry from taking full advantage of the potential benefits. Having reassessed the tax regime, we would be able to preserve the drinks industry, which has grown up over centuries. It has contributed to our benefit and now is the time for us to support it.
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on his luck in securing the Adjournment debate this evening. I thank him for allowing me to take a minute or so of the debate.
  Secondly, I declare my interest. I am the parliamentary adviser to the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association. In that role I meet many brewers, and I know that they are extremely concerned about the situation that my hon. Friend has outlined. It is not only the brewers in the south-east of England who are concerned about the effect
  424
  of the importation of beer. The concern is shared by brewers throughout the country. We are finding imported beer on which no duty has been paid in Yorkshire and the north-east of England generally. It is a serious problem.
  It is not only the brewers who are worried. CAMRA —the Campaign for Real Ale—which is certainly not in bed with the brewers, shares their concern. I shall quote what it states in a brief that it sent to hon. Members in July 1993. The brief reads:
  "The massive differential between Britain and the Continent will lead in the long term to a smaller UK brewing industry, pub closures and revenue loss as beer is increasingly brewed and bought abroad."
  I do not believe that CAMRA is being alarmist when it says that. There is a serious risk of the brewing industry being harmed as a result of the situation as outlined by my hon. Friend. He was quite right to talk of the threat to jobs. The problem, of course, is that UK beer duty is more than six times that in France. The result is that the UK tax regime perpetuates unfair competition in the European single market.
  The solution should be that the Government follow a strategy of progressive reduction in UK beer duty to bring about fair competition. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for freezing beer duty as he did in the Budget. I do not believe that he did it simply because he is fond of the odd pint, but because he recognised the difficulties facing the brewing industry. The Danes, as my hon. Friend pointed out, had a similar problem, which they faced by reducing beer duty and it solved the problem. There may be other solutions, and if my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has something else in mind, perhaps he can spell it out tonight. However, it seems that doing nothing is not an option.
  10.15 pm
  The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I am glad of the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to give the House an update on how we see the position of cross-border shopping and the smuggling of alcohol. I want to talk briefly on three aspects: first, the scale and the effects of it all; secondly, the possibility, which my hon. Friend mentioned, of distance selling and unaccompanied goods; thirdly, the progress of customs in dealing with smuggling.
  There have been a series of attempts to estimate the scale of cross-border shopping and the smuggling of excisable goods since the single market opened in the past year. Clearly, cross-border shopping is inherently easier to estimate, because people will tell us what they are doing, whereas smugglers, of course, conceal it when they can. Obviously, cross-border shopping for personal consumption is a legal activity; indeed, it is one of the benefits to consumers of the coming of the single market. Smuggling goods for resale is illegal, however, as is selling alcohol or tobacco here, which has evaded United Kingdom duty.
  Often the estimates of the scale of such practices are expressed by me and by others in terms of duty lost. That is a convenient way in which to measure the volume of alcohol involved, but nobody supposes that the duty lost is the only fiscal effect of these phenomena. Clearly, there will be directly measurable effects on value added tax and indirect effects on corporation tax and income tax, although those are more difficult to estimate.
  We consider all the available evidence for cross-border shopping and smuggling. Surveys have been done by the

  425
  brewers—understandably campaigning against such behaviour—and also by Customs and Excise. They have come to different results, partly because they have been expressing slightly different things. There was a certain amount of cross-border shopping and smuggling before the single market opened; our primary interest is in the increase of those activities since.
  Surveys are not the only way in which to try to establish the facts. One of the things that I look at carefully every month is the returns of duty received. In 1993, after a year of the single market, our receipts from duty were up in every category. Duty receipts from spirits produced in 1993 rose from £1,698 million to £1,739 million. The volume of production was up by about 1.9 per cent. Receipts from beer produced rose from £2,394 million to £2,407 million. There was a volume fall of about 3 per cent., continuing the trend of recent years.
  Wine receipts rose strongly from £974 million to £1,078 million—a volume increase of about 5.5 per cent. and the first year, incidentally, of more than £1 million of wine duty receipts. The pattern, so far as we can see, is repeating itself this year. The latest figures show that alcohol duties in the first four months of this year rose by 4 per cent. compared with the first four months of 1993, despite pre-Budget forestalling in that year.
  When looking at the figures, one must assess how the duty receipts might have moved if the single market had not opened. I do not suggest that the market would have been static. Clearly the economic recovery would be reflected, and is no doubt reflected to some extent, in the figures. There has obviously been an increase in cross-border shopping and smuggling and we are losing some revenue. However, it is clear that there is no acute haemorrhaging of revenue threatening the basic yields of duty.
  That is relevant to the decisions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House had to consider in the Budget and in the Finance Bill in recent months, and which we shall have to consider again in the Budget in November. I repeat a point that I made clearly earlier: the extent of cross-border shopping and smuggling is a factor that we have to take into account in arriving at the Budget judgments to recommend to the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, we did that last year and we shall have to do it in every future Budget.
  There is a beguiling argument which I only wish were true, but which does not stand up to examination. That is the idea that lower duty rates on alcoholic drinks would lead to higher duty and tax yields and would thus compensate for the loss of revenue. That depends on the level of cross-border shopping and smuggling that one believes is taking place now. It also depends on the additional sales to be expected as a result of cuts in duty being passed on in cheaper prices.
  Even if we take the largest estimates that anyone has advanced for the present scale of cross-border activity, and generous assumptions about extra sales, the inescapable fact is that large cuts in duty—sufficient to make a material difference to cross-border prices—would cost a great deal more revenue than would be recovered from increased or repatriated sales. Nothing that I say today should be taken as a hint about future Budgets, but we cannot expect to recover the yield by increased or repatriated sales. For the sake of illustration, if we were to cut the alcohol duty rates
  426
  in half, there would still be an incentive to cross-border shopping. It would no doubt be reduced, but it would certainly not be eliminated.
  The cost in duty and VAT from halving our alcohol rates would be about £2.3 billion in a full year—five times the highest estimate by the brewers of the present duty and VAT losses. A big cut in duty, if passed on to consumers, would clearly increase sales, but not by nearly enough to recover the duty lost. Looking at the duty alone, to recover a cut of half the duty would involve doubling the total sales of alcohol in this country. The secondary effects on income and corporation tax would not bridge more than a very small fraction of that gap.
  The Chancellor and the House must decide what other taxes to raise if it is desired to finance a major cut in alcohol duty rates. We must also reflect on the other consequences of a big cut in alcohol prices if one assumes that that would lead to a substantial increase in consumption. I accept entirely that there is a major dilemma. The single market will not go away and consumers are entitled to benefit from it. We, the British Parliament, however, are also entitled to decide British taxes. I do not believe that our constituents would thank us for cutting alcohol duty and raising VAT or income tax to pay for it.
  The cross-border effects are one of the factors that the Chancellor, in every future Budget, will need to consider when framing the Budget judgments. That has been the case in respect of the Budgets in which I have been involved and it was so before that. It may perhaps be an increasingly influential factor, but the arithmetic is inescapable and necessarily difficult for us all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred to his concern—it is one that I share—about distance sales. Apparently, a Commission official suggested not long ago that distance sales of excise products would attract duty at the rate applicable in the country of the seller, not the country of the purchaser. In other words, if a purchaser in the United Kingdom buys alcohol from a seller in France through an agent or over the telephone, French duty would be payable and not British duty.
  I am reliably informed that that is legally wrong. Goods must be accompanied across the border by the purchaser and be for his or her personal use if the duty in the country of origin only is to be payable. It was not the intention of the European Community agreement to permit such a loophole and it is not the obvious meaning of the relevant text. The European Commissioner responsible, Mrs. Scrivener, confirmed this opinion immediately after the story first appeared.
  I assure my hon. Friend that we take very seriously the suggestion that the agreement might be distorted in that way. If any lawyers try to say that, regardless of the intention of the agreement, the words can be interpreted in that way, we shall resist it strongly in the courts. If necessary, we shall seek a modification of the agreement so as to make the intention clear. We have the support of other member states in this view because they know what was agreed, and in any case they do not want their various revenues from excise goods affected by such actions either.
  I do not doubt that I have the support of everyone in the trade, as well as that of my hon. Friend and the House, in that matter. I also have no doubt that we have the same support in tackling smuggling. Whatever the exact extent may be, the smuggling of excise goods for resale is illegal, and selling excise goods here which have evaded UK duty

  427
  is also illegal. Such acts are punishable by fines, confiscation of the goods concerned and any vehicle involved, and by imprisonment in serious cases.
  Customs and Excise has the Government's full backing in bringing smugglers to justice. So far, the new breed of excise verification officers that we have created have detected 1,600 cases of smuggling alcoholic drinks and tobacco, involving more than £2.3 million in duty. In most cases—particularly first offences—Customs has dealt with the offenders by seizing the goods. In 247 cases, it has also seized the vehicles. I need not tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is a powerful deterrent in itself, but it also has the added bonus of not tying up the precious time of the courts.
  Prosecutions have taken place in the more serious cases and, so far, 85 individuals have been prosecuted. The penalties imposed by the courts have included imprisonment, a number of suspended sentences, community service orders and the like, but mainly fines. There are more cases before the courts and the wheels of justice are grinding towards them. It may be a while before the full fruits of the Customs and Excise effort are fully visible.
  I assure my hon. Friend that our actions against smugglers are increasing. Since 1 April—the beginning of the financial year—101 detections have been made in the Dover area alone. These have been made mainly in the port. About 10 per cent. of these cases involved people from the north west. A high proportion of them involved the use of vans, but one must not assume, as some do, that all vans automatically carry illegal alcohol. There is a lot of regular traffic in newspapers and magazines and so on using the same kind of vans, which is perfectly legal.
  Those caught smuggling face fines often of thousands of pounds. So far, the biggest fine imposed was £8,000 and the longest sentence of 15 months was given at the Maidstone crown court recently. However, that case involved cigarettes.
  The Customs effort is not confined to the ports. It is a crime to deal in goods which have evaded payment of UK duty, and a lot of effort is devoted to catching criminals in that area. Any licensee who buys or sells alcohol without paying United Kingdom duty risks his licence and his job or tenancy, so the legitimate trade is rightly very wary of becoming involved with that illegal activity. They and
  428
  others are keen in many cases to help Customs with intelligence. We have recently set up a hotline—0800 901901—and I am glad to say that a considerable number of calls came in during the first few days of its operation with valuable intelligence, every bit of which is being followed up.
  The excise verification officers have the specialist task and are dedicated to it, but in a way every Customs officer is involved. For example, VAT officers have been trained to look out for indications of sales of illicit alcohol and tobacco, and they visit a large number of traders. All customs and excise intelligence is co-ordinated because information which at first seems to be about one criminal activity may actually be about another.
  Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and I welcome my right hon. Friend's robust approach on distance selling and also on smuggling, although I do not altogether welcome what he has said on the possible reduction in beer duty. Is he looking at other approaches to tackling the growing problem of the importation of beer into this country?
  Sir John Cope: I am prepared to look at every approach, but the primary approach must be to catch the smugglers. The excise verification officers are the front line, but everyone is involved. I assure the House and my hon. Friend that the Customs and Excise is working hard on this and has my full backing. It has been doing that work for literally hundreds of years, but it obviously has new relevance and has been given a new impetus at present.
  My hon. Friends will not expect me to anticipate the decisions of the Chancellor about future Budgets and future rates of beer taxation, and I certainly have no intention of doing so. It is the lot of excise Ministers to be attacked by brewers, of course, and I know enough about their campaign from my hon. Friends and also from newspapers. It may be popular for the latter to campaign for a cut in the beer duty, but I do not think that it would be similarly popular to campaign for a rise in income tax or in VAT to finance it. Even when we can afford to reduce the duty, the Chancellor of the day will need to balance the priorities. In those circumstances, it seems important—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has no plans directly to utilise the Internet. Press releases issued by my Department through the Central Office of Information are accessible through the Internet via Data-Star Dialog (Europe) and Mead/Lexis/Nexis. They are also available to subscribers to FT Profile, Reuters Textline and to Polis.

  My Department's press releases are also made available through the COI's fax retrieval service.

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The numbers of portable telephone, pagers and electronic bleepers, and car telephones currently used by my Department are respectively 322, 128 and 17. The annual costs of operating this equipment are £190,000. The equipment is used by staff who are required to work away from their office on a regular basis.

  Child Witnesses
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, which Crown court centres in England and Wales have live television link and video playback equipment for use in the presentation of evidence by child witnesses.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The following Crown court centres are fitted with live television link equipment and video playback equipment for use in the presentation of evidence by child witnesses:

  Birmingham (three sets)

  Hull

  Derby

  Leeds

  Grimsby

  Newcastle

  Leicester

  Sheffield

  Lincoln

  Teeside

  Northampton

  York

  Nottingham

  Carlisle

  Peterborough

  Liverpool (two sets)

  Stafford

  Manchester (two sets)

  Wolverhampton (two sets)

  Preston

  Bradford

  Central Criminal Court

  140

  Chelmsford

  Caernarfon

  Croydon (two sets)

  Cardiff (two sets)

  Guildford

  Chester

  Harrow

  Mold

  Ipswich

  Newport

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Swansea

  Lewes

  Bristol (two sets)

  Luton

  Exeter

  Maidstone (two sets)

  Gloucester

  Norwich

  Plymouth

  Reading

  Portsmouth

  St. Albans

  Southampton

  Southwork

  Truro

  Wood Green

  Winchester (two sets)

  Woolwich

  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which courts in England and Wales have child liaison officers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Child liaison officers are in place in all Crown court centres in England and Wales.

  Magistrates (Political Balance)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the political balance of magistrates in(a) Huntingdon, (b) Norfolk and (c) Hereford, (d) Enfield, (e) Folkestone and (f) Doncaster.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The political balance of magistrates in Huntingdon, Norfolk, Hereford, Enfield, Folkestone and Doncaster on 21 February was as follows:

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal Democrats

  Independent/not known

  Huntingdon

  23

  9

  11

  12

  Norfolk

  258

  88

  84

  49

  Hereford City

  35

  19

  20

  14

  Enfield

  54

  15

  13

  15

  Folkestone

  28

  4

  7

  4

  Doncaster

  101

  62

  23

  6

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration (Exceptional Leave to Remain)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many adjudicator's recommendations at immigration appeals have not been accepted by his Department for each year since 1988, including the current year to date; and how many of these cases concerned a recommendation of exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

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

  Prisoners
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received that those convicted of murder of prison officers and police officers should never be released from custody.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a number of representations to this effect. Under the present arrangements, those convicted of such murders will normally serve a minimum of 20 years in prison. Some will serve longer and some may never be released.

  AIDS (Prisons)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of AIDS have been reported in United Kingdom prisons in each of the past eight years; and if he will make a statement.

  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 Mr. Alex Carlile dated 11 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to respond to your recent Question about the number of cases of AIDS that have been reported in the last eight years in prisons within the United Kingdom.
  The available information, which covers prisons in England and Wales, is as follows:

  AIDS

  HIV (including AIDS)

  1986

  1

  48

  1987

  3

  75

  1988

  3

  61

  1989

  5

  54

  1990

  7

  59

  1991

  1

  26

  1992

  5

  28

  1993

  4

  33

  TOTALS

  29

  384

  The above figures represent only those prisoners confirmed to be HIV positive or as having AIDS. There is no routine testing of prisoners within prison. Prisoners may however request a confidential HIV test for which they will receive pre and post test counselling.
  Responsibility for prisons in the rest of the United Kingdom lies with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Reactivated Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about shootings involving reactivated firearms.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We are aware of 14 incidents since the beginning of 1993 involving firearms which have been identified as being previously deactivated and then reactivated to working condition. The standards to which guns are deactivated are currently under review.

  Ticket Touts
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had about the need to protect legitimate traders from the activities of ticket touts.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others on the subject of ticket touting, including some from those involved in the organisation and promotion of theatrical, sporting, and other entertainment events.

  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill currently before Parliament will make the unauthorised touting of
  142
  tickets for football matches an offence because of the serious consequences such touting may have for the preservation of public order. Similar problems have not occurred at other sporting events or entertainments and the Government have no plans to make touting in general a criminal offence. However, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering making regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to ensure that those who deceive customers as to the value or type of the tickets they sell can be punished appropriately.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds immigration detainees are moved from one detention centre to another or to a prison; on whose authority this is done; and what steps the Home Office takes when detainees are moved to ensure that solicitors of detainees are immediately told of their whereabouts.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Transfers are made for a variety of reasons, including the best use of the available accommodation, proximity to ports of departure where removal has been arranged and the behaviour and any medical requirements of individual detainees.

  Detainees are transferred on the authority of an officer of at least chief immigration officer grade. The port or office responsible for the initial decision to detain informs legal representatives of any transfer as soon as practically possible.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the Prison Service's key targets for 1994–95.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Prison Service's key targets for the current financial year are set out in its business plan for 1994–95, which is being published today. A copy has been placed in the Library. My right hon. and learned Friend has set the following key targets for 1994–95:

  1. To ensure that the number of escapes from prison establishments and from escorts, expressed as a percentage of the average prison population, is fewer than in 1993–94.

  2. To reverse, over the period 1993–96, the rising trend of assaults on staff, prisoners and others, expressed as a percentage of the average prison population.

  3. To ensure that in 1994–95 the average number of prisoners held three to a cell in accommodation which is intended for one prisoner is fewer than in 1993–94, subject to ensuring that no prisoners are held in police cells unless this is absolutely unavoidable.

  4. To provide 24 hour access to sanitation in at least 3,500 more cells, including new and renovated accommodation, thus ensuring that at least 95 per cent. of prisoners have access to sanitation at all times.

  5. To ensure that prisoners spend, on average, at least 25.5 per hours per week in purposeful activity.

  6. To ensure that by 31 March 1995 at least 36 per cent. of prisoners are held in establishments where prisoners are unlocked on weekdays for at least 12 hours.

  7. To ensure that all prisoners have the opportunity to exceed the minimum visiting entitlement throughout 1994–95.

  8. To ensure that the average cost per prisoner place (including places temporarily out of use) does not exceed £24,500.

  Police Negotiating Board
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decisions the Government have reached on the recommendations made by the Police Negotiating Board for changes to pay structures, pay levels, overtime and allowances for the police service.

  Mr. Michael Howard
  I received the Police Negotiating Board's recommendations at the beginning of April and the Secretaries of State for the Home Departments have considered them carefully. The recommendations included proposals for constables and sergeants, inspectors, superintendents and chief officer ranks. We accept the board's recommendations for constables and sergeants: these will be implemented with effect from 1 September.

  The board has now put forward further proposals which take account of the decision which I announced on 26 April that the rank of chief inspector should be retained. We are now studying these proposals and looking again at those for the more senior ranks in the light of them. I hope to announce shortly decisions in relation to the ranks of inspector and above.

TREASURY

  Ships (Capital Allowances)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) of 21 April,Official Report, column 597, if the roll-over of capital allowance balancing charges for merchant ships will apply to fishing vessels.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This point will be considered in drawing up the draft legislation for this measure.

  Inflation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average rate of inflation between February 1974 and May 1979 and over the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Between February 1974 and May 1979 the average rate of inflation, as measured by the retail prices index, was 15.4 per cent. per annum. This compares with 4.5 per cent. for the last five years to March 1994, the latest month for which information is available.

EDUCATION

  Pupil Capacity
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the pupil capacity of(a) the Greenwood Dale grant-maintained secondary school, (b) the George Spencer school and (c) the Ravensdale school in Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information held by the Department showing the pupil capacity is set out below.

  Number

  (a) Greenwood Dale Grant Maintained School

  722

  (b) The George Spencer Grant Maintained School

  980

  (c) Ravensdale Grant Maintained Middle School

  560

  144
  Note: These figures for capacity of schools are derived from the application for GM status.

  Voluntary Schools
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those voluntary schools which have become grant-maintained, indicating which ones were previously aided or controlled and the denomination or religion involved in each case.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Water Pollution (Worcester)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice was given to farmers in the Worcester area following the water pollution incident of 15 April; how such advice was publicised or drawn to the attention of farmers; and at what times such advice was offered.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department was alerted to the incident by the local office of the National Rivers Authority during the morning of 15 April. In the course of the day, Severn Trent water authority issued advice to all residents in the Worcester area not to drink, or use for washing, or wash in, tap water.

  The MAFF regional office immediately established close contact with the Severn Trent water authority, the National Rivers Authority and Worcester environmental health department. The normal telephone inquiry service for farmers was operating at the MAFF regional office and was available throughout the weekend. As a precaution, following consultation with the Severn Trent water authority and the National Rivers Authority, farmer inquirers were advised to provide an alternative water supply for animals. The advisory warning was lifted on 16 April.

  In consultation with MAFF, the Milk Marketing Board arranged that, pending a food safety risk assessment, milk collected from the affected area on 15 and 16 April should be diverted to processing rather than go for early liquid consumption. On 16 April, Ministry scientists confirmed that the incident did not pose any risk to food safety.

  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the Government's flood and coastal defence strategy.

  Mr. Jack
  After extensive consultations with a wide range of organisations, my right hon. Friend the Minister published the strategy for flood and coastal defence in England and Wales in October 1993. Copies were placed in the Library of the House.

  The strategy reaffirms the Government's commitment to reducing the risks to people and to the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion, by encouraging the provision of technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defence measures. In particular, it emphasises that the safeguarding of lives

  145
  must be the highest priority; that a strategic approach should be adopted, taking account of the potential impact of defences on natural river and coastal processes; and that environmental considerations should be integral to flood and coastal defence policy.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the place of arterial drainage infrastructure and sea defence works in British agriculture.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government's flood and coastal defence strategy for England and Wales recognises that over 50 per cent. of grade 1 agricultural land is situated in areas which depend on flood defence or arterial drainage works to maintain their productive capacity. The maintenance of this infrastructure is supported through central Government's financial support for local authorities.

  As far as capital works are concerned, the Ministry no longer provides financial support for new rural arterial

  Imports of sheep from Spain and Poland since 1 January 1994

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  Date of arrival at slaughterhouse

  Date of importation

  Number of animals recorded on the health certificate

  Number of animals inspected on arrival at slaughterhouse

  Number of animals recorded at lairages in Great Britain

  17 February 1994

  16 February 1994

  300

  289

  Not recorded

  8 March 1994

  3 March 1994

  300

  291

  297 animals recorded at lairage at Dover (including 2 dead on arrival and 4 unfit for further transit

  9 March 1994

  8 March 1994

  334

  328

  Not recorded

  17 March 1994

  17 March 1994

  351

  350

  No Great Britain lairage used

  28 January 1994

  27 January 1994

  300

  243

  Not recorded

  15 February 1994

  14 February 1994

  250

  188

  No Great Britain lairage used

  8 March 1994

  7 March 1994

  300

  290

  Not recorded

  23 March 1994

  22 March 1994

  300

  268

  300 animals recorded at lairage at Southampton (including 4 dead on arrival and 28 unfit for further transit)

  Fisheries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reasons underlay the decision to grant full Spanish accession to the common fisheries policy as part of the Norwegian accession negotiations; whether this was at the insistence of(a) Spain or (b) Norway; and if she will make a statement on reasons for the United Kingdom position on the issue.

  Mr. Jack
  The accession treaty of Spain and Portugal provides for certain of its fisheries provisions to be amended. The Commission proposed the integration of Spanish and Portuguese fishing arrangements into the CFP in October 1993. The subsequent negotiation on the principles to guide the Commission in drafting detailed rules for the waters and resources concerned was concluded at the Fisheries Council on 12 April. As provided for in the accession treaty, it was decided by qualified majority vote—not as the result of the insistence of a single country. In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison),Official Report, columns 183–84, I explained why the outcome was satisfactory.
  146
  drainage schemes which are intended primarily to increase agricultural production but assistance may be available for works intended to alleviate flooding or coastal erosion in rural areas provided these meet the Ministry's technical, economic and environmental criteria.

  Ewes
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) of 13 April,Official Report, column 180, if she will list for each consignment of culled milking ewes (a) the date of importation, (b) the number of animals recorded on the animal health certificate, (c) the number of animals inspected on arrival in Birmingham and (d) the numbers of animals recorded at any intermediate stage in each journey.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is in the table.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether Spain and Portugal will be fully integrated into the common fisheries policy as from 1 January 1996 and have access to all waters on a non-discriminatory basis.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 5 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill),Official Report, column 641.

  BSE
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the methods of calculation of the compensation paid to farmers for slaughtered confirmed cases of BSE; and what changes were made in this calculation between January 1990 and January 1994.

  Mr. Soames
  From 8 August 1988 up to 14 February 1990, compensation paid to farmers for a confirmed case of BSE was an amount equal to 50 per cent. of either the actual market value of the animal or of 125 per cent. of the average market price—AMP—for commercial grade Friesian dairy cows and heifers in milk and in calf,
  147
  whichever was the lower figure. Details can be found in the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1988, S.I. 1988 No. 1346.

  This was changed from 14 February 1990 up until 1 April 1994, when compensation paid was an amount equal to 100 per cent. of either the actual market value of the animal or the AMP, whichever was the lower figure—BSE Compensation Order 1990, S.I. 1990 No. 222.

  From 1 April 1994, the method of determining the ceiling for compensation was modified to reflect the increasing proportion of older cattle being slaughtered as BSE suspects. The monthly AMP was replaced by the indicative market price—IMP—which is a weighted average of prices of Friesian and Holstein cows, heifers in milk and in calf, and barren dairy cattle taking into account the age distribution of cattle slaughtered as BSE suspects in the month. The compensation paid out is an amount equal to 100 per cent. of either the market value of the animal or the IMP, whichever is the lower figure—BSE Compensation Order 1994, S.I. 1994 No. 673.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average compensation paid out per confirmed case of BSE between January 1990 and January 1994.

  Mr. Soames
  BSE compensation is paid on all cattle slaughtered whilst BSE suspects. Additional payments may be made in cases where BSE is not confirmed following laboratory examination. Between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1993, 129,700 cattle were slaughtered as BSE suspects of which 110,101 were subsequently confirmed as having BSE. The total compensation paid out during that period was £92,709,724. The average compensation for all cattle slaughtered while BSE suspects was therefore £715 per animal. It is not possible without disproportionate cost to separate compensation into that paid for confirmed and unconfirmed cases of BSE.

  Beef
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much European Union beef has been exported to developing countries in each of the past five years; to which countries; in what quantities; and what is the value of the European Union subsidy per ton of beef.

  Mr. Jack
  In the 1992 calendar year, European Community exports of beef to developing countries, as defined by "Eurostat", were as follows in tonnes carcase weight equivalent:

  Country

  tonnes

  Canary Islands

  26,491

  Ceuta and Melilla

  2,563

  Morocco

  9,099

  Algeria

  27,763

  Tunisia

  14,050

  Libya

  21,569

  Egypt

  147,591

  Sudan

  100

  Mauritania

  143

  Mali

  18

  Burkina Faso

  1

  Niger

  131

  Chad

  49

  148

  Country

  tonnes

  Cape Verde

  307

  Senegal

  1,377

  Gambia

  421

  Guinea Bissau

  190

  Guinea

  2,380

  Sierra Leone

  452

  Liberia

  3,332

  Ivory Coast

  23,986

  Ghana

  28,529

  Tonga

  791

  Benin

  7,760

  Nigeria

  38

  Cameroon

  598

  Central African Republic

  156

  Equatorial Guinea

  702

  Sao Tome and Principe

  7

  Gabon

  16,666

  Congo

  23,449

  Zaire

  22,053

  Vanuatu

  1

  French Polynesia

  4,104

  Polar Regions

  13

  Iraq

  3,709

  Iran

  53,776

  Israel

  2,946

  Jordan

  31,387

  Saudi Arabia

  67,499

  Kuwait

  5,669

  Bahrain

  1,980

  Qatar

  1,267

  United Arab Emirates

  6,976

  Oman

  144

  Yemen

  3,883

  Afghanistan

  23

  Grenada

  52

  Aruba

  23

  Netherland Antilles

  86

  Colombia

  26

  Venezuela

  917

  Guyana

  5

  Surinam

  22

  French Guiana

  1,653

  Ecuador

  69

  Peru

  238

  Brazil

  231

  Chile

  3

  Paraguay

  1

  Argentina

  31

  Falkland Islands

  6

  Burundi

  207

  St. Helena

  9

  Angola

  12,815

  Ethiopia

  5

  Dijbouti

  191

  Somalia

  14

  Uganda

  18

  Tanzania

  26

  Seychelles

  107

  British Indian Ocean Territories

  1

  Mozambique

  534

  Madagascar

  5

  Reunion

  1,233

  Mauritius

  4,479

  Comoros

  2,926

  Mayotte

  1,102

  Zambia

  346

  149

  Country

  tonnes

  Namibia

  31

  Greenland

  411

  St. Pierre and Miquelon

  3

  Mexico

  19,322

  Bermuda

  185

  Guatemala

  140

  Belize

  116

  Honduras

  24

  El Salvador

  23

  Nicaragua

  115

  Panama

  153

  St. Christopher and Nevis

  98

  Bahamas

  780

  Dominican Republic

  117

  Virgin Islands

  26

  Guadeloupe

  3,904

  Antigua and Barbuda

  105

  Dominica

  73

  Martinique

  4,293

  St. Lucia

  699

  St. Vincent

  79

  Barbados

  703

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1,723

  Cyprus

  5,010

  Lebanon

  26,030

  Syria

  3,034

  Pakistan

  39

  India

  7

  Sri Lanka

  12

  Thailand

  65

  Laos

  59

  Indonesia

  1,006

  Malaysia

  77

  Brunei

  47

  Singapore

  448

  Philippines

  18,343

  South Korea

  122

  Taiwan

  25

  Hong-Kong

  1,265

  Macao

  22

  Papua New Guinea

  20

  Nauru

  19

  New Caledonia

  246

  Wallis and Futuna Islands

  1

  New Zealand Oceania

  16

  Equivalent information is not yet available for 1993 and, for earlier years, can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, total beef exports from the European Community to all third countries, including developing countries, in the period 1988–1992 were:

  Number

  1988

  785,445

  1989

  1,024,987

  1990

  816,019

  1991

  1,324,866

  1992

  1,323,389

  Source: "Eurostat".

  Rates of export refund vary depending upon the type of beef being exported and the export destination. The average export refund for fresh, chilled and frozen beef in 1992 was £1,026 per tonne.

  Horses
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will resist(a) proposed restrictions on the purchase of a variety of veterinary medicines for treating horses and (b) proposed new tests on such medicines, provided they satisfy existing United Kingdom standards; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I am not aware of any proposals for restrictions on the purchase of veterinary medicines for use in treating horses, nor for any proposed new tests on such medicines. The hon. Member may have in mind recent reports about the possible effects the establishment of maximum residue limits—MRLs—might have on the availability of equine medines. If so, the position remains as I set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale),Official Report, column 491. Maximum residue limits must be established by 1996 for active ingredients in veterinary medicines used in food producing species. No MRLs are necessary, however, for medicines to be used in horses, irrespective of their value, which are not intended for human consumption.

  Fishing Industry
  Dr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the recent award to the Southern Irish fishing industry to compensate for bad weather conditions is consistent with the commons fisheries policy; if she will consider proposing similar assistance for the United Kingdom fishing industry; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The European Commission has a duty to examine all aids introduced by member states. It will consider whether the national aid package for the Irish fishing industry announced by the Irish Government on 18 April to alleviate hardship caused by the recent bad weather is in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of Rome and the guidelines on state aids in the fisheries sector.

  I have no plans to introduce such aid in the United Kingdom. However, United Kingdom share fishermen who satisfy the conditions of the national insurance rules that apply to them they are eligible to claim unemployment benefit for days they did not fish due to bad weather.

  Detective Agencies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much her Department has spent on contracts with private detective agencies since 1991; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  No use is made of private detective agencies by this Department.

  Whaling
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the current moratorium on commercial whaling; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government's position on the current International Whaling Commission moratorium on
  151
  commercial whaling is clear and unambiguous. We strongly support its retention and will not even contemplate its lifting unless stocks are shown to be at healthy levels, methods used to kill whales are humane and fully effective procedures for managing whale stocks are in place which include ways of ensuring that the rules are observed and enforced.

  More details of our policy on whaling were contained in the letter I sent to hon. Members on 27 April 1994.

  Foodstuffs (Prices)
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will commission a report on the price of foodstuffs in the United Kingdom and in the USA.

  Mr. Redmond
  (2) To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will commission a report on the price of foodstuffs in the United Kingdom and in the USA.

  Mr. Jack
  I see no present need for such an exercise.

  Fisheries (Conservation)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what expenditure has been incurred by her Department(a) up to 31 December 1993, and (b) since 1 January 1994 in making preparations, including the purchase of equipment, for the implementation of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: Most of the expenditure was on staff salaries for officials dealing with claims from fishermen for additional days at sea and for the secretariat of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal. This expenditure amounted to £318,000 up to 31 December 1993 but it includes the salaries of staff who were also working on other tasks such as the 1993 decommissioning scheme. Those officials engaged solely on the implementation of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act have gradually been redeployed over the first quarter of this year and expenditure has been reduced accordingly.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officials of her Department were engaged in work related to the implementation of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992 in December 1993; and how many officials continue to be engaged in work related to the implementation of this Act.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: At the beginning of December 1993 10 officials were responsible for assessing fishermen's representations against their provisional days at sea allocations; they have all been redeployed. The Sea Fish Licence Tribunal secretariat with six staff has also been disbanded.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount of computer hardware and

  £ million

  Total gross expenditure

  Total gross voted expenditure

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Sea Fisheries Industry Authority

  8·675

  9·208

  8·463

  4·098

  152
  software has been purchased by her Department for the purposes of implementing the provisions of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: Computer hardware and software was purchased mainly for the operation of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal. The hardware has now all been put to good use elsewhere in the Department and future expenditure will be correspondingly reduced.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which her Department has been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: Since 1980 my core Department has made no expenditure on consultants in connection with privatisation programmes. However, studies into the privatisation of the Covent Garden Market Authority were undertaken by consultants at a total cost of approximately £41,000.

  Ploughing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many arable acres are estimated to be ploughed(a) by machine and (b) by horse-drawn appliance; at what estimated cost per acre in each case; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 May 1994]: Estimates of the area ploughed are not available. The cost of ploughing will depend on many factors. Typical contractors charges and farmers costs for ploughing are contained in "Farm Management Pocketbook" published by Wye college, no official estimates are available for the costs of horse-drawn ploughing.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since 1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by her Department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Jack
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 March 1994, c. 646–47]: I would now like to submit a revised figure in the case of the Sea Fisheries Industry Authority.

