Sitting of 17 April 1996

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

Air Pollution
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
9.34 am
Sir Graham Bright: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate an issue that is close to my heart and one that is causing increasing concern in the country at large: the adverse effect of diesel particulate emissions on health and how we can reduce those levels. I shall stick closely to my notes as it is a fairly technical subject and I have a lot to say about it.
I have a vested interest in the matter: I am, and have been since my early twenties, a severe asthmatic. I am by no means alone in that: more than 3 million adults and 1 million children in Britain today are asthmatics. The proportion of young children with asthma in Britain has almost doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, each year 40 children and 1,900 adults die as a result of asthma attacks, and more than 100,000 are admitted to hospital. As a chronic disease, it interferes with normal activities, with consequent effects on school, work and lifestyle. Almost all asthmatics require long-term medication—in fact, the total cost of asthma approaches £1 billion a year. Therefore, anything that contributes to that cost must be examined very seriously.
I accept that the evidence from the United Kingdom regarding the potential for air pollution to initiate or exacerbate asthma attacks is questionable—not least because there is no universally accepted definition of asthma for clinical purposes. The inconclusiveness of the current evidence, and thus the need for more research, was highlighted in the recent report issued by the Department of Health committee on the medical effects of air pollution. I recommend that hon. Members examine some of the reports that have been produced on that subject. That report looks specifically at the issue of asthma and of outdoor air pollution.
Many asthmatics perceive that air quality has an adverse effect on their condition. There is some evidence to suggest that air quality can exacerbate asthma even if there seems to be little evidence at present that it provokes the onset. However, the debate is important not only to asthmatics.
As another report from the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants shows, there is increasing evidence that particulate air pollution has an adverse effect on the health of those who do not suffer from recognised respiratory conditions. Therefore, the debate is of great significance to the whole population, but of
630
special significance to those who live or work in our cities and large towns, where avoidable particulate levels are at their highest.
Particulate emissions from vehicles are of special concern, as, despite the introduction of new regulations, the Department of the Environment has forecast that their levels will continue to rise into the next decade. That is in marked contrast with the other well-known pollutants from vehicles, such as carbon monoxide and sulphur and nitrogen oxides, which reached their peak between 1990 and 1992 and are now forecast to reduce.
Particulate matter is a complex mixture of organic and inorganic substances. Particulates are known also as black smoke or PM10s—which are simply particles that are smaller than 10 microns in diameter. In general, the smaller the particle, the more likely it is to penetrate the body's defence mechanisms and pass through the delicate tissues to the lungs. Dust from roads and factories are typically larger than 2 microns, but fine particles—such as those present in vehicle emissions—are smaller than 2 microns.
Because of their size, the smaller particles tend to remain suspended in the air for longer than the larger particles, and therefore they are much more likely to be inhaled. The smaller particles, such as those from diesel exhausts, are thus considered to be the most likely to cause respiratory disease and are known to be carcinogenic—we must take on board that very serious point.
Airborne particulates can also interact with other pollutants: the interaction of sulphur dioxide and smoke is well documented. It is therefore included in air quality standards. It is also possible for particles to provide a surface on which pollutants can concentrate, and so have a greater adverse effect when inhaled. Airborne particles provide a surface on which other reactions take place—for example, they can contribute to the formulation of smog.
Some of us will remember the smogs of the 1950s. In 1952, 4,000 people died as a result of smog. Under the then Conservative Government, much pioneering research was undertaken into the effects of air pollution on health, particularly from the combustion of coal. As a result, the Clean Air Act 1956 was passed. For a long time afterwards, it was thought that the problem of urban air pollution had been solved.
Two main factors, however, have combined to make it necessary for us to think again. First, there is increasing evidence that exposure to relatively low levels of airborne particles can increase mortality and morbidity and lead to respiratory difficulties. Secondly, there has been a large increase in volumes of traffic in our urban areas, which has increased particulate air pollution from vehicle emissions.
There have been many studies on the effects on health, most of which have been carried out in the United States. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has shown a correlation between PM10 levels and the number of deaths in some American cities.
Other studies that have been undertaken in the United Kingdom, Greece, Switzerland and the Netherlands add to the evidence that particle levels commonly found in urban areas increase death rates and trigger asthma attacks.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I have been listening with rapt attention to my hon. Friend, who is obviously an expert in these matters. In referring to people other than asthmatics, is there any evidence to suggest that hay fever is exacerbated by particulates in the air? My family suffers from hay fever, and my wife has a particularly loud sneeze which usually goes off right next to my ear. I would certainly be persuaded to follow my hon. Friend in terms of taking action if it would also help hay fever sufferers.
Sir Graham Bright: Hay fever is a respiratory disorder. It is obviously related to asthma. Most people believe that hay fever is caused by pollen and grass seeds in the atmosphere. It may also be triggered by other particulates that float about in the atmosphere that we breathe. I am not a medical man, but I believe that hay fever may well be triggered by particulates from exhaust emissions.
None of the studies proves that airborne particle levels are a cause of death, but the weight of medical evidence suggests that health risks occur even at relatively low particle levels. The corollary is that reducing particle levels could have beneficial effects on health. That contention is certainly supported by the Government's Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards.
The World Health Organisation recently revised its air quality guidelines for a series of pollutants, including PM10s. The existing guidelines were originally published in 1987, and were based on an assessment of scientific and medical evidence up to 1985. It is interesting to note that, having reviewed all the data available, the World Health Organisation is unable to recommend a threshold level of airborne particles below which no adverse effects can occur. I regard that as a most serious conclusion, as it shows that all airborne particles are dangerous. We must bear that in mind. It also relates to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce).
The largest single source of airborne particles in urban areas is road traffic, and within that category the largest component is that derived from diesel exhausts, particularly heavy goods vehicles and buses. Almost all heavy goods vehicles and buses run on diesel. There is also an increasing number of diesel cars. About a quarter of new cars sold have diesel engines.
The most visible result of soot from diesel engines is seen in the form of deposits on urban buildings, but it also permeates clothes and hair. It is estimated that an average bus in London—if there is such a thing—emits 1.5 tonnes of soot every year. As Britain has a total bus fleet of 75,000 buses, 112,500 tonnes of bus exhaust are spewed out every year.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Most of it seems to end up on my collar.
Sir Graham Bright: Absolutely.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. When we take into account the number of lorries and taxis, the total amount of soot emitted from diesel engines runs into millions of tonnes a year. In London alone, it costs some £30 million a year to clean up the soot from diesel emissions.
632
The high particulate emissions from diesel engines are perhaps their main drawback. The second report of the quality of urban air review group, published in 1992, states:
"the impact of diesel emissions on urban air quality is a serious one. Any increase in the proportion of diesel vehicles on our urban streets is to be viewed with considerable concern unless the problem of particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions are effectively addressed."
Although, nationally, only 24 per cent. of primary PM10 emissions—that is those released directly into the air—derive from vehicle exhausts—I recognise the point made by the RAC—there are also other causes. If we concentrate on urban levels, however, in 1990 in Greater London, it was estimated that about 86 per cent. by weight of primary PM10 emissions were derived from vehicle exhausts. Therefore, pollution is concentrated where there is traffic in urban areas, but also affects people who live next to major motorways. The Ml passes through my constituency, so air pollution is a cause of concern in the surrounding areas as well as in the town centre.
Other investigations, such as those undertaken by the House of Commons Transport Committee in 1993, provided evidence that much higher levels—up to 96 per cent.—of black smoke emissions derive from road transport in cities such as London, compared with 46 per cent. in the entire United Kingdom.
It is important to consider the subject in respect of local concentrations of particles and their cause, rather than simply looking at the overall figures. In most of our urban areas, PM10 levels are very high. In addition, the vast majority derive from diesel exhausts from medium and heavy goods vehicles and buses—up to 76 per cent. is cited in the Transport Committee report of 1993.
At this point, I hasten to add that there is no reason to be anti-road transport. As I represent Luton, where motor cars are manufactured, I do not want to be anti-road transport, and I am sure that few hon. Members are anti-bus, especially in urban areas. It is important, however, for us to find ways to reduce the problem of pollution caused by buses, so that the full environmental benefits of encouraging more travel by bus can be realised.
It is also reasonable to expect those who develop and operate road transport fleets increasingly to recognise their environmental responsibilities. It is right for the Government to conclude that, because of the high mileage they travel in urban areas, operators of lorries, taxis and buses have a special responsibility to ensure that their vehicle comply with the vehicle emission standards.
It is obvious that bus operators already recognise that: a recent spot check in London revealed that just 8 per cent. of buses were found to be over the current legal exhaust emission level. I congratulate them on that. There is also a lesson for other vehicle operators, as many lorries that pass this building belch out black fumes. Obviously the emissions from buses are much lower than those from other diesel-powered vehicles.
Successive Conservative Governments have an exemplary record in respect of legislation to improve air quality, and the present Government are no exception. I was pleased to be associated with the campaign that led to the Government's decision to insist on stricter controls on emissions from petrol-driven cars compared with those originally proposed by the European Community, which

633
required all new cars to be fitted with a catalytic converter. In fact, I raised that matter in an Adjournment debate.
As a result of that legislation, nearly 5 million cars on UK roads are fitted with catalytic converters. We also have a baseline threshold for known air pollutants, based on state-of-the-art medical and scientific knowledge. With the measures already introduced, the UK confidently expects to meet its existing international commitments for reductions in nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide.
Further technological advances, such as fast-action catalysts and super-efficient engines, will reduce emissions from petrol-driven cars even further, and much research into that aspect is being undertaken by the main car manufacturers—none more so than Vauxhall, which is located in my constituency.
The Government lead the field, and there can be no doubt of their commitment to ensuring improved air quality. The Government's sustainable air strategy identified urban air quality as one of the key changes to UK environmental policy. That strategy also made it clear that improving air quality depends above all on improvements in the transport sector, and an action plan of two transport-related measures was proposed.
The Government also responded positively to two reports published in November 1995 by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants and the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards, by laying down strict air quality standards for PM1Os in the UK. The expert panel was established following the Government's commitment in the 1991 White Paper, "This Common Inheritance".
The Government have accepted as a benchmark for policy an average daily concentration of 50µg/m3, which I understand is the equivalent of inhaling not more than 1 mg in 24 hours—quite a calculation. Diesel engines, in common with petrol engine, also emit carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide. Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, which cause the characteristic diesel smell, can be easily removed by an oxidation catalyst.
A much smaller percentage of diesel engines compared with petrol engines are currently fitted with catalysts, which perfectly illustrates a particular problem with diesel vehicles. It is not uncommon for diesel-powered vehicles, by contrast with petrol engines, to be kept in use for many years. That is particularly true of buses.
There are about 75,000 single-decker and double-decker buses in the UK seating 17 or more passengers. Of those vehicles, 57 per cent. are more than 10 years old, but 40 per cent. are more than 24 years old. The majority of buses in use today are extremely old vehicles that were built at a time when emission controls were not a high priority. A major trial in London launched in January by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport must be wholeheartedly welcomed. The trial will involve about 7,000 London buses running on reduced or low sulphur diesel, and some will be fitted with oxidation catalysts. That is good news, but it does not address the problem of particle emission from buses, taxis and lorries.
The progress made with legislation to reduce emissions from heavy goods vehicles in the form of European Union directives 1 and 2 is also welcome, and will be fully effective in respect of vehicles of more than 7.5 tonnes from October. It will bring the emission limits for new
634
diesel vehicles in line with the stringent standards that were introduced in the USA in 1994, and will set a limit on particulates for the first time.
However, I emphasise that the limit is still far too high, as evidence from health studies shows. We should aim at a much lower limit. The new limit will apply only to new vehicles, so, because of the long service to which many vehicles are subject, it will be many years before the limit becomes fully effective. For that reason, there is a strong case for the Government to act to encourage the retrofitting to all diesel vehicles of oxidation catalysts and devices to control particulates.
The unique challenge in controlling diesel emissions is that of removing particulates. The only effective way is filtration. Particulate filters, or traps, are known to be highly effective in reducing PM10 levels from diesel exhausts by as much as 90 per cent.—which makes them an effective piece of equipment. Several mechanisms have been developed, but the problem with any conventional filtration device is that it soon clogs and needs replacing, or the soot must be removed by high-temperature combustion. It is not reasonable to expect that to be done on a large scale, because of the practical difficulties and cost.
A much more interesting development in filtration technology is the so-called continuously regenerating trap, or CRT, which was developed in the UK by Johnson Matthey. The CRT works by an ingenious combination of catalyst and filter technology, to remove particulates as well as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, which give the characteristic diesel smell. The device comprises two chambers, which can be engineered to provide sufficient sound deadening to replace the conventional silencer and be mounted in its place.
A conventional oxidation catalyst is located in the first chamber, which ensures among other things maximisation of the oxidation of nitrogen monoxide to nitrogen dioxide. The second chamber contains a second filter that traps the particulate matter, which is mostly soot or carbon. The carbon reacts with the nitrogen dioxide to form carbon dioxide and nitrogen—both of which are then emitted as gases. Not only does the filter continuously clean itself, so that it does not need separate cleaning or replacing, but the process reduces the amount of nitrogen oxide.
I had the pleasure of observing the effects of the CRT by comparison with a conventional exhaust system fitted by Johnson Matthey to a 16-year-old Bristol VTR bus, which already had 2.3 million miles on the clock. The results were amazing. When the bus was run, the conventional exhaust system produced black smoke and the smell normally associated with diesel engines. When the bus was switched to the CRT system, the smoke and smell immediately disappeared. If one places a white handkerchief, as I did, over the exhaust outlet, it stays white—so we know that the technology works.
The CRT can be fitted to any turbocharged diesel engine. It is estimated that about half the buses in use today are fitted with such engines. Unfortunately, as many of the old Routemasters used in London were fitted with normally aspirated engines, they are not suitable for retrofitting. It is thought that about 20 per cent. of London's current bus fleet could be fitted with CRTs immediately.
As a minimum, I should like CRTs fitted to every new heavy goods vehicle, bus and taxi—and eventually to diesel cars. Even vehicles that are not suitable for CRT