  This figure relates to columns showing the "Total Gross Voted Expenditure" for 1990–91 and 1991–92. The line should read:

HEALTH

  Managers, West Midlands
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general and senior managers have been employed in the health service in the west midlands in each year since 1986.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is shown in the table. These figures should be treated with caution. The general and senior manager class was introduced into the health service in phases from 1986. Most of the apparent growth reflects the reclassification of staff from professional and administrative groups, including many senior nurses, as managers. The pattern of phased introduction in the west midlands corresponded with the national pattern. General and senior managers account for only 2 per cent. of the total NHS work force in the west midlands.

  General and Senior Managers in the Regional, District, and Family Health Services Authorities in West Midlands (in whole time equivalents) at 30 September.

  Number

  1986

  60

  1987

  90

  1988

  150

  1989

  530

  1990

  1,150

  1991

  1,540

  1992

  1,830

  Source: Non-Medical Workforce Censuses (1986–90) and aggregate returns KM49 (1991–92).

  Note: All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration is being given to possible use of the Internet or other E-mail system in order further to improve care in the community for the elderly, the disabled and other housebound people; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The provision of community care services is a matter for local health and social services authorities. Where they are exploring the use of information technology we would encourage them to share their experience widely with other authorities.

  The Department is currently putting in place a national health service-wide networking infrastructure to support all electronic communications, including E-mail, throughout the NHS in England. The extent to which electronic communications are used should be decided in the light of whether it is a cost effective way of improving patient care. All connections to NHS-wide networking factilities, either directly or through other networks such as the Internet and those run by social services, will have to meet national technical, security and confidentiality standards.

  Infant Mortality, London
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of infant mortality in each of the past 10 years in each district health authority in London.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Gipsy Caravan Sites (Children)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if social service departments have been requested to make estimates of the number of children likely to be received into care following the repeal of local authorities' duty to provide gipsy caravan sites under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, as provided for by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  Mr. Bowis
  No.

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of junior doctors in each regional health authority in London; what is the number in each hospital; and what is the total number of hours covered by junior doctors in each regional health authority in London.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In September 1992, the number of whole-time equivalent junior doctors in the Thames regions was:

  Number

  North West Thames

  1,840

  North East Thames

  2,270

  South East Thames

  1,840

  South West Thames

  1,320

  Information on the number in each hospital and complete information on the total number of contracted hours of junior doctors is not available.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors are contracted for more than 72 hours per week in each hospital in each regional health authority in London; and how many have regularly worked more than 72 hours per week since 1 January 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 31 March 1994, the number of junior doctors and dentists in London regional health authorities contracted to work on average for more than 72 hours a week was reported to be:

  Number

  North East Thames

  965

  North West Thames

  693

  South East Thames

  604

  South West Thames

  695

  Total

  2,957

  Information on individual hospitals and on hours of work is not available centrally.

  Thyroid Function Tests
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set up an inquiry into procedures used at the north Staffordshire pathology laboratory for the processing of thyroid function tests; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The tests are carried out by trained and qualified medical physicists. The isotope department of the North Staffordshire national health service trust has been doing this work for at least 20 years and there is no sign that it fails to meet required quality standards.

  Local Authority Charges
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statutory provision is made for individuals to appeal against a local authority decision to charge for services; what provision is made for local authorities to publicise the right to an appeal; what consultation local authorities have to carry out before introducing charges; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 31 March,Official Report, 1040–41.

  Children in Care
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average annual cost of keeping a child in local authority care, at 1993 prices, for each of the last 10 years for which information is available.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is available centrally on a consistent basis for the years 1983–84 to 1991–92 and is shown in the table. These figures exclude cases where care is provided at little or no cost to local authorities—for example, placed with parents—or where local authority costs did not relate solely to children in care.

  Average annual net cost of keeping a child in care/looked after, at 1993 prices1

  Year

  Cost (£)

  1983–84

  9,520

  1984–85

  9,636

  1985–86

  9,726

  1986–87

  10,233

  1987–88

  10,645

  1988–89

  11,182

  1989–90

  11,475

  1990–91

  12,044

  1991–92

  12,889

  1 Using the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  Homelessness
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 30 March,Official Report, column 889, how many of those children received into care because of homelessness remained in care for more than one year; and how many of those children were not subsequently reunited with their parents.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information available centrally relates to the duration of the most recent care episode and this was first computed for the year ending 31 March 1977. Figures are available on children whose episode of care ceased because they were self-supporting/under parental care, but these do not separately identify children whose entry to care because of homelessness was in previous years. Figures for 1977 are shown in the table.
  156

  Children who entered care because family was homeless (most recent care episode): numbers in care, 1977

  Care status at beginning and end of year

  All children

  Children whose most recent care episode lasted one year or more

  1. Children in care at 31 March 1977

  1,829

  1,346

  2. Children who ceased to be in care in the year ending 31 March 1977

  1,069

  315

  3. Children who came into care during the year ending 31 March 1977 but were not in care at that date

  604

  n/a

  4. Children in line (3) whose last care episode ceased because they were self supporting/under parental care

  596

  n/a

  n/a=Not applicable.

  Source: Department of Health and Social Security. Personal Social Services Local Authority Statistics, Children in Care of Local Authorities, year ending 31 March 1977. (A/F 77/12).

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were received into care in England because of homelessness in each of the years following the implementation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977; and how many of these were gipsy or traveller children.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally relates to the number of children in England taken into care on a voluntary basis because their families were made homeless. Figures for the years 1977–78 to 1990–91 are shown in the table. The information available for 1991–92 is an estimate of 110 for the period 14 October 1991 to 31 March 1992. Gipsies and travellers are not separately identified in these figures.

  Children admitted to care due to homelessness England, 1978–1991 England

  Year ending 31 March

  Number of children

  1978

  559

  1979

  421

  1980

  529

  1981

  471

  1982

  378

  1983

  317

  1984

  244

  1985

  215

  1986

  207

  1987

  209

  1988

  179

  1989

  223

  1990

  225

  1991

  138

  Westcliffe and Starfield Hospital
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the proposals to close continuing care beds at Westcliffe and Starfield hospital.

  Mr. Bowis
  North Staffordshire health authority is currently reviewing local provision of continuing care beds for the elderly and will conduct a formal public consultation exercise when these plans are sufficiently developed.

  Dementia Sufferers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will reinstate the NHS continuing care beds for people with dementia in the north Staffordshire area.

  Mr. Bowis
  Provision of health care for people with dementia in north Staffordshire is a matter for North Staffordshire health authority. I understand that the health authority states that there has been no recent change in the level of continuing care purchased for the residents of north Staffordshire.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will discuss with the Alzheimer's Disease Society the conclusions of its survey of continuing care provision for people with dementia in the west midlands.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department is in contact with the Alzheimer's Disease Society about a range of matters including its survey into continuing care provision for people with dementia in the west midlands.

  Hospitals, London
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the paediatric hospitals in London; and how many beds there are at each of these hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The term paediatric hospital is not used in central returns. Information on children's beds is contained in the publication "Bed Availability for England — Financial Year 1992–93", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Treatment Costs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of treating a patient on the waiting list.

  Mr. Sackville
  Provisional figures show that in 1992–93, for cases involving the use of a bed, the average cost of treatment per patient was £1,241.69. This average applies to all admissions, including those from the waiting list.

  GPs (Deprivation Payments)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average deprivation payment to general practitioners in(a) inner London and (b) the 10 biggest cities outside London, at the latest available date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The average deprivation payments to general practitioners in 1992–93, the last year for which figures are available, were:

  £

  Inner London

  6,265

  Birmingham

  5,223

  Leeds

  3,282

  Sheffield

  1,332

  Bradford

  4,719

  Liverpool

  2,922

  Manchester

  4,413

  Avon1

  1,144

  Wakefield

  59

  Coventry

  3,164

  Sunderland

  1,690

  1 Including Bristol.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom died from all forms of food poisoning in the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for England and Wales are shown in the table.

  Deaths from food poisoning: England and Wales 1988–92

  Year

  Number of Deaths

  1988

  63

  1989

  67

  1990

  71

  1991

  64

  1992

  64

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Heart Surgery (Waiting Lists)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures she has on the number of patients dying on waiting lists for cardiac or heart bypass surgery.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave her on 14 April 1993,Official Report, column 608.

  Perinatal Mortality Rate
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the perinatal mortality rate for all areas covered by the London implementation group, and the national average, at the latest available date.

  Mr. Sackville
  Perinatal mortality rates for health authorities in Greater London are shown in the table.

  Perinatal mortality rate 1992 District health authorities in the Greater London area (DHAs as at 1 April 1992)

  District health authority

  1Rate

  Barnet

  6·0

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  9·1

  Bexley

  6·3

  Bloomsbury and Islington

  8·0

  Bromley

  6·4

  Camberwell

  10·3

  City and Hackney

  7·1

  Croydon

  7·2

  Ealing

  10·7

  Enfield

  7·2

  Greenwich

  10·8

  Hampstead

  7·4

  Haringey

  9·6

  Harrow

  7·8

  Hillingdon

  7·6

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  4·5

  Kingston and Esher

  4·2

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  10·0

  Merton and Sutton

  6·6

  Newham

  10·5

  Parkside

  8·1

  Redbridge

  8·0

  159

  District health authority

  1Rate

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  8·5

  Riverside

  7·9

  Tower Hamlets

  9·4

  Waltham Forest

  11·9

  Wandsworth

  7·6

  West Lambeth

  9·6

  All Greater London DHAs

  8·5

  England

  7·9

  1 Stillbirths and deaths under one week combined per 1,000 total live plus still births.

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Children (Employment)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will bring the Employment of Children Act 1973 into force; and what plans she has to introduce other legislation which would afford equal or greater protection to children at work.

  Mr. Bowis
  No. We are satisfied that the current safeguards which exist in legislation and byelaws to protect children who work are adequate.

  Press Office
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the total budget for her Department's press office in each year from 1990–91 to 1994–95; how many press officers work at her Department; and how many press releases have been sent out in the name of each Minister in the last six months.

  Mr. Sackville
  The budget for the press office is not available in the form requested. The number of staff employed in the press office is 14. The number of press releases sent out in the name of each Minister can be identified separately before 1 January 1994 only at disproportionate cost. The number of press releases issued in the name of each Minister since 1 January 1994 are:

  Number

  Secretary of State

  45

  Minister of Health

  45

  Parliamentary Secretary (Health)

  24

  Parliamentary Secretary (Community Care)

  41

  Parliamentary Secretary (Lords)

  24

  Consultant Episodes
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes were purchased from non-NHS providers in 1992–93 by NHS trusts, regional health authorities, district health authorities and family health service authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally for 1992–93 and is available only on an individual basis from those purchasers—district health authorities and general practitoner fundholders—who contract with non-NHS providers—hospital and community units.

  Mental Health
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to institute a review of the therapeutic suitability of mental health units within district general hospitals.

  Mr. Bowis
  A review of the therapeutic suitability of mental health units within district general hospitals was one of the recommendations in the recent report of the mental health nursing review team. This report is still being disseminated throughout the national health service and three regional conferences will consider how the recommendations may be taken forward.

  Children's Hospital Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 April,Official Report, column 669–70, when the survey results will be made available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  When validation, aggregation and analysis is complete.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the name, occupation and age of each non-executive director of NHS trusts operating in Nottinghamshire.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 17 January,Official Report, column 385. The amendments listed below apply. We are not prepared to disclose the ages of these individuals without their permission.

  Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
  Non-executive directors
  Mr. M. Everitt, an engineer, has replaced Mr. A. Slade.

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust
  Non-executive directors
  Mr. L. Coppel, an accountant, in addition to those listed.

  Nottingham Community Health NHS Trust
  Non-executive directors
  Mr. V. Oliver, a computer/training consultant, has replaced Mr. M. Rudge.

  Pocket Guide to Sex
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 82, if the cost given for withdrawing the Health Education Authority's pocket guide to sex included the cost of (a) commissioning, (b) printing, (c) distributing and (d) promoting the guide; and if she will break down the figure into its components.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The estimated costs of withdrawing the guide totalled almost £17,000. This figure represents:

  £

  Commissioning

  4,500

  Printing

  9,000

  Distributing

  1,200

  Recalling

  2,000

  There were no promotion costs as space reserved for advertising was used for other existing Health Education Authority material.
  161
  These costs will stand to be offset, at least in part, by financial compensation accruing to the HEA from the reversion of publishing rights to the author under a confidential agreement.

  AIDS (Prisons)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will seek a report into the extent of the connection between the refusal of the prison medical service to treat drug-addicted prisoners with methadone treatment and the spread of the AIDS virus in prisons through the sharing of heroin needles; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  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 Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 11 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about methadone treatment in the Prison Service.
  Current guidance on the use of methadone in the Prison Service is set out in "Caring for Drug Users: A Multi-disciplinary Resource for People Working with Prisoners" and Circular Instruction 12/1991. Copies of these are available in the Library of the House. The guidance recommends the use of a methadone detoxification programme for prisoners addicted to opiates although individual decisions on the use of methadone are a matter for the clinical judgement of the doctor concerned.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Brcko
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he and the United Nations are taking to ensure the safety of Brcko.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Security Council agreed a presidential statement on 4 May calling on all parties to agree to a resumption of negotiations and demanding that they refrain from any offensive military action, or any action likely to lead to renewed fighting. The statement noted with concern indications of increased tension in the Posavina corridor area where Brcko is situated, welcomed the steps taken by UNPROFOR to deploy military observers there and warned the parties of the serious consequences of any offensive military action in the area. The Security Council is keeping the situation under review.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Nations' calculation about the number of troops that would be necessary to make an effective peacekeeping intervention in Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Security Council has judged that conditions in Rwanda would not allow any force to fulfil an effective peacekeeping role.

  The United Nations Secretary-General is still pursuing diplomatic efforts aimed at securing a ceasefire and a return to the peace process. These conditions must be fulfilled if any United Nations force is to help keep the peace.
  162
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has financially to support an Organisation of African Unity peacekeeping force in Rwanda; and what obstacles exist to doing this.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The OAU Secretary-General has made known his view that the OAU is not best placed to launch a peacekeeping force in Rwanda. Accordingly, we have made no plans to offer financial support.

  Aqaba
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the lifting of the marine blockade of Aqaba; and if he will make a statement on proposals for its replacement with a land-based system.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave him on 5 May,Official Report, column 677.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on allowing no arms sales to countries unless there is a verifiable cap on their nuclear weapon programme; and to what countries Britain has sold arms which have not had such a verifiable cap in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United States and Russia are the only nuclear weapon states which have accepted a verifiable ceiling on their nuclear warhead numbers under the START treaties. We do not have a policy of refusing arms sales to countries which have not accepted similar restraints.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commownealth Affairs what is the size of his Department's grant to the BBC World Service expressed over the next three years in both cash and constant price terms.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Total grants-in-aid to the World Service in the 1994–95 to 1996–97 funding triennium, including the contribution from the MOD to monitoring, are as follows, in £ million:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  FCO grants-in-aid

  171·5

  175·0

  175·0

  MOD contribution

  3·6

  3·7

  3·7

  Total

  175·2

  178·8

  178·8

  at constant prices (using official GDP deflators)

  175·2

  172·3

  168·1

  (Figures rounded to the nearest 100K)

  United Nations Preventive Diplomacy
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been done to follow up the Franco-British initiative to assist the United Nations in its preventive diplomacy launched by him in his address to the General Assembly on 28 September 1993.
  163
  Mr. Hurd
  Since the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Alain Juppé, and I launched our joint initiative, our officials have been working with the United Nations to see how best we can help the organisation. Following those discussions, our two permanent representatives to the United Nations handed over to the Secretary-General on 29 April detailed information on the support we can provide, including, for our part, mobile communications equipment and illustrative lists of personnel who might be made available for preventive diplomacy missions.

SCOTLAND

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will encourage local authorities to seek tenders for the provision of nursery education.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for education authorities to decide on the arrangements they make for the provision of nursery education in their area. I believe that co-operation between private and public sector as part of those arrangements can offer real opportunities and I am happy to commend such developments.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what he regards as a satisfactory pupil-teacher ratio in nursery schools; and what proposals he has to introduce national standards.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The adequacy of teaching staffing employed in nursery schools depends crucially on the number and expertise of other staff working alongside them. It follows that the appropriate level of teaching staff in nursery classes is best decided by education authorities in the light of their own policies and the particular needs of children.

  Section 23(3) of the Schools (Scotland) Code states that the education authority shall employ nursery nurses or helpers in the proportion of not less than one such person for 20 pupils.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many primary schools there are; and how many have fewer than 35 pupils.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In September 1993 there were 2,341 education authority primary schools and departments in Scotland, of which 338 had fewer than 35 pupils on their register.

  United States Attorney-General (Meeting)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what purpose he authorised Chief Constable George Essen to make an official visit to the United States Attorney-General Janet Reno.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Ms Janet Reno, the Attorney-General of the United States, invited Mr. George Esson, who was about to retire and has now retired from the police service, to call on her in order to thank him for the important part which he had played in the Lockerbie investigation, which was conducted jointly between Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

  Glenfeshie Estate
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his discussions with interested parties about the future of the Glenfeshie estate.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The future of the Glenfeshie estate is a matter for the current owner and any prospective purchaser. My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet interested parties to discuss its future. However, the matter was discussed during a recent meeting I held with representatives of the voluntary environmental sector, including representatives from Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Irrespective of ownership, the Government will look to Scottish Natural Heritage to continue to protect the natural heritage value of the estate through the range of powers at its disposal.

  Sheriffs' Courts
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to improve the programming of business in the sheriffs' courts.

  Mr. Lang
  Consultations with interested parties indicated general support for the recommendations in the first report on court programming prepared by groups under the chairmanship of Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson QC and Sheriff Principal, then Sheriff, Graham Cox, QC. Following consultation with the sheriffs principal, I have decided to set up a group under the chairmanship of Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson, QC to facilitate the implementation of the recommendations in the first report and to bring under review other aspects of court programming. The membership of the group will be as follows:

  Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson, QC (Chairman), Lothian and Borders

  Mr. Roy Cameron, QPM, Chief Constable, Dumfries and Galloway

  Sheriff Robert Dickson, Airdrie

  Mr. James Friel, Regional Procurator Fiscal, North Strathclyde

  Mr. Andrew Gallen, Solicitor, Glasgow

  Mr. Duncan Lowe, Crown Agent

  Mr. Gordon Murray, CB, Director, Scottish Courts Administration

  Ms Alison Paterson, Director, Victim Support

  Ms Marilyn Riddell, (Secretary), Edinburgh Sheriff Court

  Mr. John Robertson, Regional Sheriff Clerk, Grampian, Highland and Islands

  Mental Health, Glasgow
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what progress is being made by Greater Glasgow health board in developing a mental health services strategy for its area.

  Mr. Stewart
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State has today endorsed Greater Glasgow health board's mental health strategy 1993–2000, and given his approval to the planned closure of Gartloch hospital by 1995 as part of the specific proposals to put the strategy into effect.

  The strategy, which has been subject to full public consultation, proposes a new model of care based on a fundamental shift away from large institutions towards care provided in local community settings. Two key

  165
  elements of the strategy are that the alternative community-based care services must be in place before patients begin to transfer in substantial numbers and hospitals finally close and the development of locality-based resource centres. The strategy plans to establish up to 25 such centres. Each will house multi-disciplinary teams consisting of psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, occupational therapists and social work staff providing care, treatment, supervision and counselling. The teams will be involved in the entire range of care, from hospital settings to domiciliary care, and available 12 hours a day, seven days a week with crisis team cover outside these times.

  The board plans to implement the strategy in three phases. Phase 1 will focus on the north and east of Glasgow and involve the establishment of 10 resource centres and the creation of an additional 90 day hospital places. As a first step towards implementing the strategy, the board has submitted a bridging finance application to the management executive for funds covering the period to March 1997. While certain details of the application remain to be agreed, the Minister of State has today approved an initial allocation of bridging finance of £6 million for 1994–95. This will go towards the initial start-up and double running costs that will be incurred as the alternative community based services are put into place.

  The bridging finance application was co-signed and submitted by the health board, Strathclyde regional council social work department, and Glasgow district council. The application contains a far-reaching set of proposals and some considerable commitments by the individual agencies involved. This, in my view, is an excellent example of joint working and co-operation and one that I would urge others to follow.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit meetings of Elderly Forums in the Glenburn, Foxbar, South End, West and Central, and Elderslie areas of Renfrew district to discuss local government reform, water and sewerage services, concessionary travel schemes, standing charges for utilities and other topics of interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: My right hon. Friend has no current plans to attend any such meetings.

EMPLOYMENT

  Security
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the use of private detective agencies and security companies by his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Department group regularly contracts with security companies to provide protection for a number of its headquarters premises and occasionally employs them to protect temporarily empty premises, patrol jobcentres and hold keys for emergency call-outs.

  The Employment Service has used private detective agencies, through retained solicitors, on two occasions—to
  166
  make financial inquiries when an individual was in default of rent payment commitments and when proceedings had to be served on an individual who was negligent in a land transaction.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openess of his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have asked officials to look into this matter. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this to my attention.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will publish the Health and Safety Commission report on the review of regulations covering health and safety.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Commission submitted the final report on its review of health and safety regulation to me at the end of April. The Government are currently considering the report's findings and recommendations and plans to make a statement on them as soon as possible.

  European Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for regular contact with the European Committee of the Regions.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department will be able to provide information for the United Kingdom members of the European Community's Committee of the Regions on proposals that come before the Committee for an opinion, where they relate to areas for which we have responsibility.

  Privatised Utilities
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures have been taken to alleviate the problems of people made unemployed in the privatised gas, water and electricity industries.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  People who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs from any sector can benefit from the Department's extensive range of measures designed to help them find new jobs, re-train or set up in business. This year, the Employment Service and training and enterprise councils will provide around 1.5 million opportunities to help unemployed people find the best route back to employment.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986, through the business appointments system, to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) with a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.
  167
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: Two applications were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. Both were granted. The remaining information has not been recorded centrally, so it is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It will be recorded centrally in future.

  Working Hours
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 554, if he will place in the Library a copy of the results of the study commissioned by his Department from Professor Harrington of Birmingham university on hours of work and employees' health.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: The study forms part of the Government's legal challenge to the working time directive—93/104/EC. I have been advised that, in accordance with established practice, it should not be published now; I expect to be able to do so after the case has been concluded.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many parliamentary questions, in the period November 1992 to March 1993 were answered with the response that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; how many were referred on to an agency chief executive; and, in each case, what percentage of the total number of questions asked this constituted.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the period 1 November 1992 to 31 March 1993 there were six questions where the answer given included a reference to all or part of the information being available only at disproportionate cost or because the information requested was not held centrally. During the same period, one question was passed to the chief executive of recruitment and assessment services. These figures constitute 1.95 per cent and 0.32 per cent respectively of the total questions asked to my Department.

ENVIRONMENT

  Energy Conservation Bill
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost to public funds of work carried out by officials from his Department on the preparation of proposed amendments and new clauses to the Energy Conservation Bill prior to the completion of Committee stage on 4 February and from that date until Report stage on 22 April.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not available. Officials from my Department carried out work on the Bill in the course of their normal business and no records are kept of the time spent on individual tasks.

  Birds of Prey
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to remove the kestrel, buzzard and sparrowhawk from schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will include these species on schedule 3.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 25 April,Official Report, column 40. The Government have no plans to add the kestrel, common buzzard and sparrowhawk to schedule 3.

  Southampton City Council
  Mr. James Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet considered the response by Southampton city council to the notice served on the authority on 24 January under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the response of Southampton city council to the notice served on the authority on 24 January in respect of the award of an arboricultural contract to its own direct labour organisation. He accepts that the council may not have intended to act anti-competitively, but takes the view that the council's actions were likely to have the effect of restricting or distorting competition and in the event did have that effect. Consequently, he has today given the authority a direction under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988.

  The direction requires the council to re-tender the relevant contract so that new arrangements are in place by 1 October 1995, and to seek my right hon. Friend's consent should it wish to reassign the work to the in-house team.

  The authority restricted competition in that it refused to provide sufficiently detailed work force information to enable tenderers to prepare a bid under the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. They also failed to allow those tenderers who had not included TUPE provisions in their original bid, to revise their bids in the light of the authority's assessment of whether TUPE applied.

  The Government will continue to act against councils behaving anti-competitively. We are determined to ensure that obstacles which stand in the way of full and fair competition are removed, so that taxpayers continue to get value for money for quality services.

  Office for the South-west
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions have been taken about strengthening the presence of the Government office for the south-west in Devon and Cornwall.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Transport and I have been listening carefully to the many representations that we have received over recent months about Government office resources in Devon and Cornwall. We are persuaded that there should be a new office in Devon and Cornwall.

  We have decided to set up a new office in Plymouth which, together with the existing office in Bristol will operate as a single office on two sites for the south-west

  169
  region. Local authorities, businesses and the many other organisations in Devon and Cornwall which need to deal with the Government office and who are served and represented by it, will be able to deal with and through the new Plymouth office. It will establish close links with local organisations, especially in relation to the promotion of economic development. The offices in Plymouth and Bristol will work together in a mutually supportive way to advance the interests of the whole South West Region. They will be linked closely by sophisticated electronics called Office 2000. These will provide strengthened links with Whitehall and other outside interests.

  The new office will be led by a new director for Devon and Cornwall and the regional director for the whole south-west region will also be based partly in Plymouth.

  The arrangements for setting up the new office will start immediately and the new director of the Devon and Cornwall office will be appointed very soon. Full details will be settled taking account of local views.

  This measure will make a major contribution to the range of initiatives being taken within the new integrated Government office for the south-west so as better to serve the needs of the whole region.

  Unitary Authorities, Cleveland
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has reached a decision on the timing of elections to the proposed unitary authorities in Cleveland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Subject to the outcome of the Cleveland county council's judicial review case, the Cleveland implementation order will provide for the transfer of county functions to the districts on 1 April 1995 and for elections to be held in May 1995. Our decision reflects the particular circumstances in Cleveland and is not a precedent for any future cases where an existing council is to continue as a unitary authority. We propose as a general rule to consult the authorities concerned and elections will usually be held at the start of the shadow period leading up to reorganisation.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his proposals for paying for local government reorganisation; what plans he has for a charge on the areas involved; and when his proposals for transit and management, redundancy, transfer of undertakings and re-allocation of responsibilities will be ready for announcement.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the arrangements that have been announced, local authorities may finance the initial costs of reorganisation by borrowing. In most cases the savings and receipts that arise from reorganisation should be sufficient to pay back the borrowings and interest: there need be no burden on the council taxpayer. We are currently considering advice from the Staff Commission on redundancy and transfer arrangements and will make an announcement as soon as we have reached a conclusion.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the results of the capital receipts holiday which ended on 31 December 1993 for each local authority, with the amounts raised.
  170
  Mr. Curry
  I have arranged for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions are being made for English representation on the Committee of the Regions after the reorganisation of local government in non-metropolitan areas.

  Mr. Curry
  No special provisions are required. All members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions are, when appointed, elected members of local authorities. The present members hold office until 1988 and any further appointments before then, due to the death or resignation of current members, will be made from members of local authorities existing at the time of appointment.

  Greater Manchester
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 Greater Manchester district councils in order of their full-time equivalent number of employees per thousand of population.

  Mr. Baldry
  The available information is given in the table.

  Number of employees per thousand of population in Greater Manchester at December 1993

  Authority

  Total staff(FT + PT)

  Total staff per thousand of population

  Manchester

  27,780

  63·9

  Salford

  11,529

  50·1

  Bolton

  12,570

  47·6

  Oldham

  10,464

  47·5

  Tameside

  9,313

  42·1

  Bury

  6,900

  38·2

  Stockport

  10,889

  37·7

  Trafford

  7,338

  34·0

  Wigan

  10,028

  32·1

  Rochdale

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Full-time equivalent information at individual authority level is not held centrally.

  2. Excludes law and order services.

  Sources: Joint Staffing Watch for England: December 1993 survey.

  OPCS mid-year population estimates for 1992.

  Detective Agencies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department has spent on contracts with private detective agencies since 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 9 May 1994,Official Report, column 65.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourist Boards
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes he plans to the structure of the statutory tourist boards within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sproat
  I am currently considering whether to widen representation on the British Tourist Authority and English tourist board. Questions about plans to change the structure of the other statutory tourist boards should be addressed to the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Museums and Galleries Policy
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on policy towards museums and galleries.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am about to undertake a review of my Department's policy towards museums and galleries. I am therefore today writing to a wide range of interested organisations seeking their views on the key components of policy in this area and posing some questions, listed here, for consideration. The questions are not intended to be an exhaustive list of topics for comment.

  My review will complement that at present being carried out by the Museums and Galleries Commission. It will not cover policies directed specifically towards museums and galleries in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although I shall of course consult my right hon. Friends about any developments that might affect their interests.

  I am asking the organisations to which I am writing to send their comments to my Department by Friday 29 July. I should also welcome comments from anyone else who wishes to offer them. I have it in mind to indicate later in the year any emerging conclusions, once I have considered the responses. However, I shall want to consult further with interested parties on those issues which I decide should be taken forward.

  Policy on Museums

  SOME QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

  Policy aims
  What should be the aims of DNH's policy towards museums?

  In particular:
  Should policy be directed towards expansion of the sector or should the focus be on improving quality?
  How should some of the apparent tensions and contradictions characteristic of museums best be addressed (eg. tradition/ innovation; conservation/access)?
  How can access to museum collections and services be optimised?
  How can appropriate care of collections best be assured?

  Framework
  Are the responsibilities of the various bodies relating to museums, eg. Government, the Museums and Galleries Commission, Area Museums Councils, local authorities, the right ones?
  Are the present arrangements for funding museums the most appropriate ones?
  Do present arrangements—such as the Private Finance Initiative which is intended to enable Government Departments, or Non Departmental Public Bodies, and the private sector to work more closely together, to meet needs which have traditionally been met only by the public sector—offer sufficient means of attracting private sector finance and facilitating the introduction of private sector expertise? If not, what else might be done?
  What will be the implications of the National Lottery?
  172
  Which Government policies not specifically targeted at museums impinge most on them?
  What scope is there for improving links with other sectors, including sectors not covered by DNH?

  Other questions
  What are likely to be the key developments in museums in the next 25 years (curatorial, social, technological, managerial, financial)?
  What are the criteria for success in the museums sector? How can performance against these criteria most effectively be assessed?
  What role should museums play in education?
  In what ways would museums and galleries benefit from improved international links?

  St. Ethelburga's Church
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the exercise by English Heritage of its responsibility to supervise the clearing of rubble from St. Ethelburga's church, Bishopsgate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 10 May 1994]: I am satisfied that the clearance of rubble from the church has been carried out under effective supervision. The Museum of London archaeological service was appointed by English Heritage and the Diocese of London to carry out the work to English Heritage's specification. The work has been regularly monitored on site by officers of English Heritage. The use of a mechanical digger over the May bank holiday weekend to remove 200 tonnes of compacted rubble was outside the original specification but was considered the safe and practical option. It was approved by English Heritage and the Diocese and was supervised throughout by officers of the Museum of London archaeological service. As many finds as possible had been removed by hand earlier and stacked in the vestry and garden.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Act
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate the number of(a) fathers with care and (b) mothers with care who have come off income support and who are now dependent on maintenance payments under the Child Support Act 1991; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of (a) fathers with care and (b) mothers with care who have come off income support and moved on to family credit and maintenance payments under the Child Support Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the organisations responding to the consultation document on the medical test for incapacity benefit;

  (2) how many of the responses to the consultation document on the medical test for incapacity benefit

  173
  (a) were in favour of the approach outlined in that document and (b) expressed criticisms; and when he will publish the responses.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1994, columns 690–93]: The following organisations also responded to the consultation document:

  Action for ME

  Enfield Area ME Self Help Group

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association

  Stockport ME Group

  Westcare

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  The Attorney-General
  The departments for which I am responsible—the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers—currently have in use 111 portable telephones, 105 pagers and electronic bleepers and six car telephones. The aggregate annual operating costs of this equipment including the cost of telephone calls are £78,900. Equipment is issued to Ministers and key personnel who may need to be contacted urgently.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans his Department has(a) to utilise the Internet, (b) to make available on the Internet press releases and other departmental information which the public may wish to have access to and (c) to use the Internet as a means of increasing the openness of his Department.

  The Attorney-General
  The departments for which I am responsible have no current plans to use Internet. Crown Prosecution Service press releases which are issued electronically through the Central Office of Information are accessible to users of the Internet via Data-Star Dialog (Europe) or Mead/Lexis/Nexis. They are also available to subscribers to FT Profile, Reuters Textline and to POLIS.

  Upper Limb Disorders
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Attorney-General what assistance his Departments have given to other Government Departments in the last convenient period for which information is available concerning cases brought by civil servants against their employer as a result of work-related upper limb disorders.

  The Attorney-General
  The Treasury Solicitor's Department conducts personal injury litigation for a number of Government Departments. Such litigation includes claims by civil servants against their employer in respect of work-related upper limb disorders.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to lay before Parliament and publish the annual report of the Serious Fraud Office for the year 1993–94.
  174
  The Attorney-General
  I expect to lay the report before Parliament shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) civil servants and (b) other staff of each grade are working for or, as members of, the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in each location at which such work is carried out; how many of the staff at each grade are from (i) the United Kingdom civil service, (ii) the Northern Ireland civil service and (iii) elsewhere; and, of the Northern Ireland civil service staff, how many in total and of each grade have been categorised under fair employment legislation as (1) Protestant, (2) Roman Catholic and (3) other.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Anglo-Irish Secretariat functions from one location and the British side of the secretariat employs 12 civil servants, two of whom are from the Northern Ireland civil service. For reasons of personal security it would not be appropriate to list the posts by grade.

  The use of community backing monitoring information in the Northern Ireland Office is governed by a code of practice, under which the information can be used only for the purposes of monitoring the effectiveness of the Department's policy on equality of opportunity and to meet statutory requirements under fair employment legislation. The detail sought would be contrary to the code of practice, and could contravene the confidentiality requirements contained in regulations under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

  Killinchy
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many acres of land at Whiterock, Killinchy have outline planning permission for residential development; and what proposals there are to improve the roadway from Whiterock to Killinchy village.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  No land at Whiterock, Killinchy has outline permission for residential development and there are no plans to improve the roadway from Whiterock to Killinchy village.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the rates demand for Killinchy primary school is calculated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Rate Collection Agency under its chief executive, Mr. D. W. Gallagher. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. W. Gallagher to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 10 May 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State how the rates demand for Killinchy Primary School is calculated. As I am responsible for the Rate Collection Agency (RCA), the body to which rates are paid, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply.
  The Valuation and Lands Agency (VLA) is responsible for determining the Net Annual Value of all property in Northern

  175
  Ireland and the RCA for collecting rates based on the valuation. Below is a table showing how the rate demand for Killinchy Primary School has been calculated.

  1. NAV of Killinchy Primary School £6,200

  2. Ards District Council Rate Poundage 84.09p

  3. Regional Rate Poundage 148.68p

  4. Non-domestic Rate Poundage 232.77p (ie. District Council and Regional Rate Poundage)

  5. Rates assessed for the 1994–95 rating year £14,431.74 (ie. NAV (£6,200) x Non-domestic Rate Poundage
  (232.77p)

  If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Heavy Vehicles
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the implications for the road system of Northern Ireland of the European Council draft directive, Com (93) 679, in respect of 44–tonne articulated vehicles; what is the estimated cost of bridge-strengthening schemes to facilitate this proposal; what impact it would have on the sea ferry services from Northern Ireland; what consultations he has had with the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The draft directive will have little impact on the road system in Northern Ireland as the vehicles equipped to carry 44 tonnes have extra axles and are generally no more severe on roads and bridges than existing rigid-ailed vehicles. The cost of bridge-strengthening schemes to facilitate this proposal will therefore be minimal. Some port operators have made representations about the potential impact on ferry services and these are being considered at present. Informal consultations have been carried out with the Republic of Ireland at official level.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) integrated, (6) maintained and (c) controlled primary schools there are; and how many in each of these categories have fewer than 35 pupils.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information for 1993–94 is as follows:

  Number of primary schools

  Number of primary schools with less than 35 pupils

  Integrated

  17

  2

  Maintained

  456

  21

  Controlled

  478

  32

  Total

  951

  55

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of primary schools pay rates.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The total number of primary schools and preparatory departments in Northern Ireland is 977. Of this total, 16 are exempt from the payment of rates. The percentage of primary schools paying rates is therefore 98 per cent.

  Cross-border Groups
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all official bodies, or private bodies with official representation or funding, which supervise or advise on activities on both sides of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland giving in each case the date of the group's formation, details of representation from both sides of the border and levels of funding where appropriate.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Information on those official bodies established to address cross-border issues is given below. In addition, officials from both sides of the border meet regularly on matters of mutual interest.

  Joint steering group—Shannon-erne waterway

  A joint steering group with representation from officials from Government Departments in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was set up in November 1990 to oversee the restoration of the Shannon-Erne waterway. In Northern Ireland official representation is drawn from the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Economic Development, the Department of Finance and the Personnel and Central Secretariat. In the Republic of Ireland, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Finance, the Department of the Taioseach, the Department of Tourism and Trade, the Office of Public Works and the Electricity Supply Board are represented. The work of the Joint Steering Group is financed entirely from within the constituent departments.

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  The Foyle Fisheries Commission was formed on 25 March 1952. Two members are appointed by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland—DANI —and two by the Minister for the Marine in the Republic of Ireland.

  The Foyle Fisheries Commission's annual financial deficit is funded equally by DANI and by the Department of the Marine. The DANI contribution in the year ended 31 March 1994 was £131,000.

  European Studies Project Steering Committee

  The European Studies Project Steering Committee was established in 1985 jointly by the three Departments of Education in England, in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. Membership of the steering committee is drawn from the Departments of Education in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and from the five education and library boards in Northern Ireland, with observers from HMI in England and Scotland. The steering committee has no financial resources. Support for its multi-national inter-schools' activities is provided by the relevant Departments of Education.

  Advisory Committee International Fund for Ireland and Joint Secretariat

  In accordance with article 10 of the agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning the International Fund for Ireland—Cmn. 266, dated 18 September 1986—an advisory committee has been established composed of representative officials of the two Governments. The committee advises the Board of the Fund on applications for assistance. In addition to the advisory committee, a joint secretariat, composed of

  177
  officials from both Governments, exists to provide the necessary administrative support to the Board of the Fund. No Government funding is involved with either body.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing, for each of the last three years, the current year and the projection for next year the expenditure on road maintenance in each council area in Northern Ireland and also indicate the sums expended in each of the last four winters on gritting in each council area and in total for such periods or if more convenient financial years.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on road maintenance in each council area(a) in each of the last three years and (b) the current year; what is the projected expenditure for next year on road maintenance; and how much has been spent in each current area in each of the last four winters on gritting.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The information is not available in the form requested. Expenditure on road maintenance in the last three years is as follows:

  £000"s

  Council

  1991–92

  1992–93

  11993–94

  Antrim

  1,726

  2,354

  2,048

  Ards

  1,823

  1,622

  1,718

  Armagh

  3,068

  3,253

  3,066

  Ballymena

  1,843

  2,068

  1,798

  Ballymoney

  1,120

  1,171

  1,058

  Banbridge

  1,614

  1,763

  1,661

  Belfast

  7,212

  7,052

  6,786

  Carrickfergus

  582

  770

  670

  Castlereagh

  1,691

  1,719

  1,657

  Coleraine

  2,181

  2,171

  1,959

  Cookstown

  1,342

  1,920

  2,111

  Craigavon

  2,355

  2,578

  2,430

  Derry

  2,458

  2,786

  2,506

  Down

  2,820

  2,528

  2,676

  Dungannon

  2,302

  2,541

  2,784

  Fermanagh

  3,008

  2,793

  3,061

  Larne

  1,196

  1,530

  1,326

  Limavady

  1,313

  1,389

  1,253

  Lisburn

  4,059

  4,396

  4,653

  Magherafelt

  1,526

  1,755

  1,526

  Moyle

  1,074

  1,179

  1,058

  Newry and Mourne

  3,078

  3,290

  3,098

  Newtownabbey

  2,548

  2,875

  2,755

  North Down

  1,348

  1,296

  1,364

  Omagh

  2,712

  2,749

  3,035

  Strabane

  2,027

  2,012

  2,203

  Total

  58,026

  61,560

  60,260

  1 Provisional figures.

  The total expenditure for road maintenance in the current financial year is estimated at £61.4 million and, at present, it is expected that expenditure in the 1995–96 financial year will be on a broadly similar level.

  In the past four financial years expenditure on winter gritting is as follows:

  £000's

  Division

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  11993–94

  Ballymena

  517

  427

  472

  579

  Belfast

  526

  284

  294

  254

  Coleraine

  729

  502

  685

  822

  Craigavon

  735

  520

  709

  789

  178

  Division

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  11993–94

  Downpatrick

  763

  614

  532

  740

  Omagh

  878

  473

  699

  644

  Total

  4,148

  2,820

  3,391

  3,828

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many potholes by grade or priority for repair there were in each council area in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years and the current year to date; if he will further break the figures down by(a) road classification and (b) mile or kilometre of each such road type.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The information requested is not available in the form requested and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many parliamentary questions, in the period November 1992 to March 1993, were answered with the response that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; how many were referred on to an agency chief executive; and, in each case, what percentage of the total number of questions asked this constituted.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Some 708 questions were asked in the period specified of which 20, 3 per cent, were answered with disproportionate cost and 35, 5 per cent. were answered by an agency chief executive.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Non-wage Employment Costs
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the average non-wage employment costs for manufacturers in Britain, France and Germany.

  Mr. Heseltine
  In 1992 non-wage costs as proportion of total labour costs were 29 per cent. in France, 23 per cent. in Germany and 17 per cent. in the United Kingdom.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet the Director General of Electricity Supply to discuss electricity prices.

  Mr. Eggar
  I meet the Director General of Electricity Supply regularly.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he proposes to make to the analysis of Britain's competitive position in manufacturing industry contained in the report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government will be responding to the Trade and Industry Committee in due course. The report offers a valuable contribution to the debate on how we can improve our relative economic performance.

  CFCs
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether commitments made to restrict the trade in CFCs under the Montreal protocol will be allowable under the Uruguay round world trade accords.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Yes. The Government have always considered that the trade measures in the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer were GATT-consistent. That will remain the case under the Uruguay round.

  Gas Production
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to expand gas production from the central and northern North sea.

  Mr. Eggar
  I announced proposals for new rounds of offshore oil and gas licensing on 25 April. Full details are contained in the formal announcements, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Consumer Rights Legislation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to legislate on consumer rights in the near future.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  During 1994, regulations will be made to implement the EC directive on unfair turns in consumer contracts and the EC general product safety directive. The Sale and Supply of Goods Bill and the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill, both currently before the House, have Government support.

  Mine Water (Control)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will make an announcement about the future arrangements for the control of mine water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my noble Friend the Minister of State during the Committee stage of the Coal Industry Bill on 26 April,Official Report, House of Lords, columns 539–42.

  Yorkshire Rider Bus Company
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to refer the takeover of the Yorkshire Rider bus company by Badgerline to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading's view, on the information he has received, is that the proposed acquisition by Badgerline of Yorkshire Rider does not qualify for investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the mergers provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. I will not therefore be making a reference to the MMC.

  Political Donations
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the Companies Act 1985 to ensure that the public has more information on political donations made by companies.
  180
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. The present law is sufficient. The Companies Act 1985 requires companies to disclose, in the directors' report, political donations exceeding £200.

  Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the proposed takeover by Lloyd's bank of the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  It is for the Director General of Fair Trading to consider this proposed merger and to advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, under the Fair Trading Act 1973, whether the merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Any representations received by the DTI are being forwarded to the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mineworkers (Redundancy)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade with what interested parties he has had recent discussions about introducing a further redundancy scheme for mineworkers to replace the scheme that expires on 30 April.

  Mr. Eggar
  The operation of British Coal's redundancy arrangements is a matter for the corporation. I understand it is currently discussing with the unions the redundancy arrangements for industrial employees to apply after 30 April.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet representatives of small businesses in East Anglia to discuss help for innovation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Ministers visit East Anglia as often as diaries permit. My noble Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms visited King's Lynn earlier this month.

  World Trade
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the United Kingdom share of world trade.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom's share of world visible exports was 5.2 per cent. in 1992, the latest year for which data are available, making the United Kingdom the world's fifth largest exporter.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the implications of the GATT agreement signed at Marrakesh for British companies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  British companies will benefit from higher world growth, the opening up of overseas markets, improved trade rules and a more stable international trading environment.

  AEA Technology
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many and which of the present staff and functions of AEA Technology, separately identifying the
  181
  National Environmental Technology Centre, will be transferred to the commercial division preparatory to sale or privatisation.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I announced to the House on 17 February,Official Report, columns 922–24 the Government's intention to privatise the Atomic Energy Authority's commercial activities. With effect from 1 April, all these activities, including the National Environmental Technology Centre, were brought together within AEA Technology.

  As at 1 April 1994 staff numbers for AEA Technology were some 4,300 of which some 450 work in areas covered by the National Environmental Technology Centre.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the recruitment of permanent staff for the Insolvency Service and on the steps his Department is now taking to fill vacancies as they arise.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A budget for the Insolvency Service has been agreed for 1994–95 which provides for 1,652 established posts together with financial provision for a further 235 staff on non-established terms. I have asked the service to come forward with proposals for additional, non-permanent resources to be deployed in 1994–95 in order to reduce the backlog of case administration and to increase its investigative effort. In advance of agreeing its final budget for 1994–95 the service is not filling any permanent administration grade vacancies that arise.

  Wave Power
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on funding of wave power technology.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 31 March,Official Report, column 1009–10, I announced the Government's future strategy for new and renewable energy in the United Kingdom, Energy Paper 62, copies of which are in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much financial support has been received from the European Community to help fund redundancy payments to mineworkers for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The European Coal and Steel Community provided non-repayable aid under article 56 of the ECSC treaty as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  8·0

  1992–93

  32·2

  1991–92

  36·2

  1990–91

  17·9

  1989–90

  22·3

  This aid has been provided in respect of a number of areas of restructuring costs including redundancy payments and retraining. Separate figures for assistance with redundancy payments are not readily available.
  182
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received for the subsidy outlined in the "The Prospects for Coal" for additional sales of deep-mined coal to the generators; how many of these have been successful; how many tonnes of coal each involves; and what is the total amount of subsidy that has now been paid.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since the coal subsidy scheme was announced in March 1993, my Department has received five applications. Four offers have been made so far, two to British Coal and two to the private sector. These cover the delivery of almost 2 million tonnes of coal over the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1995. One application is currently under consideration.

  To date, the European Commission has approved payment only in respect of production in 1993 and a cumulative total of £1,054,815 has been paid. Authorisation is awaited from the Commission in respect of production from 1 January 1994.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much financial assistance he has made available to British Coal to fund redundancy payments to mineworkers for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987 the Government have provided grant aid to British Coal in respect of work force reductions and redeployment over the last five financial years as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  574·4

  1992–93

  467·3

  1991–92

  310·3

  1990–91

  199·4

  1989–90

  354·0

  Separate figures for grant aid for redundancy payments specifically for mineworkers are not readily available.

  Industry Grants, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about grants to industry in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department has received a number of written representations about specific grant applications and about various domestic and European programmes.

  Water Filters and Pumps (Exports)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what help his Department provides exporters of water pumps and water filters to the Arab world; and what requests he has had from Iraq to enable Iraq to obtain water filtering and water pump equipment.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government's normal range of assistance and services are available to such exporters. The export of all goods to Iraq is prohibited, but there is an exemption for the export of humanitarian goods. Any such exports from the United Kingdom would require a United Kingdom export licence and authorisation from the United Nations Sanctions Committee. Details of applications received for licences to supply humanitarian goods are not disclosed on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many jobs have been created or sustained in British industry as a consequence of inward investment since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  According to figures notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau for the financial years 1979 to 1993 there have been some 291,377 new jobs created and some 234,771 jobs safeguarded as a result of inward investment.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small firms merit award for research and technology—SMART—award winners on the Isle of Wight have received ministerial visits.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am not aware that any winners of the small firms merit award for research and technology, SMART, in the Isle of Wight have received ministerial visits.

  Post Office
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current operations and standards of the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In accordance with the longstanding policy of successive Governments since 1969, postal operations are the responsibility of the Post Office Board. During 1993–94, the overall standards of service provided by the Post Office remained impressively high: preliminary figures for 1993–94 show that overall performance nationally for first class letter delivery by the next working day was over 90 per cent., for second class letters over 98 per cent. were delivered within three working days and in Crown post offices, 96 per cent. of customers were served within five minutes.

  Petrol
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current price of a gallon of four-star petrol; and what was the equivalent price, in real terms, in(a) 1964, (b) 1974 and (c)

  Mr. Eggar
  The average price of four-star petrol in March 1994 was 253p per gallon. The equivalent prices, adjusted to 1992 price levels using the GDP deflator at market prices, are:

  Pence per gallon

  1994-March

  239

  1984

  284

  1974

  280

  1964

  246

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many international aid workers remain in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We understand from the United Nations that there are currently 14 personnel from the International Committee of the Red Cross in Kigali, plus two from Medecins Sans Frontieres. There are 15 ICRC personnel in other areas of Rwanda, plus a further 10 working in border regions.

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the British aid projects that his Department has approved for Kenya and the amount of funding granted for each project for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No new projects have been signed so far in 1994–95, but we expect to sign agreements shortly with the Government of Kenya for £10.6 million for the national agricultural research programme and £2.3 million for the Kenya trypanosomiasis research programme. In addition, we expect to sign an agreement this month to provide £5 million of programme aid in support of Kenya's economic reform programme.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty's Government are making to the report by Willem C. Smit and Dr. Jean Pierre Revel for the regional office in Amman of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, a copy of which has been sent to him, on their assessment mission to Iraq from 11 January to 11 February covering the health and nutritional status of the Iraqi people, the extent of the increase in the cost of a food basket between 1990 and 1993 and the extent of marasmus, kwashiorkor and other water-borne diseases.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 May 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 25 April, Official Report, column 31. The appeal by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies was to a large extent based on the Smit/Revel report. The British Red Cross is clarifying one or two issues, following which a final decision on a possible contribution from the Government will be taken.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the work force in local authority areas in Gwynedd is in part-time employment; and if he will make a statement.
  185
  Mr. Redwood
  The latest source of the information requested is the 1991 census of population. The following table shows the number of part-time employees in local authority areas in Gwynedd and expresses these as a percentage of the total number of employed and self-employed persons in each area.

  Part-time employees1 in Gwynedd: April 1991

  District

  Number of part-time employees

  Percentage of all employed and self-employed persons

  Aberconwy

  4,194

  19·9

  Arfon

  3,718

  18·4

  Dwyfor

  1,737

  16·9

  Meirionnydd

  2,330

  17·9

  Ynys Mon

  4,402

  17·2

  1 Persons usually working no more than 30 hours a week.

  Source: 1991 Census Report for Gwynedd—OPCS.

  Economy, Gwynedd
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessments he has made of the proportion of Gwynedd economy which is dependent on(A) tourism, (b) slate quarrying, (c) farming and fishing and (d) the power industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest available employment data at the detailed industrial breakdown required are from the 1991 census of employment, which covers employees only. The following table shows the number of employees in each category expressed as a percentage of all employees in Gwynedd. In addition, the 1991 census of population indicates that 6.0 per cent. of all employed and self-employed persons in Gwynedd were engaged in agriculture, forestry and fishing.

  Percentage of total employees in employment in Gwynedd: September 1991

  Per cent.

  Tourism related industries2

  13·9

  Slate quarrying

  1—

  Farming and fishing3

  3·4

  Power industries4

  2·6

  1 Figure cannot be released for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  2 Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1980) groups 661, 662, 663, 665, 667, 977, 979.

  3 Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1980) division 0

  4 Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1980) groups 111, 130, 152, 161, 162, 163.

  Source: NOMIS

  Land Authority for Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what checks there are on the Land Authority for Wales's compulsory purchase powers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Land Authority's power to acquire land compulsorily is contained in section 104 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and each Order requires my confirmation before it can take effect.

  A public inquiry is always held if a statutory objector objects to the proposal.

  Economic Inactivity, Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest figures for economic inactivity in Wales for(a) men between 16 and 64 years and (b) women between 16 and 59 years of age.

  Mr. Redwood
  According to the autumn 1993 labour force survey there were 177,000 males in Wales aged 16 to 64 who were economically inactive, representing 19–7 per cent. of all males aged 16 to 64. The corresponding figures for females aged 16 to 59 were 265,000 and 32.4 per cent. respectively. Many of these people are fully engaged in looking after homes or children.

  Upper Limb Disorders
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the present number of civil servants taking legal action against the Department as a result of work-related upper limb disorders.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The present number of civil servants taking legal action against the Department and notified to legal group is two.

TRANSPORT

  Freightliner
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made with the proposed privatisation of Freightliner.

  Mr. Macgregor
  I have today announced that the railways board will shortly be advertising the availability of a memorandum describing the business, with a view to soliciting formal expressions of interest and commencing discussion with short-listed bidders. Our objective is to transfer Freightliner to the private sector as a going concern. We encourage bidders to come forward with proposals to develop the rail intermodal freight network. Purchasers will wish to develop plans to reduce costs and improve efficiency, to manage the transition to the private sector. The Government have also introduced specific measures of support, including the new rail freight facilities and track access grants and the 44–tonne lorry weight concession for intermodal transport.

DEFENCE

  Cadet Corps, Easington
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the future funding of the Army Cadet Corps, Naval Cadet Corps and RAF Cadet Corps in the Easington constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The arrangements for providing support for the cadet forces do not distinguish between units on the basis of parliamentary constituency. The cadet forces, like all other support functions of the Ministry of Defence, have been reviewed as part of the defence costs study. Proposals are currently being considered and we hope to make announcements before the summer recess.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries to which the United Kingdom is at the present time selling arms or arms-related equipment.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal details of arms sales to individual countries. However, "Defence Statistics 1993", a copy of which is held in the Library of the House, gives information on the value of sales by region in table 1.11.

  Capital Projects (Expenditure)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 86, if he will give details of all design developments of the capital projects for (a) Minley/ Chatham barracks, (b) Dishforth and (c) Tidworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Once a project specification has been agreed, responsibility for minor design changes which do not alter the basic specification of the project in question are delegated to the project manager and project sponsor. Comprehensive records of such changes are not held centrally.

  Royal Naval Supply Depot Copenacre
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the total amount of costs involved in the partial closure of RNSD Copenacre in each of the next three financial years; what consideration he gave to the total closure of RNSD Copenacre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Both the total closure and partial closure options for RNSD Copenacre were given full consideration prior to our announcing proposals for partial closure. Continued refinement of plans during the consultation period confirmed that partial closure only would avoid expensive reprovising of facilities elsewhere and would achieve considerable running cost savings. The overall costs for the next two financial years of implementing the partial closure of RNSD Copenacre are estimated to be some £2 million and £1,900,000 respectively. It is estimated that overall savings of some £2,800,000 will be achieved in the third year.

  MV Polar Circle
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 174, what factors contributed to his
  188
  decision to acquire MV Polar Circle as the replacement ice patrol ship; and what effect his decision had on the operational capabilities of British armed forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  At the time of the purchase of Polar Circle, the Government made clear their commitment to retain the ice patrol task previously discharged by HMS Endurance, whose structural condition made it no longer safe for her to operate in ice. Polar Circle, now re-named HMS Endurance, had been chartered by the Government in October 1991, and the charter contract gave the Government the option before 24 January 1992 to buy the ship or to extend her charter. An investment appraisal was undertaken of the options available for retaining the use of the ship for the longer term, and this concluded that outright purchase of the vessel would be better value for money than either long-term charter or lease. The Government were also satisfied, after an extensive assessment of her operational performance in the Antarctic, that Polar Circle was fully capable of performing the tasks demanded of her. Although a further survey of the merchant shipping market would normally have been conducted before the decision to exercise the purchase option was taken, the limited time available before the simultaneous expiry of the charter and the option to purchase was judged to preclude such an exercise. This decision had no impact on the operational capabilities of the British armed forces.

  Tank Replacements
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 174, what factors contributed to his decision to place an order for Challenger 2 as the replacement for the remaining two regiments of Chieftain tanks; and what effect his decision had on the operational capabilities of British armed forces.

  Mr. Aitken
  As the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement made clear in announcing the decision on 21 June 1991, a large number of factors were taken into account in deciding to procure Challenger 2 as Chieftain replacement. These included technical merit, risk, contract conditions, time scale, cost, the balance of interoperability considerations, stretch potential, logistical implications, employment and overseas sales. The advantage of maintaining a single ammunition type across the smaller post-"Options" tank fleet was an important consideration.

  As was also made clear, following the introduction into service of Challenger 2, the Army's tank fleet will be well placed to meet its commitments.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.
Lord Forteviot—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Red Mercury: Channel Four Report
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What information they have concerning the Red Mercury report in the Channel Four "Dispatches" programme on 13th April and whether a small portable nuclear weapon capable of destroying Westminster has been made or is being developed.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, to date, given the available evidence, we view the Red Mercury saga as a scam or hoax which is aimed at obtaining money from those wishing to obtain nuclear materials and developing their own nuclear weapons.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the programme on Channel Four was based upon a visit to Moscow by a British group which included such people as Professor Frank Barnaby, who is nobody's fool? They came back convinced that the development of a portable nuclear weapon of great brutality was, if not already developed, very much on the way to development. Under those circumstances, should not the Government seriously examine the matter before they come up with a conclusion which seems to me to be rather facile?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we take claims of this kind extremely seriously. We are always ready to consider any new information that arises. However, stories of Red Mercury have been running in the press since the late 1970s. Nothing that we have seen or heard since that time indicates any conclusion other than the one I gave in my Answer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that President Yeltsin of Russia signed an authorisation to Mr. Sadykov, the alleged producer of the alleged material, Red Mercury, allowing him to export it? Is it not further the case that he has done a deal with an admittedly obscure United States company based in California for large quantities of the substance? Given the involvement of President Yeltsin, have the Government taken up the matter with the Russian Government?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I too saw that part of the programme to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, refers. We understand that the Russian authorities are aware of the claims made for this material. However, we have no evidence whatever of Russian or former Soviet
1558
authorities being involved in either its manufacture or export. As we do not believe that Red Mercury is a substance with any unique or significant properties, the question of representations to the Russian authorities does not arise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to the noble Earl. My point was that if the president of Russia signed a document authorising this gentleman to export this material—whatever it may be —is not that a case for representations being made to the Russian Government?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the operative word in the noble Lord's question is "if". We have not seen the document in question. If a copy can be produced we shall study it. I have my doubts, in view of our conclusions on the nature of the substance, that the document contains the information the noble Lord says it does.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as one who did not see the programme, can my noble friend enlighten me and the rest of the House as to what Red Mercury is alleged to be? Is it the name of a newspaper or a chemical substance? If it is a chemical substance, what is it made of?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the "Dispatches" programme alleged that a substance known as Red Mercury with unique and significant properties was developed some years ago in the former Soviet Union and that the technology was then developed to construct a miniature nuclear device incorporating the substance. Both claims we strongly believe to be completely untrue.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that whether or not the report is correct—there already seem to me to be good grounds for at least examining the situation a little more carefully than the Government have done—the development of a portable nuclear weapon is within sight? Is the Minister aware that a back-pack nuclear weapon was manufactured in the United States and put into service to the extent of training? In those circumstances, even if the noble Earl does not agree with nuclear disarmament, does he not agree that the nuclear weapon is not under effective international control? More effective international control should be introduced very quickly.
Earl Howe: My Lords, any possibility of nuclear proliferation is one that we must take extremely seriously. But this is not such an instance. With regard to the size of any purported nuclear device, the programme mentioned by the noble Lord suggested that a nuclear device the size of a teacup could be constructed. That is technically impossible. It would not even be possible to construct one as small as a shoebox. Much of the material in the programme should be looked at with a sceptical eye.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, may have got the date wrong and that it should have read 1st April?

NHS Supplies Authority Appointments
2.44 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the present appointments of the five non-executive members of the NHS Supplies Authority were made under the same regulations as govern appointments to other NHS bodies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): No, my Lords.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I appreciate the very lengthy Answer that the Minister has just given me. In her Answer on Monday to a similar question she indicated that there are a multiplicity of conditions to the regulations governing appointments to various bodies in the National Health Service. In order to avoid any confusion in future, would it not be better if one set of regulations was used for these appointments? That would prevent a repetition of what has happened. The people mentioned in my Question today hold three positions: one in their own right as their first appointments in National Health Service jobs; one as non-executive directors of the NHS Supplies Authority; and four of them are on the audit committee of the NHS Supplies Authority. Can the Minister tell the House whether they are enjoying the privilege of three salaries; and if not, how many salaries are they being paid?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question, we see the NHS Supplies Authority as being different from a district health authority or a trust. We welcome cross-membership because those members on the NHS Supplies Authority have experience of the National Health Service. They represent the customers of the service on that authority in its attempt to keep down costs. On the second part of the question, members of the supplies authority, if they are already serving on another health authority, will receive two sets of remuneration, but they do not receive any additional remuneration for serving on the audit committee. That is part and parcel of the authority's work.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does not the Minister feel that sometimes her right honourable friend the Secretary of State shows a form of tunnel vision in the wide range of appointments that she has at her disposal? Too often there are those who are linked to the government in power. Does she not recognise that this is a National Health Service and that there are people in many disciplines, in many parties and with many ranges of experience who should be drawn upon in filling posts within the NHS?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in making appointments my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health looks for the best people for the job regardless of where they come from and regardless of political affiliation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister acknowledges that appointments to the NHS Supplies Authority are different from those to district health authorities and other authorities within the health service. But does she not agree that it is inappropriate that people, although they are there for cross-fertilisation, as she described it, of ideas and thinking, should receive two salaries from the NHS? It is, after all, only very recently that members of health authorities or of any NHS authority received any remuneration at all.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, these are people of considerable calibre who are very busy. The work that they do on the supplies authority clearly takes up their time. We think it is appropriate that they should be recompensed for the time that they spend. Looking at the work of the authority, I have to say that it has been an outstanding success. Its operating costs have been reduced by £4.7 million since it started. They are now below 5 per cent. of expenditure. The organisation is now self-financing. Staff numbers have been reduced by almost 7 per cent. and the number of stockholding sites has been reduced from 47 to 26. It should not be National Health Service Supplies; it should be National Health Success for Supplies.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry to persist with this, but would it not be appropriate for the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State to ask those people who serve on more than one authority and receive these double salaries whether they would be prepared to do this in a public service capacity?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think I have answered that question very fully. If people are prepared to spend a lot of time and energy on the National Health Service we think it is right that they should receive some remuneration for doing so.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister mentioned savings of around 4 per cent. and a reduction in manpower of around 7 per cent. Is not the implication that low-paid workers have been thrown out of jobs and that presumably some of the savings made have been used to pay the salaries of people who, as has been pointed out, in previous times would have done the job for free as a matter of public service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the issue here is whether one has an efficient organisation for supplies for the National Health Service or an inefficient one. The major role of the National Health Service is not that of an employment service. It is to provide health care for the population. We want to see it become more efficient and use taxpayers' money to much better effect.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is not specifically about the performance of the National Health Service Supplies Authority. The Minister herself has chosen to introduce that body as a success story. However, she must be aware that the chairman of one of the biggest health trusts in the country, who is a supporter of the Government's party, has chaired a working party of the

1561
chairmen of the National Health Trust hospitals which is quite critical of the performance of the NHS Supplies Authority. They wish to do their own purchasing. If that is the case (and I know that it is) does that not indicate that there is not such a success story as the Minister claims?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is a success story, although I know that there was one individual who was critical of the NHS Supplies Authority. He is a trust chairman and he has every right not to use the authority if that is his wish. However, for some aspects of their purchasing 99 per cent. of the trusts use the NHS Supplies Authority, which is a fact that speaks for itself.

Greyhounds: Welfare
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make available some of the receipts from the greyhound betting levy to improve the curves in greyhound racing tracks so as to reduce the incidence of injury among greyhounds.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, there is no statutory levy in greyhound racing. The British Greyhound Racing Fund, which is a voluntary fund, was set up by the greyhound and bookmaking industries. This has provided money for improvements to tracks and is helping to raise standards in the sport. The welfare of racing greyhounds and the operation of the tracks are matters for the sport itself.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his kind, comprehensive, if not unexpected, reply; and for his personal generosity in being here to answer my Question. I admit that Her Majesty's Government are not in the business of rescuing and caring for old greyhounds. However, is my noble friend aware that on 28th April the National Canine Defence League hosted a meeting of all interested parties including NGRC Race Course Promoters Limited, British Greyhound Racing Trust Fund, the Independent Track Promoters Association, the Greyhound Breeders Forum, the National Association of Greyhound Owners, the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association, the Blue Cross, the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs' Home and Wood Green Animal Shelter? They all agree on a charter for greyhounds and they all pressed for a betting levy to give them parity with race horses, who are also dumb animals, but with a stronger lobby.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I am delighted to answer a Question at any stage from my noble friend. From the list of organisations mentioned by my noble friend, there would already appear to be plenty of support for greyhounds.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Baroness's kind heart is misleading her? Is he further aware that every single application to the British Greyhound Racing Fund for improvements to
1562
the track, whether it is to the running surface or in the safety facilities, has been met promptly by the fund with a 50 per cent. grant towards the costs? As my noble friend has said, there is no levy. At the request of the Government, the money comes from the return by the bookmakers of 25 per cent. of the off-course betting duty which is given to the fund for the benefit of the sport.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks. The Government are fully aware of the splendid job which he is doing as chairman of the fund. We were pleased to learn of his reappointment earlier in the year. The fund has led to improvements in standards in greyhound racing. We are surprised to hear that some of the tracks are so well off that they can afford to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Lord Peston: My Lords., it is quite a few years since I first went to the "dogs". I am very intrigued by the Question. As someone who went racing, I do not recall finding that the curves on the track were a problem. Can the noble Lord enlighten us as to whether the tightness of the bends is a serious risk to the dogs? Is this a situation which has persisted and nothing has been done about it? I seem to remember that the dogs negotiated the bends rather well and that that was the whole point of the exercise. Can the Minister say whether there is any factual basis to the Question at all?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I understand from the recent forum run by the National Canine Defence League that this point was brought up. Over the racing life of a greyhound, which is four years at the most, there can be effects on the muscles and bones.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, since I understand that there are more discarded former racing greyhounds passing through dog rescue organisations than any other single breed, will the Minister accept that there is no room for complacency about the present position? What further steps are Her Majesty's Government proposing to take to encourage the greyhound racing industry to make proper provision for those dogs when their short careers are over?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I share the noble Baroness's anxiety on this subject; but what happens to dogs after their racing careers have ended is a matter for the owners themselves. It is not against the law to have a dog humanely destroyed. For most people, owning and running a greyhound is a hobby which they enjoy. It is not a great money-making exercise.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I have looked after a discarded dog after its racing years (and there are many of them). Can the Minister say whether the money could go from the running of greyhound races on Sundays to a benevolent fund for ex-racing greyhounds?
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that interesting question. At the moment there are no plans to do that because the fund which we have already discussed is donating money towards the welfare of greyhounds.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that gallant old dog lover, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with whom I spoke this morning, also supports this Question? He hopes to be with your Lordships, to whom he sends his greetings, next month.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, we welcome the good news of the noble and dog loving Lord and look forward to his return.