635
could benefit from an oxidation catalyst, which remove some particulates as well as most of the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, which cause the diesel smell. That improvement would come as a relief to many people.
It is often suggested that retrofitting heavy goods vehicles with emission control devices would be prohibitively expensive. In fact, for a large lorry or bus, it would cost about £3,500, and considerably less for smaller vehicles. As a stab in dark, I assume that the cost for a smaller car or taxi would be £700 or £800. CRTs would be a reasonable and affordable suggestion for all urban-based heavy goods vehicles, taxis and buses, and they should be retrofitted.
There is no doubt that the balance of costs and benefits will make retrofitting even more attractive in the future. The more people that call for CRTs to be fitted, the cheaper they will become, just as happened with catalysts on motor cars. I suggest that the potential benefits for urban air quality would justify fiscal measures to encourage CRT use.
Several trials are being undertaken in which CRTs are fitted on commercial buses. In spring last year, Oxford City Buses started using 20 new Dennis buses fitted with CRTs. As many will be aware, Oxford is one of the cities that has pioneered the increased use of mass passenger transport to reduce car use, so the decision to trial CRT there is obviously especially important.
As an example of CRT being retrofitted to buses, Manchester North Western retrofitted CRT, in December last year, to two of its buses operating in Warrington. I am sure that the House will also be pleased to know that the Conservative-controlled Westminster city council wrote vehicle emission limits into its recently awarded contract for refuse collection. As a result, the company undertaking the contract is fitting CRTs to all its vehicles. We see dustcarts belching out fumes as they compact the trash, and it is nice to know that they will no longer blow out soot in Westminster.
What can be done here in Westminster could be done all over the country. I suggest that fiscal measures should be introduced to encourage that to happen. Those are some of the examples of the use of CRT fitted to heavy good vehicles to the benefit of the urban environment.
The only real barrier at present to CRT is that, in common with all catalytic systems, it needs very low sulphur diesel to work. I appreciate that new EC legislation will lead to lower sulphur fuels being introduced in October this year. I congratulate Shell on having already introduced them. That is good, and should be encouraged. Obviously, compliance with Euro 2 particulate emission limits will reduce sulphur particulates, but the EC limit is well above that in place in Sweden, where very low sulphur diesel—or so-called city diesel—which contains less than 50 parts per million sulphur, is now the norm.
City diesel is available in the United Kingdom, but, because it is not a requirement, the outlets are far too sparse for most practical purposes. The company Greenergy should be congratulated on its initiative in supplying very low sulphur diesel in the UK, as should Sainsbury's on its efforts to increase the use of Greenergy low sulphur diesel from several of its hypermarket fuel outlets.
636
I accept that it may be possible, with further research, to develop a particulate trap system that does not require such low sulphur fuel, and that should be encouraged. But it is galling to think that we could have benefited from the use of such devices now if low sulphur fuel was more freely available.
I have been talking about ways of reducing the particulate emission from existing diesel engines and thus obtaining an immediate improvement in urban air quality. It is also important, however, to consider other ways in which the problem of particulate emission can be tackled in the longer term.
Without doubt, some of the cleanest fuels that could be used in buses and other commercial vehicles are liquid petroleum gas, or LPG, and compressed natural gas, or CNG. LPG and CNG emit almost no particulate matter, and would be ideal fuels for use in commercial vehicles in towns and cities. Bus companies, in particular, should be encouraged to convert or replace their fleets with vehicles able to use LPG, and they should be provided with incentives to do so. That is especially important, because nil particulate matter comes out of the exhaust when LPG is used.
I await with interest the results, due some time this year, of the trials that have been set up under the Government research project on alternative fuels. Those include trials on the use of LPG, CNG, biodiesel, city diesel, electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, such as electric-diesel and electric-petrol. Trials are being carried out all over the United Kingdom, many on commercial vehicles. In the long term, those trials could lead to vehicle developments that virtually eliminate urban particulate pollution. In the meantime, however, the problem of what to do with vehicles currently in use will remain.
As an asthmatic, I welcome the fact that the Government recognise the need to take action to reduce airborne particulate pollution, especially in urban areas, and that much legislation has been passed to ensure that. However, because of the seriousness of the problem and the nature of its cause, I do not believe that we can just sit back and wait for the effects of legislation to work through. There is increasing evidence that improving urban air quality represents one of the major future challenges to human health. We have the technology to take a quantum leap in improving urban air quality by reducing particulate emission from vehicles in use now.
I urge the Government to take whatever fiscal and legislative measures are necessary to ensure that. Differential taxing of low sulphur diesel would encourage the fitting of catalytic converters and continuous regenerating traps to all vehicles, just as it encouraged the use of unleaded petrol. Differential taxation also already exists for natural gas, and should be extended to LPG.
We could provide capital allowances to fleet owners to retrofit emission control devices to existing diesel vehicles, and we could reduce the road fund licence for heavy goods vehicles fitted with emission control devices. Tax incentives to encourage research into emission control technology and cleaner alternative fuels would increase the already substantial research programme. As I said a moment ago, there are arguments between fuel suppliers and the manufacturer about whether the existing CRTs can operate on low sulphur fuels, and more research is required.

637
The benefits of new technology and its ability massively to reduce the problem of urban particulate pollution could be realised now, if we had the will. I urge the Government to be consistent with their excellent record of taking steps to improve air quality, and to do whatever is necessary to ensure that those benefits are realised sooner rather than later. That is a plea from the heart from someone who suffers, with millions of others, from respiratory problems. We could do much to make our lives very much better.
10.8 am
Ms Joan Ruddock: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright) on securing the debate. I sympathise with him because of his asthmatic condition. I know from what many of my constituents have told me how distressing a condition it is. As we have heard from the hon. Gentleman, at times it can be life-threatening.
Particulate matter pervades all our environments. In towns and cities, it is most obvious when it is close at hand, in the form of the noxious black smoke that emanates from road vehicles. Many industrial processes, while cleaner today than perhaps ever before, still add to the burden of particulates. Less well known, and not referred to in the debate so far, are the hazards faced by those in rural areas, whose immediate environments may be idyllic. They may be overshadowed, however, by a giant mining or quarrying operation.
Road transport is the greatest single contributor to particulate emissions, but nearly three quarters of total particulate emissions are calculated to come from other sources, spanning both industrial and domestic sectors. As particulates come from so many sources, the starting point for tackling the problem must be to recognise that a holistic approach is required. Such an approach can never be successfully fostered, however, by a Government who are bent on deregulation, privatisation and the awarding of fat cat profits at the expense of public service.
Any meaningful approach to tackling air pollution must encompass the need for national transport and energy policies that are consistent with sustainable development. That is the challenge to which, sadly, the Government cannot rise. It is an issue to which I shall return.
For the moment, let us consider where consensus lies. Particulates have been produced by human economic activity for many centuries. What is new is our knowledge of the range and type, and, more specifically, of the health effects. As the hon. Member for Luton, South said, size appears to be the key to particulates and predictable adverse health effects.
Tiny particles known as PM1Os reach deep into the lung and can enter the bloodstream. Research undertaken by Dr. Joel Schwartz of the Harvard school of public health led to a strong statistical association between PM10 levels and daily death rates. He estimates that, in the United States, 60,000 to 70,000 early deaths a year are the result of average current concentrations of particulate air pollution, reducing life expectancy as a consequence by several years on average.
It is interesting to note that a new five-year study in London has recently found that more people die when ozone and particulate levels in air are high. The report confirms the results of earlier research, and suggests that
638
there is a need for the Government to curb the impact of traffic pollution on urban air quality. The current edition of The Ends Report notes that, in 1995,
"the London Air Quality Network reported that London's air quality was deteriorating despite the introduction of catalytic converters on new cars."
Extrapolating the results of American research to the United Kingdom gives us 10,000 premature deaths per annum. I look to the Minister to tell us whether he agrees with or refutes that extrapolation.
The Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, reporting in September 1995 on the health effects of non-biological particles in outdoor air found that there was clear evidence of associations between levels of particles such as those found in the United Kingdom and indicators of damage to health. The committee reported that people with pre-existing respiratory and/or cardiac disorders would be expected to be most at risk of acute effects from exposure to particulates. It stated in its report that the effects range from changes in lung function, to increased symptoms, to days of restricted activity, to hospital admissions and to premature mortality. The committee added:
"it would be imprudent not to regard the link as causal."
The hon. Member for Luton, South outlined clearly, at a human level, the consequences that are embodied in the report.
We need to look also to the Government's Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards, which reported two months after the committee's report. It is significant that it stated that
"it was not yet possible to identify a threshold level for particles below which no ill effects occur."
That is much in line with the World Health Organisation's report, from which the hon. Member for Luton, South has quoted.
The panel went on to recommend a new standard of 50 µg/m3 as a 24-hour running average. I note that the Minister is nodding. It is more significant that the panel recommended that the Government implement a strategy that would reduce progressively both the numbers of 24-hour exceedances of 50µg/m3 and annual concentrations of PM lOs in the UK. I understand that the Government have accepted the 50µg/m3 as a standard. I hope that the Minister will tell us what further consideration he has given to the factors that take us beyond acceptance of the recommendation as a working standard.
I suspect that the Minister, like myself, is more than aware of the exposure above the standard of 50µg/m3 that has occurred in our major cities on many occasions recently. In London, the level was exceeded 29 times. The latest figures that I have relate to 1993. In Belfast, it happened on 45 occasions. In the centre of Birmingham, it occurred on 24 occasions. The figures for Leeds and Bristol are 23 and 25 respectively. We might reflect on what that means in terms of human health.
Perhaps it was those figures that prompted the independent advisory quality of urban air review group to compile a recent report on particle pollution. I wonder what has happened to that report. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us. There are some who believe that the report has been suppressed. Will the Minister tell us what is in the report and what is recommended? Will he tell us also whether he intends to publish it?