The Auditing Profession
2.57 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is in the public interest to maintain a strong and financially viable auditing profession.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government recognise that an effective auditing profession is crucial to public confidence in company accounts. The vitality of the profession may be judged from the fact that some 18,000 firms of accountants have reached the standard required for registration by the regulatory bodies as statutory company auditors.
Lord Spens: My Lords, before I proceed to my supplementary question I should declare an interest in that, somewhat surprisingly, I am still a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. My supplementary question is this: is the Minister aware that the current exposure to legal liability for each of the partners in the top six or seven auditing firms is running at a figure between £7 million and £8 million per partner? Does he agree that a transfer of liability from a limited liability corporation to an unlimited liability partnership is taking place and that Section 310 of the Companies Act 1985 badly needs to be amended to rectify that problem?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, mentioned, it is suggested by some parties that liability is a threat to effective audit. We do not believe that that is an overriding anxiety. There are others who take a contrary view and therefore we are considering very carefully the proposals which have been put before us.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in auditing, as far as public expenditure is concerned—which is the largest spender of money in this country—that the setting up of the National Audit Commission by this Government has been very welcome? Does he further agree that the very fact that the National Audit Commission not only audits but also looks into value for money—which has saved the taxpayer many millions of pounds—is something for which we should congratulate the Government and also thank them for setting up that organisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks. I entirely agree with him.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, without passing any comment at all on the six firms to which the
1564
noble Lord, Lord Spens, referred, is the Minister aware that there is a very real danger of unreasonable demands being made on those who conduct the profession of auditing? Is he further aware that in the normal course of an audit, in the absence of suspicious circumstances, the auditor is entitled to rely on the explanations given to him by the directors of the company? Does the Minister agree that it is quite unreasonable, in the absence of suspicious circumstances, to require the auditors to go way outside their ambit into suspecting alleged fraud? Does the noble Viscount further agree that it is quite unrealistic that the auditors should be saddled with that responsibility which involves very considerable extra cost and effort which may not have been included in the original tender price of a normal audit?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on the question of burdens on auditors, we believe that it is right that those carrying out the important statutory function of auditing the published accounts of limited companies should satisfy a supervisory professional body that their qualifications and practices meet the necessary standard. Of course, we recognise that since the costs of that process are ultimately born by business it should be conducted economically as well as effectively.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, although I agree with everything that the noble Viscount has just said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, may I ask him whether he accepts that the rash of major actions, involving many millions of pounds, against a number of major companies must be causing considerable concern about their viability and that, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, that must be a potential threat to the discipline of the audit profession?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I note the points raised by the noble Lord. The Government have taken such points on board. To take that to the extreme, the Government recognise that the potential collapse of an auditing firm would be a serious matter for the clients of that firm as well as for the firm itself and perhaps more widely. That is why we are taking the proposals seriously.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that too often auditors are so influenced by company managements that they forget their prime responsibility to shareholders?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, companies benefit when they have the greatest choice of providers of services from which to choose. On the question of independence, accountants with prior knowledge of a company can advise it better on other matters.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as is clear from the interventions so far, this is a serious issue. I have been the recipient of audits rather than involved in auditing. The noble Viscount said that this is a serious issue and that the Government are considering it. Do the Government intend bringing forward proposals in the next Companies Bill to deal with this question?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the position is that representations have been made to the Government. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is considering those proposals. We await definitive written proposals from the various organisations that are pressing for a change.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount to elucidate on exactly that point? There seems to be a serious conflict of interest between the auditors who want to earn the enormous fees that they earn but who at the moment look as they do not want to carry the responsibilities that go with that—I have in mind the people who are making representations to the department—and the position of directors of companies who feel that they ought to be able to rely on the auditors for a totally honest view of the business. This seems to be a matter that requires the Government, first, not to listen merely to the auditors, but to listen much more widely to representations. Can the noble Viscount assure us that the Government are listening to a much wider group of people? Secondly, following the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, at some point will the Government tell your Lordships what the results of those representations are because this is a matter of the utmost seriousness to British industry?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's comments. The view that he has expressed has been put to the Government. We recognise the importance of the contrary view and the concerns of shareholders and others who believe that the limitation of auditors' liability would not be in their best interests or in the wider public interest. That is why we will consider both sides of the argument carefully.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that instead of limiting the liability of auditors it might be better to limit the number of auditors? There seem to be an awful lot of them around.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the number of auditors shows that there is healthy competition within the profession. That is a good thing for companies and for auditors.

Dyslexics: Workplace Problems
3.4 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington rose to call attention to problems in the workplace encountered by adult dyslexics; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate is about the problems of adult dyslexics in the workplace. I felt that it was important to seek a debate on this subject and on this aspect of the disability—and dyslexia is a disability—for the simple reason that when we normally discuss dyslexia we are discussing school children and those who are still in the education system and who thus have a much better chance of receiving some help.
I start by thanking all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in the debate, and particularly all those noble Lords who would not normally be expected to speak in such a debate because,
1566
as I have said, we normally discuss dyslexia in the context of education. It is therefore refreshing to be addressing a different Minister on the Government Front Bench, as opposed to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. That is because we are now dealing with the problem from a different angle.
The subject of dyslexia leads me to remember a joke that was made by the father of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. He said that whenever he made a speech in your Lordships's House he was in danger of making it on the subject of dyslexia. On that occasion, I too spoke on dyslexia. Since then, the area of study has moved on. We have made great gains in the educational provision for dyslexics. Children who are going through the education system today stand a far better chance of having their problem identified and of receiving appropriate help than was the case 10 years ago. The improvements are even greater when compared with 20 years ago when many people had never even heard of the problem of dyslexia. Indeed, many people did not think that it existed because we always relate problems to our own experience. That led people to think, "If I can read, somebody else should be able to read also". However, that is not the case.
Dyslexia is caused by a different construction of the brain. It is a neurological problem. There have been many descriptions of it, including that the two hemispheres of the brain are more evenly balanced and that the neurological connections within the brain are different in dyslexics. What is absolutely sure, however, is that dyslexia is caused by a different construction of the brain. There is no question of someone overcoming dyslexia or of recovering from it. There is no way in which that can happen. You can learn to deal with it and you can have strategies to help you to handle the problem, but you cannot get better. Dyslexia is there for life. On those grounds, it qualifies as a disability.
There are a great many myths attached to dyslexia. Many people have said to me that they have read articles saying that we now know how to deal with dyslexia. That is not the case—and for one very simple reason. Dyslexia is not only an inherent condition; it is also as diverse as, say, bad eyesight. If I said that somebody had bad eyesight, you might say, "Can they see at all or do they have to squint vaguely when identifying a car number plate at 30 yards? Are they short-sighted or long-sighted? Is the problem more severe in one eye or the other?"
That diversity is at least matched in dyslexia. There are dozens of different manifestations of the problem and dozens of different levels of severity. Therefore, when people say, "Isn't it the case that: if you look through certain coloured lenses, the problem can be dealt with?", the answer is invariably, "Yes, for some people". People also ask, "Isn't it the case that the problem can be dealt with by certain lessons?", to which the answer is again, "Yes, for certain people". There is not just one identifiable problem, but a range of problems. They have a similar cause, but dyslexia manifests itself in many different ways.
We also have to deal with a series of misconceptions about what people with dyslexia can do. I have often been asked, "Are not all dyslexics very intelligent?" If

1567
only that were the case. Some dyslexics are very intelligent, and that is often easily spotted. If they have a severe problem which manifests itself in reading and writing because they are under-achieving compared to their potential ability, they are spotted easily. It is also said that dyslexics are very creative. Some of them do tend to have strong creative abilities. They have a good feeling for space in the design field and good reasoning, but not all of them have a level of ability which will make a considerable difference to their employment opportunities or any academic study before employment. They may have a huge range of skills.
The main thrust of what I shall say will be about those whose disability is sufficient to impair attainment but who have insufficient compensating factors to make up for that. Many brilliant people in the design field have some form of dyslexia, but if they are brilliant and talented, people make exceptions for them. Someone who has merely some ability will not have that ability recognised if they have great difficulty in reading or writing.
The first way to recognise adults with this problem is when they are confronted with forms. Every time one has to fill up a form one has to be able to read and write accurately. Even if only a yes or no answer is required, a great deal of pressure is placed upon the person to read through the form correctly and to answer it correctly so as to make the meaning clear. People in every aspect of life have to fill out forms almost on a daily basis. As the workplace becomes associated more with the office as opposed to the factory production line, it becomes more common that people have to read and write accurately. That means there is no room for mistakes. One has to ensure that one knows what one is dealing with. Someone who has difficulty in processing written symbols and expressing themselves in written symbols is at a huge disadvantage.
I know that other noble Lords will be commenting upon the advances that have been made in information technology, but for the foreseeable future we shall require reading and Writing skills. Someone who does not have those skills has tremendous difficulties fitting into the workplace. A waiter is an example of a person who needs those skills but who is not normally associated with them. A waiter in a restaurant has to be able to record accurately what someone is ordering. He then has to be able to convey that information to the person who has to prepare the food, and then ensure that he has kept an accurate note of who requires what and then serve that person. It is almost inconceivable that that can be done without writing down the order. If someone makes a mistake in one of those processes then that person will be unable to fulfil that task.
If one wants to be able to record telephone numbers accurately one must be able to phase numbers. As a rule, dyslexics are very bad at putting numbers into sequence. One can imagine the problems caused to someone in an office who has to answer the telephone, take down numbers accurately, and associate them with someone else. That means writing down a name and recording a number accurately. The problem is accentuated if one has to take several names and numbers within a few
1568
minutes. The problems become incredibly diverse; for example, has one got the right name and the right number?
I can put my hand on my heart and say that I lost a girlfriend because I lost the one diary in which I had her telephone number. I could not remember it despite the fact that we had been going out together for four months. That excuse was not easily believed at the other end of the telephone line. If such pressures are put on dyslexics they will start to break down.
Dyslexics will also often have had bad experiences at school. That means they tend to be bad about taking on training and new ideas. They tend to be resistant to new ideas and being told what to do. That must be added to the problems caused by the more menial forms of employment which are available. What jobs do not entail a certain amount of reading and writing? From that one can see that dyslexics have fewer opportunities for initial employment and also for progressing in any employment.
If we combine all those factors it is not surprising to discover that a high proportion of the prison population in many countries—the evidence suggests this country as well —has problems with dyslexia. The prison population is affected by many other things such as social conditions and whether the people have been brought up in an area where crime is effectively the only realistic or viable option. That is not an excuse, but it is something that we should bear in mind when considering why we have such a large prison population. Prisoners are economic failures. They take the line of least resistance, and find themselves in confrontation with the law. The problem starts to snowball.
If we are to deal with the problem we must ultimately have some type of vetting for adults, not just for school children. Dyslexic children do not achieve at school and are resistant to achievement. They put up barriers and avoid school either by leaving early or by not attending when they should. That might explain why dyslexia is often thought to be a middle class disease. Middle class parents have higher expectations and traditions of educational achievement. They keep their children at school and therefore the problem can be identified. In the working class environment less emphasis is placed on academic achievement. There are, of course, exceptions to that, but it is easy to see why we have the myth that all dyslexics come from Surrey and all live in at least semi-detached houses. If one projects that to the workplace where there are greater demands for skills and training one can once again see why dyslexics are at an incredible disadvantage. Everything revolves around the fact that we are still dependent upon the interpretation of the written and printed symbol.
The Government could help many of those people by introducing an effective screening process in job centres, young offender units and other places which deal with people who are seeking work and have a literacy problem. It is worth noting that only a certain percentage of people with literacy problems are dyslexic. They amount to 10 per cent. of the population at most. If we can identify those people we can start to do things with them. First, we can tell them that they

1569
have a problem and that their under-achievement is not their fault. It is not a case of, "You should have worked harder when you were at school". Adults in particular need help because, it will increase their self-esteem. Adults no longer have the support of parents. They will no longer have the support mechanism of parents and teachers to assist them. They must be told why they have a problem and that they can take action to assist them to overcome it and to deal with it on a day-to-day basis.
The Learning Methods Project report, published last year, was an adult dyslexia screening feasibility study. The report concluded that it was possible to install a screening process at various levels of interaction with the general public. Ultimately, it would be cost effective because fewer people would be lost to the job market. If such a system can be introduced we shall be stopping a certain amount of wastage and a potential drag on the rest of the economic community.
I conclude by saying that unless we gear up support systems for adults within the workplace we shall place those who suffer from this problem in a situation where they will never be able properly to achieve. Furthermore, they will not understand why. The under-achievement is bad enough but unless they understand why they will never be able to relate to that under-achievement. They will never have an idea of self worth and will suffer from all the associated problems.
Will the Government draw up a working definition of the levels of dyslexia so that those who suffer severely can be classified as disabled? There is no universally accepted definition of the various levels. It is odd to think that we have accepted the problem in our schools system but not in the workplace. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing forward this subject for debate today. It is one of considerable importance. The noble Lord has a deep understanding of the problem and has introduced the debate with great eloquence. He illustrated the advantage of having a touch of dyslexia about one; for 17 minutes he spoke with great eloquence and without a single note in his hand. That is a great advantage in your Lordships' House or anywhere else, and it is not copied by many people.
The problem that we are debating is serious. I have been fairly close to dyslexia since the days when it was not understood at all. They were the days of Alf Morris's disablement Bill, when the late Lady Phillips defined the subject in the Bill as a "chronic disease". That is not what it is; it is a disability. With care, the individual can learn to live with it and to succeed as well as anyone.
Some disabilities are simple to deal with and are recognisable. If one has lost an arm or a leg, for instance, the factory owner or whoever can see that and try to make life easier. However, dyslexia is an invisible disability and does not attract such attention. People are not alerted to the fact that concessions should be made and life should be made easier. Seldom has the
1570
workplace responded well to the situation. The disability is a language disorder, as everyone now realises. Reading and writing, numeracy and knowing left from right can be difficult.
The disability has always existed and was discovered in America in 1860, which is long before we ever thought about it. In the old days when I started work —admittedly on a farm, which was a simple place—the working person did not have to read and write. We worked with horses and two tractors of the most simple nature and there was no problem. In fact, one or two of the older members of the workforce who were illiterate got on very well and became foremen and the like.
Today, it would be highly dangerous to have someone working on a farm who could not read or write. Everywhere there is machinery of the most complicated and expensive nature and danger is round every corner, quite apart from bills of lading for corn, the noting of cattle numbers and so on as required by the Community. Reading and writing must be done by everyone all down the line.
One must think carefully about the workplace. We are considering a wide area; it could be the office, the factory floor, transport, airlines, prison and so on. However, right down the line I can see difficulties for people who cannot read or write. I see only one ray of hope, which is important. We are moving from pen and paper to keyboard skills, which the dyslexic person is good at. Often the institute finds that such skills are a way to bring people forward and to make use of them. Today, one can buy small computers which can be operated on one's lap and dyslexic people respond to that. It provides a little hope but it does not stretch to every corner of the workplace.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned older people. I agree that youngsters are well provided for in Part III of the 1993 Act. Younger people have a better chance, although I would not say that it is very good, but I shall return to that point in a moment. The people who have left school and are still dyslexic do not have a good chance at all. I once met a lady from the North who had been through the whole school system without being able to read or write. She was obviously of good intelligence and I had to satisfy myself as to what had happened to her during all her years at school. During her spare time she had produced a large volume of good poetry. She had recited it to a friend who had written it down. I read quite a lot of it and it was pleasant and good. However, in answering my question about what she did during all her school years, she said, "I did a bit of gardening and colouring". She was given a book in which small children have to colour in outlined pictures. Obviously, she will have difficulty if she wishes to work in a factory, an office or anywhere of that kind.
The people who knew something about dyslexia—even before the Department for Education—were those in the Army. During the period of conscription they discovered the severe danger of taking people in the Army who could not read or write: they turned the wrong way towards the battle or the wrong way against it; they could not read signs saying "danger" and they could not understand what they meant. A very good unit

1571
was established, under a major, of which a number of people outside the Army, who were interested in trying to deal with that disability, took advantage.
In this day and age, it is very difficult to adapt the workplace for the dyslexic person. Therefore, we must turn back to education. A dyslexic person must be able to adapt to industry and he needs a very particular education in order to be able to do that. That course must be pursued with great vigour.
Of course, there are problems. The problem that I see is that at the moment there are just not enough teachers to deal with the situation. In the past, many of the teachers have come through the voluntary sector and are then fed back into either the grant-maintained or state system. The noble Lord mentioned a figure of 10 per cent. Therefore, the number of teachers available is a mere trickle, but one needs a flood if the situation is to be dealt with properly.
I do not know how that will be achieved. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an idea of the size of the problem. The Dyslexia Foundation, of which I am president, has a validated course at Kingston University. But taking together youngsters and teacher training, we are able to deal with only 3,000 to 4,000 people per year. I need hardly say that there are financial constraints.
I wish to ask the Minister a question. In my stupidity, I thought that this was an education debate, but perhaps my noble friend Lord Henley will pass on my question to my noble friend Lady Blatch. What role does my noble friend Lady Blatch see the voluntary agencies, of which there are a number, fulfilling in the future? Also, how much money can be made available to voluntary agencies that teach in a proper way, either under the provisions of the Bill which is going through the Commons at present and which passed through this House some time ago or under Part III of the 1993 Act? This is an opportunity to follow up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. By returning to education, adults could make themselves useful and fulfil their potential.
Perhaps I may end on a reasonably happy note. On the whole, I believe that the situation has improved hugely. When I started as chairman of the British Dyslexia Association, as it was then, there were about eight powerful ladies for the most part who had dyslexic children. Those ladies could get absolutely nothing done for their children. More than nothing is being done now, but it would be very good if we could do a great deal more.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, your Lordships will be indebted, as I am, to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for tabling this Motion this afternoon. I am most certainly grateful to him, as I suspect are other noble Lords, because I need to be reminded regularly that disabled people are people first of all. They have talents and rights, as do the rest of us, and that applies of course to people with dyslexia.
Secondly, unlike noble Lords who have spoken already, many of us, myself included, are fairly ignorant as to what is involved in relation to dyslexia. I vaguely
1572
think of dyslexics as people who have difficulties with reading, writing and spelling, but I had not given much thought to the employment implications of that. Thanks to the initiative taken by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I have read some papers prepared by the British Dyslexia Association and I have listened with great interest to the two previous speakers.
Two factors have struck me in particular; first, there are very large numbers of people who suffer from dyslexia. I am told that the best part of 2 million people suffer from it in various degrees. Some suffer from it very slightly; and some suffer from it in a very profound form indeed. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said, a great many people suffering from it are hidden from the rest of us by the fact that the disability cannot be cured by putting on a splint or prescribing spectacles.
The second factor which struck me, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, is that dyslexia does not, as many of us had half thought, equate with thickness or laziness. It can go hand in hand with a very high degree of intelligence and achievement. I understand that Michael Heseltine is a dyslexic, as is Richard Rogers and the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Underlying the Motion seems to be an optimistic assumption that if a problem exists and it is recognised, then something will be done about it. One has to be fairly optimistic to ask an employer, or indeed employees for that matter, to do anything at all for disabled groups. I understand that the employment prospects for some dyslexics can be transformed by properly directed training. As has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, computer programs for learning, reading and spelling can revolutionise the lives of some dyslexic people.
Dyslexic people become successful in the same way as the rest of us; namely, by developing the skills that they need and by creating for themselves, but with help, special strategies to compensate for their own areas of weakness. Many dyslexic people can learn and work very well, but sometimes they need to learn differently from other people.
When I read the papers that were provided to me over the weekend, I read in particular of one man called Peter Savage. He went right through school without knowing that he was dyslexic. Like many others, he was regarded as thick, stupid and unwilling to learn. It was only when he started his first job that it was recognised that he was dyslexic.
Peter Savage was lucky in two ways. First, his employer was not put off by the fact that he was dyslexic because his own son had dyslexia. Secondly, he was lucky because he was given support by his employer to have special lessons. He took a City & Guilds examination and achieved Class 1 distinction in lorry driving and diesel fitting. He now drives lorries all over the country. That man is not unique, but he is fairly exceptional. His problem was identified and his employer reacted with understanding.
There are three broad ways in which to persuade an employer to react positively to the needs of disabled people. First, you can appeal to his better nature. There are a few employers who take seriously equal

1573
opportunities policies. But, quite frankly, you cannot rely upon the better nature of employers to respond in that way, or not for the most part.
Secondly, you can appeal to the employer's self-interest; that is, either enlightened or unenlightened self-interest. Like many other disabled people, dyslexics bring special qualities to work, especially a willingness to try harder. I say that because the fact that they have overcome a disability often gives them that added commitment to solve problems and to get stuck in. That is worth trying, although there are limits to it.
That leads me to the third approach to employers which is that of friendly persuasion. At the end of the road, we shall probably need legislation to make a reality of equal opportunities for disabled people. What happened last Friday in the other place as regards the civil rights Bill was very sad indeed. But, at least, bad news can be good news in the sense that it might bring to the attention of a wider range of people the problems of the disabled at work and in other respects, and the need to take action. However, I do not wish to pursue that particular subject this afternoon.
Even if legislation is introduced, that cannot be the end of the story. We need to get into the heads of employers and employees the fact that disabled people have as much right to a job and as much right to a decent income as the rest of us. That is the message that we must get home. It is a message of basic rights. An instrument for so doing is already at hand in industry. From my perspective, trade unions should be much more active in putting the issues, and the needs of disabled people, including dyslexics, on the negotiating agenda. The first obstacle to be overcome is the attitude of some employees. Some employees are apathetic; some are positively hostile to disabled people, including dyslexics; and some are just afraid of disabled people.
'With the greatest respect, I would suggest to noble Lords that it should not be too difficult for the British Dyslexia Association to identify some of its members who are active trade unionists and to get them to raise the issue of the employment and support of dyslexic people in their branches or in their factory groups. It could be suggested to them that they might arrange for a speaker on dyslexia to be invited to the branch meeting so as to inform people of what is involved. A motion could be put down for the inclusion of such an issue in the next round of negotiations or on the agenda of the annual conference of the union concerned. In such a way, the message could be sent that dyslexia is as valid an item for the negotiating table as is pensions and, indeed, health and safety.
If dyslexic people are willing to help themselves, as many of them conspicuously are, then their fellow employees should be willing to back their demands for jobs and supportive training. Perhaps even governments could be persuaded to take a more positive attitude towards supporting people who have shown that they are ready to help themselves and to help one another.
3.43 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I, too, welcome most sincerely the Motion tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The noble Lord said
1574
that there is no cure for dyslexia, but I certainly believe that there is a way around it and a way to live with it. As someone who has throughout his life been aware that he has learning problems, I find it extremely difficult to live with the words "dyslexia" or "dyslexics". I believe that both words are far too wide. Moreover, it is dangerous to use them, especially so far as concerns employment in the market place.
I believe that people see someone, identify him as dyslexic and then put up their hands and debar him from work. That is why today's debate is so important. I should like to pay tribute to the British Dyslexia Association and the many other bodies which work tirelessly on behalf of those with learning difficulties. I should also like to pay tribute to the many remedial teachers throughout the country whom I have met over the years. They seem to be coping admirably with a rising tide of people who have learning difficulties.
I believe that the problem starts at school. Some schools have very caring teachers who are readily able to assess a pupil's learning problems, while other schools adopt a different attitude and say, "Oh, he is a thicko. He can go to the back of the class; we won't worry about him". Those are the people who become a problem for future generations.
This country has taken a great step forward in dealing with learning problems by way of remedial treatment and, indeed, job counselling for the future. We prepare our young who have learning problems—and, as we have already heard, learning problems come in many different forms—to face the future and to cope with the world outside.
My military experience tells me that the Armed Forces have many soldiers, sailors and airmen who have learning problems. On the whole, they are very caring people, they cope very well and do extremely well themselves. Indeed, there are several senior officers in the Armed Forces today who have experienced learning problems in the past. However, as in the case of all people with learning problems, they need to gain confidence. They need to realise and understand their own ability.
In my own case, I have to say that I never realised that I had a learning difficulty until I went to the Regular Commissions Board at Westbury. I heard two education officers talking between themselves discussing me and saying, "Well, there is obviously something wrong with this man, but he is the son of a Field Marshal and the nephew of a Field Marshal so, therefore, he must be OK". That is the only reason that I got into the Army. I think that I would have been a dustman if I had not been the subject of such a discussion between two education officers. That alerted me to the fact that I had problems. From then on, I learnt to live with them.
I submit that it is important for adults to understand and to learn to live with their problems; and to cope with them in the outside world as best they can. The Motion refers to "problems in the workplace". Undoubtedly, those with problems attract bullying and no more so —although, I am sure, many people will not agree with me—in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces are very sheltered communities and people living in such communities are very close to one another.

1575
It may interest your Lordships to know that, despite the adverse publicity regarding Options for Change and further cuts in the Armed Forces, the Army this year is looking for 10,000 men and a further 1,000 apprentices; that is, nearly 12,000 men. In relation to the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, it is interesting to note that the testing for all those people who are coming into the Army—and not the Army or the Air Force—is based on keyboard skills by way of something called the BARB test (the British Army Recruit Battery Test). That is basically a touch screen whereby one touches the "yes" or the "no" command and the screen produces the answer. My recent research has shown that those with learning difficulties cope extremely well with that test. Some of them do not always get the jobs that they want, but when they have mastered the keyboard skills and the way that the test is operated, those with learning difficulties usually cope very well. It is a form of computer testing that is proving to be very effective.
I believe that there are far more people in the country with learning difficulties who have problems in the workplace which are not of their making. Such problems will continue but, I submit, in order to cope with them, young people need to know and understand the nature of their problems. I urge the Government, if possible, to set up in due course an assessment board to which adult people who realise that they have learning problems and who are finding it difficult to secure employment can apply and be assessed so as to find out exactly what are their problems. In that way they can obtain guidance on the way to cope in employment if they have not received such guidance from their schools. I believe that would certainly help those with learning disabilities in the future. If that were to happen and there were further remedial teaching for adults—I know this is an educational problem—it would be a great step forward in helping this country.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, may I first apologise in that I fear I shall not be present to hear the Minister's reply at the end of the debate as I have an engagement at 4.30 p.m. that was entered into long before I knew about this debate and I am afraid I shall have to leave to attend that meeting.
Not long ago one of the publications of the Institute of Personnel Management contained an extremely interesting article in which it was pointed out that industry was losing a great deal by failing to make use of dyslexic people of considerable ability. It was interesting that the article appeared in that particular journal. It is a journal for people who are, after all, charged with the responsibility of recruiting people into industry and, indeed, are charged with the training programmes for the companies to which those people go.
The article pointed out—I am sure this is well known to all who have studied the problem but I am certain it is not known to a large number of the general public or to the people who suffer from dyslexia—that many dyslexic people, while having certain limitations, have great strengths in other directions. I read the list of the
1576
qualities that a dyslexic person often possesses. It included imagination, creativeness and lateral thinking. The list went on and on. I really began to think that industry ought to be advertising for dyslexics rather than rejecting them.
Without exaggerating this matter, the article makes a point of considerable importance. Industry's job, after all, is to make the best use of the talents which people have and if industry is failing to understand the strengths of dyslexics then the point of the article—that a great deal of waste is occurring—is surely very well founded. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, and, by implication, other speakers, spoke about industry's responsibility in this direction. I accept that it has a responsibility—the kind of responsibility that is reflected in the article. But I also make the point that it is not industry's job to make good the deficiencies of the public services which ought to be doing the work that they are not doing, consequently landing industry with problems outside its responsibility. After all, industry has enough to undertake in finding employment, creating wealth and all the other things it has to do.
When I was chairman of an area manpower board under the old MSC and we were running the early stages of the youth training service, company after company complained that they were being forced to spend a great deal of time rectifying the weaknesses of youngsters who came from school totally inadequately equipped for the kind of skill training that the companies were capable of delivering, and which it was their responsibility to deliver. It was not their responsibility to add to the educational activities which should have been undertaken in the schools. This matter is of great relevance as regards how we should be dealing with dyslexics in society and how they can release their potential, thus enabling them to contribute to the economy and, in so doing, be able to build a decent livelihood for themselves.
The point is that we accept that many dyslexics are of high intelligence and have the other qualities referred to in the article that I mentioned. Surely it is up to the schools and those organisations which offer careers advice to pupils, and later to adults, to identify the strengths of people with dyslexia and to guide them towards the training and the job applications where their abilities and their strengths can be utilised. But, as we have heard from other speakers, dyslexics lack confidence arising from not being able to cope well at school, because of their deficiency, and do not know what their strengths are. Unless they receive guidance they will not apply for the right kind of training and the right kind of jobs. This matter really starts in the schools and in the colleges.
I can give one example of this from personal experience. A woman returning to employment was taken on by a TOPS scheme. That cost the TOPS programme quite a lot of public money. The woman is semi-dyslexic. Of all the jobs she should not have been steered towards, a secretarial job surely came pretty high at the top of the list. However, she has considerable artistic skills and, indeed, organisational skills but secretarial skills rank very low. If, when that TOPS scheme was being run—this would apply to any scheme

1577
being run by the public service—she had been properly assessed, she would have been steered away from the jobs for which she was so patently not qualified and towards training in areas in which her very marked strengths could have been utilised to her own and everyone else's benefit. It is a false economy of the first order to economise on careers advice at all levels in the educational system.
I quote from a useful recent publication of the Adult Dyslexia Organisation which states:
"Many F.E. colleges have been very sympathetic towards support for dyslexic students. However, from April 1st 1993, further Education Colleges were given corporate status and have moved out of county council control. They now operate under a form of independently controlled financing. The Government is also looking at cutting back Disability Allowances.
This means that assessments will have to be bought in: previous access to the Educational Psychology Service is no longer taken for granted and most LEA Psychology Services will charge for assessment. This may be around £45 which is considerably cheaper than a private assessment but is still a cost per head which the College may be reluctant to meet".
Assuming that to be a correct statement—and I have no reason to believe that it is not—that is surely a classic example of false economy in failing to invest money to guide people into the areas in which they can be successful and, let us say, tax paying citizens.
My noble friend Lord Addington referred to the number of people in prison who are dyslexic. This is not in the least surprising. We know that people who cannot obtain employment are far more likely to commit offences than people who can obtain employment. We know that people who have been in prison are far more likely to go back into prison. We know that, at the cheapest level, it costs about £400 a week to keep someone in prison. However, compare that with the amount paid to local education psychology services to stop dyslexics becoming unemployed and therefore prevent a disproportionate percentage of them finding themselves among the prison population at a cost of £400 a week. I understand that if they enter the really high quality crime world it costs £1,000 a week to keep each person in prison. Surely the money spent on the education psychology services is money which even the Government will see is well spent.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, this has already been a fascinating debate and I am very much looking forward to hearing the rest of it. I wonder whether, after the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Radnor, there is anything much that I can add. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on starting this excellent debate and on many of the things he said about dyslexics. I was delighted that he brought out the point that not all dyslexics have spatial skills such as Richard Rogers or special skills such as Michael Heseltine. But then not all great politicians and all great architects are dyslexic, so we must keep these matters in perspective.
I should like to remind my noble friend Lord Radnor, who modestly said that he had something to do with dyslexia, that it was just over 19 years ago that he and I made our maiden speeches in this House, in a debate on literacy introduced by the noble Lord, Lord
1578
Maybray-King. I remember it well and I am sure that my noble friend does too. I took the opportunity this morning to read what we said. We had hoped that this House would play some part in helping to improve the lot of the dyslexic in attaining those levels of literacy which were mentioned by the other speakers in that very interesting debate on 5th February, 1975. I think we are now somewhere near there.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there have been gains in educational provision. I remember the Education Act 1981. I remember the lovely phrase created by Sir Rhodes Boyson in the debates on the. Bill in the other place: he said that special educational provision should be made for those with special educational needs, whatever the cause. That brought in dyslexia, for once and for all time. I reminded him of that when I met him the other day.
I have mixed feelings about my noble friend Lord Radnor because it was he, who back in 1978 was chairman of the British Dyslexia Association and President of the British Dyslexia Foundation. became chairman of the British Dyslexia Association and have been involved with it ever since. I maintain an interest in the subject, especially in the educational side. It is very timely that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, should draw our attention to the fate of the dyslexic in the workplace.
It is very interesting that my noble friend the Minister is to answer the debate on behalf of the Department of Employment. We had tremendous support from my noble friend Lady Blatch and the Minister, Mr. Eric Forth, in relation to the Education Act 1993. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on behalf of the Department of Employment. About 10 or 12 years ago I visited one of his predecessors at the department, who was a Member of this House. I remember that I was in a great hurry because I had to go to Southampton. In explaining his job the Minister said that his role was to get people jobs. I was at the department because in 1982 the. psychologists who were skilled at identifying the jobs which would suit individuals, especially dyslexics and those with other difficulties, were being taken from the job service. I asked the Minister whether it was, understood that probably there were more people in this country who were in unsuitable jobs than at that tune were unemployed. I thought of that point as this debate was taking place. I remember thinking how very true that was and how much more resources were needed by the Manpower Services Commission, as it was at that time, to place people in the right job rather than merely a job.
Even in those days technology was being introduced to develop a form of question and answer on a touch screen, which I was very interested to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, mention. He quite rightly said that people with dyslexia and learning disabilities are very adept at using such technology.
Also, I believe that the time is fast approaching, if it has not already arrived, when information technology will be developed to help dyslexics greatly. There is a system of learning called the integrated learning system (ILS) which is on trial in this country. It provides a

1579
half-hour training session for a child, or an adult, each day. One machine can provide training for 20 to 30 children. They are each identified by their own personal number. There is continuous assessment in the two subjects which they learn in the half hour; a quarter of an hour is given to each subject. It is astonishing how the children are fascinated by the system. It has completely eliminated truancy in many deprived areas where it is on trial, because the children have their sessions on the ILS on a daily basis. They then have individual assessment at the end of the lesson to see how they have progressed.
I believe that it is only a matter of time before the development of proper teaching programmes and software will enable teachers to cover the whole range of learning styles. I suggest that dyslexia is a learning style which has not been well covered by our standard provision of education.
I declare another interest, in that I am chairman of the Dyslexia Educational Trust, which for the past 10 years or so has been giving bursaries to teachers in both the private and public sectors to take the British Dyslexia Association diploma course in the identification, assessment and teaching of dyslexics. They are able to provide better teaching for ordinary pupils as a result of the diploma course.
In the old days before the course started, a teacher would find that in a class of 25—we are talking about 4 per cent. of the population—there would be one child (usually a boy because, astonishingly, three times as many boys as girls suffer from dyslexia) sitting at the back of the class of whom the teacher would say, "There is something wrong with little Jimmy at the back of the class. I can't get my lessons through to him. There must be something wrong with the child". Now we see more and more that teachers feel that if they cannot get their lessons across to the child at the back of the room there must be something wrong with their teaching. That is most heartening and exciting.
When I became chairman of the British Dyslexia Association, I remember thinking that there was no problem, and that what we must do was to impress the teachers of the teachers. If one gets through to the teachers of the teachers, then all the teachers coming into the education system will eventually, after 10 to 15 years, understand the problems of dyslexia. I went to my first meeting as a member of the National Council of Educational Technology earlier this week and found that that idea is still being taken on board. I hope that there will be much greater awareness in our education system of this difference of ability. I like to think of it as a difference of ability rather than a disability. It is the lack of understanding of that difference of ability that causes handicap.
With regard to employment perhaps I may refer to the lack of awareness. I read a rather nice article recently about a man who applied for a job. At the end of the application he stated that, although he was able to do the job well, he was dyslexic. Within two days, he received a letter back saying, "I am sorry. You cannot have the job. We are on the first floor and therefore we are not
1580
accessible for wheelchairs". Although I am sure that such lack of awareness does not apply everywhere, it indicates the level of the problem of dyslexia.
After the major strides taken by the Department for Education, I shall be delighted to hear that the Department of Employment will be as helpful to those adults who suffer from dyslexia.
4.10 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, it is my pleasure, too, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for giving us the opportunity to deal with this important matter in the context of employment. I have to apologise to noble Lords. I may not be able to stay until the end of the debate owing to other business pressures. I shall stay as long as I can, and I apologise to noble Lords who may speak later.
I can claim no detailed knowledge of dyslexia or its manifestations. However, in response to the point made by my noble friend Lord Allenby, I strongly suspect that we all suffer from defects in our powers of learning and comprehension. I have to use notes in order to deliver a speech to your Lordships. Perversely, many of the afflictions which medical science can now identify with a considerable degree of accuracy are those which, by not being obvious, are hardest for society generally to come to terms with. It is hard to accept and assimilate sufferers into society because the afflictions are not infirmities or disabilities as we commonly understand them. We are all familiar with the orange logo with the wheelchair symbol which labels—perhaps sometimes unfortunately—those who are physically disabled. It has taken years to achieve a proper approach to access to buildings and to toilet facilities, and to integrate the needs of such sufferers into everyday thinking and into the design of the working/leisure environment.
However, it is a different matter when one is dealing with colour blindness, illiteracy, lack of numeracy and, yes, dyslexia; the problem risks becoming a dark secret —often concealed—for fear that it may provide grounds for non-employment, dismissal or circumstances of grave misunderstanding in the workplace. And so it is with dyslexia: the outward manifestations are, if anything, even less obvious.
When faced with such afflictions, the able bodied tend not to react in a helpful manner. My noble friend Lord Allenby referred to the issue. I suspect that that reaction is because the elements of such problems as dyslexia are concealed within all of us to a greater or lesser degree. As the demands of society, our daily life, and our high technology creep up on us, so to a greater or lesser extent all of us stand to be caught out by that process. It is a factor that we would rather not admit to. Yet, as we have heard, many famous people have been and are dyslexics and have reached the pinnacle of achievement by any standards in the comprehension and expression of ideas. I was glad to attend recently an art exhibition organised by the Adult Dyslexia Organisation, and I can testify to the ability of the exhibitors.
I am a small employer. I am also chairman of a chamber of commerce in Sussex. It is especially important that in opening the door to physical