639
Do the Government accept the 50µg/m3 standard and the need to put a strategy in place to enable us to improve on it? That is surely what the hon. Member for Luton, South has been urging. Will the Minister—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Ruddock: I have many questions for the Minister. The hon. Member for Luton, South has paid him several compliments and made some suggestions, but I have many specific questions. I hope that he will respond to them. We have time, and he has the opportunity to respond.
Mr. Clappison: I could respond now.
Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister for offering to answer now. As I have so many questions, however, he might find it more convenient to answer later.
Will the Minister tell us specifically when the 50µg standard will be adopted, and when he believes that it could be met? Furthermore, what is the Government's view of recent research that indicates that particles smaller than 10 microns are even more injurious to human health?
When will the national air quality strategy be published? A strategy is now long overdue. What are the reasons for the delay? Has there been delay because, as some suspect, other Departments are dragging their feet? How will the Department of the Environment be reconciling the UK strategy with the European framework directive on air quality management and assessment?
Where is the Government's guidance on air quality management for local authorities? I remember well the debates in Committee on what was the Environment Bill. At the last minute, the Government introduced many new proposals in response to the tremendous pressure from the Opposition and many pressure groups. As I have said, they introduced a set of new proposals. They were unable to answer many questions, to produce timetables or to give details. They were unable to produce targets and standards.
The Government promised, however—we legislated to this effect—that, under the Bill when enacted, local authorities must have regard to guidance on the management of air quality in undertaking their new air quality and air management functions. However, although 14 local authority areas have been chosen to pilot the air quality management scheme, no guidance has been published. When will it be published—or will those local authorities just be expected to get on with it? Many of them, of course, have already been doing just that under Labour administrations, taking initiatives long before the Government was embarrassed into making a commitment on air quality strategy.
It would also be helpful if the Minister would say when the pilot schemes are expected to come on stream, and whether a mechanism has been decided for the distribution of the funding of those schemes. He will undoubtedly be aware that local authority associations believe that the pilot scheme will require £15 million if it is to work effectively, but the Government have allocated
640
just £3 million, to be divided, apparently, among 80 local authorities. Will the Minister elaborate on that, because local authorities are very anxious about their ability to meet the new duties that the Government have imposed on them? When and how will that money be distributed?
I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to tell us some of the measures that the Government undertook in the previous Budget, to which the hon. Member for Luton, South referred—for example, duties on fuel, which are important because the use of fuel impacts on air quality—but, as always, the measures are piecemeal. They lack the essential strategic impact, and attempt to use simplistic market mechanisms as a panacea for all environmental problems.
Where is the advice and the support to local authorities on this issue? The hon. Member for Luton, South referred to the experiments, with which I am familiar, that local authorities have undertaken of their own volition, but where is the encouragement from the Government for local authorities to put their own houses in order? Where is the encouragement for them to run environmentally friendly municipal vehicles? Where is the encouragement for bus companies to run environmentally clean buses?
My local authority of Lewisham has undertaken to experiment with electric vehicles, which are ideal in city centres and the inner city, but my council, like every other council in the land with the exception of Westminster, is strapped for cash because of the Government's policies towards local government.
The vast majority of councils in Britain, which are controlled by the Labour party, are effectively defending the environment and looking for new solutions to critical problems, but they are stopped in their tracks repeatedly by a totally unsympathetic, ideologically hidebound Government who do not support such local authority initiatives. Is it not true—perhaps the Minister will specifically answer this question if indeed it is but an ugly rumour—that Treasury cuts are preventing London Transport Buses from investing in a package of pollution-control measures? I ask the Minister to give a clear yes or no on that issue. Why are the Government prevaricating on so many fronts?
Is the Minister aware that not only does the failure to act mean a continuing toll on human health, but it is a serious loss to British industry? The Government's decision to postpone the deadlines for the control of industrial emissions, for example, from the coating sector, have already had a severely detrimental effect on Britain's environmental technology and services industry.
The technology already exists for particulate emissions to be substantially reduced through PMIO filtration. Such measures would benefit our health and our environment, would boost our environmental industry and create much-needed jobs, but instead the Government prevaricate. No doubt they have bowed to lobbying pressure from the industry and put back the deadline, to the detriment of everyone else.
The hon. Member for Luton, South praised some of the efforts of sectors of the car industry in trying to solve their problems. We, too, applaud those efforts. Much can be done—much is being done. We very much support the technical fixes, such as the CRT—the continuous regeneration trap—filtration, the efforts of Johnson Matthey, and all the work that is being done in that direction, but, as the hon. Gentleman revealed, if we are

641
to have the benefit of these technical fixes, we will eventually need another technical fix, such as low-sulphur fuels.
We have many ancient buses on our streets today, which pollute our urban environments, as a direct consequence of Government policy. The hon. Gentleman challenged the Minister to respond on fiscal policies, and the Minister must do so. Yes, it can be a matter of fiscal incentives to get the technical fixes in place, but because of bus deregulation and privatisation there has been a tremendous lowering of standards, an increase in the age of the buses on the roads, and, indeed, a fall in their maintenance, which is critical if we are to deal with their emissions.
We accept that technical fixes have an important part to play. We are very much committed to the search for technical fixes, vehicle traps, the use of clean fuels and of cleaner fuels, but overall, no amount of technical fixing can solve the problem alone.
What is required was spelt out to the Government in the report on transport of the royal commission on the environment. The Government, for the first time in history, failed to respond to that report, which laid out a strategy for the whole nation. It explained why technical fixes alone are not enough, and why we must have an integrated and co-ordinated transport system and a national strategy aimed at encouraging and assisting people to use their cars less and to use clean, public transport more. The cleaning up of public transport and municipal vehicles to produce cleaner air for our citizens would reduce the costs to the NHS and the burden of human illness.
All that is laid out clearly for the Government, but they cannot rise to the challenge, because they do not accept national strategies or local government involvement. Today, when we launch the local government campaigns, we can expect the Government to reap the rewards of their total failure to act to clean up our environment and our air in the towns and cities of this country.
10.28 am
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my very good friend the hon. Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright) on securing this important debate on air pollution by particulate matter. He advanced a great deal of detail, as did the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), who speaks for the Opposition. I am as concerned as the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend, but I regret the party political rhetoric that she introduced into the debate. My hon. Friend sought to tackle the problem constructively, giving the Government credit where credit was due, but being constructively critical—not party politically critical—where he believed that the Government could have done more.
Towards the end of her speech, the hon. Member for Deptford said that the overwhelming majority of local government was under socialist control. I am pleased to say that I come from one of the few parts of the United Kingdom where the Conservative party has overall control. I refer to Macclesfield borough council, whose leader is frequently praised by the Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders for the policies that the council pursues. Only recently, it received plaudits for being one of the most environmentally friendly councils in the country.
Although I accept a number of the points made by the hon. Lady, I will not accept her claim that only Labour can reduce pollution. I am not sure, for instance, that,
642
when buses were in the public sector, the companies involved made the investment in new vehicles and technology to which she referred.
Ms Ruddock: It is a matter of record that the bus companies bought more new vehicles when they were publicly owned. Since privatisation, the rate of purchase and renewal has decreased, and as a consequence the aging vehicles are producing greater emissions. Moreover, maintenance has declined under the new regime of privatisation and deregulation.
Mr. Winterton: I am not sure where the hon. Lady finds her facts and statistics. In my view, the age of a vehicle is sometimes less important than the way in which it is maintained. Having used public transport exclusively in the early part of my working life, I can assure the hon. Lady that buses used not to be maintained to the standard that she suggested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South represents a constituency in which motor vehicles, both domestic and commercial, are very important to the local economy. He has immense knowledge of the industry, and he has done the House a service by raising the subject. I support not only his views in general, but his suggestions as to how the Government can reduce air pollution. He said that he supported their modest fiscal measures relating to, for instance, diesel fuel and unleaded petrol, but felt that they should go further. I agree.
Some years ago, I formed the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance. The last thing that I want is any Government measure that would further undermine or destroy our all too narrow manufacturing base. The Government owe it to the people, and to industry—which is the only source of non-inflationary sustainable economic growth—to help to reduce the pollution of our environment, and air pollution in particular.
I fervently believe that the Government, who have fiercely resisted a return to capital allowances, should consider that way of encouraging people to introduce new technology to reduce such pollution. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, along with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to consider introducing fiscal measures—I use the phrase in its widest sense—and capital allowances. That would make possible technological advances which, certainly in the case of commercial and domestic motor vehicles, could make a major contribution to the reduction of air pollution by particulate matter.
Unfortunately, there is an anti-roads lobby. I believe that bypasses and properly assessed road projects can in themselves contribute to the reduction of pollution. Most pollution caused by vehicles occurs when they are idling in traffic jams and then moving forward a few yards. Congestion is a major problem, especially in urban areas. I regret the dramatic cut in road projects which would often enable traffic to flow more smoothly, thereby reducing air pollution.
As an asthmatic, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South is perhaps better qualified to speak about the subject than most of us—the hon. Member for Deptford paid tribute to him on those grounds—but he also has considerable knowledge of the subject. The House, and the Treasury in particular, should respect that knowledge.

643
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond positively, constructively and sympathetically, but I ask him not to pull his punches behind the scenes. He should urge the Treasury to introduce both fiscal measures and capital allowances, along with other measures to reduce air pollution.
My hon. Friend has done the House and the country a service by speaking as he has today.
10.36 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I also apologise to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) as I heard only half her speech.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) pointed out, this subject is important to everyone—not just those who endure air pollution in Westminster, where I live during the week. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Deptford spoke in party-political terms, because air pollution involves everyone in an apolitical sense. Public attitudes and public policy must be changed. Let us not pretend that every person who sits in a motor car jamming up The Mall, Millbank and Parliament square is a Labour or Conservative supporter; all those people are individuals, who have chosen to drive their cars. We need to change their attitudes. I travelled here by bicycle this morning, and I trust that the hon. Member for Deptford used public transport. She does not seem to be nodding, but I am sure that she uses public transport much more than her car. After all, this place is very well served by public transport.
The hon. Lady made two points. I do not wish to dwell on party-political matters, but she raised them. One was about local government, and how efficient it could be. I see that the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) is also present; she and I used to sit together on the back benches of Hammersmith and Fulham council. If I believed that that council used its funds efficiently when it was run by the Labour party, I might agree with more that the hon. Member for Deptford said, but in fact it was appallingly inefficient in those days. Money was spent on, for instance, a women's slide library and a women's bus, which—with a great fanfare—was bought for politically correct reasons and parked in the square. It travelled eight miles in a single year in order to be serviced.
Ms Ruddock: According to the hon. Gentleman, party politics have no place in the debate.
Mr. Robathan: I am replying to what the hon. Lady said. She made a party-political speech.
The hon. Lady also suggested that private enterprise and the market had no place in public transport and public policy issues. She particularly mentioned privatisation, and her approach sits ill with new Labour policies. I also see the way in which private enterprise drives matters such as transport much better than the old, dead hand of bureaucracy. I want a good transport system in this country, and such a system is not well driven by Government hand-outs, which have never worked. One has only to consider British Rail, which we shall be discussing this evening. When I was born, there were
644
15 stations in my constituency. Every one was closed by a nationalised British Rail, and one was reopened under a Conservative Government. Does the hon. Lady want to say more? No.
Ms Ruddock rose—
Mr. Robathan: Oh, yes.
Ms Ruddock: I in no way suggested that the private sector did not have a role to play. I paid tribute to parts of the private sector in the motor industry and others. I said that the policy of privatisation and deregulation has destroyed our public transport. That has happened in respect of buses. We have poorer and more expensive services and very much worse vehicles in general on our streets today than when the service was under public ownership. The same will happen with the railways, which are already in a dire state in the run-up to privatisation—and deliberately so, because of the Government's policies. The issue is party political because the Government—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That was becoming a mini-speech rather than an intervention.
Mr. Robathan: I ask the hon. Lady to defend the record of British Rail. Many excellent people have worked hard, but can she defend its record in closing all those stations? Perhaps in Lewisham, too, the hon. Lady can identify one or two old lines, the course of an old railway on the map, along which once upon a time people travelled before nationalisation.
In my constituency there is a plan to build a new power station and it is causing great concern to many local people. I would say, as we sit under electric light, in an air-conditioned room, using electricity, that it is absolutely vital to air quality and health that we examine all such new bids to discover the impact of a new power station on a highly populated area. My hon. Friend the Minister has already mentioned the issue in response to a question that I asked him previously. It is absolutely essential that we do not, whether driven by the market or by other reasons, build power stations that will pollute not only my constituency but, worse, a highly populated area as the prevailing wind takes the air straight over the city of Leicester. It is important that such matters are considered in very great detail before they proceed.
Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend may like to know that the Isle of Wight is unique in having the only health authority in the United Kingdom which sponsors an asthma and allergy research department. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright) for securing the debate and I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that if he has any concerns about difficulties caused by pollution over Leicester he should send his constituents to the Isle of Wight to see the work being conducted there in trying to find a cure for this dreadful problem.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Asthma caused by emissions from power stations is of great concern. As we sit here in London near Battersea and Bankside power stations, which have been closed, and

645
the London Transport power station in Lots road, which has also been closed, we should consider whether centres of population are good places for emissions from power stations.
I am the president of the Electric Vehicle Association of Great Britain Ltd. I do not need to declare it as an interest since the post is entirely honorary. As the hon. Member for Deptford said, electric vehicles can play a part—but only a part—in reducing emissions in our inner cities. With the hon. Lady, I very much hope that the Government will consider further supporting research into the development of electric vehicles, which can play an important role.
Time is short and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister wants to get on. In considering emissions, we need to consider energy, and reducing its use, as has been mentioned. That includes the conservation of energy—an area in which the Government have taken great strides. It is a pity that we did not receive the Opposition's support in reducing energy use through fiscal means last year.
Ms Ruddock: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should remember that the Government have just cut the budget for home energy efficiency by a third.
Mr. Robathan: I thought that the hon. Lady might raise that. Who set up that home energy efficiency scheme? I seem to recall that it was the Conservative Government. The scheme has enabled some tremendous work to be done and it continues to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright) specifically referred to diesel pollution. I am the chairman of the all-party cycling group. It is important that hon. Members should not only set an example—that is too easy and perhaps too trite to say—but, as is happening in the Department of Transport, should encourage the movement of public policy in the Departments for Education and Employment and for the Environment towards greater encouragement of cycling and walking. It is easy to mouth the words, but it needs to be written into planning policy guidance, and so on.
Reference has been made to private enterprise and we could briefly mention alternative energy sources. It is proposed that the ferric wheel planned for opposite this place—I am not entirely sure that I want to see it there—be powered by tidal power from the River Thames. Incidentally, it is a private enterprise proposal. The proposal is to be supported and applauded, but at the same time, through enabling measures, we should be encouraging the use of the River Thames as a transport highway.
I shall not dwell on public transport because, as the hon. Member for Deptford said, we all need to use it more. This place is so well served by buses it is extraordinary. One can get almost anywhere by bus, including late at night. I commend the London Transport bus map to the hon. Lady.
We need a change of culture and of public policy. We need to change the civil service attitude that the problem of transport congestion is solved by the building of a new road. That attitude has changed dramatically in my four years in the House, but we must go further. We must ask what is good for all the people of this country, not just for us as individuals who selfishly sit in our little boxes by day. Let us change the culture and let all parties and
646
the Government take a total view and move forward in reducing air pollution and emissions from vehicles and power stations.
10.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to respond to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright) on initiating the debate which, as he so rightly said, concerns an important subject which affects many people, including many who suffer from asthma and other conditions. My hon. Friend is among those who suffer from asthma, and he was able to bring to the House his personal experience, which I am sure is reflected among many of his constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members. I also pay tribute to him for the very authoritative way in which he took the House through a fairly detailed and technical subject. I am sure that he did full justice to the science involved.
I think that it is right in such a debate that we recognise at the outset that we are dealing with a technical and scientific subject that requires detailed consideration, which is very well repaid by coming to the right strategic conclusions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South and my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) have said, the debate calls for a constructive response.
I hope that the House will not mind if I am not tempted down some of the wider avenues down which the House was taken earlier. I agreed in part with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock). It is important for the sake of all those affected by this important subject that we all try to take a constructive approach toward it. I agreed with some of her observations, but I am sure that she would not expect me to agree with all of them. I most firmly disagree, however, with her point about a holistic strategy. All the evidence of the Government's work over the past few years points towards formulating a holistic strategy on the basis of very careful scientific analysis. The hon. Lady referred to some of that analysis: the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards, the strategic document "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge", and the report of the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. We are trying to proceed on the basis of proper, informed scientific debate.
I shall briefly address some of the detailed points made by the hon. Member for Deptford, which require explanation, rather than some of her wider points.
The hon. Lady referred to the limit of 50 microns proposed by the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards and to the health effects that were the basis for that proposal. It is important that the public understand that the panel proposed that standard on the assumption that although associations between particles and ill health are causative, particle pollution episodes are most likely to exert their effects on mortality by determining the time of death of those rendered susceptible by pre-existing illnesses. She will know that some of the sources of particles occur naturally; that is why it is so difficult to reach a conclusion about a safe standard. Even those which occur naturally—without any additional human-caused particles—would have some effect on health.
The hon. Member for Deptford asked when the standards will be adopted, and I refer her to the expert panel's report and the Government's response to it. I draw

647
her attention to the Government's response to the report of the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, which answers many of her questions. She should be aware that the Government have accepted the expert panel's recommendation that annual average levels of PM10 should continue to be reduced progressively. If I have time, I will explain in detail the measures that we are putting in place to reduce those levels.
The Government have accepted the conclusion that the 50 micron level represents a level at which the large majority of individuals will be unaffected, and we have adopted that level as a relevant benchmark for policy. Importantly, we are committed to considering as quickly as possible whether such a level should be adopted as a target for policy in line with the air quality strategy review now being prepared under the Environment Act 1995. The air quality strategy, which will be available shortly, will be the basis for our holistic strategy.
Ms Ruddock: When will the strategy be made available?
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Member for Deptford knows that we are working towards a strategy based on the best scientific advice, and consideration must be given to that advice. She would expect no less.
The hon. Member for Deptford asked about smaller particles—an important subject. The Department of Health is looking at the evidence on the effects of particles smaller than PM10, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South referred to the fact that smaller particles can remain suspended in the atmosphere for longer than larger particles. It is thought that, in some circumstances, smaller particles can have more profound effects once they have been inhaled. The Department of Health is looking at that matter.
I reject what the hon. Member for Deptford said about local authorities, because the Government are working constructively on the matter with local authorities of all political views. It was a bit rich for the hon. Lady to imply that the Government were failing to work with local authorities and then—in the next breath—to refer to the trials of the new duties taking place in 80 local authorities in 14 different areas up and down the country.
The hon. Member for Deptford asked for guidance to be issued, but it would be premature to give detailed guidance before the national air quality strategy setting out our detailed strategy is made available. That strategy will be available shortly.
Ms Ruddock: When will local authorities start their pilot schemes?
Mr. Clappison: Local authorities are already undertaking the work, and a local authority liaison group is in operation. There is no question that the Government are working in partnership with local authorities.
I wish to refer to the important issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South in his constructive speech. He talked about the new technology available for diesel vehicles, and referred to the continuously regenerating trap. He dealt constructively with the costs and benefits of such a system, and pointed out that the
648
balance of costs and benefits is likely to change over time. The Government will keep the issues that he raised under careful review, because there is clearly potential for important progress to be made in reducing emissions through that technology, including that developed by Johnson Matthey.
I come now—in as much detail as I can manage—to our overall strategy to reduce particulate matter and to make a major contribution to improving health. The House heard that, last November, the Government welcomed the report of the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, and the report of the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards recommending an air quality standard for particles. The reports concluded that even at the much lower levels now found in the United Kingdom—I emphasise that the levels are falling—particulate matter worsens the condition of people with lung or heart complaints.
The reports give a clear indication that managing and improving the levels of particulates must be one of the top priorities for air quality. The Government have accepted the expert panel's recommendation as a relevant benchmark for policy and we are determined to continue to reduce average levels of fine particles. Our policies and tools for doing that will be set out in the national air quality strategy.
We must deal first with the medical facts—some of which I have mentioned—which have been carefully scrutinised by the committee on the medical effects. The committee's findings ranged across a number of conditions, including heart and lung complaints and other respiratory conditions, and the committee made some important remarks about causation.
The expert panel recommended that a standard of 50 microns should be adopted, and that this should be measured on a 24-hour running average. Measurements of fine particles such as PM10 are relatively recent, but we have been measuring black smoke for several years. From these measurements, we can estimate that average and peak urban levels of fine particles have fallen more than tenfold since the 1960s. Annual average levels of PM10 are now roughly half the expert panel's recommendation, but in our towns and cities—another important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South—the 50-micron limit is exceeded roughly 10 per cent. of the time. The panel recommended that that figure and the annual average concentrations of PM10 should be progressively reduced.
Much of the particulate matter is from natural sources, but I wish to refer also to the measures to be taken to reduce those from human sources. Road transport causes 25 per cent. of all pollution, but the figure is much higher for particulates in urban areas. It is clear that action needs to focus on measures to reduce emissions from road transport to cut particulate levels.
We have not been waiting for the evidence to be firm before acting. Since 1992, the standards of all new on-road vehicles have been progressively tightened. The latest standards—introduced after a breathing space of only three years—were introduced in January this year, and reduce the particulate limit for new lorries and buses by 58 per cent. Further tighter standards will be brought in for diesel cars next year to reduce emissions relative to the 1993 standard by 43 per cent. Standards are being

649
agreed for light diesel vans for implementation in 1997 and 1998. These regulations reduce not only particle emissions, but other noxious emissions.
On the basis of these measures, we expect to see a fairly dramatic drop in emissions from transport over the next 10 years as older and dirtier vehicles are removed from the fleet. As I have said, these measures are especially important because of their significance during winter smog episodes. Emissions of sulphur dioxide and smoke from domestic households are controlled through the smoke control areas system, introduced in the Clean Air Act 1956. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 was also a landmark because it introduced integrated pollution control for 2,000 of the most polluting processes and subjected a large number of other processes to local authority air pollution control systems. That will make a further substantial contribution to reducing emissions of particles, as will bringing integrated pollution control to bear on large combustion plant for generating electricity.
Those measures will all contribute to reducing emissions, as will the encouragement that the Government have given through fiscal measures on road fuel duties. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield made a most important speech about that matter. Although I cannot speak with full authority on the subject, my hon. Friend will have drawn inferences from the changes which were made in last year's Budget.