1581
accessibility, we do not leave the door to intellectual access firmly closed. But that is what will happen if we fail to understand that the grasp of words and figures, and the recognition of ranking and sequential standards are not matters that should always necessarily be of the essence in business, the professions, the arts, management or administration.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, will relate to my next comment; I share with him an involvement with agriculture. I have always divided agricultural workers into two categories: they were either machine men or livestock men. If they were machine men, they could not judge whether a cow was on heat or anything to do with livestock. If they were livestock men, they did not understand that if one banged down the full load of a tractor one did expensive and often irreparable damage. As a practising chartered surveyor, my line of business is mainly to do with property. A fellow chartered surveyor once said that there were three categories of people in the property industry. They were known as finders, minders and grinders. The finders were the dealers at the front end, the guys who negotiated the transaction. They were always known to be totally useless at putting together figures or reports, or stringing together a letter. Yet those people were the mainspring of many firms so they were not to be ignored.
We have heard about technological advances; they have started to come to our assistance. I was particularly pleased to receive recently some details of voice recognition systems with direct relevance to computer applications. I believe that those systems can and will revolutionise the ability of dyslexics and others to contribute fully and effectively to the workplace and to society at large. I believe that such a lead from the front has to be a better way than more regulation and legislation. I firmly believe that anti-discrimination measures have a nasty habit of backfiring and themselves becoming discriminatory. They are to be avoided if at all possible.
The technological revolution also affects the conventional business environment, not just those who suffer from dyslexia but the employed population generally. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, about keyboard operation. But technology is now moving beyond the keyboard approach. It is being bypassed where it is too slow, inconvenient or inappropriate, having regard to the environment. Icons in computer software have removed the need for an instruction book, for instance. The mouse, and, more recently, the trackball have already provided shortcuts to keyboard operation. I believe that voice recognition in time will add another dimension which will make part of the keyboard function past technology. That will benefit the able and less able alike. It may free some from the need to have conventional office-bound jobs. It will open up a new dimension in employment. We heard recently that by the end of the century about 80 per cent. of business communications will be by electronic mail and that the information superhighways (as they are referred to) are with us and are being used for transactions and communication purposes.
I applaud the work that is being done in this important area of development and in the educational
1582
applications that go with it. We have heard from the British Dyslexia Association which works in the field and I pay tribute to it and others such as the National Literacy Trust. We all need to come to terms with dyslexia. Although that is good news for those who are in full-time education, we also have to consider those whom the educational system in its old technological form has failed. We need to realise that there are now dyslexic adults who are outside the classroom and lecture hall who are often parents and thus teachers of a new generation in their own terms. They must not be overlooked.
So it is important that in breaking the cycle of non-achievement and the feeling among sufferers that they will never achieve, we must tackle the adult literacy problem. How many of us can really say that we understand half the computer manuals and similar documents which have been translated thrice, which are a rich seam of transatlantic computer-speak and gobbledegook, to boot? We all need clarity and simplicity and the fact that we do not succeed in getting the message across, is at least in part our responsibility. I hope that the Government will give active support to that kind of work, particularly where in the case of voice recognition techniques there has been a happy juxtaposition of improved facilities for those who suffer from a disability, as well as being of great advantage to business and commerce in the conventional sense.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the subject of dyslexia, in particular in the workplace. First, the two words which come to my mind when thinking about the subject are "understanding" and "support" for those who have an obstacle or hurdle to overcome. Perhaps that is a nicer way to think of it than as a handicap. Initially, anyway, it is an obstacle or hurdle for them to overcome and one which, as we know, is not necessarily realised at first. It may take some time for it to be discovered, not only by the sufferer but by others. It is an unseen obstacle until, for some reason or another, it is discovered because of the person's reading, writing or some action.
It is when this unseen obstacle or hurdle becomes apparent, when someone senses that he or she has a problem to tackle, that one hopes something positive may be done. Prevention may also come about so that the unseen obstacle or hurdle does not become a handicap. That handicap is to do with reading, writing, spelling, numeracy and other difficulties such as poor concentration, lack of physical co-ordination or clumsiness. More than ever now, those difficulties can be disastrous in the world of high technology and communications which can be complicated. Computer guides and similar documents can explain subjects to me, but soon afterwards I have not much better idea of how to manage them. It is interesting to hear that those with dyslexia have an ability which the rest of us lack in such subjects.
A person may cross the obstacle or hurdle or fall at it, as occurs with many other problems which beset people. They may be able to cross them or tackle them,

1583
or else they fall, especially if the symptoms of dyslexia are mistaken for some other complaint, as can happen. I have some idea of the difficulties of dyslexia because a young nephew of mine has it.
Do we allow people with that complaint to be hindered by it or enable them to overcome the obstacle or hurdle? We should allow them to use any talents or skills that they have for positive ends. As we know from what we have been told and have read and gathered about dyslexia, they have skills and talents. That is a fact. I went to the art exhibition mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and was impressed by what I saw. We need to show sufferers patience, understanding and appreciation of any skills or talents which they possess, whether in art, literature or administration or other skills.
The increase in the expertise, knowledge and appreciation of how dyslexia can be tackled is good and should be even better. A partnership between schools, parents, the British Dyslexia Association, the Department for Education and perhaps the Department of the Environment with science and business is vital for all those who in one way or another will be involved with a man or woman, boy or girl who has dyslexia. The disease must not prevent them from being able to participate fully in life.
Some of the invisible obstacles and hurdles can prevent such participation unless we are careful. I quote from the publication Access the Word, Access the World —Dyslexia:
"Dyslexic people struggle in a world where effective written communication is essential. However the existence of dyslexia, or specific learning difficulties, has only recently been recognised. It is now widely accepted by most people in education.
"But there is a huge gap between accepting that dyslexia exists and actually doing something about it. The vast majority of young dyslexics are caught by this gap".
As we know, there is a long way to go, but we have been given much information which shows that there is some hope. I quote from a newspaper article headed "Machine lifts dyslexia pain". It says:
"A Cambridge scientist has invented a machine to help people with dyslexia or other sight problems to read more easily".
A further article by Alastair Stewart is headed:
"Defeating dyslexia—the story of Britain's premier architect".
It states:
"The most crushing barrier to the child is the erosion of self-confidence".
In fact it can also be the most crushing barrier for an adult if his or her self-confidence is eroded. Another document is headed: "Striking a chord with dyslexics". It says:
"A dyslexic musician is planning to help others with the disorder by teaching them to play the guitar".
Then there is a newspaper article which is perhaps not so good:
"Minister refuses to help Mensa girl: Lucinda Cash-Gibson, who became the youngest member of Mensa at the age of four, has been refused state help with her school fees because civil servants say she is not bright enough to need special treatment".
Perhaps I may quote these words. Some noble Lords may realise where they come from—at least I hope so.
"let righteousness roll down as waters, and justice as a mighty stream".
1584
I am sure that some of those present know that the quotation is from the Book of Amos in the Old Testament. The quotation is relevant to many subjects, but particularly to this one. It applies to dyslexia sufferers as much as any other concerns in life. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to give us some assurances. It can be most disheartening when tackling a hindrance to encounter the scorn or laughter of one's fellows. Surely there are many adults in the workplace who know that. And, as we know, there are many young boys and girls who also know that. Let us see that dyslexia does not become a handicap. I hope that we shall have some good, healthy, hopeful reassurances from my noble friend Lord Henley when he gives the Government's outlook on the subject.
4.31 p.m.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising this topic. My knowledge of the subject comes from having a daughter in her twenties who is dyslexic and an employee in his twenties who is also dyslexic. They are from totally different backgrounds. What I have learnt, and what I see, having thought about the way forward, is that to involve the Department for Education as much as the Department of Employment—there are problems which intertwine—might well be helpful.
My employee went straight through the state system, undiagnosed and untreated. As I am not qualified to diagnose dyslexia, I should not really say this, but I am quite certain that he is dyslexic. My daughter was diagnosed aged six—and basically that was a fluke. Fortunately, my former wife had taught children of that age. When collecting her daughter from school she was somewhat surprised to find that Tanya would not look her mother in the eye. Normally, on these occasions, from the other side of the fence, she had no doubt seen little children who were only too delighted to see the back of teacher and get away to mummy. Taking the view that there was nothing abnormal in herself, and as a result of one or two odd things that she had seen in writing, my wife referred the matter to a parent friend who was a remedial teacher. She took one look at my daughter's written words and said, "There is a problem here. I cannot tell you what it is, but this is where you go." One interesting point is that my daughter's condition was never actually picked up by a teacher. It will be of value that those who teach children of that age can pick up as a matter of diagnosis this type of problem and refer such children into the right system. It needs to be done as early as that.
I mentioned that Tanya would not look her mother in the eye. That is the first of the behavioural problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred. At the end of the line is borstal. Let us think of what goes on in the mind of a dyslexic. At that age you feel that you are the same as your peers; you are doing everything the same; everything goes well; and you can talk equally well. The moment teacher puts a pen into your hand, whatever goes wrong (and I cannot describe it) goes wrong. As a six, seven or eight year-old, there is no way that you can turn to your teacher, even if you have the words, and say, "This is a fog. It has gone wrong. I am

1585
doing my best". At that age the child knows jolly well that the teacher will turn round and say, "Of course you're not. Don't be so silly", and you have to take the matter from there.
I have seen the funny things that come out from dyslexics—rather more from my employee. He came to me basically for a manual job. I did not realise until he had been with me for some time what I actually had on my hands—given that I had an understanding of this problem. I would rather use the word "problem" for a great many of these people than any other word. Let us not use the word "disability" until we get to a certain level, above which special treatment is required. Below that level, we all have "problems". As in Yorkshire, everybody has their problems, and even those are a bit suspect. If we can hold the matter at that level, we can start in the adult world trying to convince all and sundry that the problem is just a problem, that it pertains to the person in question, and that your own problem is another matter. It is as simple as that.
How do we achieve that? We do not achieve it until adults and teachers can see what the problem is. We have heard reference to the "invisible problems". Yes, they are—until you see what happens on paper. I—fortunately perhaps—see this regularly because I work with a dyslexic. It is a matter of curiosity. When I get back this evening, if he has taken some messages, I shall not know what the spelling will be until I get there. He will not know what he is going to write until it is down on the page. I have seen the same word written three different ways in one paragraph. That is typical. It does not upset me. I knew about it before I employed him as a result of learning about my daughter. Until all that is taken partly on board and aired, there are problems all round.
How do we start? Once we have the diagnosis, those who have only "problems" can go back into class. One hopes they will have the encouragement of the standard teacher as well as of the remedial teacher.
Certainly, with my daughter we ran into what I am convinced was a barrier: the head teacher of the junior school was not going to accept the diagnosis. If we wanted to, that was fine by her. But she did not believe in dyslexia. That approach is no good. One has to generate a certain amount of self-confidence. If a standard teacher accepts the situation, then it will be accepted in class and the personality of the teacher will simply mean that the problem is indeed accepted as a problem. There would be no bullying then. One would have defused the whole situation, and it would be out in the open. "Fine, it's your turn to go and write on the board. Oh, that word's wrong. Somebody put it right. I don't want the headmaster coming in here and seeing that word wrong on the board". That is all that has to be said to defuse the whole situation. When my daughter was diagnosed, I simply turned round to her and said, "Your brain is connected up differently. You have to be taught differently". With body language, she said, "That's fine, Daddy. Now I really do not mind if younger children catch up with me". In many respects, that is what we are talking about in trying to keep dyslexics on a level plane. They will have their problems. Somebody will turn round and say, "That's
1586
wrong". Their answer is, "Yes, I'm dyslexic'''. Providing that we can get them to say that, we have taken a step forward with them.
Noble Lords have mentioned the forms that have to be filled in. Sometimes they have to be filled in on the spot and handed over at a post office. Either you fill it in, hand it over and say, "I'm dyslexic. Please will you check the spelling", or you say, "I'm dyslexic. What has to be written here?" Nobody will refuse that request. It is a question of getting that self-confidence into those children.
In the adult world, exactly the same thing applies. I would guess that the best that we can do for adults is to get them diagnosed and to give them self-confidence. They may be in their twenties, thirties and forties. We must remove the stigma. To themselves they will appear to be "thick"—although they have got through on their own to the workplace without rolling into borstal. That is one step in the right direction. It will be some relief for them to know that their problems are, as has been said, not of their making.
I have a feeling that that is the way in which my employee has matured, if that is the right word, over the years. I should like to think that he feels easier in himself because I have said, "You needn't worry. It is not your fault. Just put it down on paper. I will sort it out later on. If you try to rely on your memory and I do not happen to come back and you forget to write it clown, then we are all in a lot of trouble". No longer does he try and avoid his problem. He knows that I understand it, and he puts the words down. That happens to give me a certain amount of understanding, and it would give me an understanding as an employer if I employed a lot of men or women. Under those circumstances I would be prepared to talk to the union representative of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on the subject. Would he have the knowledge to talk to me?
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: With pleasure.
The Earl of Macclesfield: No, I asked whether he would have the knowledge.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I shall try and persuade him.
The Earl of Macclesfield: Unless he has an understanding of dyslexia; unless he has worked with and seen the funny things dyslexic people do, can he say to me, "I think they can do so-and-so"? Assuming the employer has no knowledge, can the representative say, "He has this limitation, but if we stick him there he is perfectly all right and will do a good job for you".
It means educating the adult world about dyslexia and educating employees so that they understand. If we can start that process in the classroom with the other 11 children out of the 12 seeing the problems the 12th child has and seeing words being written wrongly on the board—not being able to understand why, but accepting that it happens—it will be a step in the right direction.
I shall tell your Lordships a silly story from the past, the significance of which I did not appreciate at the time. Esther Rantzen's "That's Life" programme showed a road with what should have been a large "STOP" sign. In fact it said "SOTP", the middle two letters being

1587
transposed. I did not realise at the time that it was simply the dyslexic local council worker being let loose with a paintbrush; somebody had not put the stencil down for him. It is clear that that is what happened. Nobody on that programme had the faintest idea that it was an example of dyslexia—it may have been a slip, but I feel it was dyslexia—stuck out in the road for all to see.
It must be accepted that there are certain jobs dyslexics will not be able to do and will not necessarily want to do. Adults reach a certain limit. If we take the lid off the pressure under which even those of a relatively placid nature work and help them to see that the problem is caused by the make-up of their brain, then everybody will rally round because that is human nature. That will be another step in the right direction.
The Department of Employment may be able to take a step backwards because the employer understands the problem. He has seen it. The union representative understands the problem because he has experience of it and does not go forward without that experience. It would not be any good somebody without experience coming to me. I would turn round and say, "I cannot hold this discussion. I know more about the problem than you. You do not even know how many dyslexics there are, what their problems are, what their limitations are, and whether I can help them".
Confrontation is not the way forward. Educating people as to what the problem is and how people with the problem can be assimilated into the workplace is the way forward.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing this particular issue to our attention and for introducing the debate, and certainly for the way in which he introduced it. As he rightly says, dyslexia is a condition that few people know much about—and I include myself in that category.
It is true that in the past I worked with colleagues who turned out to be dyslexic. The two people I particularly have in mind were both extremely bright people who had worked very hard at eliminating what they saw as a disability—and had almost succeeded. One was a young woman with a good law degree who was appointed by me to a position in the union's legal department. I suspected dyslexia, but she did not tell me about it immediately. However, it did not matter in the job that she was doing. She had the assistance of an audio typist and was able to function not only well, but exceptionally well.
The other was a colleague who was a full-time official. He had no problem at all with numbers; in fact, he was exceptionally quick at arithmetical calculations —some dyslexics are. It was the written word which was a problem for him. Unlike some dyslexics, he became a very good public speaker as well as a negotiator. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, illustrated this afternoon, some dyslexics clearly have a high level of verbal skills. Again, that individual had secretarial assistance.
1588
I make those points because it is not always understood that people suffering from this condition are frequently very bright people. It is really in an employer's interests, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, to make use of their talents even if it means giving them some help in certain directions. Moreover, there is not necessarily a problem with reading, writing and spelling, although that does occur in some cases. Many dyslexic adults can read, write and spell competently. However there is an underlying defect associated with the way information is processed which can sometimes affect organisational ability and general memory.
But those are not insurmountable barriers, as my reference to my two former colleagues testifies. How can people with these drawbacks become successful, particularly in our present highly competitive world? In many ways, when they are successful it is because they have worked hard to overcome what they see as a disability. Many are extremely sensitive about admitting that they have this condition. They develop strategies to enable them to compensate for their areas of weakness. Competence in literary skills is important, but not overwhelmingly so in all jobs. Being able to read aloud accurately and fluently is necessary in some occupations —perhaps in your Lordships' House, though I must say that I am frequently envious of those like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who can speak long and fluently without the need to refer to a single note. But it is not always necessary to have the facility to read fluently and accurately in all occupations.
What is important in many jobs is the ability to extract relevant information from text quickly. Many dyslexic people develop such skills to a high level—perhaps higher than some others who do not start out with their disadvantage. They become exceptionally well organised in order to mask their original lack of organisational skills. It is important also to develop complementary skills. Those include the use of electronic calculators, spell checkers and personal organisers. Good keyboard skills enable dyslexic people to use word processors efficiently. As we heard from a number of noble Lords this afternoon, it is clear that many dyslexic people are extremely good at developing those skills. A tape recorder is a good way to record notes and was used extensively by the people to whom I referred earlier.
The use of office technologies, which are now widely in operation, should make it more possible for employers to engage people who are dyslexic. There is no reason why they should not be trained in the use of such technology and no reason why they should not turn out to be just as good as people who do not start out with their disadvantage. There can in fact be advantages in employing a dyslexic person, particularly one who has achieved a good academic standard, as some do. The mere fact that he or she has actually made the short list for an appointment requiring qualifications indicates that the interviewee may have qualities of persistence in the face of difficulties and the determination to overcome hurdles in the way of progress that others not similarly tested may not possess. Employers therefore need to set aside their prejudices and give dyslexic applicants the opportunity to prove their worth.

1589
Before preparing for this debate I obtained some information from the Adult Dyslexia Organisation. That organisation was formed in 1991 because it was realised that there was a lack of recognition and support for adult dyslexics. The aim is to build up links in research and technology to secure better opportunities in education and training. However, it became clear early on that dyslexia in the workplace is a key issue: 66 per cent. of the calls which ADO received in the quarterly period October to December 1993 were from people in full or part-time employment; 26 per cent. of those felt under pressure from their employment, fearing to lose their jobs or of being demoted or passed over for promotion; 12 per cent. were in self-employment, which they had undertaken as they feared being in the employ of someone else, and 22 per cent. were under pressure from employers as they had admitted to being dyslexic and feared what that would mean for their future.
I understand that around 2.5 million people in Great 13ritain are thought to be dyslexic. As we heard, it is a disability affecting the brain and its processing of words and symbols. Government policy recognises it as a special need and obliges local education authorities to examine children with such needs and to draw up programmes of remedial action. As a number of noble Lords said this afternoon, progress for children seems to be being made. However, one of the problems is that the condition is not always recognised for what it is, or that remedial programmes will be of great assistance in enabling such children to overcome their difficulties. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there remain problems with adult dyslexics. Many adults who are dyslexic have great difficulty in obtaining employment or keeping it when they have it. Surely the decline in manual employment has magnified those difficulties. Something needs to be done in that direction.
As many noble Lords said during the debate, there are many famous people who have been dyslexic. The actress Susan Hampshire has supported campaigns to assist dyslexics because of her own experiences. The actress Sarah Miles, in an article in Woman, describes her lack of education, despite being sent to expensive schools. Until quite recently she had never read a book, because she just could not manage it. But she trained her memory and was able to learn parts in drama off by heart, and now she has just written a book. She said that in her day dyslexia was not invented, so she had to go through the pain of ignorance because there was no such word. But now she and her young son have been diagnosed as severely dyslexic. She has had remedial treatment and she says it is a shame that it has taken half a century for her to get this far.
Clearly, she has had a great deal more assistance than many adult dyslexics have been able to have. She and other famous people—Michael Heseltine has been referred to and Albert Einstein is also said to have been dyslexic—have managed, often with much help, to break through. But there are many others who remain undiagnosed or unassisted and who, if help were given, would be able to break through and realise their own potential and creativity. I must say how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Murray who referred to the
1590
kind of steps that unions can take to ensure that people in the workplace know what dyslexia is and are able to assist in programmes to help dyslexic people. My union has a programme on disability and a disablement committee. We do our best to ensure that our membership is aware of the problems faced by such employees.
The Government have a policy, but much more needs to be done to educate employers in dyslexia and to ensure that they employ dyslexic people in appropriate jobs and give them appropriate training. It may well be, as my noble friend Lord Murray said, that we shall ultimately need legislation. But before we have that, much more surely needs to be done in the way of education and in the way of bringing government policy more to the attention of employers and more to the attention of all those concerned with operating in the workplace. In the meantime, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for allowing the House to debate this very important subject.
4.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on introducing this debate. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I also congratulate the noble Lord on speaking without notes and other noble Lords on speaking without notes. Like the noble Baroness, I must apologise for making use of notes and making use of fairly extensive notes. It was a great pleasure that so many noble Lords were able to speak, bringing their great experience, both personal and otherwise, to the debate. There are many other noble Lords apart from those who spoke today who take a keen interest in matters relating to dyslexia and who I hope very much will study the report of this afternoon's proceedings.
I was disappointed that, due to previous diary commitments, I was unable to attend the reception held by the British Dyslexia Association in the House on 23rd February when it welcomed its new president, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I am pleased to see that she has been able to be present this afternoon. I know that the association does some quite remarkable work, both nationally and locally through the network of local associations and professional organisations, to draw attention to the issue of dyslexia and what it means to the people concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is a vice-president of the association and I believe that my noble friend Lord Renwick is also a vice-president and a former chairman.
As is quite clear from what has been said in the debate, all too often dyslexia is misunderstood or its effects misinterpreted. Until dyslexia is diagnosed, and help given, someone with dyslexia may well be treated as if their intellectual capacity has been impaired or they have the wrong attitude, as the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, made perfectly clear. We believe that the problem is not rare. Estimates suggest that between 4 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the population has some form of dyslexia. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made clear, the range of disability that that can induce

1591
can be very wide. As the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, said, in many cases it does not even lead to disability as such. I said that estimates vary between 4 per cent. and 10 per cent. Of those, around 40 per cent. will need some kind of assistance. In the past, as has been made clear—the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was the first to make it more than clear—dyslexia has been blamed on all manner of things—for example laziness or bad teaching, but neither is true. It is independent of background or intelligence.
Although not rare, dyslexia may elude early identification. The Government believe that all children with special educational needs, including dyslexia, should be identified and assessed as early as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, stressed quite rightly that the debate this afternoon is about the problems encountered by dyslexics in the workplace. He said that on other occasions when this matter had been raised it had been largely from an educational point of view. We would all accept that education has to be the most important aspect and affects how people get on later in terms of where they will end up in the workplace. Very often the wrong or an inappropriate education can lead to the wrong kind of job or inappropriate employment being pursued later on.
All I want to do on the subject of education is to remind the House that my noble friend Lady Blatch introduced the Department for Education's code of practice which was debated in the House on Monday. It offers guidance to all schools and local education authorities on their responsibilities towards pupils with special needs of all kinds, including dyslexia. It will come into effect on 1st September. The codes of practice was very much welcomed by all those who spoke.
As regards the other remarks concerning education, I noted particularly the remarks of my noble friend Lord Radnor on education and the voluntary sector and on grants under the 1993 Act. There were other remarks from my noble friend Lord Milverton and the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield. I shall certainly bring those to the attention of my noble friend Lady Blatch. It may be that she would like to respond to them, but in my position it would not necessarily be appropriate for me to respond this afternoon.
Nevertheless, we recognise that the demands of school and work are very different. The fact that an individual may have had a specific learning difficulty in school does not necessarily mean that he will have the same difficulties in a training or work environment. Equally there will be those individuals who may not be aware of any difficulties until they come to light during the time spent on a training programme or in a job or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, put it, when they are about to join the Army.
There are no specific kinds of work that people with dyslexia simply have to avoid and simply cannot do. As has been made clear, there are some jobs or parts of jobs that they would find difficult to do, but that would depend very much on the type and severity of their dyslexia. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made clear, some forms of work would possibly be inappropriate. Some might find it difficult to cope with
1592
a job that required a close and detailed reading of a document or that required accurate spelling or skill with numbers. Other people's dyslexia might manifest itself in difficulties in remembering work sequences or patterns. It may be that the job is easy enough to do but that they would have difficulty in reading the job advertisement.
So the major question I wish to address is this: what can my Department of Employment do? I slightly reject the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we do nothing. It is one of the more important aims of my department to assist people with disabilities to obtain and retain employment. We believe that disabled people should be given a fair chance to find employment. We believe that it is in everyone's interests to concentrate on people's abilities rather than to look at their disabilities. I greatly welcomed the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that we must appeal to the employers' self-interest. To that I can only say, "Hear, hear". That was underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she spoke of some research possibly suggesting how much employers were losing out by failing to take on dyslexic people. That can be said throughout the entire field of disabilities. Employers who do not take a positive attitude towards the employment of disabled people very often risk losing out on a very large section of potential workers.
I believe that the noble Lord then went on to praise my department. We have taken a number of steps to educate and persuade employers to think and act positively about the employment of disabled people. We now have about 800 firms which have signed up and agreed to adopt our disability symbol and have therefore demonstrated their commitment to disabled people. I also know that several of the employment service's ability development centres have produced material for familiarising both specialist and mainstream staff in Job Centres with information about dyslexia and its effects.
It may help if I explain a little more what this involves. Disabled people are able to use all of our main employment and training services and programmes alongside non-disabled people. The majority of people with dyslexia whom we help use these services and schemes. Many of our employment and training programmes have relaxed eligibility criteria for people with disabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether there was any screening at the Job Centres to find people who are dyslexic. There is no specific screening process in the Job Centres, but I can give a categoric assurance to the noble Lord that our staff are being trained in recognising when people are disabled, including when they are dyslexic—that is to say a form of disability, as other noble Lords have put it, which is not so blindingly obvious as are other forms of disability. They are being trained to recognise disability which might need some specialist help. I can also give an assurance that some of the PACTs (Placing, Assessment and Counselling Teams) have contracted with the Dyslexia Institute to provide both assessment and employment rehabilitation. That assessment can very much help to identify training that may be needed, as appropriate, for disabled people. It may also identify the type of work which it might be wise for them to

1593
pursue or rather, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, put it, to direct them away from work which would be inappropriate.
All disabled people have priority for a place on the main schemes and programmes. These include the Jobclubs, restart courses, training for work, the job interview guarantee scheme and the work placement schemes. Obviously, sometimes specialist help is necessary. That can often be provided through the national network of locally-based PACT teams which I have just mentioned. Within those PACTs, disability employment advisers (DEAs) work with employers to encourage, influence and assist them in implementing good policies and practices in this area. For someone with dyslexia, that could mean that a DEA would be available to help an employer understand the effects of dyslexia on that person or help the individual with the forms. That was a problem highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The DEA could also provide the employer with advice and help on ways of overcoming any difficulties or limitations which the dyslexia might cause.
The disability employment advisers can also offer advice and practical help to people with disabilities to assist them in obtaining and retaining suitable employment, including access to the schemes and services which I have already mentioned as well as to the specialist help which may be appropriate.
This specialist support could involve assessment of an individual's employment needs, employment rehabilitation or access to the department's special schemes. These special schemes will include the loan of special aids and equipment. I can give an assurance to my noble friend Lord Radnor and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who spoke about information technology, and the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, who mentioned voice processing, that the provision of equipment could be included in that kind of help. It would be up to the individual, together with assistance from the DEAs, to decide exactly what kind of help would be best given.
From 6th June this year all the schemes will be brought together and extended by the new access to work scheme which many noble Lords know about. This will provide more flexible help and enable a wider range of people with disabilities to be assisted by looking at and addressing the obstacles that prevent an individual from obtaining and retaining a job. For the first time this certainly could include assistance at interviews and personal support at work for someone who is dyslexic. These are additional forms of help which are not available at the moment. Obviously, we shall be able to continue to provide help in the ways I described earlier in terms of the special aids and equipment which might be of use to dyslexic people.
The local Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) for a given area may be able to help people with dyslexia acquire the skills needed by local employers. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, was right to stress the importance of training. It is obviously important for all of us, but particularly for dyslexics. Trainees with dyslexia may need support in learning skills and teaching not dependent on reading and writing words and numbers. Some may also need specialist
1594
teaching in foundation skills. TECs are charged with providing suitable training for people with special needs.
I believe that they are well placed at local level to provide the appropriate training opportunities, with the necessary support, for those who are diagnosed as dyslexic. Through the development of a local network of schools, career services and training providers, including specialist training, we believe that most individual needs can be met. I reject the allegations of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, of inadequacy in this particular field of careers advice and the kind of training which is available. I believe that that help should ensure that the individual's potential is realised and that maximum benefit can be achieved by employers and employees. People with dyslexia may also benefit from training with specially-trained literacy tutors.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether there was any working definition of dyslexia that could ensure that people 'were adequately recognised as disabled if they were dyslexic. Anyone who is substantially handicapped in realising his or her potential in the labour market as a result of some impairment such as dyslexia, falls within the definition which we use in providing employment help for disabled people. I can therefore assure the noble Lord that the PACTs that I mentioned earlier will provide help to people with dyslexia in getting jobs, as they do for many other people with disabilities.
Much the same is true as regards benefits. There is no need for a specific definition of dyslexia or, for that matter, of any other disablement when it comes to benefits. It is the effect of dyslexia or of any particular disablement which is most important in deciding whether there should be entitlement to benefits and, similarly, whether there should be entitlement to help from either the PACTs, a disablement employment adviser or all the other specialist ranges of services that are proved by my department.
I hope that I have been able to give the House some idea of how the Department of Employment's services and employment training programme can help people with dyslexia and, for that matter, other disabilities in both getting a job and remaining in a job. The programmes and services are very wide ranging so I could describe them only briefly. However, I believe that what has proved most important about this afternoon's debate is that it has provided an opportunity to highlight the issues relating to dyslexia and, I hope, to sweep away some of the many misconceptions that surround it. I believe that the debate has also drawn attention to the fact that while we cannot and must not be complacent, progress is being made; progress has been made; and progress will continue to be made.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should first like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their contributions to the debate. It has been very nice to open up the subject of dyslexia not only to a new department of government, but also to a different group of noble

1595
Lords who are concerned about this subject as it affects the largest part of the dyslexic population—that is, adults, and not just children.
I should also like to thank all those noble Lords who complimented me on speaking without notes. When it comes to dyslexia I can safely say that it is what the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, described as being "differently able". I cannot read notes accurately, therefore I do not use them. "Making a virtue out of necessity" might be another way of putting it.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his answer. He started to put some flesh onto the bones of the situation facing adult dyslexics. He put down markers about where organisations such as the Adult Dyslexia Organisation, which has already been mentioned, can start to try to find the appropriate help. I hope that the Minister's words will be a guideline for all those in his department who give assistance to those with dyslexia.
I could launch into another speech and say all the things that I missed out the first time round, but I do not feel that that would be appropriate, so I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Church of Scotland (Properties and Investments) Order Confirmation Bill
5.12 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Human Genetic Manipulation
5.13 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to call attention to the threats posed and the benefits offered to humankind by human genetic manipulation and assisted procreation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the second Motion to emerge from the ballot for debate today draws attention to a part of the current revolution in molecular biology. I believe that that revolution will require continuous hard thought from the world's parliaments quite soon.
I shall call it the "bio-revolution" for short. Revolutions in science, and the new technologies which follow them, are giddyingly familiar. They have become endemic in the last half century. This one, because it is about what human bodies and minds are made of, will touch every aspect of human life. We Parliamentarians here, and throughout the world, and governments, singly and in groups, need to think now. Every day we read of a new discovery, a new process, a new policy proposal put forward or rescinded. The field is vast and foggy, but we are unavoidably moving into it and we must get our bearings. Better: we must probably create our bearings as we go.
The bio-revolution is changing the relations between people, between societies and between generations. Not surprisingly, there are calls for legislation and regulation, some of which have been met, and there will be many more that must be met, if possible coherently.
The last scientific revolution to raise issues on this scale and with this existential charge was the revolution in nuclear physics. That one changed relations between states, and between states and their citizens. The demand for regulation or legislation was only partly met because there were, and still are, no supranational structures which could legislate or regulate in the common interest. Nor were there even within states the structures to foresee the problems. Clearing up after the nuclear military both in the United States and in the ex-Soviet Union has become a mega-burden to which we mostly shut our eyes. I mention all that because we must do better this time. The nuclear revolution gave us the ability to wipe ourselves out. Species suicide became possible. This one will give us the power to change ourselves physically. Species revision will become possible.
Germline gene therapy is not yet with us, and the relevant government-appointed advisory committee has advised that at least for the moment it should not be attempted. That is obviously right, but it is of course bolting the stable door before the horse is born. It is my view that when germline therapy does become attractive, which may be quite soon, society will not reject it out of hand.
Our first care must be for the relationship between the available knowledge about human genetics and sufficient knowledge to make massive application of genetic therapy legitimate. Will genetic practitioners know enough to say, hand on heart, "I know what I am doing, unto the third and fourth generation of them that I am creating or altering, and it will be good. I need to know no more"?
Genetic screening is already enabling us to know or, if we prefer, to refuse to know, how likely we or our children are to die of some disease or be incapacitated by it at a certain age. Self-knowledge, and thus personal identity, is being fundamentally changed for some people, and will be for many more. In the future gene mapping will, roughly speaking, enable us to remake others and to generate some of us in test-tubes.
Relations between person and person are also changing; between potential parents; and between them and their potential children; between natural and nurturing parents; and the genetic and the non-genetic children of the same parents; between natural persons and donated cousins or even sibs of whose existence the natural persons will sometimes not know. Most recently, an extraordinary new person has been advertised: a person developed from ovarian tissue taken from an aborted foetus. The relation between such people and the established chain of being, even including IVF donor people, is an extraordinary challenge to the imagination. They would know nothing of their mothers except that their grandmothers killed them. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has said well of this:

1597
"What sort of society is it that kills its unwanted foetuses and then turns them into parents?"
Relations between single persons and collective persons will also be changed by the knowledge obtained from genetic screening, which will no doubt usually be correct but cannot hope to be always. These will include the individual's relations with the medical profession, with his or her employer, with the private sector insurance and mortgage companies, and with the community itself as provider of health care and national insurance, and as the maker of law and its enforcer: in short, between the individual and the state.
Then also relations will be changed between entire categories of persons: medicine and the state, medicine and industry, and among industrial interests, especially pharmaceutical companies. These last will be investing large sums on basic and applied research, and on testing their product, and will want to patent what they develop as they go along, and profit from their investment. Those huge transactions will fertilise the existing breeding ground for injustice which lies between the developed and the developing world wherever modern medicine comes on the scene. The companies have a right to know, and to know soon, what society wants them to do, and will allow them to do.
Among the institutions which the bio-revolution looks like sweeping away is the present patent system. There are three things in that system which are incompatible with the biotechnology of the future. First: the distinction between discovery and invention will have to be redefined; secondly, so will the distinction between matter and process; and, thirdly, the present multiple and incompatible patent jurisdictions are going to have to be swept away in favour of a single world one. I lack both time and knowledge to go further into this.
At every interface in those relations, and many others there lives a layer, a complex folded layer, of ethical realities and political puzzles, many of which will in due course require legislation or regulation at one level or another: national, continental or global.
Now, germline therapy will quite soon be possible, and then we shall really have to think what we want. Perhaps the discussion will take this form.
The benefits could be colossal: within a generation congenital disease could be entirely eliminated from those populations which can afford it. But it also poses two very alarming risks. First, the whole thing might go physically wrong; and, secondly, it might be applied towards a wrong goal.
Let us take them in turn: going physically wrong. The purpose will be to make ill people well, and to cause more babies to be born well. That always has been, is, and always will be the purpose of medicine. In the past, plenty of promising medical innovations have proved unsuccessful, and the result has been that ill people have not been made well. Bad luck. Try again. What's so different? So say the progressivists.
The natural pietists say, "Germline therapy is indeed fundamentally different. Every time in this bio-revolution that a veil has been stripped from between us and understanding, seven new veils have appeared. What mutations will the envisaged genetic manipulation trigger?" The complexity of the human genome, and the
1598
unknown and perhaps unknowable relationships between different genes and groups of genes, do not suggest that theoretical knowledge will ever be sufficient to justify the undertaking. Animal analogies look flimsier than ever at that level. Pragmatic knowledge will not be obtainable until too late. Even in the simpler and less contentious field of IVF, which is already with us, the people born have not yet shown whether their fertility is normal, because they are not fruit-flies. One expert in this field fears that the use of inadequate sperm in artificial insemination (husband) may produce a disaster in the next generation: "At present", she says, "no one is much looking at that".
So the natural pietists say, "May not a treated germline surprise the practitioner, or rather the practitioner's great grandchildren, by suddenly going berserk and producing —if not actually monsters—at least unexpected, and possibly unidentifiable, results?"
The answer of the progressivists is twofold: there is no reason to think that could happen, and if it did one could just change that germline back to where it started. I have actually heard that.
That is the physical risk. Then there is the social risk of the wrong goal being adopted, the spectre of eugenics. For Galton, eugenics was,
"the scientific study of the biological and social factors which improve or impair the inborn qualities of human beings".
But the word has now come to mean the ruthless and destructive use of the results of that study: it has become a boo-word, and I suppose it has got to remain one.
There are slopes of all sorts in this discussion, and they are of varying slipperiness. The argument: that on a slippery slope one can stop whenever one likes has one great weakness: the number of occasions when people who ought to have stopped did not.
We already have with us the flippant demand for children of a particular colouring or sex, and the increasingly sinister gradations of pre-conception selection, intra-uterine cull, and finally, in India and China and probably elsewhere, mass female infanticide.
Galton himself went too far in his writings. So did Sir Winston Churchill. The United States went too far in practice in the 1920s and 1930s, and in the 1930s and 1940s Germany provided that great example of the slippery slope which still dominates this debate, as it surely must for as long as it is remembered. Everybody, medical scientist or not, must remember that, medical scientists in Germany, individuals like us, succumbed to the persuasion.
In China at the moment, the compulsory sterilisation of "congenitally retarded people" is reported to be a matter of course under local law in some poorer provinces, including Gansu. A draft national law which included enforced abortion has recently been withdrawn, but in favour of what remains to be seen. The rhetoric has been that of the palaeo-eugenics preached in the West at the beginning of this century. In the meantime, provincial law continues as before.
It is thus in the presence of a living tradition of eugenics in the second worst sense that we have to decide what to do. Of course, the worst sense of all would be the deliberate creation of a population of uncomplaining helots, à la Brave New World. It seems

1599
to me unavoidable that different countries will do different things; that tolerance and common sense require us to admit that this is so, and that detestation of what we perceive as deliberate or blasphemous cruelty will place yet another strain on our flimsy mechanisms for keeping peace between states. We still have the weapons with which to commit species suicide.
Now let us look again at the bright side. How would it be if in the far future we were offered the elimination of seasickness at will, or alcoholism? Or even more striking, the removal of violence from among the modes of human action, without side effects?
What would be demanded of the power structures of that future time? Would those offers from science be ones which democracy could refuse? In such a world, what would the power structures be, anyhow? It is obvious that they will depend in part on what decisions are being taken in this very field. They will not necessarily be democratic.
Another problem: if it is acceptable to improve the health of a family or a population, is it not also acceptable to improve its intelligence? It is harder to define intelligence than to define health, but many would agree that gross differences of intelligence exist and are not difficult to perceive, and that the dumbest often have the worst time on this earth.
Since in general there cannot be advance evidence of the long-term effects of a given piece of gene therapy, the right course of action is one which takes account of that fact. You will not get the evidence. The uncertainty analysis in the case of fallout from nuclear weapons tests was, we now know, all wrong. Harm was caused. Looking into the double helix was a bit like looking into the nucleus of the atom. Shall we have learned that technology is not innocent until proved guilty, that it can no longer be allowed the benefit of the doubt? Uncertainty analysis should now be the branch of study which receives most attention and help from Parliaments and governments.
Some new problems are already with us. One is the vast increase in the numbers of people who may know, or may choose not to know, that their children in general, or each in particular, have a given likelihood of getting some disease before birth, at birth, in childhood, or in middle age.
There are also large-scale social problems coming soon that to the best of my knowledge are not being addressed. How many of us will be deemed truly healthy when we are all screened for everything? A definition of "the normal" would arise, deviation from which might be grounds for abortion in the case of a foetus. Procrustean therapies of various kinds would bring the eccentric and the not-quite-normal among us within acceptable bounds.
Will the taxpayers not want to be sure that those whose education and training they fund will last beyond 25? Will a new sub-class arise—those who are going to develop conditions that are held to designate them unemployable, especially in an economy where unemployment may finally be admitted to be a tool of
1600
policy, and therefore not worth educating because they will not survive long enough to provide "value for money"?
Well, legislation caps all, and it is now urgent to bring the skills of moral philosophy more directly to bear on it. Moral philosophy is still emerging, at least in this country, from a half century of neglect. There are many in Parliament who are contributing greatly to that emergence but there are some who still believe that ethics does not exist, or that it is something quite other than what it is. They are therefore left at the mercy of their individual apprehensions of common sense.
Examples are before us every day. It sometimes seems that the whole fabric of Western thinking about what we ought to do and how we ought to live, from the pre-Socratics on, has been judged inconvenient, perhaps as standing in the way of modern goals. These goals were first, in the 1930s, science, which was supposed to be real in a way that ethics could not be; and more recently the pursuit of wealth in economic freedom, which alone has been supposed to constitute a real good. If that is one's scale of values then of course the only way to derive policy from judgment is by deep excision of the offending matter of ethics from personal consciousness.
As an example of a mistaken account of ethics I offer the following from a recent report on the regulation of clinical procedures commissioned by the Government:
"Ethics are the moral convictions of thoughtful, conscientious and informed people [deriving] from a compound of natural philosophy and religion".
The text goes on to say that natural philosophy and religion are intuitive and that "rules and duties" are derived from "utilitarian principles".
This seems to be a way of saying that ethics are fuzzy beliefs entertained by good-natured people. One cannot say this if one has any acquaintance with ethics as part of philosophy in general, and understands that philosophy is, in the words of R.G. Collingwood,
"organised and systematic thought directed towards the discovery of truths concerning a definite subject-matter".
In the case of ethics, that sort of thought is quite difficult, but there are people who can do it.
National ethics committees are a convenient method of bringing such people to the fore. The non-governmental Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a good beginning. If properly constituted, such committees will have a membership which is able to juxtapose conflicting insights in moral philosophy, wring out the elements of pseudo-conflict and agree on a submission or opinion which brings out the true conflicts in measured and comprehensible terms. Committees tackling ethical or ethico-legal problems without moral philosophers on board—and in this country they are the rule not the exception—are like committees designing bridges without an engineer.
It would be wrong to rely only on chosen specialist bodies; we should also consult the people directly. In this field Denmark is, among the European Union countries, undoubtedly the most experienced. The consensus conference system, set up and operated by the Danish Parliament, is simple in purpose and highly sophisticated in execution. All our countries and their parliaments would be the better for learning from it. A

1601
very first demonstration run of the same kind is even now being prepared in this country. It is led by the Science Museum, and good luck to it. Something similar on crime was published in the last Independent on Sunday, and very interesting it was. But these are not devised by Parliament for the use of Parliament in legislation, as they should be.
Alongside the consensus conference, we should also consider various more traditionally British or American alternatives which are now being canvassed in the pharmaceutical industry and elsewhere. One of these is to have something like a planning inquiry when any alarming new treatment or product is proposed. Progressivists and natural pietists would put their cases under neutral chairmanship, and all would be widely reported.
The pharmaceutical industry is multinational in its location, in its shareholders and in its markets, and the question of European harmonisation is already posing itself. Is harmonisation necessary? So far each country has gone its own way, but the European Commission, the Council of Europe, and UNESCO are all in the process of examining the issues.
Certain questions present themselves for discussion. What are the pros and cons of a plurality of regimes as opposed to a single regime, considered irrespective of where they might be; as for instance Britain, Western Europe, East Asia, the world and so on?
Are the following among the advantages of the present plurality: that humanity is naturally diverse and its traditions, including ethical traditions, various; that more people in total may be pleased by diverse local regimes than would he pleased by a single one; that it is more important for smaller exclusive groups to feel at home with their laws than for larger inclusive ones to do so; and that opinion varies over time in a different way from country to country?
And are the following among the advantages of a single, harmonised, European regime: the convenience of pharmaceutical companies developing the relevant substances and treatments; a single regulatory approach to licensing arrangements with countries outside Europe; the preclusion of "medical tourism"—that is, going to a country with a more relaxed attitude and buying the treatment that you want there, if you can afford it; and, lastly, freeing resources, including ingenuity, to bring the benefits of the bio-revolution to the third world? All these things will give rise to their own extremely complicated debates, and so will others there is no time for. It does seem likely that we should not hurry.
Yet how can we not hurry, given the huge breadth of the scientific programmes and their rushing acceleration, epitomised by the human genome programme? The coexistence of the scientific hare and the democratic tortoise is potentially tragic. We need consensus conferencing, pseudo-planning inquiries, national ethics committees, a Select Committee of this House, European committees, world committees, and probably everything in between as well.
Lord Annan: My Lords, before the noble Lords sits down will he agree with three propositions? The first is
1602
that for the past 30 years no one has accepted what A.J. Ayer said about ethics. The second is that each year a torrent of books from the most reputable philosophers on ethics falls from the presses. The third is that no ore believes that utilitarian ethics are right today; they are as démodé as the crinoline.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it will take a moment to answer the noble Lord. Many people still believe that A.J. Ayer is right, not including reputable philosophers. That is my point. Ask teachers. Is utilitarianism still on the menu? The quotation that I gave shows clearly that it is. I beg to move for Papers.
5.38 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I listened with great attention to the noble Lord, Lord Kennel. He raised in a dense form enough to occupy people for a good day's seminar. I shall be interested to know what the Minister has to say on behalf of the Government or whether the Government have much to say in reply to the type of comments that the noble Lord made. Having said that, I do not object to the use of the Chamber in that way, but I am afraid that some people may say that it is not quite fair to raise so many hares and so many small points and problems without giving us an opportunity to pursue them, simply because of the density of the noble Lord's argument. However, I am sure that people will read the noble Lord's speech.
I was certainly intimidated by the words of the Motion when deciding whether to speak. Had I not put my name down to speak, I should certainly have felt intimidated about speaking, having heard the noble Lord's speech. We are fortunate to have present the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, although she is not going to speak in the debate. However, I am sure that she will listen carefully to what is said.
I personally feel barely qualified to address only a very small part of the large canvas which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has offered us. I do not believe that this is the appropriate time at which to try to deal with what we shall have an opportunity to debate in June on Clause 138 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill —namely, the prohibition of the use of embryo germ cells—except in so far as it illustrates general principles.
My particular interest in this field is that I was involved in the passage of the embryo legislation in this House in 1990, assisted in no small pact by an organisation called Progress. Following the successful passing of the Bill, I became one of three trustees of an offspring charity called the Progress Educational Trust. Our chairman is Professor Marcus Pembrey and our aim is to disseminate knowledge of work which is done in that area, at various levels, on a very modest scale in comparison with the terms used by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
It is our underlying belief that in trying to encourage an informed public debate, we need an informed public. The same principle applies just as much to the other areas covered by the Motion before us. Therefore, education will be one of my main themes.
One of the target areas for information is obviously students and young people, if only to ensure that future

1603
generations are better equipped to understand and make decisions. In my opinion, the scope and extent of what we are discussing today has eventual implications of Darwinian proportions. It always continues to astonish me how, in our education system and background assumptions about life, we still, after all these years, manage to avoid many of the uncomfortable consequences of Darwinian theory; that is, accepting as we do, rationally, that his theories are 90-something percent. correct.
With that record, how are we to face the mirror which is held up to us by the unravelling of our genetic code, with all the implications and decisions which follow? My guess is that there will be no tidy or simple answers, just as in this debate. The fact that, largely, we cannot control what happens in other countries adds to the confusion of any of our best intentions.
With all that uncertainty surrounding our beliefs, generated by new genetic knowledge of ourselves and by new possibilities, it may be that the largely pragmatic approach that we are already taking is best.
We have set up organisations outside direct government control which must be responsive to developments and must respect and educate public opinion. To carry out their tasks successfully, they must also have the confidence of the scientists and doctors whom they are regulating, licensing or supervising. I am thinking of the HFEA—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee working with local ethical committees or, in a more discursive role, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Nuffield's first annual report contains an excellent summary of the various bodies in this field.
All those bodies can operate successfully provided that they have the trust of the professionals involved, who in turn are prepared to be open about what they are doing. That may be partly responsible for the lead and respect which has developed for the work done in this country, particularly in IVF and related areas. We have an enviable record and we should endeavour to keep that lead.
It is against that background that I find the recent insertion of Clause 138 into the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill by a Conservative Back Bencher to be such a jarring anomaly, especially in view of the massive consultation exercise in which the HFEA is currently engaged on that subject. That exercise and its scale would seem to me to be a model of how this kind of debate should and can proceed. I know that other countries have studied the HFEA as a possible model for how to proceed.
In terms of the subject of the debate, what can we say about the human genome project? It has been compared in scope with some of the great human endeavours. It will proceed, whatever we feel or say here, with the inevitability of some Greek drama, like some fate unravelling itself before us. If the knowledge gained brings us closer down to earth, so be it.
As if to pacify the fates, I understand that something between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. of the funds being put up for the project (depending on the country) are to be spent on social and ethical issues. Taken as a
1604
percentage of the estimated 3 billion dollar cost of the project, that should be one of the costliest debates of all time. I hope that it will be worth it.
To come down to earth, some noble Lords may have received a letter from the Genetic Interest Group which represents over 100 charities. It tells of the existence of over 4,000 different genetic disorders which result in about 15,000 babies being born every year with a significant degree of disability and, in some cases, the prospect of early death. As we know, most possible treatment is still distant, but we can share the feeling that there is hope and we should be grateful that some progress is being made.
As against that, although the prospect of "designer" babies can be conjured up, their possibility, even if permitted, is fortunately so remote because most physical traits are expected to involve more than one gene. It is very often the freak examples in this field which catch the headlines and worry the public unjustifiably. Literary imagination sometimes adds to that, to say nothing of the media. Over the longer term, various forms of education and discussion should be able to provide the informed public opinion needed for informed debate and decisions.
I hope that part of that debate can be encouraged—either generally or on special topics—by organisations such as the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Its recent working party on genetic screening was able to discuss the practical and ethical effects of what may emerge both in the short and long term; for example, it dealt with issues such as consent, confidentiality, employment and insurance. That is far from an enclave of medical self-interest, as membership of the working parties are balanced by laymen as well as experts. The present excellent standing and authority of that council should only be encouraged.
Finally, I suggest that there are no simple answers in this field. Our best hope is that over the years we shall find the ability to adapt both individually and as a society to any awkward truths which we may discover.
5.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, the Motion so helpfully tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, refers to the threats posed by genetic manipulation and assisted procreation. Indeed, there are particular threats and understandable fears, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, stressed so eloquently. But in the minds of some people, there is an underlying feeling or fear that we should not be engaged at all in such ambitious projects; that they somehow go against our nature. Therefore, first, I should like to affirm that it is our vocation and responsibility as human beings to intervene in the processes of nature for the health and well being of humanity.
The scientific creativity and ingenuity with which we have been endowed and through which we can intervene is part of our nature. Therefore, it is an essential aspect of our God-given nature to manipulate and shape natural processes. Professor Gordon Dunstan has written that, in the popular mind, the job of the moralist is,
"to see what the scientists are up to and tell them to stop it".

1605
On the contrary, he argues, research science, bestriding two worlds—the known and the unknown—creating undreamed of possibilities, with the thought that a new fact might perhaps modify or remedy a known ill, is an exhilarating prospect. As the professor puts it:
The moralist can share that exhilaration if he stands near enough to the scientist to learn a little of what he is doing".
Since the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA in 1953 by James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, described as one of the greatest discoveries ever made, there has, as we are all aware, been a staggering advance in genetics. By 1991, a four year-old girl had become the first patient to undergo a successful gene transplant in the treatment of a fatal genetic disorder. Now, the human genome project sets out to map and sequence the 3 billion base players within the human genome by the early years of the next century. Exhilarating stuff indeed!
I should like to stress the practical benefits of genetic research, especially in relation to genetic disorders still to be remedied, of which cystic fibrosis is only the best known. Due to vaccination and antibiotics, together with a better diet, the major infectious diseases have declined. That means that disorders with a genetic basis have grown in relative importance. In northern Europe populations, around 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. of all births are associated with some form of genetic disability or developmental disorder having a strong genetic component. A study of children admitted to a paediatric hospital in Montreal between 1969–70 shows that genetic admissions accounted for about 11 per cent. of cases. Genetic diseases are now a major cause of death in those under the age of 15. As I shall describe later, the position is even more stark in the developing world.
There are questions; for example, about the legitimacy of screening for defective genes, about who should be told of what has been discovered and the implications of such knowledge for insurance policies and the health service, about whether a person who has a defective gene, which will bring about a debilitating illness in 30 years' time, should be told about it now, and about how far we should go in manipulation if, for example, it eventually becomes possible to ensure particular characteristics in our offspring like greater intelligence. The questions are many, complex and serious, and I do not intend to deal with them here. Instead, I want to point to the method which has evolved for dealing with such questions and to affirm that they can be dealt with in a responsible manner. Writing of an Anglican report prepared in 1958, but in words which have a much wider significance, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has written:
"It was the first report really to exploit the method of detailed empirical study, allied with inter-disciplinary discussion, in such a way that theological insights were allowed to illuminate and articulate the moral claim inherent in the subject under study, without dictating prior conclusions. A notable series of similar reports, many of them on medical topics, have followed the same method".
That was the method followed most recently in your Lordship's House by the Select Committee on Medical Ethics when it dealt with the questions around euthanasia. It is undoubtedly the method that is going to he followed for the next three decades as we grapple
1606
with a whole range of fresh questions. It involves, as that quotation said, detailed empirical study and inter-disciplinary discussion.
Furthermore, there is a moral claim inherent in the subject under study and if theology is brought in at all it will be to illuminate and articulate that, not to dictate prior conclusions. The assumption is that we do have the capacity and the sense as human beings to make moral judgments in those difficult, evolving areas. It is an assumption underpinned by a long tradition of Christian thinking that all of us, as human beings, whatever our religious beliefs or lack of them, have a moral awareness. It is indeed true that there are dire warnings from the Nazi attitude to eugenics, with their hope that they could breed a new race of supermen, eliminating the weak and the feeble. It is also true that we can frighten ourselves with the thought that, like Frankenstein, we can make monsters. It is good to have those fears, to keep them around and to build in safeguards to ensure that they are not realised. But it is part of our dignity and responsibility as human beings not only to intervene in the processes of nature for the well-being of humanity but to wrestle with the moral dilemmas that that throws up. An awesome task this may be, but then it is an awesome thing to be a human being.
The report of the Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy published in 1992 is a good example both of encouragement to continuing research and awareness of the need for limits and safeguards. We have already had our attention drawn in today's debate to a whole range of committees and regulatory bodies which exist to ensure that those limits and safeguards are observed.
More than 200 years ago, the Frenchman Diderot foresaw, as he put it:
"A warm room with the floor covered with little pots, on each of these pots a label: soldiers, magistrates, philosophers, poets, potted courtesans, potted kings".
It is a picture which Aldous Huxley made familiar to the modem mind and which some now predict will become a reality. Do we really want to go down that road? Here two other factors come in to balance the earlier emphasis upon our vocation to intervene in, and manipulate, the processes of nature. The first is the traditional wisdom enshrined in the continuum of a loving relationship, sexual intimacy, the birth of a child and parenting. The majority of us came into being and find our identity through two people we knew —or, continue to know—who cared for us, who cared for one another and who expressed that love physically. As we know all too painfully, the quality of some of the ingredients in that nexus may leave a great deal to be desired. Nevertheless, in that continuum, that nexus, that holding together of love, sexual expression, gestation and parenting, there is a tried and tested experience against which any new developments have to be measured.
Then there is the wisdom, if we may put: it that way, in nature itself, all that the modem ecological movement has revealed about the delicate series of balances and relationships built up in any eco system. Drastically to interfere in one part without sensitivity as to what is happening elsewhere can have dire effects, as we have

1607
discovered with the indiscriminate use of powerful pesticides and fertilisers. That is not an argument to outlaw their use; it is just a reminder that we are dealing with delicately balanced systems. If we intervene and manipulate, particularly in an area so foundational for all existence as genes, the ramifications and repercussions are likely to be far-reaching. Safeguards are certainly needed.
Finally, in considering the ethical dimension, we will not be able to ignore the economic and political questions. For research costs money and the exploitation of research brings money. That raises questions about the diseases on which research will be done and who will benefit from that research. The most common single gene defect to afflict northern Europeans—cystic fibrosis—has a frequency of about one in 2,500 births. Sickle-cell anaemia with a frequency of about one in 50 to one in 100 births—a frequency 50 times more—predominantly afflicts Africans. Each year about 100,000 infants are born in Africa with sickle-cell disease. Similarly, thalassaemia afflicts people in the East and in the Mediterranean with a frequency as high as one in 50 to one in 100 births. In Thailand alone, more that half a million children out of a total population of 50 million suffer variable degrees of chronic ill health due to the interaction of the different thalassaemia genes.
According to an estimate made in 1983 by the World Health Organisation 242 million people around the world carried a copy of the gene for thalassaemia or sickle-cell. In the past the prevalence of these diseases was covered up by death from malaria. But as malaria has gradually decreased, these other genetically-based diseases, which have developed, ironically and tragically, as a response to malaria, have been uncovered.
When Sir James Watson set up the human genome project he expressed the hope that the benefits of the research would be for all the people of the world and not just particular nations. That must surely be our hope for all work in genetics. But this poses political and economic questions which are at least as pressing as the ethical ones about how we actually make the fruits of research available to those most in need of it and least able to pay for it.
So I would like to stress the first phrase of the noble Lord's Motion—the potential benefits of genetic manipulation—and to say that we should have the confidence to pursue this together with the confidence that the appropriate ethical committees, particularly from within the scientific community itself, can set up the necessary codes of practice and safeguards. I do not wish this to seem complacent or to appear unaware of the dangers of what Tom Wilkie has called,
"Sliding unawares into sin while trying to do good".
But, equally, it does not help continually to carp on our incapacity to set up appropriate procedures. There are and will continue to be new ethical dilemmas as research unfolds over the next decades and centuries which will need to be faced afresh at each stage. Yet no less pressing will be the political and economic
1608
questions about how we make the benefits of this research available to those countries and people who need it most.
6.2 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I do not intend today to dwell on the moral, religious, or ethical implications that will be raised in today's debate. There are many of your Lordships in the House today who are far better qualified than I to guide us. I would like to speak on the practical aspects of the subject. From the moment the first cave-man with a broken leg was dragged back to the cave and his leg put in a crude splint, the balance of nature was upset by human ingenuity.
Since then, the medical profession has, with intermittent success, succeeded in saving millions of human beings who would otherwise have died before passing on their genes. These efforts did not have any significant effect on our make up until the 1840s when the first successful caesarean section was performed which allowed both mother and child to survive. Since then many hundreds of thousands of caesareans have been performed thereby allowing children with big heads and women with narrow hips to survive. It is now only a matter of time—perhaps another 50 generations —before no child in the western world will be able to be born naturally owing to the laws of natural selection having been thwarted. I merely give this example to your Lordships to show how the medical profession, while seeking to do good at the time, does not necessarily realise the long-term implication of its actions.
There have been in the past several programmes to breed human beings selectively in a controlled environment. For example, on the island of Barbuda in the West Indies, the Blennerhasset family from the mid-seventeenth century until the 1830s when slavery was abolished, bred their slaves selectively to be not only big, strong and healthy but also to be of a sunny disposition. Once the blood lines had been firmly established—which incidentally apparently took around five generations—there were, so we are told, hardly any failures.
Peter the Great of Russia and Frederick the Great of Germany bred regiments of six foot 8 inch tall guardsmen with snub noses. More recently in Germany the National Socialists also instigated a breeding programme to produce so-called perfect specimens to be servants of the state. As we all know, that programme was brought mercifully to a halt at considerable cost to an entire generation. I have given these examples to show that one person's or group of persons' idea of what is desirable in a human being is not necessarily the idea of the rest of us.
The human gene pool has evolved over a period of some one million years to produce what by anybody's standards is an extremely successful species. We cover every nook and cranny of the earth's surface that is inhabitable and are flourishing as never before. In fact we are so successful that strenuous efforts have to be made to limit our numbers by various means of birth control. Scientists might think that by removing or

1609
altering various of our genes, they will be creating a better human being. I feel this approach is fantastically dangerous as by meddling with the human gene pool potentially fatal mistakes could be made which could virtually wipe out the entire species in a few generations. The black death could be made to look like a mild case of the sniffles.
Let us consider for a moment the utterly repugnant idea of a child being born, having a mother who was aborted and never existed—a concept one would have thought beyond the wildest ravings of the maddest of scientists. A child produced in this way would at the very least have deep-rooted psychological problems. Would it not be more practical for society to make a more concerted effort to match up all the unwanted children who already exist with the couples who desperately want a child to love and bring up as their own? Even the least promising of children could have in their genetic make up the seeds of a genius.
With any species, the wider the diversity of the gene pool, the more successful that species will be. Any tampering could for a short time perhaps produce a superior disease-free human being, but nature would almost certainly have her revenge in an unexpected and probably devastating way. To tamper with natural selection and our genetic make up is indeed sowing the seeds of our own self-destruction more efficiently and certainly than any nuclear holocaust could ever do.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he allow me to tell him a story?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, excuse me but this is a timed debate. The noble Lord has another chance to speak at the end of the debate so I think that we should proceed.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, deserves gratitude for this timely debate on a matter of great public concern and for the moderate terms in which he has expressed his views. He could have used the kind of emotive language one sometimes hears which is more like that of science or honor fiction, and we must all be grateful that no one would use that language in this debate.
I would like to speak but I have almost no qualifications for saying anything. I am not a moral or spiritual leader; I am not a scientist; I am not a philosopher; I am a lawyer and I am a man. Being a man, I think, disqualifies me more as regards some of these issues than others. Being a lawyer I will be severely practical. I would like to speak only on the second issue raised by the Motion—that of assisted procreation. I want to focus upon the way in which this House and the other place might approach issues of this kind. The potential risks and the benefits of assisted procreation are matters which occupied a great deal of time in this House four years ago during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. That 1990 Act set up the Human Fertilisation and
1610
Embryology Authority to regulate precisely this area of research and medical practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said at Second Reading that the Secretary of State would take all the necessary steps to ensure that the authority contained a wide and balanced set of views and expertise, which would include ethics, and that it would be worthy of full public confidence.
The membership and the remit of that authority were discussed in detail both here and in another place during the passage of that Bill. The authority took up its powers in 1991 and has shown itself to be worthy of full public confidence in the way it carries out the task given to it by Parliament.
The authority was set up to regulate embryo research and fertility clinics after many years' consideration and debate on the very kind of issues which rightly concern the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and other noble Lords. It was set up because Parliament recognised that new methods of assisted conception affect family life and that it is important that legal, social, ethical and moral implications are carefully considered to protect the society that we live in.
The benefits of overcoming fertility problems and, in some cases, life-threatening heritable disorders can be readily perceived. The threat to individuals and to society at large are exactly what the authority is well placed to identify and deal with.
Who are the members of the authority? Parliament provided that the chairman, deputy chairman and a majority of members of the authority should be lay people—not doctors or scientists involved in research or treatment. Great care has been taken in making appointments to the authority. I would hope that its membership will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. Members are drawn from a wide cross-section of society and include people with expertise in ethics. Some members have backgrounds in religion, nursing and legal philosophy, but I am sure that the authority does not pretend to have a monopoly of wisdom in this area. For that reason it regularly and quite properly seeks the views of the wider public when issues of particular social and ethical importance arise.
One of the authority's main tasks is to keep itself informed of possible new developments and to address the ethical and social issues before licensing any new research or any new treatment procedure. Nothing now can be licensed in this country which the authority does not consider to be necessary or desirable for the statutory purposes in the 1990 Act.
The authority regulates and sets standards for clinics. It licences only those which meet the standards. Licences have been withheld while clinics deal with concerns raised by the authority's inspectors, and research and treatment licences have been refused where necessary. The authority grants a research licence only if satisfied that the use of human embryos is essential and the research project is necessary and desirable. That, I suggest, is an essential power, and it is essential that it is exercised wisely—as it is.
The authority has faced a number of difficult issues since taking up its powers in 1991 and has responded to

1611
them in a clear-sighted and balanced way. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to give one or two examples to show exactly how the authority has been working.
Last year the authority consulted nationally and said no to the sex selection of sperm or embryos in licensed treatment for purely social reasons. That consultation took place amid considerable and justifiable press attention. The authority concluded that sex selection of embryos by pre-implantation diagnosis should be permitted where there is risk of the mother producing a (usually male) child with an inherited life-threatening disease. It is permitted for no other reason whatever.
The authority also last year considered cloning by embryo splitting, or artificially creating identical twins. It said no to cloning. It reached that decision in March last year, long before the case of the American researchers hit the newspapers in October. In the case of sex selection and of cloning the authority was ahead on the issues because it had received information from the field before it became common knowledge.
Similarly, on the issue raised by the Motion, the use of donated ovarian tissue, the authority had advance notice from scientists and clinicians of the possibility of including the use of foetal eggs. The authority started considering that issue as long ago as 1992, well before the flurry of media attention last Christmas. It had the opportunity to give the matter mature and considered study and saw the need to consult widely on the important issues raised. It brought the matter into the public domain in a way which identifies the issues and gives people a chance to think about them carefully.
The consultation document is a balanced and lucid document, published by the authority, addressing issues about the use of tissue from three sources: live donors, cadavers and aborted foetuses. The serious press greeted the document with acclaim and many leading articles have been devoted to discussing the issues raised. The use of foetal tissue has attracted the most media attention and the attention of some Members of another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Craigavon, said a few moments ago, the document was a model of its kind.
This is a complex area in which the public have shown enormous interest. I understand that more than 20,000 copies of the document have been sent out and that several thousand responses have been received so far. Very many respondents have said how much they appreciate having the opportunity to comment on such important issues before decisions are made. So great has been the public response that the consultation period has been extended until mid-July.
Noble Lords may therefore consider that it is unfortunate that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill has been amended in another place to ban the use of foetal tissue in fertility treatment right in the middle of the authority's public consultation. The amendment does not address all the issues raised by the HFEA document. It simply seeks to pre-empt the consultation in one area. It would be a great pity if the opportunity for more considered and rational debate on this issue were thus to be curtailed. After all, the HFEA was set up by Parliament to control and regulate this area. As I have
1612
explained, it has full powers to do so. Hasty legislation is rarely as coherent as legislation which is the result of long and well considered debate.
It may be considered significant that Parliament considered the issues surrounding embryo research and assisted conception over an extremely long period before setting up the authority. The committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, reported in 1984, and the legislation was only completed in 1990. Noble Lords may think that the consultation may safely be left to run its course. The authority could then provide the Government with the full advice that they need, including recommendations about further legislation if such legislation should be thought necessary. I hope that that is a matter which can be further considered when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is discussed in this House in Committee.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for this opportunity to discuss some of the issues which go to the root of the human condition. The benefits offered and the potential threats of assisted procreation are well understood and controlled in this country by the authority. The authority has shown itself to be a responsible body doing a good and difficult job. It reports to Parliament every year. The Government approve its codes of practice and appoint its members. But it is an independent statutory body, set up deliberately at arm's length from Ministers to deal with difficult and controversial matters. It is the object of some attention and awe abroad because it is the only body of its kind dealing both with the practical aspects of licensing this area of medicine and science and also with the ethics and policy on which licensing is based.
I very much hope therefore that the authority will be permitted by Government and by Parliament to complete this important consultative exercise before legislative powers are used in this complex area. I suggest that both Government and Parliament need the benefit of the authority's wise and full advice. Meanwhile, there really is no need for Parliament to rush in. I would hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—if I may say so, a voice of moderation and reason—would agree that the authority should complete its work before being eclipsed by hasty action.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I felt that a medical voice should be heard in the debate. Perhaps in my case it will be a rather utilitarian voice. I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant would take part because he is an international authority on Duchenne muscular dystrophy, one of the inherited genetic disorders which would be covered by the territory discussed in the Motion. With his own research he has contributed considerably to knowledge of the nature of that condition. He is also a past president of the General Medical Council. That would have given him a strong position from which to speak on ethical issues. However, I think that he should be honourably excused following his presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics on Monday, not to mention the long hours spent in chairing the committee.

1613
I am no geneticist but in a lifetime of medical practice I have met many of the disorders which might be helped quite soon by gene therapy through the application of genetic manipulation if current promising research is allowed to continue. Some of those conditions, all caused by a single defective gene, may be known to your Lordships. Three have been mentioned already by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford: muscular dystrophy; sickle-cell anaemia; and thalassaemia. Others include haemophilia and a condition which causes premature heart disease, familial hypercholesterolaemia. Those are all conditions which lead to a shortening of life. Although expensive treatment has improved life so that people live a little longer, the life span is still much shorter than it should be.
Further ahead there are possibilities of helping inherited conditions of polygenic origin due to multiple genetic defects making certain individuals more prone to environmental influences. Conditions include heart disease and diabetes. There are many other examples. Of great interest is the possibility of using genes which prevent the multiplication of cancer cells. Ways of getting those genes to cancer cells are being actively developed, some using viruses which have been disabled from causing disease.
However, as many noble Lords have said, there are justifiable worries about any procedures which affect such fundamental processes of the human body. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the first worry is that some mad, over-zealous or bad scientist will create a Frankenstein accidentally or on purpose. There is an underlying disquiet that perhaps man is meddling with something that should be untouchable; that we should accept our heritage as God given and not try to improve on his handwork; and that retribution might come in the form of incurable diseases or a race of psychopaths. I was delighted to hear from the right reverend Prelate that he does not share that view and feels that it is a proper concern for human beings to inquire into their make-up if that can improve their lot.
Much of the disquiet is due to lack of knowledge of what is or is not possible by true genetic manipulation. It is highly unlikely that any current research would have an adverse effect, but it was in response to understandable underlying concerns that the Clothier Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy was set up in 1989. That committee reported in 1992. The report is extremely thoughtful. Sir Cecil's introduction sets the tone. I should remind noble Lords that Sir Cecil Clothier was for some time the parliamentary commissioner for the health service, the ombudsman. In the introduction he states:
"Every significant development in science or technology has been accompanied by dangers both known and unknown. Society watches this progress with mingled admiration and anxiety, the more acute perhaps as science gets ever closer to the fundamental controls over the nature and composition of living things. To prohibit the progress of science in any particular direction may well be tyranny; to seek to shape its course is surely sensible. In doing so we should be careful also to preserve the right of society to determine how the achievements of science are used".
The main recommendation of the report was the setting up of a permanent body to succeed the committee. That is the Gene Therapy Advisory
1614
committee which consists of lay and scientific members chaired by Professor June Lloyd, an eminent paediatrician. The responsibilities of that committee are set out in the Clothier Report and are quite comprehensive. They are described under 10 headings and five sub-headings. Those include advice on the design and control of the research; long-term surveillance of treated patients; potential benefits and risks of any research on treated individuals—that almost follows the title of the Motion—and the ethical acceptability of any proposal. As recommended, that permanent committee was duly set up and had its first meeting last November. I believe that that was a proper response by the Government to the Clothier Report.
Among several other recommendations in the Clothier Report—it was referred to by my noble friend Lord Kennet—was that germ line gene therapy should not yet be attempted. The purpose of that form of therapy would be to prevent the transmission of defective genes to subsequent generations—a laudable aim, I feel. However, the committee felt that there is not at present sufficient knowledge to evaluate the risks to future generations. I believe that my noble friend's rather gloomy view of some of the results of that research was directed to what would happen if germ line gene therapy were to be allowed to continue. We do not know whether it will be allowed to continue. At present it is felt unwise to go down that road. But as knowledge progresses that decision might be reviewed. The prohibition on that type of research is similar to the decision of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to prohibit experiments on human pre-embryos after 15 days from conception. Again, as knowledge advances that decision might well be reviewed.
The authority was well described by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. That reference brings me to the main point I wish to make. I consider that both scientists and the Government have acted responsibly and correctly in the United Kingdom and that we have now achieved an adequate, almost a model, system of supervision for both human genetic manipulation and therapy and assisted conception. Since 1984, as well as the two bodies I mentioned we have had the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification which is particularly concerned with the safety of those working in the field of genetic modification, The committee reports to the Health and Safety Executive and also advises Ministers and comments on new developments in genetics and genetic manipulation which may be of interest to Ministers.
I believe that the country has got it about right. The issues are highly complex and such advisory committees and authorities, composed of concerned scientists and ethically expert lay members, including members of the Church and the legal profession, should be the first to consider the difficult issues as they arise and then present their considered view to Parliament. I do not believe that any other country has such a well-balanced system. Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on what other countries have done. I know

1615
that the European Commission and WHO are concerned with the area, but I do not know whether their reports have resulted in any action.
In the case of the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to them and described them at some length. The Bill is now awaiting the Committee stage in the House. I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord that the process of consultation with the body we have set up to deal with such complex issues was undermined at the very time when Professor Campbell's team was considering the controversial issue. It was taking enormous care to obtain soundings of expert lay and popular opinion throughout the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, pointed out so clearly. The issue was peremptorily decided in another place with, I am afraid, government backing or at least acquiescence before the House had had the benefit of the considered opinion of the expert body. It was set up to consider exactly such issues. I hope very much that the House will think again on the issue at the Committee stage of the Bill and perhaps reverse it.
Finally, although I have praised the Government for setting up the control and advisory system for genetic manipulation, fertilisation and embryology, I must mention in contrast—and this is the only party political point I shall make—a sadly adverse effect of the Government's clumsy handling of London's hospitals and medical schools, especially the famous postgraduate medical school at Hammersmith. Because of uncertainty about the future of that institution, Professor Kay Davies, the extremely able geneticist, who is director of the Medical Research Council's clinical science centre at Hammersmith, has resigned her post. We in this country are lucky that she has been offered another base for her work in the United Kingdom. Too many able scientists and clinicians are reluctantly leaving the country because of present uncertainty and poor funding for their research.
6.32 p.m.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, I too wish to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on giving the subject an airing today. I wish to say a few words first on assisted procreation, obviously in the hormonal and laboratory sense. I believe that it is quite simple: no one person, male, female or hermaphrodite —depending on the species—has any right to join in the creation of the next generation. Indeed, no species has the right to exist. If that right exists, what has homosapiens been doing recently riding roughshod over all those rights? I feel that mankind is better off accepting the lot in life that we have been given. It gives us the rich pageantry that we have, without which as a species we would be a lot weaker.
Very similar remarks apply to genetic manipulation. I entirely agree with the wise words of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. We are on a slippery slope if we start interfering with the powers of the creator—whoever or whatever that force may be. We are aiming at a slippery slope if we interfere with those powers. We do not begin to understand the
1616
strength of those powers, their ways or why we have a gene pool or lethal recessives. Yes, to certain families they are a complete tragedy. As I understand genetic manipulation, it will become possible, virtually at a stroke, to remove a problem like Huntington's chorea. It is wonderful for that family but, in the overall scheme of things, is it the right course of action? The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned closing the door before the foal is born. I wonder whether noble Lords have thought how fast a young animal gets up and runs?
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Kennet for introducing the subject this evening. When I saw the Motion on the Order Paper I was reminded of your Lordships' discussion before the Easter Recess on whether or not it was appropriate to debate major issues in short debates. However, what we have seen this evening is that it is worth while tackling these enormous subjects because at least every noble Lord who speaks has an interesting and diverse viewpoint, even if there is some difficulty for those of us speaking at the end of the debate in finding a straight line through all the contributions.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that if I had been my noble friend I might have put the "benefits" of the subjects under discussion (of genetic manipulation and assisted procreation) before the "threats".
I should mention that, like the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, I have for some time been privileged to be a patron of the Progress campaign; that is, the Campaign for Research into Human Reproduction. But, unlike other noble Lords who have spoken, I too am a lay person. I am, however, the first woman to speak in the debate. The Minister will be the second. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, mentioned, that is an important and valuable piece of special pleading in this particular context.
It is worth stating again what a widespread problem infertility is in this country. One in six couples seeks medical help in order to have a child. One in 10 is officially categorised infertile. "Infertility" sounds a cool and almost neutral word, and I think for those of us who, like myself, were lucky enough to have healthy children easily and happily it is easy to ignore the profound psychological and emotional strain which that word and those figures represent.
In the course of being involved in the Progress campaign, as a member of a health authority and also earlier when I was working as a journalist, I have been to a number of infertility clinics. I have seen the extraordinary work done, for example, at the Hammersmith Hospital by Professor Robert Winston who has been a world leader in the field of developing in vitro fertilization—the so-called test tube baby technique. I have seen what enormous benefits that has produced. I have seen the dogged persistence of couples —of women in particular—who are prepared to go through the very invasive procedures, which are both physically and emotionally demanding, in order to achieve a child. One should not forget, when one

1617
considers the potential threats of the procedure, the enormous benefits in human happiness that IVF has already brought.
It is also easy to forget how recently in vitro fertilisation has developed. I was thinking today of Louise Brown who was the first so-called test tube baby. She was born through the extraordinary pioneering work of Dr. Steptoe and Dr. Edwards in Cambridge and she is now just 16 years old. It was an enormous achievement by those British doctors in the late 1970s.
When I first began to look into this subject, in the early 1980s, I visited the Monash University in Australia where they were carrying out some of the original pioneering work on freezing pre-embryos, and on the more elaborate and sophisticated IVF work. There was an extraordinary sense of excitement both in terms of the scientific breakthroughs which were going on and also for the individuals who came to the clinics, prepared to discuss the ethical difficulties that they would face but prepared to accept them because of the optimistic practical prospects which lay before them.
But of course IVF - test tube procedures—is still a very difficult technique. It is still true that approximately only 14 per cent. of women who begin IVF treatment conceive and finally give birth. The so-called, rather frivolously termed "take home baby" rate is still very low.
However, while the technique has been going on—and, as I said, it is only in the past 16 years that we have been able to look at anything in the way of therapeutic treatment in this area—we have allowed, gradually over time, a public acceptance to grow up. The nature of the demand, which grows, is seen in the fact that there is enormous pressure on NHS resources in this field. Unfortunately, still only 10 per cent. of assisted fertility births in this country are done through the NHS—a subject which we will not get into tonight; it is another area of economics rather than ethics.
That gradual development—the science going along with the practical, clinical benefits of the science—is even more true in the field of gene therapy. Professor Marcus Pembrey, who has been quoted already tonight, wrote recently that gene therapy was "tricky or very tricky". I say that because we have perhaps had the impression from some of the contributions from noble Lords that science is accelerating and galloping away from us. My feeling would be that, particularly in the fields of IVF treatment and gene therapy (the two subjects that I pick out in my contribution), science is developing rather slowly and is in a sense working at the same pace as public acceptance.
Professor Marcus Pembrey, whom I just quoted, works, as do so many of the people who are concerned with genetic therapy, with children. He works at the Institute of Child Health, which is attached to Great Ormond Street Hospital. That work is obviously designed, as several noble Lords have mentioned, to reduce the incidence of genetic disorder in babies. The figures have already been quoted, but I think it is worth going over some of them again. Each year in this country 21,000 infants are born with a significant degree of genetic disability. Half the childhood deaths are due
1618
to genetic disorders. At least 1.5 million families are directly affected by someone in their own immediate family having one of those genetic problems.
Noble Lords have spoken about some of the disorders which cause great suffering. Duchenne muscular dystrophy, in which most children who suffer from it will be in wheelchairs by the age of 11, has been mentioned. Several noble Lords have referred to the most common genetic disorder, cystic fibrosis. Every week that affects five children born in this country. Even today, those children will survive to young adulthood only with heart-lung transplants. Huntington's chorea is another genetic disorder which brings crippling disability in middle age. Reference has also been made to Tay Sachs disease; thalassaemia; sickle-cell disease. These are all disorders on which painstaking research has begun. As has already been mentioned, in some of them the one gene which creates the disorder has already been isolated. Professor Bob Williamson, working at St. Mary's Hospital, in London, has already done pioneering work in isolating the gene for cystic fibrosis. With in vitro fertilisation techniques, parents can now be offered—I find this so exciting as to be almost overwhelming—what is called "pre-implantation selection" of embryos which do not have the gene that will cause the child to be born with cystic fibrosis. Only the embryos which are not at risk from disease are transferred back to the mother. That therapy is very new. The first baby born following the pre-implantation diagnosis for cystic fibrosis was born in May 1992.
It is worth describing those changes because they are bringing us to the verge of really extraordinary changes in the development of our approach to those genetic diseases. The question tonight has been: are we in this country acting sufficiently responsibly and in a sufficiently interventionist way to make sure that those forms of therapy and experimentation provide more benefits than threats?
Of course we have all heard and read a great deal about charlatans; about so-called designer babies; about the ability to choose the sex; about the potential ability to choose whether or not a child has musical ability, and so on. But those are still great fantasies. What we are talking about today are those practical things which, as I said, assist the very large number of people in our country who have problems with infertility and the very large numbers who experience terrible suffering as a result of inherited disease.
I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and my noble friend Lord Rea about the very successful way in which we have succeeded in this country in developing appropriate systems for monitoring what is happening in the scientific field. I was surprised that my noble friend Lord Kennet, when he spoke about the moral/ethical gap in our proceedings on this matter, seemed to ignore the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, which was referred to later in the debate. As we know, the noble Baroness is one of our most distinguished moral philosophers and was very much involved in the original thinking on this subject. The noble Baroness chaired the important committee in the early 1980s which led, as the noble Lord, Lord

1619
Lester of Herne Hill, said, directly to the voluntary licensing agency, which was the precursor of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. As the noble Lords have said, that authority is now a model for the world. Because the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, described it in such very clear detail, I do not need now to expand on the wise mixture of scientists and lay people who make up the authority and do such an excellent job in this field. My noble friend Lord Rea also spoke in some detail about the various regulatory bodies which affect the gene therapy area. He spoke about the Committee on Ethics of Gene Therapy; the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee—known by the wonderful acronym of GTAC—which was set up last autumn by the Department of Health. There are also the specialist oversight teams of the Medical Research Council. Noble Lords have also referred to the Nuffield Council on Medical Ethics. When I spoke to people there about the debate today they felt that perhaps one gap in our regulatory system was a central co-ordinating body looking at clinical trials, co-ordinating what is going on in terms of patients and laboratory experiment in this field. This could be an extension of the regulatory bodies which now exist and a very helpful addition.
I should also like to say that scientists themselves have been energetically involved in making the public aware of what they are doing in this field. There are the genuine fears and concerns which various noble Lords have expressed this evening about whether research will run ahead of the consideration of social and ethical issues in this area. But I feel that if the scientists—such as Professor Bob Williamson, Professor Marcus Pembrey, whom I referred to, and Professor Martin Bobrow of the paediatrics research unit at Guy's Hospital—all take the trouble, as they have done, to write in colloquial, straightforward English (English which can be understood even by someone like myself) about the work that they are doing and the benefits that it brings, the scientific community is very usefully reaching out to the general lay public in a way that is particularly helpful in this field.
Several noble Lords have referred to the rather unfortunate situation that has arisen over new Clause 138 in the Criminal Justice Bill. I do not think that it is appropriate this evening to go into that in any detail. I shall say only that I support very strongly what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and my noble friend Lord Rea. I hope that we shall have adequate time to return to that matter when the Bill reaches Committee stage in this House.
In conclusion, this is an area both in medicine and in social organisation where the United Kingdom has much of which to be proud. In the past 20 years we have led the world in basic research. We have rapidly transferred that research from the laboratory to patient services. At the same time we have developed regulatory systems which enable the public to be confident that science in this country is not running ahead of ethics. That is a success story. We should congratulate ourselves that the benefits outstrip any threats.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for giving your Lordships' House the opportunity to debate these challenging issues. The noble Lord's interest in scientific matters is well known both within and beyond this House and his contributions to our discussions are invariably thoughtful, well researched and much valued, and today has been no exception.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made clear in his opening speech to this debate, over the years considerable progress has been made in human genetic research and in the field of assisted conception. Through gene therapy we are now closer than ever before to curing many frightening and devastating disorders and are able to help couples fulfil their dream of having a family. Through public debate both within the Palace of Westminster and in the country at large the Government have been encouraged to regulate and monitor developments in gene therapy, assisted human fertilisation and embryology. This debate in your Lordships' House is welcomed because it takes us forward in examining not only the benefits, but also the difficult ethical issues which those developments raise.
The national debate started in earnest when, in 1989, the Government raised the prospect of gene therapy being introduced into medical practice and addressed the public anxiety which such developments might evoke—anxieties so lucidly and graphically expressed by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard and the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield. As a result, the Government established the Ethics of Gene Therapy Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Cecil Clothier. The committee's report, a comprehensive review of the subject, was presented to Parliament in 1992 and I share the admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for the committee, and am grateful for it and its report. It sets the framework within which gene therapy research is being developed. Last year the Government announced that they had agreed in principle to the main recommendations in the report. As a result the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee was established under the chairmanship of Professor Dame June Lloyd, to take forward the work of the Clothier committee.
This new committee brings together a wide range of expertise through its medical, scientific, legal, ethical and lay membership. One of its key tasks is to review all proposals for gene therapy research on human subjects advising on ethical acceptability. That requires a careful assessment of the scientific merits of the proposals and the potential benefits and risks which arise from them. So far the committee has met three times and approved eight research proposals, three of which have cancer as their main target disease—a practical application which I am sure meets the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The committee has already started to gain a reputation for the sensitivity and quality of its advice and guidance. The Government are grateful to the chairman and members for the responsible way in which they carry out their task. It is an independent body which

1621
works closely with the Medicines Control Agency. We will keep the need for further statutory controls under constant surveillance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his perceptive speech forewarned, some future developments may totally alter relationships and could even achieve "species revision". It is for those reasons that the committee was set up. The committee recommended that genetic modification of the germ line which could affect future generations should not yet be attempted. The Government accepted that recommendation. Whether or not germ line therapy should be permitted in the future is a matter on which the Government look to the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee for advice. No approach has yet been made to the advisory committee to consider statutory intervention. It could well be one of those areas for debate which the noble Lord described as,
"ethical realities and political puzzles".
One of the bodies facing these issues was highlighted by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon; that is, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. That body is tackling some of the issues which were challengingly raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and, like the right reverend Prelate, it addresses the ethical issues which genetic screening presents. As he said, it may have implications for kindred, including children and those unborn. The right reverend Prelate also questioned the capacity of the NHS to respond to developments in screening and I hope.that he will be a little reassured by the fact that we established the NHS Genetic Research Advisory Group to consider, among other things, the implications of current research on screening for disorders such as cystic fibrosis and for more common conditions such as breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Its report is due to be published this summer.
The system of monitoring which the Government put in place is designed to provide a rigorous review of all proposals which involve patients, especially when a judgment on the ethical and scientific validity of the work is needed. That, we believe, will allow the development of medical research to proceed in a climate of public, parliamentary and professional reassurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised the issue of genetic screening and the insurance industry. The Nuffield report also raised that issue. Informed by that report, the Government will monitor developments closely. At this time the Association of British Insurers have reassured us that it is not likely to ask for genetic tests to become a condition of life insurance. However, it maintains that it is only reasonable that, where such tests have taken place, any information held by the patient should be made available. That will also be the case with any other form of medical information a patient holds.
The noble Lord also raised anxiety about the misuse of genetic information. It is important that the same ethical principles are observed in safeguarding the confidentiality of genetic information as are applied to other personal health information. Such knowledge could have an enormous impact on families who may be faced with difficult decisions concerning their own lifestyles. I should like to pay tribute to the genetic
1622
counsellors and the voluntary organisations for their work in this difficult area. But of course whether or not screening is undertaken by an individual, is for that individual to decide after adequate counselling.
Many of your Lordships will remember the long and careful consideration that this House gave to the provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill before it was sent to another place. Our deliberations on that occasion were significantly informed by the Government's White Paper, Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation, and by the earlier report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology which was chaired by the distinguished and noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. That Bill became the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, an impressive and comprehensive piece of legislation. As a result, the United Kingdom is a world leader in the way human embryo research and the treatment of infertility is regulated.
Under the 1990 Act we established the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, in his interesting speech, said is the first of its kind in the world. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for his detailed exposition and, I suspect, admiration for the authority. As the noble Lord said, it licenses centres which provide certain infertility treatments and others which carry out embryology research. Due to that and other initiatives, we have an effective system of regulation and control. The authority, under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Colin Campbell, built up a wealth of expertise and experience and gained the respect of the medical and scientific community. Also, it has been an important source of reassurance to the public, providing careful scrutiny and ensuring developments are not allowed to progress without public knowledge.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on what. I felt was a perceptive, knowledgable and powerful speech. Like the noble Baroness, the Government recognise that infertility can cause sorrow and great sadness; but developments in IVF have brought hope and, where successful, great joy to many couples. Although we celebrate and share those achievements, the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of assisted conception is and always must be a major consideration. That is a fundamental principle of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act which states that,
"A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may be affected by the birth".
That is a legal condition of the grant of a licence and an important part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's code of practice which gives guidance concerning the proper conduct of activities licensed under the Act. The maintenance and publication of a code of practice is a legal requirement. It is approved by the Secretary of State for Health and laid before Parliament. The authority published a

1623
revised code of practice in June last year and is currently preparing a further revision. The authority keeps this code under review in the light of developments.
The authority also has an important role in considering social and ethical issues in infertility treatment and embryo research. Last year it issued a consultation document, to which noble Lords referred, on sex selection, and sought views on whether sex selection for social as well as medical reasons should be permitted as part of assisted conception. As a result, the authority has advised centres which it licenses under the 1990 Act that sex selection for social reasons is not acceptable. Also, in January this year the authority decided that, although permitted under the 1990 Act, it would not license the use of cloning by splitting embryos for treatment purposes, or for research directed towards that.
For their part the Government ensure that the public is kept fully informed. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority produces an annual report which has to be approved by the Secretary of State for Health and laid before both Houses. The more recently established Gene Therapy Advisory Committee will also publish an annual report.
Wide and well publicised consultation with public and professional bodies on difficult issues such as sex selection are regular features in the way these public bodies operate. In addition the membership of both the HFEA and GTAC has a strong lay representation which includes, for example, the Bishop of Edinburgh, Rabbi Julia Neuberger and Canon Dr. Denison. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that these issues require a membership of not just scientists but also those who are philosophers, moral and spiritual leaders, academics and, most important of all, lawyers, and also others from different walks of life.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, is so right. We need a wide debate and an informed public. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in paying tribute to the Progress Education Trust which provides an excellent example of how a simple guide to the complexities of modern genetics can be achieved. It is through organisations such as these and the means that I have outlined that the Government believe that both the scientific community and the public at large are properly served and that the interests of individual patients are protected.
I appreciate the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that the consultation exercise carried out by the HFEA on the use of foetal eggs for fertility treatment has to some extent been seen to be somewhat pre-empted by the amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill carried in another place. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, I do not wish to pass comment on that except to say that it is a matter which will be before your Lordships' House in June when I am sure your Lordships will have a full and very well informed debate.
Tonight's debate has highlighted not only the scientific issues but the equally important moral and
1624
ethical decisions that have to be made when human individuals are involved in gene therapy, assisted conception and genetic research. It is in considering issues of this kind that your Lordships' House excels. Today has been no exception. It is clear from what has been said that we must be ever mindful of the essential balance between scientific development on the one hand, and ethical and moral values on the other. On that score, I believe that the scientific community in this country has a record second to none.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I have only three points to make. First, I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords, including the noble Baroness the Minister, who have told the House so much about the existing structure of regulatory bodies, and so on, all of which I left out, as a calculated risk, because I thought I had a lot of other things to say. However, I need not have worried as obviously it was going to be put before the House.
Secondly, I was distressed that my noble friend Lady Jay thought that I might have forgotten about the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I had not. The point I was trying to make was not that philosophers were no good but that there were not enough philosophers in all the right places. As the chairman of the first committee in the modern age to tackle a bioethical hot potato, she is a great example of where philosophers ought to be. There are several real philosophers in this House, and the noble Baroness is one of them.
Lastly, I should like now to tell the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, the story which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, so correctly prevented me from telling earlier. The noble Viscount mentioned the Blennerhasset experiment on the island of Barbuda where they bred slaves very tall. I was sitting once in a bar on a neighbouring island and I found myself next to a black man of about 6ft. 10 ins. I decided to risk it. I said to him, "How are things in Barbuda?" His answer was, "How did you know ?" The answer deserves thinking about. I wonder how many people there are in the world who are themselves the results of eugenic experiments in an earlier age and do not know it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Insolvency Bill
7.5 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. —(Lord Coleraine.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Photographs and Films (Unauthorised Use) Bill [H.L.]
7.6 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicolls: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this Report be now received, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must first offer an apology and an explanation. I apologise for missing the Committee stage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, arranged that stage without asking me whether it was convenient. Unfortunately, I had another engagement and I was unable to be present. I would have been present if I had been able.
At the outset perhaps I may repeat what I said at Second Reading. I am wholly in favour of a properly drafted and debated privacy Bill and I have no time at all for the paparazzi who generate these photographs that so often cause offence. Noble Lords may quite rightly ask then why I am moving this amendment. There are three overlapping reasons. The first is to be consistent. The second is that, as a matter of principle, I do not think that this House should send a flawed Bill to another place just because it thinks it unlikely that the Bill will make any further progress at this stage in a Session in the other place. Finally, while I feel I shall be repeating some of the things I said at Second Reading, I do not consider, despite the efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Kilbracken, at the Committee stage, that this Bill can be amended in any way to make it comprehensible to lawyers, let alone photographers or the general public.
Taking these reasons in turn, I think I am being consistent in that I withdrew my Motion at Second Reading only because of the lateness of the hour—11 o'clock at night—with a thinly attended House. I had had the support of all the speakers but the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, himself. I had subsequently written to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, inviting him not to proceed further with the Bill, and I discussed with some other Members of the House whether they would support at the Committee stage a Motion similar to this one should I decide to move it. So the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and other Members of the House, will be well aware of my active opposition to this Bill.
Why do I consider this to be a flawed Bill? In my opinion, it has nothing to do with copyright. That was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, at Second Reading. He said:
"privacy has nothing to do with copyright"—[Official Report, 28/2/94; col. 926.]
It was also confirmed by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington (at col. 927):
"I fully agree with the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, about the use of copyright law as a vehicle for this amending Bill".
1626
The noble Baroness reinforced that at Committee stage by saying,
"we are not convinced that this slightly piecemeal and unbalanced approach is the right one".—[Official Report, 18/4/94; col. 79.]
At the same stage (at col. 81) the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said:
"It also seems to me that there is nothing in this new Bill about copyright at all".
I also seek the support of the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, at Committee stage. He said (at col. 78):
"Had I been present, I should have opposed the Bill."
I shall be brief because I have rehearsed the arguments already at Second Reading. I do not believe that this Bill is going to produce the result sought by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I have sought advice on this matter. It will be the photographer who will end up with the liability. I explained the chain of permissions and agreements at Second Reading—I shall not bore the House by repeating them—but anybody who gets copyright clearance for the use of a photograph will automatically hope to get clearance for the privacy aspect. It may be that the photographer will get vast sums of money—£50,000, £100,000 or £1 million—for his photographs; but, equally, he may be a man of straw. I do not believe that the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, to get at the publisher can be established in this Bill because of its link with copyright.
I am advised by lawyers that in the original draft of the Bill the word "intrusion" was clearly understood by them. But I believe that they were delighted at the confusion which will arise in legal cases by its replacement with "cause serious damage to". They would also have much preferred "private lives" to be replaced by "privacy". They clearly understood intrusion into privacy. They could not clearly understand how to advise anybody about "serious damage to private life".
I believe that one can take this from two recent points, one of which is topical today. Certain photographs have been taken on Scottish moorland. There is no difficulty in believing that they were almost certainly an intrusion into two people's privacy. I believe that the lawyers would have a field day if they had to convince a court that they were causing serious damage to these two young people's private lives. On much the same basis were some photographs which were recently well-publicised in Spain. I wonder whether they could say that they caused serious damage to that young lady's private life. They certainly intruded on her privacy. But I believe that it gets much more complicated than that.
I am not going to continue in much detail. I had prepared eight amendments which I would have tabled at Committee stage had I been present. I was advised that they were not entirely satisfactory. I have thought of more. The lawyers have convinced me that this Bill, so long as it is linked to copyright, cannot be made effective to prevent the kind of intrusion which I wholly agree is unacceptable. I have said that I shall be brief and I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this Report be now received, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Brain.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, in supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, I wish to apologise for not taking part in earlier stages of this Bill because I was in hospital. I should like to add a number of other objections to those listed by the noble Lord. The first is that the Bill would provide that no photograph portraying a person recognisably and taken without his consent or knowledge, could be published without that person's consent or knowledge—conditions which many photographs published in the press could never satisfy. The subject could go to court and assert that the publication could cause serious damage to his private life and prevent publication or public exhibition or use in a broadcast or cable programme.
One of many difficulties would be the meaning to be attached to the phrase,
"causing serious damage to private life".
Most legislators have been defeated in attempts to define privacy, but it is to be noted that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, adopts a wholly different definition of privacy from that suggested in the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper on infringement of privacy which referred to causing substantial distress, provided such distress would also have been suffered by a person of ordinary sensibilities in the circumstances of the complainant. If the court granted a quick injunction to halt the distribution of a newspaper on that ground, the consequences and financial loss to the newspaper would be extreme.
The Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, ignore completely the fact that the code of practice upheld by the Press Complaints Commission gives a protection and remedy for the circumstances with which the Bill seeks to deal. One of the articles in the code of practice which is enforced on newspapers relates to:
"Intrusions and enquiries into an individual's private life without his or her consent including the use of long-lens photography to take pictures of people on private property without their consent".
Such action is contrary to the code of practice and would certainly become a breach.
In my opinion the extent of invasions of privacy have been considerably exaggerated largely because of the publicity given to the behaviour of well-known or great personages. In the past three-and-a-half years the Press Complaints Commission has received only 300 complaints of invasions of privacy against the press. Of those, three-quarters have been settled between editors and complainants to the satisfaction of the latter. The commission has received only seven complaints of invasion of privacy by photographs.
When the code and the commission were strengthened last year, the commission appointed one of its independent members, Professor Robert Pinker, to act as its privacy commissioner in order to emphasise the high importance it attaches to preventing infringements of privacy. The commissioner is presently investigating the complaint by the Palace,
1628
acting on behalf of Prince Edward, against four newspapers. The privacy commissioner is required to act speedily and is free to make such investigations as he considers necessary. He may also, of his own volition, raise any instance of infringement of privacy by the press even though there has been no complaint. He submits to his colleagues a draft adjudication which, if the infringement is considered by the commission to have been gross and calculated, may contain a recommendation that the publisher should consider disciplinary proceedings against the editor. That is a very severe occupational sanction to which the industry has agreed. Many newspapers have already assimilated the code of practice, which is enforced by the commission, into the terms of the contracts of their journalists and editors.
The Bill additionally uses the sly procedure of adding a new section to Section 85 of the existing Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, which will have the effect of turning a very narrow personal right under Section 85 into a major extension of the legislation which will have potentially formidable financial consequences for the press. Thus the Bill, masquerading as Section 85A of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act, will be conceptually wholly different in nature and result from that Act. It is surely undesirable to use this Bill as a back-door method of altering the law of copyright in such a way that the new right of privacy can be introduced in advance of the parliamentary discussions on the consultation paper on privacy initiated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to which, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Brain, whose amendment I am supporting, I am strongly opposed.
Further objections are the broadness of the present Bill covering, as it does, any publication. It provides no defences of any kind against a charge; for example, it does not provide a public interest or implied consent defence. An implied consent defence is where consent is implied by virtue of the person or people photographed being present in a public place. Although infringement is only actionable by the subject of the photograph who is portrayed recognisably, the practical impossibility of locating appropriate individuals photographed in crowd scenes or as passersby will, in practice, prevent many newspapers in England publishing many types of photograph. In fact, our press will be reduced as a result of the Bill to the appearance of Le Monde.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I disagree with a good deal of what the noble Lord has just said. In particular, he said that there have been only 300 complaints in the past four or four-and-a-half years, but that seems to me to be a very considerable number —about one every four days throughout the period. And, of course, in many cases, including some of the most serious ones, there have been no complaints, particularly, of course, in the case of members of the Royal Family, who I think have never complained.
I regret very much that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, has seen fit to put down this amendment at this late stage. I do not think that the noble Lord's Bill is by any

1629
means perfect, but I do think that it is very much better than nothing and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord may decide not to press his amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, after listening to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Brain and Lord McGregor, I hardly recognise my own Bill. The complaints and doubts that they have expressed have nothing whatever to do with the Bill. Indeed, all the points that they raised were answered during the Second Reading and Committee stages. I do not think that we should look at the Bill from the narrow point of view to which those two speeches seemed to direct the House.
The one thing that stood out from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, was that his opening sentence contained his only important argument relating to my Bill. He said that he agreed that a privacy Bill was necessary. He and I are at one on that. He agreed that —the noble Lord shakes his head. If he did not mean that, could he tell us what he did mean?
Lord Brain: My Lords, I said that we needed a properly drafted and debated privacy Bill. I then went on to explain why I do not consider this Bill to be properly drafted.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think that we agree that a privacy Bill, properly debated and examined, should become the law of the land. We agree on that point—and that is the basis of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Brain, is an expert in things to do with photography. He is the chairman of, I think, the British Photographers Liaison Committee, which is a valuable association with great experience and of great standing in the country. My Bill in no way interferes with the freedom that photographers now have—whether they be private photographers or newspaper photographers. If Parliament makes this Bill a statute, it will in no way interfere with the way in which photographers (both private and newspaper) now operate—not at all. However, what it will do—and this is the important thing—is to make redress possible for people who feel that they have been the victims of cowboys who take a distorted and contorted picture, hawk it around the world and receive, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of pounds because that distorted picture is attractive to those concerned with newspaper circulation figures. The Bill will mean that those who take such photographs run the risk that the person who feels that he or she has been damaged will be able to take the photographers to court. The court will be able to decide, first, whether that individual has been damaged and whether the picture was distorted and wrong. It will be for the court to protect people from the dangers that they now face.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Dun-is, attended the Second Reading or any of the subsequent stages of the Bill's passage when I tried to explain why the Bill has been introduced. I named the person who gave me the inspiration to prepare and introduce the Bill. I was talking with Donald Sinden, the well-known actor who takes a keen interest in world affairs as well as in his own profession. He was
1630
disturbed by certain things that had been happening and which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, does not think are important. They do not disturb him.
Donald Sinden said, "If I write you a letter, the paper that it's written on and the envelope which it goes in belong to you, but the message still belongs to me". That is what brought me to the copyright legislation. Under the copyright legislation one preserves the message although the material upon which the message is sent belongs to the recipient. He then went on to say, "Why can't the same thing apply to photographs? If someone has libelled me by writing a 1,000-word article, I can take that article which damages me to the courts. If I can prove that I have been damaged and show that it has been done deliberately with the idea of damaging me, the court can give me compensation and the protection of an injunction against that damage being repeated".
That happens in France. The French have a privacy law. The Duchess of York hit the headlines in this country. When they tried to repeat that in France, she took the case to court under their privacy laws and received compensation of £50,000, and an injunction to stop it being repeated. I want to give the same protection to the Duchess of York, or anyone else who may have been the victim of prying cowboys whose only interest is to make a quick buck from using people's private lives to their advantage. That is all that the Bill is out to attain.
No photographers, at any level anywhere, need feel that their freedom to do what they are doing now will be infringed in any way unless a photographer has deliberately twisted the camera to damage someone else. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, quoted the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in support of his argument. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue—his speech is there to be read—was ecstatic about the need for a Bill like this, but he wondered whether it went wide enough. I do not believe that it goes very wide. It is a narrow little Bill. It hardly touches the problem that we are facing.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, is the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. He was defending the press. He was defending his commission. In my Bill I am interested in defending the reputation and rights of individuals who have been damaged deliberately. There would be no need for my Bill if some members of the press, whom the noble Lord was defending, did not offer fabulous sums of money to persuade people to take risks by using the camera to distort news.
What is my Bill? It is so modest that it is unbelievable. The noble Lord also quoted the Government. In their response to the Bill on Second Reading, the Government made it clear that they saw the need for some extension of our privacy laws. My noble friend Lady Trumpington who was representing the Government said that there was a move towards producing something like that. We were almost promised a privacy White Paper within the near future. That is good. I want to urge that on its way. The Bill in no way prevents the Government from doing that. Indeed I hope that the vote of the House on this amendment will show them that there is a need for it.