Service Children (Boarding Allowance)
11 am
Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport): I am pleased to have secured this debate and that you should be chairing it, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know of your personal interest in the welfare of service families. This is an opportunity to discuss several important matters—in particular, service children's education. I have raised some of the matters which I intend to raise today in previous Navy debates. I have done so because they are important to Devonport, where many service families live.
Previous defence debates have properly centred on issues of hardware, equipment, security and jobs. Unfortunately, at the end of our last Navy debate, because so many matters of such great importance were raised and due to the exigencies of time, the Minister had to gloss over his response to my remarks about the welfare of service families. Today is an excellent opportunity for him to give a fuller response. I know that, with his usual good humour and his expert knowledge, he will be very much welcomed in the debate today.
The care of service families and, in particular, their children is essential to front-line efficiency and effectiveness. It is essential for service parents, in order to have peace of mind, to know that their children are in good hands. Service families are in a special position. Not only do service men and women risk their life in the service of their country but they often sacrifice personal freedoms that are enjoyed by civilians. Service families may be required to move frequently and their family life and children's education may be disrupted.
Some children go with their parents on postings abroad. The Service Children's Education Authority runs excellent comprehensive schools in mainland Europe which are attended by service children. I am told that the standard of those schools compares with that of the very best schools in Britain. I warmly congratulate the authority on its work in operating the schools and I congratulate the teachers and the other people who run them.
However, some families choose to have their children stay in Britain and take advantage of the boarding school education that is available here. I am aware that the Bett report will review that entitlement and, in particular, whether families located in one place and unlikely to move ought to continue to receive the allowance. I believe that that review should proceed in the fullness of time.
The Ministry of Defence provides the boarding school allowance to meet the fees of children who attend boarding schools in Britain. Service parents have to pay at least 10 per cent. of the cost of sending their child to the boarding school. The scheme is overseen by the Service Children's Education Authority, which gives advice to parents on boarding education and produces the admissible schools list. Last year, there were 815 schools on that list, of which 663 had pupils from the BSA scheme.
In 1994–95, a total of 11,363 service children benefited from the scheme, at a considerable cost to the taxpayer. The cost for that year was £107 million. That is almost twice the funding that one would expect to be provided for day places in local education authority schools. The cost of a day place in an independent school is £3,500 to

651
£4,000 per annum. An LEA school receives between £2,000 and £2,500 a year. The boarding part of the fee usually doubles the cost of the child's education. So the lowest cost for a child to receive boarding education under the scheme is probably about £7,500 per year.
In today's debate I wish to concentrate minds on the operation of the boarding school allowance, especially on the role of the Service Children's Education Authority. I shall show that deregulation is causing potential risk to the learning and general welfare of children. I support the BSA scheme. The debate is not about whether the scheme should exist; it is needed to provide continuity of education for service children when their parents are expected to move around the country or the world. However, the scheme in its present form tends to favour the higher ranks. Anyone can see that 10 per cent. of the fee is a greater proportion of a sergeant's pay than of a major's pay.
More could be made of the local education authority boarding schools. The Service Children's Education Authority recognises that they are as good as or, in some cases, better than other schools. In its advice to parents, it says of the LEA boarding schools:
"these schools are often able to provide better facilities and a wider curriculum than many independent schools."
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman says that the scheme favours higher ranks. If he looks at it differently, he will note that it favours people who tend to be over 40 who have children of school age. Most of the more junior ranks will leave the services earlier. The hon. Gentleman will discover that most people serve approximately five or seven years in the armed forces and leave before they are even 30. A full career for a non-commissioned officer takes him to the age of 40 and officers go on further than that. That is a pertinent reason why the scheme favours higher ranks.
Mr. Jamieson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not want to go into the matter for too long, but if one takes two people in exactly the same circumstances serving for the same period, the person of a junior rank is at a disadvantage under the scheme compared with the person of a senior rank on higher pay. Obviously, the pay of a sergeant who may have children in school is less than a major's pay and 10 per cent. of the fee is a considerably greater proportion of his pay. That is the point that I am making, but I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says: people who serve longer in the services will benefit more from the scheme.
Many local education authority boarding schools are better than and all of them are cheaper than the independent schools. I wish to know from the Minister why they are not included on the admissible schools list. Why do parents have to send for a separate list of the LEA boarding schools? Why are they not put on the list so that parents can see them? Why are some schools on the list in the first place? Why are they not excluded? The Service Children's Education Authority gave the following advice to parents in relation to all-age integrated independent schools:
"Nevertheless, there are some, and especially some of the least expensive, that may be said to fall short of really satisfactory provision. Parents must take care and seek good advice."
652
The advice continues:
"You will be particularly wise to take advice when considering schools in this area of the market."
The Service Children's Education Authority is putting a health warning on some of the schools that it has on its list. I ask the Minister: why are the schools on the list if the SCEA feels the obligation to give a health warning about their quality? Why are the boarding schools in the LEA system not on the list when the SCEA says that many of them provide a much better education at a lower cost? Today's debate is not about the principle of the scheme—which I support—but about its operation and the quality of advice to parents. Today's debate is not about the principle of private education—it is not an attack on private or independent schools.
I recognise that many independent schools are excellent and that the majority are at least satisfactory, if not good. One could argue that they should be giving a good education because, in most cases, they are funded at a much higher level than local education authority schools. However, I am concerned about those schools that are falling below the standard that they should achieve. Evelyn Waugh described independent schools with acerbic accuracy in "Decline and Fall" when he said:
"We class schools into four grades: Leading School, First-Rate School, Good School, and School. Frankly, School is pretty bad."
The SCEA should closely examine some of the schools that Evelyn Waugh would class as "school". What are the issues for the schools in the boarding school allowance scheme? First, what checks are made on academic standards in the schools? Secondly, is the taxpayer getting full value for money from the £107 million spent in the schools? Thirdly, is there a threat to the value and existence of the reports on boarding schools from social services departments? Finally, does the Service Children's Education Authority need to revise its role, its practices and its advice to parents?
I refer to academic achievement. For many decades, Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have had the role of inspecting the quality of schools. Since 1993, the Office for Standards in Education has taken over that role. Among other things, it looks at the quality of teaching, academic standards achieved and the value for money that the school gives. When Ofsted was set up, it was the intention that local education authority schools would be inspected every four years and that independent schools would be inspected every seven years.
I shall contrast what happens with an inspection in a local education authority school with an inspection in an independent school. If an LEA school has an inspection, there has to be a pre-meeting with the head, the governors and the parents. When the inspection is completed, a summary of the report has to be sent to all parents in the school. The parents are also informed where they can get hold of the full report on the school should they wish to see it, which is usually within the school and provided free of charge. The report is also made public. Therefore, it is available for the wider community to look at and, if necessary, for comment in the press. I have no objection to that procedure.
When deficiencies are found in the school, an action plan has to be drawn up, where appropriate, which is overseen by the LEA and the inspectors may have a role in coming back at some future time. In extreme cases, where a school is deemed to be failing or to be

653
substantially substandard, an education association can be sent into the school and it can be made grant maintained or, in extreme circumstances, it can close. As hon. Members know, that has already happened to the Hackney Downs school in London.
I contrast that approach with that of the independent schools. There is a dwindling number of reports on the independent schools. In the past two weeks, I have received a letter from the chief executive of Ofsted. He said that in 1993–94, there were 19 inspections of independent schools; in 1994–95, there were 13; in 1995–96, there were just nine; and in 1996–97, up to three schools will be inspected in the independent sector—none, one, two or three schools may be inspected. I have concluded that Ofsted is going to cease inspecting independent schools.
I have seen some of the inspections that have been made on independent schools and they show the same wide spectrum of achievement that one sees in local education authority schools and in grant-maintained schools. Some of the reports on the schools are excellent, most are good or satisfactory, but some are poor. If they were LEA schools, they would be deemed to be failing schools. Such a school has no obligation to show the report to parents. On 17 February 1994, I received a letter from the then Under-Secretary of State for Schools who referred to Ofsted reports on independent schools as follows:
"Any such school which is the subject of a published report is supplied with copies of it which it can distribute as it sees fit."
He then said:
"The onus is on the school to distribute the report to interested parties or to advise them where the reports can be obtained."
Many of the smaller independent schools, private schools, have no governors—there is just a proprietor and a head, and in some cases the proprietor is the head. I refer to meetings to discuss what is in the report and to what Ofsted said in its document "Inspecting Independent Schools":
"It is for the proprietor and/or governors to decide who else shall attend the meeting."
The inspectors are not obligated to call parents or anyone else into the meetings to discuss the report, other than the proprietor—who can choose who he informs.
Last year, Finborough school in Suffolk had 123 pupils from the boarding school allowance scheme. The head of the school wrote to the parents in 1994 regarding an Ofsted inspection that he had had the previous year. He wrote to parents—one of whom is my constituent—as follows:
"We have not obtained copies of the Report for parents because",
and he then listed a number of reasons, one of which was:
"we were extremely unhappy about the way it was carried out and what we believe are serious statistical misrepresentations of the evidence of teaching standards."
He rejected the report because it was critical of his school, of which he is the principal and proprietor, and from which—I dare say—he receives profits. If he had been a local education authority head teacher, he would have been committing an offence by not providing the report to parents.
The message is very simple: if an independent school has had an Ofsted report and it does not like it, it can commit the report to a dusty shelf or to the bin. I am
654
pleased that, in the case of Finborough school and one other school, as a result of pressure from me and my writing to the Minister, the report was sent by the Service Children's Education Authority to service families of children at the schools who were receiving funds through the boarding school allowance scheme.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that head teachers in the local education authority sector write to parents rejecting the result of Ofsted inspections. That happened in my constituency recently. What he describes is not by any means restricted to independent schools.
Mr. Jamieson: Head teachers or governors can write to parents disagreeing with reports; it is their right to do so. I do not say that the head teacher did not have the right to put his view, but it is not right that the head teacher of an independent school can block parents from seeing a report or even knowing of its existence, as in this case. At an LEA school, the head teachers and governors are obliged by law to give all parents a summary of the report and make sure that the full report is available in the school. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, would agree that, if that is right for LEA schools, it must be right for independent schools, and especially for those schools that receive substantial sums of taxpayers' money—£107 million altogether—through the scheme.
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman described a head teacher who wrote to parents to tell them that there had been an Ofsted report. It is possible for parents to write to Ofsted, as I did in my constituency, to get a copy. They were made aware that there had been an Ofsted inspection and could have got the report themselves.
Mr. Jamieson: I do not want to get too engaged by this, but a local education school has an obligation under the law to provide a summary, and to provide the full report in the school, to the parents. Many parents, including my constituent, did not know of the existence of the report or inspection until I pointed out that the inspection had taken place. Eventually, under pressure, the Service Children's Education Authority sent my constituent a copy of the report. When he read it—and, by then, it was nearly a year out of date—he wished that he had taken his children out of the school earlier than he had. We need the same rules for both sorts of school. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
Ofsted is no longer able to safeguard academic standards, because no inspections will take place. It performs a short registration inspection every five years but says that three inspections at most will take place next year. On that basis, we have moved from one inspection every seven years to one every 700 years as there are now 2,294 independent schools. We need full inspections of independent schools, especially of those that benefit from substantial sums of taxpayers' money and reports, as with local education authority schools, should be sent to interested parents.
My second concern involves boarding and pastoral arrangements. That is especially important because children in boarding schools are, by definition, detached from their parents. Often, service children's parents are not even in the same country but are a long way away.

655
We need police checks on the people employed in the schools and we must ensure that the conditions of the Children Act 1989 are properly discharged.
In the late 1980s, there was much justified concern about several schools. I shall briefly refer to some of those concerns. In May 1989, there was the case of Crookham Court school near Newbury. The then Member of Parliament demanded an inquiry but was told by the then Department of Education and Science that it was "powerless to act". The school was described as "dirty and depressing". It had safety hazards and unsatisfactory teaching standards, but there was much worse to come. The head teacher and a member of staff were convicted of serious sexual offences against boys at the school. Those boys were mainly from service families. The significance of that case is that the school was closed not by action taken by the Ministry of Defence but because of publicity given to the school by Esther Rantzen in her "That's Life" programme. It was closed not because of action taken by inspectors, Government Departments or the MOD but because the media took the matter up.
That was not an isolated instance. There was the case in 1982 of St. George's school at Great Finborough in Suffolk. The BBC's "Checkpoint" programme said:
"This remarkable establishment specialises in educating the children of servicemen, and by all accounts makes Dickens's Dotheboys Hall look like a holiday camp."
A former games master at the school
"was one of a number of ex-staff who told Checkpoint about repression, brutality and more … Ninety-five per cent of the 250-odd boarding pupils are children of servicemen".
Very much worse was revealed by "Checkpoint" about serious abuse of children. Those facts were revealed not by the DES or the MOD but by the media. That school did not close; it carried on trading and I believe that it is still open under very different management and a different name.
My last example is the 1990 Her Majesty's inspectorate report on the Hilsea school in Basingstoke. The report was disastrous in every respect. It uncovered poor teaching, unsafe buildings and hopelessly out-of-date teaching methods and said that 92 per cent. of the children were from armed forces families. That school did not close in 1990; it carried on despite the report. It closed in 1992 only because of declining pupil numbers, yet it was supported almost solely by the taxpayer right to the very end. Had it been an LEA school, it would have been deemed to be failing and would probably have been closed.
For balance, there are some excellent schools. I have chosen an independent school that was established and run by the MOD—the Duke of York Royal Military school, Dover. The inspectors reported on it in February 1991 and said:
"This is a good school with high standards of work and behaviour, excellent care, sound teaching, generous resources, spacious premises and generally good accommodation. It is clear that the school achieves the aims as set out in its prospectus."
Oh that all the schools were as good as that one.
Partly as a response to concern about the inadequacy of certain schools, section 87 of the Children Act 1989 created a duty for the social services departments of local authorities to inspect the boarding and pastoral
656
arrangements of such schools. I have seen some of those reports. They are very thorough and exacting. They check hygiene, dormitories and whether there are unnatural punishments or abuse. However, I well recall considering in the small hours of one morning a clause of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill which gave independent schools the right to choose their own inspectors and, if they wished, to dispense with local authority social services departments, which would probably know schools and their past records well. Most independent schools are continuing with local authority social service department reports, but is this not yet another opportunity for a bad school to opt out of inspection that may be critical?
Many independent schools belong to independent schools organisations and some internal reporting goes on between schools. Sometimes that leads to schools inspecting each other. Last year, CfBT produced a report called "Ofsted and Onward". CfBT is one of the leading private companies in the inspection field and has been much praised for its work. Mike Douse, one of its inspectors, talked of mutual inspection and said:
"To take one extreme and hopefully non-representative case, the Report on one non-government school … the only definite criticisms applying to the lack of facilities (including one major safety issue) and the need to 'strive for a more adventurous approach to work'."
That is what one school said about the other. He continued:
"But, in reality, this Independent institution is—if the term has meaning—a 'failing school'. Its fees are high and its pupils drawn from wealthy (albeit often broken) families, the sons and daughters of military officers, British expatriates, and successful businessmen."
This school must still be on the admissible schools list, yet he continues:
"Very many of its pupils fail to gain entry to the public schools of even their second—or third—choice; several teachers are incapable of keeping order, let alone organising and encouraging learning; bullying and other forms of unacceptable behaviour are rampant; and 'value for money' is a cheerless joke."
If the SCEA can find out which school it is, it ought to review whether it should continue on the list, receiving substantial sums of taxpayers' money.
Can we also check on how the money is spent in independent schools and on the level of profit being made by the proprietor? I repeat that some are not charitable foundations. They have a sole proprietor and are run as a business and a limited company. For many of the independent schools on the boarding school allowance, a substantial part, if not most, of their funding comes from the taxpayer through the scheme. We might want to look through the company accounts to find out how money is being spent, but if a company's turnover is less than £2.8 million a year, there is no obligation to publish full accounts. The company can publish abbreviated accounts, which are totally unhelpful if one wants to find out how the money is spent.
In contrast, governors, head teachers, the local education authority and parents can all see the budgets of local education schools that are spending taxpayers' money and see how the money is spent. If a parent wants to see the budget and how money is being allocated, it can be done at any time through the head teacher or the

657
governing body. Yet no one has the right or duty to check how taxpayers' money is being spent in independent schools.
Mr. Hawkins: Surely the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that all the matters that he has discussed in connection with local education authorities, such as the rights of parents and of governors, are the results of our educational reforms of recent years—reforms that the Labour party opposed, tooth and nail, at every turn.
Mr. Jamieson: In that case, I would expect the hon. Gentleman to agree that those reforms ought also to extend to the independent schools that are receiving substantial sums of taxpayers' money. If he speaks later in the debate, I will be interested to hear him confirm that that is his view.
What is the role of the SCEA, which acts on behalf of the Ministry of Defence? It seems to do little more than administer the system and distribute the fund. It has no right of entry to independent schools and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces confirmed that in a written answer on 2 April, when he said:
"SCEA staff visit independent schools by invitation to assess pastoral care arrangements for service children; they have no statutory right of access. Visit reports are therefore written on the understanding that they remain for internal use only."—[Official Report, 2 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 103.]
The SCEA does not have the right of access and parents do not have the right to see what reports are written.
To protect the academic and pastoral concerns of pupils action needs to be taken. The SCEA needs to be far more robust. If schools are to go on the admissible schools list and receive substantial amounts of public funds, the SCEA should draw up a contract for them and they should agree in it that its inspectors have the right to go into the school and look at the pastoral arrangements.
The SCEA must ensure that it sees a school's full audited accounts, so that it can find out how the money is being spent. If a school is not prepared to undergo such inspections, fair enough—it is a private company—but strike it off the list and deny it taxpayers' money. Also, the SCEA should make all information on an independent school available to parents and potential parents.
Schools that have a low academic performance or where there are other concerns should be taken off the admissible schools list. In a recent answer about the Quantock school in Somerset, the Minister said that his inspectors had visited the school and found it suitable to remain on the list. I must draw to his attention the fact that the Independent Schools Association Inc.—the trade organisation—has terminated the membership of that school. I am sure the SCEA and the Minister would want to look into that and find out why. It is extremely unusual for that to happen, and there must be good reasons.
Much more stringent checks must be made on the schools that go on the admissible schools list. Two years ago, the Minister with responsibility for schools told me in a letter:
"As far as participation in the Government's Assisted Places Scheme is concerned, all 295 schools have had to satisfy a very stringent criteria for admission and must be able to demonstrate the highest academic achievements."
I want those criteria to be applied to schools on the admissible schools list. If they are right for assisted places schools, they must be right for the children of service families who attend independent schools.
658
The Minister should consider the matter carefully and advise the Department for Education and Employment that there is a need for full Ofsted inspections of all independent schools, particularly those in schemes in which they benefit from taxpayers' money and, most important, all those on the admissible schools list. That can be done readily and easily.
The Minister ought to instruct the SCEA to put those local education authority boarding schools on the admissible schools list, particularly when it admits that they are often much better than the independent schools that are on the list already.
I have raised some important matters today, with which the Minister will want to deal with his usual care. The welfare of children and the quality of their education are of paramount importance. Independent schools operate in a wholly deregulated environment. There is virtually no reporting by Ofsted. The SCEA has no statutory obligation to inspect. There are no accounts for public scrutiny, the reports of social services departments are deregulated and schools can choose their own inspectors.
We need to give parents the ability to distinguish between the majority of good independent schools and the minority of poor schools. As history has instructed us, a deregulated environment is one in which the unscrupulous can thrive, mediocrity can flourish and—in the extreme—paedophiles can go undetected.
11.38 am
Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice that there are six hon. Members in the Chamber, four of whom have no choice in the matter—I am here only because a meeting was postponed for half an hour—and that five civil servants are present and being prevented from doing whatever they normally do in the Ministry of Defence on Wednesday mornings. That should be brought to the notice of the Select Committee on Procedure because I am afraid that it is not unique. I am in no way criticising the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who has brought up an important and worthy matter. Can I have your assurance, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it will be brought to the attention of that Committee? I hate to contemplate what on earth the general public who see our proceedings will think about it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The number of people in the Chamber and the use of people's time are not matters for me. If the hon. Member feels strongly about it, he should discuss it directly with the Procedure Committee, but I remind him that there were lengthy debates before we embarked on this arrangement for Wednesday mornings.
11.39 am
Mr. Paul Murphy: I very much take the point made by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) about the number of hon. Members in the Chamber for this debate, but I do not think that that number reflects the debate's importance, which is very great, as the hon. Gentleman said. As we were told by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the boarding school allowance costs more than —100 million a year, which averages out at

659
about £9,000 per pupil involved in the scheme, and there are more than 11,000 pupils taking advantage of the allowance.
I think that it is important for the House to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport on having the initiative to raise this issue today. He has of course been persistent in his inquiries over many months. He has been hard working and diligent in these matters, and his speech revealed that invaluable sense of responsibility, which is enviable. His speech was tightly and very carefully argued, and it reflected his deep personal interest in these matters.
Hon. Members should recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport represents—as you do, Madam Deputy Speaker—a very large number of military personnel, and that he has an impeccable educational background, having been a teacher for many years and, indeed, a senior vice principal at a school in Plymouth. He has emphasised the fact that he has no general problems with the principle of the allowance; I echo that belief. We are not debating whether there should be a boarding school allowance—we are debating the quality of education with which the boarding school allowance is linked.
My hon. Friend has rightly drawn the House's attention to some major concerns and highlighted, I believe, some very disturbing facts that I know the Minister will deal with in his reply.
There is no doubt that the system of inspection of private schools requires careful scrutiny and attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport said in the final part of his speech that many independent schools are involved in the scheme that are of a very high character and in which a very good standard is achieved. But he has also said—the House should be troubled by this—that some schools involved in the scheme are, according to this week's article in The Times Educational Supplement, "dubious". When we bear in mind that £100 million of taxpayer's money has been used for the boarding school allowance, we must be very careful because the House is the guardian of the public purse.
Inspections of independent schools are generally too infrequent. Because of that lack of frequency, standards in those schools will inevitably be tested less frequently and will, therefore, be less reliable. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport told me that the Service Children's Education Authority has no right of entry to the schools on its admissible lists, and I think that that practice is wrong. I believe that the fact that Ofsted will now hold inspections only every five years is equally wrong. The combination of those two practices inevitably brings into doubt the quality of education provided by those schools to children of service personnel.
Schools that belong to the Headmasters' Conference are self-regulatory to a very large extent, of course, which we accept. But not all schools on the list belong to the Headmasters' Conference, and it was to those schools that my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport addressed his remarks.
The Minister will no doubt refer to the Bett report, although I believe that we will have a thorough debate on it later this year. That report mentions boarding school allowances and suggests that the payment rate mechanism is poor. The report states:
660
"We suggest that the new system would be simpler to administer, and less open to any criticism that the mechanism currently used encourages some parents to send their children to less than adequate schools."
The admissible schools' list unquestionably needs overhauling. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport said that the assisted places scheme—which is another matter, but it is interesting to compare the schemes—has a carefully created list for parents who want their children to take advantage of it. He also referred to state boarding schools. For the life of me, I cannot understand why state boarding schools which the Ministry of Defence believes offer high quality education should not be on the same list.
The Bett report refers to a need "for tighter quality control". Paragraph 18 of the report says:
"We feel strongly that there should be tighter 'quality control' as far as MOD money spent on boarding schools is concerned, not least so that Service children can be certain of receiving, as far as is possible, a good standard of education. The approved list of boarding schools maintained by the MOD does not constitute any reliable certification of quality since SCEA does not inspect independent schools, and schools are almost never removed from the list. The only requirement for inclusion on the list is of being registered with the Department for Education (DFE). On the other hand, we note that SCEA schools, like all schools in the maintained sector, are subject to the same four yearly inspection by OFSTED. We believe that for a school to be included on the MOD approved list it should be subject either to this OFSTED inspection regime or to an alternative, equivalent inspection regime recognised as such by the MOD and the DFE. There should also be a clear procedure for removal from the approved list in the event of unsatisfactory reports from the Inspectors."
I believe that that final point is crucial.
In general, the Labour party is very much of the view that the schools on which the Ministry of Defence spends £100 million should be much more carefully and tightly inspected. In general, Labour also agrees with the recent personnel policy guidelines, which states:
"We aim to ensure … that allowances enable service personnel to undertake the duties required of them without incurring unreasonable personal costs, taking into account conditions prevailing in civilian life."
The House will also be aware that the numbers of boarders in this country has declined in the past 10 or 20 years by 10,000 or 20,000 and that, although 25 per cent. of our Army is still in Germany, the number of armed service personnel who can look forward to a more stable family existence is likely to increase. The consequence of those two trends means that, for parents in the MOD, the need for boarding schools is likely to be a less significant factor. It was also interesting that a survey undertaken by those involved with the Bett report showed that only one half of parents in the armed services with children at boarding schools would have chosen boarding schools as their first choice. That statistic also demonstrates the likely change in society in the next few years.
The Bett report proposes changes not only to school inspection and quality control but to the payment system and to eligibility. The report says that there are too many exemption clauses, allowing the boarding school allowance to be used when it is unnecessary and costly. I think that there is a very strong case for examining those exemption clauses and for doing away with many of them because, in certain circumstances, the boarding school allowance is unnecessary and, therefore, a waste of taxpayers' money.