1631
What is the Bill? I tried to explain it symbolically. I said that it is rather like a house with a roof that is in a dreadful state and which needs replacing. But it will take a considerable time to replace the roof. My Bill fills the gap until the Government—any government—can introduce a more comprehensive privacy Bill. My Bill is the equivalent of putting a bucket under the worst of the leaks to prevent them doing more damage to the furniture and the floor covering in the meantime. It does no more than that.
In the light of all that has happened, we would not be doing our duty if we did not use this opportunity to give that protection in the interim to people who are being damaged. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, referred to the incident relating to Prince Edward which is now hitting the newspapers. I know nothing about that. Before that the Princess of Wales went to do exercises in a private gym. Someone took the trouble to bore holes in the wall so that they could take lurid pictures and send them around the world and make all sorts of money out of them. The noble Lord has an important position as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. If he could persuade the press to be as reticent in the way they present news and pictures today as they were before the war when the then Prince of Wales had certain problems, there might not be the same need for privacy Bills or my Private Member's Bill.
I explained why the provision was to be part of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. I satisfied myself that there was a need to provide this type of protection for people who were being damaged unfairly. I have been about this place now for 43 years. I have taken the trouble to find out about parliamentary procedure. I tried to discover how one can do things that might be helpful. I do not want always to have to wait for the Government, whoever the government might be, to do things that are obvious. Our parliamentary procedure provides that there are such things as Private Members' Bills. A Private Member's Bill is designed to deal with some of the smaller problems that governments, for all kinds of good reasons, cannot tackle at once. That does not mean that we have always to wait for the Government to act; it does no harm to do something for ourselves occasionally.
This Private Member's Bill was designed to put the bucket under the leaking roof until the whole roof could be put right by a government Bill. How did it come about? I looked through all the statutes that I thought might be applicable. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act lent itself for my Bill to be annexed to it to meet the need that I have just described. That is all that the Bill does. It does not interfere with the copyright legislation. It will make no difference to the application of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. The Bill is an extension of that Act to meet a need that is clear and urgent. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act was the obvious statute. It is like grafting onto a tree something which is not of the tree but which is capable of doing the job without interfering with the tree.
We have examined my Bill in detail. If the amendment is pressed to a Division the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, will be my Teller and therefore both
1632
sides of the House join together on the Bill. I wish it were the case that if the Bill passes the Report stage and Third Reading its provisions will become applicable. However, that will not be the case; the Bill must go through the same procedures in another place where it will be examined. Therefore, there is no question of something being rammed down the throat of the photographers' association of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, without all the preparation and thought that the other place can give to it, as we have tried to give to it.
But this is the beginning. The House of Lords does not have many functions and it does not have a great many powers. However, it happens to exist and it is within this House that we can set Bills such as this on their way. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, is equal to myself in wishing to attain the highest standards, whether under the heading of privacy or anything else. I believe that we should let the Bill go through its stages in this House, let it go to another place and then use any influence and power that we have—whether it is through the photographers' association or the Press Complaints Commission—to influence any alteration which will remove some of the objections.
I hope that the noble Lord will not push the amendment to a vote. However, if he does, I hope that my noble friends and noble Lords on all sides of the House will see that the Bill is a helpful way of putting on the statute book a provision that is necessary. However, because of time and the problems involved, that cannot be done overnight by the usual government procedure. I hope that the noble Lord will have second thoughts and agree to act in that way. I hope that he will pursue his objections through another place, where at the end of the day the real power lies. The Bill having gone so far in this House—having had First and Second Readings and a Committee stage—I would not like it to be sabotaged in such a way that the real, genuine and valuable thoughts behind it cannot go their normal way.
It is with that hope that even at this late stage I ask the noble Lord, Lord Brain, who is a friend of mine and who I respect greatly, to see his way clear at this late stage not to interfere with the progress of the Bill, whatever might happen to it in the future.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, while I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls —and he knows that because we have spoken on numerous occasions—I can only repeat what I said in Committee. The Bill deals with the privacy of the individual and his or her ability to take action under the law. Therefore, it should be part of a privacy law and not part of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988.
I know that it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, to sign the death warrant of photo-journalism but, in effect, that is what the Bill will do. Simply having to gain the permission of subjects on film—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I wish to assure the noble Baroness that, having examined the consequences that will flow from the Bill with the Public Bill Office and various other

1633
sources, there is no question that it can interfere with the legitimate processes that the photographers of this country have at the present time.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I was going on to say that, because the noble Lord and I had a conversation in which he said to me that the Bill in no way interferes with legitimate photographers. They can carry on as they are. I would like to accept that, but this Bill opens the door to possible litigation. The courts could be overburdened with complainants trying to prove that they had been seriously damaged. I emphasise that they will be trying to prove that they have been seriously damaged. The great majority of photographers work for any one particular group of newspaper and/or magazines and are paid by them accordingly. But it is much easier to get an injunction against the photographer because, after all, he or she is just an individual. However, in most cases the reward for serious damage would be very little.
Why should the newspaper or periodical which publishes a picture construed as highly offensive be able to hide behind the individual who has taken the picture, which of course has no value until it is published? I believe that our anxiety is really about the paparazzi and just how we should deal with that type of photography. In trying to address the problem, the Bill inadvertently sucks in the legitimate photographers who cover all kinds of situations. Could not the Press Complaints Commission be strengthened and through it more pressure brought to bear on newspapers and magazines who pay for and publish this kind of material? After all, the fruits of this kind of photography are not in the interests of any of us and there should be a better way of preventing publication. I know that the Government are working on a press control and privacy consultation paper and I look forward to reading it. However, I hope that we can strengthen the controls that we already have and not have to resort to yet another piece of legislation.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for missing the start of the debate. Your Lorclships have debated so succinctly today that I was caught out. However, I was present throughout the Committee stage of the Bill. On Second Reading a racing metaphor ran through the discussions. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls referred to his failures as a tipster. The Minister described herself as an old grey mare. That being the case, I cannot think what she used to be.
I believe that the racing metaphor is appropriate in several respects. I suggest that my noble friend is unwise in entering this rather modest hurdler for the Gold Cup. He may also have entered a gelding for a classic race, something for which it is not eligible. The race for which he has entered it is, of course, the Copyright, Design and Patents Act. The feeling that something must be done to defend privacy will receive universal approval in this House. However, in the words used on Second Reading, there is an inevitability that
1634
photographs will intrude upon people's privacy. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, the lawyers will have a field day with the wording,
"cause serious damage to".
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, in his wish to do something about privacy, may have let himself be a little run away with. The central theme of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, is that the Bill is flawed and impossible to implement. I believe that it would do little to improve the privacy of individuals. That problem is immensely difficult and far from simple.
I am among those who believe that it is important to maintain the freedom of the press and if it is humanly possible to control abuse by a voluntary code of conduct, which undoubtedly comes under the auspices of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. The voluntary code of conduct is vital. However, in the face of the Royal photographs taken in Spain and in the light of what we learnt this morning about the Buckingham Palace complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, even I find difficulty in maintaining the principle that we must stay with that code. With regard to the Spanish pictures, there is a gleam of hope in the fact that they have not yet been published. However, I believe that no Act in British law can prevent such pictures being taken and published abroad.
Even now, the effect of restricting the freedom of a photographer to take and to market his pictures must be looked at very carefully. One of the most dangerous aspects of the Bill is that it seeks to control improper publication in the photographic field without touching upon potential abuses in other areas.
We are looking, hoping and waiting for a properly constructed Bill on privacy which will assist in this regard. But surely no part of it should be taken in isolation. There is no difference in principle between intrusion by photographs and intrusion by words; they should be treated equally with regard to privacy. A picture may have more impact but that is about all.
In Committee I underlined the importance of the ability of the press and television to publish, even if they are damned as a result of that publication, for the punishment of wickedness and vice. The Watergate case, in picture and word, is perhaps the most conspicuous example of the correct use of the power of the press to expose wrong-doing, even if it has now become something of a folk legend. However, there are many other instances. It was the ability of the late Robert Maxwell to bully the media by the use of the threat of libel that allowed him to conceal his known improper activities. They were known throughout Fleet Street, although not in the degree to which they eventually came out. However, considerable improper activities were known of for some time. That was in spite of the laws in relation to privacy and libel as they stand at the moment. To render those laws even more draconian against a photographer and against an editor or a reporter, except as part of a comprehensive whole, and without the very greatest care, would be immensely damaging in connection with prosecution for wrongdoing and with the proper conduct of affairs.
As I say, many noble Lords may doubt the will of the press to stick to the voluntary code of conduct but the

1635
wording of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that the Report should be received in six months' time, given its literal meaning, will give breathing space for the preparation of a comprehensive Bill on privacy which can be refined and discussed both in your Lordships' House and in another place.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will the noble Lord concede that while the amendment refers to the Report being received in six months' time, taken literally, that means that if the amendment is carried that is the end of the Bill and we shall have to wait for whatever length of time it takes for something as good or better to be put in its place?
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comment. I would stick to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that as the Bill stands, it will be impossible to implement and that it will provide a field day for the lawyers. I support the amendment.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I too apologise for not being present at the earlier stages of the Bill. I was otherwise engaged. Had I been able to be present, I should have certainly supported my noble friend Lord Brain.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, with all his practised years of parliamentary oratory, has done a splendid job in trying to support his Bill. But I am afraid that he leaves me unconvinced. I share the great anxiety of many photographers who feel that the Bill is too open-ended and, indeed, under certain circumstances, they could be caught by it. For example, what would be the position if someone quite innocently took a photograph in the street which contained, in the background, a gentleman with a lady on his arm who was not his wife, and he objected and took action under the Bill? Such circumstances are not dealt with by the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, seeks merely to restrict the activities of the so-called paparazzi. If so, the Bill should have been drafted more narrowly. Perhaps mention should be made of selling photographs which may damage for specific gain.
The noble Lord mentioned the privacy law in France which was introduced in 1985. I understand that that is also rather vaguely drafted and has given rise to not inconsiderable problems. I do not believe that we wish to repeat that.
On the infringement of privacy and how difficult it is to prove, I go on from what my noble friend Lord Brain said to say that in many cases the people who will be offended by the photographs and who will try to take action under the Bill will be the same people who would make full use of the photographs from the same photographers if it happened to suit their purpose. Many of those people thrive on publicity. We should not ignore that fact.
Finally, I agree with my noble friend Lady Wharton that machinery exists in the Press Complaints Commission. We should look much more closely at reinforcing those procedures and, if need be, come forward with a scheme for fining newspapers which
1636
publish the offending photographs. As I said at the outset, I believe that the Bill is far too vague, despite what the noble Lord says. It is much better to wait until a properly thought-out measure comes before the House.
7.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 13.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L

Brain, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Burnham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dundonald, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Tordoff, L.

Greenway, L. [Teller.]

Walpole, L.

Grey, E.

Wharton, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balfour, E.

Kilbracken, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Monson, L.

Hacking, L.

Norrie, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strange, B.

Howell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Judd, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Commonwealth Games
8.3 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the costs of staging the Commonwealth Games, and what proportions will be borne by the public sector and the national lottery, local authorities, and the private sector.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing me time to discuss the arrangements and the funding of the proposal of the English Commonwealth Games Association to stage the games in Manchester in the year 2002. I am also pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in her place this evening. I am sure that she will reply—as she always does—with great courtesy and understanding of the points that I wish to raise.
It is important that we debate such matters. The last occasion when the games were held in this country—in Edinburgh in 1986—the result was a fine sporting festival, but a total financial shambles which resulted in the late Robert Maxwell being brought in to sort things out, with even more disastrous consequences. This time we have to succeed on both fronts if we go ahead with the bid.
It will be recalled that Edinburgh did not have any major worries about capital works for 1986 as the city had most successfully staged an earlier games in 1970. Edinburgh's problem was revenue. No such situation exists with the bid about which we are talking tonight.

1637
Indeed, very little exists in the shape of major facilities. In particular, a stadium has to be built at an estimated cost of about £187 million; a swimming pool complex will have to be built at a cost of about £54 million; and a new rowing centre will have to be provided at a cost as yet unbudgeted.
Other sports require further money, notably for boxing in the G-Mex II centre where local grants seem to be a matter of concern. Moreover, lawn bowls need a new facility and at the Eastlands Arena, where badminton will be played, although funding of some £36 million to £37 million is assured from the Government and a £1 million grant from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, as of now there is no price and no budget as the project is described as being out for "concept development". The other sports included in the programme for the year 2002, as endorsed by the Commonwealth Games Council, require rather more modest sums of money; but it all adds up.
Therefore, the first question is: where will all that money come from? Is it assured? My estimate is that at least about £200 million of new money will have to be found to add to the £120 million already provided from public funds towards the so-called millennium stadium (£72 million), the Eastlands centre (£36.5 million) and the national cycling centre (£9.5 million).
Clearly, Sir Robert Scott, the promoter of the bid, has an obligation to spell out exactly the nature of his financial proposals. The English Commonwealth Games Association can hardly present its bid without being assured of its financial viability. Her Majesty's Government and the Sports Council have a duty to the country and to Parliament to confirm to us that they have examined all the financial proposals and that they are fully satisfied that all those financial commitments can be met. No such guarantees have yet been forthcoming. I shall return shortly to some of those matters.
The second main question concerns the revenue consequences of the proposals. For example, the national cycling centre —which is desperately needed, quite apart from its involvement in the Commonwealth Games—was first thought to require an annual subvention of about £220,000 a year, after having been built entirely with Sports Council money. The council has agreed to fund that amount and the city council has committed a further sum, making £250,000 in all. I understand that the requirement of £250,000 has now risen to about £300,000 or more. Who is to find the balance?
Further, what calculations have been made of the annual costs of running the national millennium stadium, the swimming complex at Wigan (bearing in mind the fact that all swimming pools require substantial public subsidy), the rowing course and the other sports facilities? It would be unacceptably irresponsible to build any facilities unless we know the subvention required to run them and who will provide it.
The third principal question is: when those facilities are all in place, who is to own and manage them? We know about the serious financial restraints being imposed by the Government upon local authorities in the North West; for example, Manchester, Wigan, Salford, and so on. It is difficult to imagine that they can
1638
accept the financial burdens involved. I hope I am wrong but we need to know. Can the noble Baroness tell us what inquiries are being made by the Government and the Sports Council bearing in mind that it has been made crystal clear that the new lottery money should not be used for revenue purposes?
That leaves the private sector. We have heard much talk of its response. What does it amount to? I understand that the Government have asked the Sports Council to conduct a feasibility study into the private funding available. If that is correct, it is a wise precaution. Can the noble Baroness give any indication tonight of the conclusions being reached as a result of that inquiry? One Suggestion I have heard is that the £187 million stadium might be handed over to the private sector in return for its investment of some £40 million. Is that true? If so, it does not seem to me to be a very good bargain for the public sector and the public funders.
I turn now to other potential sources of public funds —the national lottery and European funding. We debated matters concerning the so-called millennium stadium in your Lordships' House quite recently and I will not go over that again. However, it will be a 65,000 seater stadium at a likely cost, as I say, of £187 million. Some £72 million seems to be in place and £40 million is said to be anticipated from private sector investment. This leaves a shortfall of £75 million. In spite of the fact that the noble Baroness made perfectly clear in the earlier debate—I totally agreed with her—that the Millennium Fund money (anticipated to be available in 10 allocations of £50 million each for different schemes around the country) would be wholly determined by the independent trustees of the Millennium Fund, Sir Robert Scott immediately repeated his previous public statements that £50 million was assured from this fund.. I do not know how the trustees of the fund will approach their task of choosing these 10 major schemes, but I cannot believe that they will not need to be convinced of the financial viability of each scheme and also to be convinced that, when built, the projects they choose can be properly managed and the funding guaranteed to meet future revenue requirements. As I say, all that has to be investigated.
Next, we have to consider the proposal that the other £25 million required to build the stadium might come from the lottery allocation to sport, which will be 20 per cent. of the lottery proceeds. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, QC, who is a recognised constitutional authority in this House, maintains his contention held in the previous debate that the lottery Act does not allow millennium money to be added to the sports allocation to go over 20 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has asked me to apologise to the House tonight as he has, to be elsewhere, but he authorises me to say that after meeting the department' s lawyers he fervently maintains his position. He says that at the end of his meeting with the National Heritage lawyers, he told them:
"You have been warned. You will probably end up faced with a judicial review if you continue along your present path".
I can only say that I believe he may be right and that a much higher legal assessment is required to be made

1639
by the Government to determine that matter. In any case, it will be monstrously unfair upon cities such as Sheffield, Birmingham, Gateshead, and others, who have provided first class facilities for sport out of their own resources, in some cases—indeed, most cases—without a penny of assistance from government, if they are not to be treated equally generously in being helped to meet their ongoing financial revenue costs and future capital requirements, as Sir Robert Scott is demanding for his proposals.
As regards European funds, I believe that the same considerations will apply as those for the distribution of the Millennium Fund by the trustees. The question is again raised: is all this viable? We await the answer to that question. So from one source or another the stadium will require another £75 million of public funding. But what about the £54 million swimming complex and the £10 million rowing course, and the other facilities? Where is all that money to come from? The capital control placed upon such projects as this preclude the building of projects such as are proposed in a place like Wigan. The swimming centre will have 10 lanes of 50 metres with a further 11 lanes of 50 metres each as a warm up and training facility. I am told there has been no interest in private investment, and I would have been astonished had it been otherwise, knowing the running costs of a swimming pool.
If all the Sports Council and lottery money is going into the stadium, how can this £54 million be found from the public sector? It cannot, nor could the good people of Wigan sustain such a vast capital project and enormous annual revenue deficits. These are substantial questions, so far not even asked in public, much less answered. That is the main reason I have sought to discuss them in your Lordships' House tonight. We must insist upon hearing the answers before this project proceeds further. Not to do so, and to run the risk of being awarded the 2002 games but not being able to sustain the capital and revenue consequences, would be a national humiliation. It must not be allowed to happen.
There are other financial commitments in the Manchester prospectus which I think require clearer explanation, not least because they come under the heading of the indemnity which the city council found possible to sign although both Sheffield and Birmingham were not able to do so. For example, Sir Robert Scott's brochure suggests a payment of £12 million to the BBC to televise these events around the Commonwealth. That, it is claimed, would produce an income of £14 million. Even if South Africa enters the games—we all hope it does—that income seems doubtful. Then there is sponsorship income which is put at some £30 million. That would be surprising given previous experience. Food and lodgings for athletes and officials, plus operating costs and marketing appear to add up to some £51 million. All this will, I hope, be offset by receipts from ticket sales, refreshments, programmes and the like. One can only hope that is so, but it requires careful examination.
There are other questions to be asked. I have no time to deal with them in detail but I will give one example. The Manchester 2002 bid brochure gives the seating
1640
capacity of the Manchester University Sports Centre, where the judo is scheduled to take place, as 3,000. My inquiries reveal that this hall is licensed to seat 500 with a further 500 seated in the floor area. This is another matter that needs to be investigated.
Finally, I should like to give my own view about the policy considerations involved in providing major sports facilities of this kind. The country, and sport in this country, certainly need them; but they must be part of a national strategy for major sports provision. If the proposals for Manchester are taken on board as the first stage of a guaranteed national strategy to provide national facilities in every other part of the country, that will be welcomed. If it is at last accepted that cities which have courageously provided our present centres of excellence without much help from the Government can be assisted, that is to be doubly welcomed.
I am well aware that I have set the noble Baroness an almost impossible task tonight with the detailed issues I have thought it right, and indeed my duty, to raise. It would be unreasonable to expect a detailed reply, even though my Question has been on the Order Paper for some time now. I am sure that the House will be satisfied if the noble Baroness can ensure that all the issues which I have raised are examined and responded to in due course, although we know that, as is her invariable custom, she will give us what information she can when she replies this evening.
I thank the House for its tolerance in hearing me out on matters that I regard as very serious and of the greatest public importance to the nation and to sport.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has raised a very important series of points tonight with his Unstarred Question. I shall not go in any depth into the specific points that he raised about the games themselves. I could not do so anything like as well as the noble Lord, and once the questions have been asked there is no need to repeat them.
However, the noble Lord's summing up is of crucial importance. We are talking here of the Commonwealth Games, which are a celebration of sport, far more so than any championship can ever be. The Commonwealth receives a great deal of stick in certain quarters. I believe that it is a useful body in so far as it brings together a great many divergent nations which have one common thread. A sporting celebration of that international union is very valuable in today's society. In particular, if South Africa returns to that organisation, as is hoped, that must be applauded by all of us.
If the Government like the idea of celebrations of sport, such as the games or major championships being staged in this country, it is reasonable to expect that central government should give assistance with funding at some level. It is also reasonable to expect that there should not merely be a diversion of funds from other sporting events. The National Lottery and Millennium Fund could probably be spent many times over without taking into account a major project such as staging the games.
The problem is that the Commonwealth Games do not have the same potential for revenue generation as

1641
the Olympic Games. The potential market for sporting events, regardless of their quality and competitiveness and of the number of records broken, will never be as high. Therefore, we are asking the Government to state what type of support they will give to an event which is of benefit to sport and of benefit to the country in terms of prestige—which must be a worthwhile consideration, if secondary to the sports themselves. Secondly, how do the Government see the games being funded if they are not prepared to put their hand in the Treasury's pocket? If we had some guidance on those questions it would help considerably all future plans for events because unless they are correctly funded they will benefit nobody. If there are too few events the games will not benefit the organisation we are celebrating. The Commonwealth will not benefit from badly funded games. Furthermore, that would not benefit the nation, because if we were seen to be operating a second-class sporting event we would make no contribution to the nation's prestige or the prestige of the organisation.
When she replies I hope that the noble Baroness will give some indication of the Government's attitude towards these events, and in particular towards the Commonwealth Games in 2002.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my noble friend and colleague Lord Howell does us a service by raising the question of funding of sports gatherings such as the Commonwealth Games.
The figures that my noble friend quoted clearly indicate that no local authority in this country could fund such a venture on its own. Being strapped for cash as they are at present, it is almost impossible for any local authority to consider funding such a project in any case. Certainly, as a former leader of the city council in Manchester, if I were still in that esteemed position I would not be prepared to raid the rate fund for one penny to provide a huge sports stadium for a prestige event. If I did it would be at the expense of funding for housing, education, the care of old people and general use in the community. Any government in office today would find it extremely difficult to say to any city, whether it be Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool or Glasgow, that if it succeeded in a bid to stage the games, the Government would allow for that in support from the central exchequer. That would be an impossible exercise.
There is a great deal to be said for a national strategy, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Howell. One of our centres of excellence in the past was the Richmond ice skating rink, which I understand was disposed of for redevelopment in 1986 and has never been replaced. Everybody knows that when our skaters go into action against world class skaters from Russia or America they are competing with people who have training facilities which are available seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That example from ice skating is repeated across the sporting spectrum.
In his detailed, and not overlong speech which was full of information, my noble friend referred to personalities involved in the Manchester Olympic bid and in this present bid. I start from the disadvantage that
1642
although I am a former leader of Manchester council and one would expect me to have some brief in order to put a case for Manchester, I have no such brief. The powers that be who have been dealing with the bid for the Olympic Games in Manchester perhaps thought that it was no concern of mine. Therefore, I have never been given any information. I have not been contacted. That is also the position in relation the public representatives of the city of Manchester. They have almost been frozen out of the proceedings, whereas they could have helped. That is sad. I know that in the past people such as myself were prepared to speak objectively.
I must accept that the figures which my noble friend Lord Howell mentioned tonight are accurate. Having known him for many years I know that he would not quote figures that were not realistic. However, have no information on which to base an assessment as to whether or not those figures are correct, because I have not been given a brief.
Lord Howell: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene to thank him, and to say that all the figures that I have given have been taken from the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games bid.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my noble friend has the advantage of me. I am a Mancunian. I once operated in an exalted position. However, no one thought it worthwhile to send me a copy so that I might judge whether I wished to take issue on the subject. Having read it, I may not have wished to do so. I am sure that the entrepreneur in charge of the issue, Sir Robert Scott, must have known on the grapevine that this debate would take place this evening. It amazes me if such knowledge had not reached him.
I stand in this Chamber almost like St. George without the armour, waiting for the dragon to devour him. I have no defence and no argument to put forward, but not because I am unwilling or inactive—I am sure that the most partisan Member of your Lordships' House would not level that criticism against me. I am always ready to put forward a case in which I believe. However, unfortunately I have been given no information, either on the detail or on the broad issues involved.
There was much criticism from some quarters about aspects of the Olympic bid. I believe that the criticism was based on the view of many people that the issue was kept within the control of a small group of people who made it clear that with regard to others a hands-off exercise operated. I do not wish to go into that question. However, as time evolves I do not think that the subject will go away.
As I said in my opening remarks, my noble friend Lord Howell has done us a favour by highlighting the huge cost which will accrue from the Commonwealth Games. I do not believe that we should not go in for such competitions. But no city in this or any other country could bear the burden of an international competition. With the number of people in the Commonwealth who will wish to participate in such games—very often the games are a trial run for the Olympic Games —I do not believe that any single unit

1643
would be able to bear the cost. There has been reference to the recouping of money after a successful bid. The issue is all about money. For instance, looking at the last three bids for the Olympic Games, why did American cities win two out of the three bids? Sadly, that exercise was not about sports or games; it was about money and who would put back the most money.
In conclusion, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for initiating the debate. I am sorry that I was not better briefed, but no one thought it worthwhile to do so. In some respects the argument may have been lost by default. However, in my opinion, if the country is to go in for such an exercise—and I believe with the utmost vigour that it should do so—the overwhelming proportion of the cost will have to be borne by central government. With present strictures, and as a result of past strictures with regard to local authority funding from central government, no city that I have ever known or been associated with, including the boroughs of the great city of London, could bear such costs. If they were to do so, it could be only at the expense of the community. The members have been elected to serve the community. I believe that community services are more important for the quality of life than either Olympic, student or Commonwealth Games.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his views on the costs of staging the 2002 Commonwealth Games in this country. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, who contributed so vigorously to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has taken the route of a debate on dyslexia this afternoon to reach this evening's debate and I congratulate him on both his speeches.
Before dealing with the question of the costs associated with staging the Commonwealth Games, I should like to congratulate Manchester on winning the English bid to host the 2002 event, and I am sure your Lordships will all join me in wishing it success in securing the actual bid which will be decided by the Commonwealth Games Federation in Bermuda in November 1995. I should, however, make it absolutely clear that the decision on 4th February to select Manchester as the English bid was entirely a matter for the Commonwealth Games Council for England. The Commonwealth Games Council for England is an independent sports body and it is quite right that the Government played no part in the decision to select Manchester ahead of either London or Sheffield.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked me about the Government's attitude to such games. The Government recognise the sporting prestige and value attached to the successful staging of major international events in this country. However, we are concerned to ensure that only high quality and financially viable bids for such events are put forward. To assist this process, the Sports Council GB—which is sponsored by my department —is shortly to establish an advisory group comprising representatives from all home country sports councils, sports organisations and the local authority associations
1644
as well as officials from my department. The group will provide practical advice and technical guidance to local authorities and sports organisations on the various costs and risks involved in bidding for and staging major events. The Government would certainly wish the Manchester bid promoters to liaise closely with this advisory group in developing its plans to stage the 2002 Commonwealth Games.
The Manchester bid promoters have said that the city has gained immeasurable domestic and international prestige from its high profile bid for the 2000 Olympic Games. They now have in prospect some first class facilities such as the Velodrome and the multi-purpose indoor arena which are expected to be operational by October 1994 and autumn 1995 respectively. The bid spearheaded major regeneration works in the region with over £3 billion worth of Government investment in infrastructure projects over a three year period resulting in a new terminal at Manchester Airport and greatly improved road and rail links. All of this, together with the local expertise and partnership between the local authority and the private sector built up during their 2000 Olympic bid campaign, should stand Manchester in good stead in its bid for the Commonwealth Games. The Government have always made it clear that our commitment to providing financial support for the Olympic stadium in East Manchester was conditional on Manchester winning the nomination for the Olympic Games. However, through the Department of the Environment's urban programme scheme, we remain committed to providing up to £30 million towards the cost of acquiring and clearing the stadium site.
I turn to the specific question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, concerning the actual costs of staging the Commonwealth Games. My department has seen a copy of Manchester's bid to the Commonwealth Games Council for England outlining its proposals, including the costs of staging the games. I gather the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has also seen a copy; but, like the noble Lord, Lord Dean, I have not, as yet. Manchester has drawn heavily on the expertise and knowledge gained from bidding for the Olympic Games in putting the bid together. However, the onus is on the bid promoters to present evidence to the Government that the bid merits support, bearing in mind that we expect the games to be self-financing. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is meeting members of the bid team (Councillor Graham Stringer and Sir Robert Scott) later this month to discuss the bid. We will certainly be asking the bid promoters to develop in depth their proposals which were outlined in their bid document to the Commonwealth Games Council for England and to expand on how they plan to meet the costs of staging the event, plus future running costs. It would be premature for me to make any statement on the nature of government support for the bid in advance of that meeting.
I should now like to turn to the question of national lottery funding for the games. As noble Lords will recall from the passage of the National Lottery etc. Bill last year, decisions on how lottery money will be distributed will be the responsibility not of the Government but of the independent organisations that are named as

1645
distributing bodies in the Act. Those are the Arts and Sports Councils, the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the National Lottery Charities Board and the Millennium Commission.
Regarding the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Renton, the noble Lord may be aware that my noble friend and I had an interesting meeting. It is clear that we do not see eye to eye on the point, although at the time the meeting finished I understood my noble friend to be satisfied. It was only later that I received a letter from him.
My legal advisers are clear that the National Lottery etc. Act does not preclude funding of the type raised with me by my noble friend Lord Renton and which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, repeated this evening. If it would help the noble Lord, I shall send a copy to him of my recent letter to my noble friend on the subject.
I understand that distributing bodies will later this year issue guidelines for applicants which will set out the eligibility criteria for lottery funding and the precise application process. The organisers of Manchester's bid for the Commonwealth Games will be able to submit an application for lottery funds to the appropriate body in the same way as any other organization—provided, of course, that they identify a project which meets those eligibility criteria. Once received each application must be considered on its merits in the context of others received. I can also assure your Lordships that there is no question of distributing bodies, and most certainly not government Ministers, committing lottery funds to any project before an official application has been received and fully evaluated. Lottery funds are expected to come on stream late this year or in early 1995. There is no question of any decisions having been taken on funding for any projects from the national lottery. The distributing bodies, including the Millennium
1646
Commission, will issue guidance on applications soon. Until then, no one should assume that they will receive funding.
I hope that in the light of that information it will be clear that it is simply not possible to state at this time whether any of the proceeds from the lottery will be used to support the costs of staging the Commonwealth Games in the year 2002.
My department is concerned to see the widest possible distribution of high quality sports facilities throughout the country. Recent developments such as the Don Valley stadium in Sheffield, the international indoor arena in Birmingham and the velodrome in Manchester have greatly increased our chances of successfully staging major events and further enhancing our international sporting profile. The GB Sports Council is currently developing a new national facilities development plan which will assess the need for facility provision throughout the country. It will be taken into account by the Sports Council in considering lottery applications, but applications cannot be ruled out solely because they do not fall within the plan.
I am grateful to the noble Lords Lord Howell, for saying that I do not have to reply to his many questions. I shall read the debate most carefully and write where the need exists. I conclude by saying that I assure your Lordships that we are alert to the problems as well as the pluses involved in hosting the 2002 Commonwealth Games.
Lord Howell: My Lords, perhaps I may conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my colleague and noble friend Lord Dean for their support and contributions. I especially thank the Minister for what I thought was a realistic and therefore much appreciated response to the debate.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.

  POLICE PAY
  POLICE PAY
  PRISON SERVICE: KEY TARGETS
  PRISON SERVICE: KEY TARGETS
  MURDER: LIFE SENTENCE RELEASE RE-OFFENDERS
  MURDER: LIFE SENTENCE RELEASE RE-OFFENDERS
  ORGANOPHOSPHATES: EXPOSURE TESTS
  ORGANOPHOSPHATES: EXPOSURE TESTS
  PREVENTIVE DIPLOMACY INITIATIVE
  PREVENTIVE DIPLOMACY INITIATIVE
  ARBITRATION FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE IN THE NHS: DISCUSSION PAPER
  ARBITRATION FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE IN THE NHS: DISCUSSION PAPER
  CROWN COURTS: TV/VIDEO SET
  CROWN COURTS: TV/VIDEO SET
  CROWN COURTS: CHILD LIAISON OFFICERS
  CROWN COURTS: CHILD LIAISON OFFICERS