661
We believe that, as the Bett report says, the rules should be tightened so that only those families that are genuinely mobile are eligible for the scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport also spoke about the need for advice, which I think is crucial. I really wonder whether the advice to parents that is given verbally is good enough. I think that that advice should be given at unit level so far as is practicable and not simply by circulars being sent to parents who are considering taking advantage of the scheme.
Mr. Keith Mans: I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I was in the Defence Select Committee. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Labour party will retain this allowance or whether—because of what he has already said in this debate—the Labour party's intention is to phase it out slowly or to make it more restrictive?
Mr. Murphy: As the hon. Gentleman said, he was not present when I began my speech. I made it clear that we do not disagree with the principle of the boarding school allowance and that it will continue under a Labour Government. We are saying that the recommendations of the Bett report, which has yet to be debated in the House but which, in this connection, seems to be highly sensible, are such that the Labour party could approve them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport has rendered considerable service to parents in the Army, Navy and Air Force by bringing this important matter to the attention not only of the House but of the country. I am sure that the Minister of State will be able to deal with the various points raised in this interesting debate.
11.50 am
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on securing this Adjournment debate on what is clearly an extremely important issue. He made a measured and balanced speech until perhaps the final sentence when he said that deregulation led to mediocrity and, as I understood it, to what my late lamented friend Geoffrey Dickens used to call "phaedopiles". My experience is to look at deregulation the other way around. Clearly, there will be casualties in deregulation as in any aspect of life, whether in the public or private sector, but deregulation has, by and large, led to a great expansion of enterprise, competition and excellence. The hon. Gentleman unbalanced what had been an admirable speech by a rather foolish conclusion.
The House should be aware that the hon. Gentleman's interest in defence—he represents an area with such a distinguished history of loyal and dedicated service—is matched by the fact that, as a former teacher, he has a long-expressed interest in education standards in the independent sector and, correctly in my view—I applaud him for it—in the need to ensure that the Ministry of Defence gets the value for money that it should for the £107 million that it spends annually on the boarding school allowance. The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter on the Floor of the House a number of times and in written questions to me. He is therefore well qualified to raise the matter again this morning.
662
As Minister of State for the Armed Forces, responsible for the welfare and deployment of service men and women and for almost every other aspect of their lives, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that this particular aspect of their lives should be satisfactory. I am therefore glad of the opportunity to respond to the points that he raised. "Allegations" is the wrong word—let us say that the hon. Gentleman raised a number of points about various schools. I shall be writing to him in detail about them as I do not have the necessary facts to answer them, especially his final point relating to a school which, I understand, has left the trade association. I shall have that investigated at once, and I am grateful to him for letting me know about it. I shall write to him about the specific matters that he raised with which I am unable to deal now.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of extremely interesting points, and I listened with great care to what he had to say. I found much of what he said persuasive and I understand his genuine concern, which we share in every aspect of defence business, to ensure not only that the Ministry of Defence achieves best value for taxpayers' money but, just as important, that service children receive the best possible education.
I pay tribute to the work of service schools, which are splendid. Indeed, in my discussions with officials this morning while being briefed for this debate, it was said that many of the schools are excellent. I know from my own experience of visiting units all over the world that service men and women greatly value the education that their children receive. I also pay tribute to all the teachers and administrators who do so much to provide such an admirable service for the children of our service men and women.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and others that my Department shares the hon. Gentleman's aims—indeed, it would be like condemning motherhood and apple pie not to do so. The hon. Gentleman raised some important issues that need further investigation. I shall be in touch with him about them and would like him to come to see me to talk about them.
Although we are committed to devoting as much as possible to the business of the front line, we are of course mindful of our wider responsibilities. Although the provision of the boarding school allowance in these times of reduced defence budgets may seem odd to people who do not understand the principle, the scheme is soundly based. I acknowledge that what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said was not a criticism of the boarding school allowance per se but of the way in which it is handled.
The policy is soundly based. Not everyone realises how important such an allowance is to the otherwise turbulent side of family life for service men and women. It may be helpful, therefore, if I set out for the benefit of the House a little of the background to the issues raised today.
I am sure that we all agree that our highly trained and professional men and women are the armed forces' greatest asset and that it is essential that we look after their interests, not only to ensure that morale remains high, although that is critical, but because we are more likely to retain these admirable people in the forces if they feel that their needs and those of their families are properly met and fettled.
Service life places incomparable pressures on the family. Too few civilians—those who have never had any connection with the forces—understand that service men

663
and women are not the same as civilians. Service personnel may be invited to make the ultimate sacrifice. They are not ordinary people, and I take this opportunity to pay my own very warm tribute to the families of all personnel in the armed forces. Without their support and tolerance, undoubtedly our armed forces would not function so effectively. The understanding and support that service wives give to their husbands, and vice versa, is crucial to the effectiveness of our forces. However, we cannot and will not take, and never have taken, that support for granted.
The welfare of one's family is one of the most important motivations in seeking any career. The services are clearly no exception—indeed, they are a shining example. Given the pressures that service families so often face, it is even more important to ensure that service personnel are confident that the welfare of their families is guaranteed. By doing that, we achieve value for money as we retain important people with specialised expertise in whom we have invested valuable training resources and who have such exceptional experience to give to the service of their Queen and country.
The provision of the boarding school allowance is one of the ways in which the needs of our service personnel are met. The allowance is available to service parents of all ranks to provide a stable education for their children in the face of the turbulence that is often a feature of service life. Service personnel who follow the flag and move their families wherever they are required to serve are eligible to receive it. Many of the service people most affected by turbulence are high achievers. Therefore, although the boarding school allowance is a cost to the Department, it is an extremely important tool in helping to persuade highly trained and vital service personnel to stay in the forces—something that we are very conscious of the need to do better across the board.
Because of your interest in defence, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are aware that service personnel and their families can be posted to various parts of the United Kingdom and overseas. Some of these postings are to isolated locations where adequate educational facilities are sometimes simply not available. Postings often occur at highly irregular intervals and sometimes at very short notice—such is the lot of service families. Depending on the service, postings last on average for two years. That could result in frequent and disruptive school change for children required to accompany their parents.
The availability of the boarding school allowance allows personnel of all ranks who suffer such turbulence the opportunity, if they so wish, to maintain their children in boarding schools. Children thus spend a substantial time at one school, which provides the continuity that is so important in education and which would otherwise be missing.
Boarding education is confined mainly to the independent sector, as only a small number of schools in the state sector offer boarding facilities. The provision of assistance with the fees enables service personnel to provide their children with the continuity offered by a boarding education. The boarding school allowance is not an education subsidy to allow service personnel access to a superior education—many state schools provide an
664
education that is every bit as good as that provided by schools in the independent sector—but a contribution towards the average cost of a boarding education.
Mr. Jamieson: Does the Minister accept that local education authority boarding schools that are deemed to be excellent should be included on the admissible schools list, and that listed independent schools that are found to have shortcomings should be removed from it?
Mr. Soames: I do not agree with that proposition. The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of very important points this morning. I shall consider his comments and perhaps he and I can discuss them officially after I have raised them with the Department for Education and Employment.
Those who wish their children to attend the more expensive boarding schools will have to pay a substantial proportion of the fees. The maximum rate of boarding school allowance that may be claimed is set at 75 per cent. of the average fees of all those schools attended by at least 30 children of service personnel. The rate is currently £1,883 per term for children at junior schools and £2,248 per term for children at senior schools. Parents are required to contribute a minimum of 10 per cent. of the school fees, although a large number pay considerably more than that. The average level of school fees in the independent sector is £3,415 per term according to the independent schools information service. Service parents who send their children to an "average" school must therefore find £1,200 out of their own pockets for each child, each term.
As with parents everywhere, service parents are responsible for selecting an appropriate school to suit the needs of their children. In order to find the right school, some parents will seek to stabilise their families in an area of their choice and serve unaccompanied when required to do so. Some elect to move their children around with them, and most children cope successfully with several changes of school. I find that amazing and I am always impressed by how well such children manage.
However, frequent changes of school may be harmful to children's education. Some have little alternative but to attend boarding school. That group is relatively small: of a service population of some 231,000, only about 7,500—about 3.2 per cent.—claim boarding school allowance. As the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) pointed out, that number has reduced by more than 30 per cent. in the past five years as a result not only of draw-down in the armed forces but of control measures put in place to restrict the allowance to those who are genuinely affected by turbulence.
The hon. Member for Devonport is concerned that some parents elect to send their children to schools that do not perform well academically or that have been criticised in other areas. The Ministry of Defence has no statutory authority to control the educational standards of schools attended by children whose parents are in receipt of boarding school allowance—that responsibility rests with the Department for Education and Employment. However, the Ministry of Defence is keen to ensure that parents receive good advice about their selection of schools.
The Service Children's Education Agency—a new agency established on 1 April this year—has assumed the responsibility previously exercised by the Service

665
Children's Education Authority to provide general education advice to parents. In order to achieve that aim, it will continue to maintain close links with DFEE, OFSTED and other relevant professional bodies. It will also visit schools attended by a large number of children of service personnel, or when concerns are expressed about a school, in order to monitor the quality of accommodation and of pastoral care.
The Ministry of Defence maintains a list of schools for which parents may claim boarding school allowance. A copy of that list is kept in the Library. Prior to 1 April this year, the Service Children's Education Authority was responsible for checking that each school maintained adequate control over boarding facilities and met certain other basic criteria—including registration with the DFEE—before it was placed on the admissible schools list. That responsibility now rests with the Service Children's Education Agency.
Schools must be registered with the DFEE in accordance with the Education Act 1994 and must attain, and maintain, an acceptable standard of education as required by that Department. Before initial registration, a school is inspected by one of Her Majesty's inspectors and standards are monitored subsequently through "light touch" inspections carried out by the Office for Standards in Education, examining standards of achievement, teaching, learning and welfare. It is intended that those inspections be carried out every five years approximately, or more often when a school gives cause for concern. I shall discuss the hon. Gentleman's points on that subject with the Department for Education and Employment.
When standards are considered to be unsatisfactory in respect of unsuitable or inadequate accommodation, a failure to provide efficient and suitable education, or the existence of an unsuitable proprietor or teacher, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment issues a notice of complaint. That gives the school a specified period—usually six months—in which to improve in those areas where it was considered to be failing. If the school fails to comply within the notice period, it will be struck off the register and compelled to close, at which time it would no longer be eligible to remain on the Ministry of Defence list of admissible schools. When Ofsted reports are published about particular schools, the Service Children's Education Agency ensures that they are made available to parents with children at those schools. I noted the hon. Gentleman's point about reports and I shall consider that matter.
As to the question of the distribution of funds, the Service Children's Education Agency does not distribute funds to schools. Boarding school allowance is paid to service personnel to allow them to choose the most appropriate school for their children. The agency makes as much information as possible available to parents in order to help to inform their choice. We are constantly looking for ways of improving the quality of the information that we provide, and some of the hon. Gentleman's points are worthy of consideration in that regard.
666
The independent review—mentioned by the hon. Member for Torfaen—of the armed forces manpower, career and remuneration structures conducted recently by Sir Michael Bett was tasked with making recommendations to adapt those structures to the foreseeable needs of the next century. Its work on remuneration structures included an examination of all allowances paid to service personnel, paying particular attention to those factors of service life that created a need for them.
It concluded that, because of the unusually high level of mobility in the services—particularly in the Army—there is a continuing need to ensure that service personnel have the opportunity to provide their children with continuity of education through a boarding education. The provision of proper education for children is clearly a strong imperative for all parents, and the independent review concluded that it may not be possible for the services to retain personnel who feel unable to meet their aspirations in that regard.
Bett recognised that there is a continuing need for a form of boarding school allowance. The review made a number of recommendations to target the overall education allowance package better in order to ensure that only those with a genuine liability to move are entitled to benefit. The recommendations are being examined, together with all of the independent review's other recommendations, and I shall announce the results of the study later this year. Following a meeting this morning, I am pleased to report to the House that the work is going extremely well.
One factor that clearly influences the future cost of the boarding school allowance is the extent to which we are able to offer stability to service personnel and to their families. That will depend largely upon the operational demands that are placed on the individual services in the future.
The hon. Member for Devonport is right to raise those issues in circumstances where public funds are involved. As the hon. Member for Torfaen said, the hon. Gentleman has been extremely diligent in pursuing the matter in the past few years and I am grateful for his interest. As a former teacher, he will be well aware of the importance of maintaining and improving educational standards. The Government and the Ministry of Defence are committed to achieving the highest possible standards in education.
While the Ministry of Defence has no statutory power to regulate schools in the independent sector, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing his concerns to my attention on the Floor of the House. I shall pass them on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and, having discussed them, I shall be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, should he so desire, to explore the matters in greater detail.
The hon. Gentleman has raised important matters touching upon the welfare and morale of service men and women who are posted all over the world and I have no doubt that we shall have further discussions in future. I am grateful to him for raising the matter. We have had a thoroughly worthwhile and useful debate.

European Civil Air Transport
12.9 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to open a debate on competition in European civil air transport. For months, indeed years, I have sought such a debate in Government time as the Government's policy of civil air transport liberalisation has been a great success story for the travelling public, the airlines, airline-related industries and the British economy, through the creation of employment and the healthy, positive contribution that British airlines make to the United Kingdom balance of payments.
Although a parliamentary pas de deux with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is always entertaining, the subject merits wider parliamentary participation and a debate lasting longer than 30 minutes. It seems that good fortune is mine today as, with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we may have more than the expected time, but I see no other hon. Members wishing to join what is likely to be a pas de deux.
The transfer of British Airways into the private sector was one of the flagship privatisations of my noble Friend Lady Thatcher's first term of office. The restructuring of the airline without state aid from 1981 to 1983 under the inspired stewardship of that dynamic duo, Lord King and Sir Colin Marshall, set a standard for competitive achievement that is the envy of Europe and laid the foundation for British Airways' current position as a global force with strategic alliances in the Pacific basin through its stake in Qantas, in the Americas through its stake in US Air and in Europe through its stakes in TAT and Deutsche BA. It has also enjoyed a dominant pivotal position because of its primary location at Heathrow at the heart of Europe—if I may use that phrase. Heathrow is the world's premier international airport and the principal gateway to our continent from north America. British Airways notably survived the past air transport recession profitably when other private sector airlines were going under and a number of state carriers were sustained by national subsidies.
There are, of course, other striking British air transport success stories. If I name but a few, I am seeking not to be invidious but only to avoid taking up too much time. British Midland, whose competitive achievements in domestic scheduled services and in opening up European routes with affordable fares while providing a high-quality service, has been a remarkable success. Virgin Atlantic is clearly a highly original and enterprising airline, unafraid to take on the big boys, including British Airways. Air UK's development of services out of Stansted has been successful and has been thoroughly beneficial to that airport. The inclusive tour and charter sector is also vigorous in Britain, with carriers such as Britannia and Monarch.
Britain is in the vanguard of air transport liberalisation in Europe but is subject to state subsidised competition from nationalised continental carriers. That is in gross breach of the spirit, if not the technical letter, of the treaty of Rome. It is also an affront to the single integrated European market which, for most British people, is the principal purpose of the United Kingdom's participation in the European Union.
Subsidies to airlines take various forms, including operational grants, direct subsidies and indirect financial assistance. Examples include capital injections, debt
668
write-offs, fare subsidies and favourable tax treatments as well as less visible forms of state support which none the less favour national flag carrying airlines.
Under article 92 of the treaty of Rome
"any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market."
In some circumstances, state aid is permissible to assist deprived areas to facilitate the development of certain economic activities if it does not distort trading conditions and, in "exceptional circumstances", if the Council of Ministers agrees unanimously.
The definition of the phrase "exceptional circumstances" is crucial, and Iberia, for example, claims that the recent devaluation of the peseta is such a circumstance. The interpretation of the rules on state aid for airlines has changed recently. The previous understanding was that major subsidies which would otherwise have been forbidden might be allowed on a "one-time, last-time" basis, with the aid to be used to allow the airline to become self-financing thereafter. I call that the drunken sailor syndrome. It has worked out as "one last drink" for state carriers such as Air France and Iberia.
Brussels, however, has made it clear that from 1 April 1997 it will seek to ban state aid to airlines for anything other than "exceptional and unforeseen" crises. When aid takes the form of a financial injection, it is normally subject to an investigation under article 93(2) of the treaty of Rome. States are meant to inform the Commission in advance under article 93(3). The Commission itself—for transport aid, Directorate-General VII—is responsible for investigating such aid and deciding whether it is compatible with the exceptions allowed under the treaty.
The Commission's approach to aviation state aid is set out in its guidelines, that were published in 1984 and 1994. There are two main elements to its evaluation. First, it considers whether a state injection into an airline is actually state aid. Under the market economy investor principle, an injection is an aid in terms of the treaty only if it is apparent that a private shareholder in analogous circumstances would not have made a comparable investment.
If the investment is deemed to be aid, the Commission proceeds to consider it in the light of exceptions, particularly that set out in article 92(3)(c). DG VII interprets that exception as permitting restructuring aid so long as it is transparent, facilitates a viable restructuring plan and does not transfer the recipient's difficulties to its competitors. There lies the rub.
In the past five years, the Commission has investigated a number of state aid cases of civil air transport. I shall list some of them. In 1991, Sabena received £584 million in state aid—that is sterling not ecu. That was approved. Air France received £665 million, and that too was approved. In 1992, Iberia received a grant of £670 million, which was approved. In 1993, Air France applied for £170 million, but that case was rejected. That was the only rejection on the list. In 1993, Aer Lingus received state aid of £170 million which was approved. In 1994, TAP Air Portugal's grant of £710 million was approved, as was Olympic Airways' grant of £995 million, and Air France received £2.4 billion, also with EC approval. In

669
1996, under the eagle eye of Commissioner Kinnock, Iberia received state aid of £460 million and that was approved under the market economy investor principle. We shall see how that works out. In other words, the flag carriers of six European Union member states out of 15 have between them received £6.364 billion of state aid over the past five years. Forty per cent. of EU states have received that grotesquely large amount of state subsidy—and some, such as Air France and Iberia, have repeatedly come back for more.
In July 1994, the European Commission approved state aid to Air France of 20 billion francs—about £2.4 billion—to fund a so-called restructuring plan, to be paid in three instalments. Concern at that decision prompted a number of European economic area airlines, notably led by British Airways, to mount a legal challenge before the European Court in the first instance. British Midland has brought a separate case. The UK Government, to their credit, have intervened formally to support the airlines—as have Sweden, Denmark and Norway. The cases are likely to be heard this year, probably in the autumn. The UK Government have also applied directly to the European Court to have the Commission's decision annulled. I applaud that intervention, as I did the intervention in respect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy yesterday. The Government's case has been stayed at our request pending the outcome of the airlines' own cases.
The Commission approved the second instalment of state aid to Air France in 1995 and is due to consider this year whether the third and final instalment should be approved.
The Spanish Government have sought approval for further state aid to Iberia totalling 130 billion pesetas, which is £688 million. The Commission's decision of 31 January approved an immediate injection of £460 million and left the door open for a further 20 billion pesetas of state aid—£106 million—in 1997, provided that certain cost savings and productivity improvements are made. Those payments are to be allowed under the market economy investor principle, but how that is applied will be crucial to the credibility of Commissioner Kinnock and the organisation that he represents. I have a particular interest because of my interest in Latin America. Iberia has been using state subsidies to fund its investments in carriers in Latin America, such as Aerolineas Argentinas and Ladeco in Chile. I understand that those stakes are to be reduced or liquidated; nevertheless, those investments have been permitted by the Commission.
The House may find it noteworthy and instructive to know some of the arguments that British Airways has rightly been advancing in making its case against the proposed latest tranche of aid to Iberia, which have been supported by independent aviation consultants Avmark International—which undertook detailed analysis of Iberia's so-called exceptional circumstances. British Airways' key points, in addition to universally applicable arguments against the payment of state aid to our competitors, are that this is the second occasion on which state aid has been requested for Iberia, and it falls within the period of the restructuring plan that accompanied the first tranche of state aid of 120 billion pesetas in 1992. To allow a further capital injection would violate the so-called "one-time, last-time" principle that has heretofore governed the payment of state aid to carriers in the European Union.
670
If one analyses the four reasons given by the Spanish authorities to justify further state aid, one realises that they cannot be classified as exceptional circumstances unforeseen and external to the company. First, Iberia claims that the Gulf war and the recession have affected all airlines, and that argument was also used to justify the 1992 capital injection. It is a long time since the Gulf war and certain carriers, particularly British Airways—which lost an aircraft at the outset of the hostilities—have weathered all the difficulties. Secondly, Iberia cites currency depreciation, but that is an international fact of business life and probably had little negative effect on Iberia's finances. Thirdly, Iberia blames domestic liberalisation, but that was planned for many years and was much trumpeted by the European Union. There has been progress in that respect in Spain to some degree and in other countries to a much higher degree. Finally, Iberia refers to its Latin American strategy, which everybody who knew the market realised was a recipe for disaster as well as a waste of money for taxpayers in the UK and elsewhere in the EU.
If the European Commission cannot even regulate effectively the single market in civil air transport, how can it be allowed to negotiate air service agreements with third countries on behalf of member states?
Mr. Terry Dicks: The theme of my hon. Friend's remarks—I apologise for missing the start of his speech—is that such subsidies are like a vegetarian saying that he wants no nuts, tomato or mayonnaise in his diet, which is possible but highly unbelievable. My hon. Friend makes the point, much more eloquently than I can do, that the claim made by the Commission and the airlines that they are not really keen on state subsidies but use them out of necessity is nothing more than a pack of lies.
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is more trenchant in his comments but, as usual, is highly perceptive. Like me, my hon. Friend has many constituents whose livelihoods depend on civil air transport and on a vigorous British air transport industry. The Government have been firm, but they must maintain their firm stance on behalf of British airlines against unfair competition.
I urge the Government to take a further step and to veto any arrogation unto itself by the European Union of the right to negotiate air service agreements on the UK's behalf. That entitlement and prerogative essentially appertain to a sovereign independent state. If we allow the EU to act in that way, the UK will lose its position as the dominant civil air transport power in Europe. We can be sure that rights that have previously been ours will be frittered away to the benefit of the French, Dutch and Germans, who also have important continental gateways. I hope that the Government will veto any extension of the Commission's costly incompetence in an area of vital British national interest.
12.28 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on the important subject of civil air transport. Again and again over the years, we have seen a continental airline ask for money from its Government, and we have been told by the European Commission in Brussels that such aid will be a

671
one-off payment and the last to the particular airline. On that basis, such aid has been allowed. Again and again, such support has been to the disadvantage essentially of British airlines that are much more commercially oriented, particularly since the privatisation of British Airways.
It goes a bit further than that. If air transport is to become more competitive, more commercial and give a better service to the customer throughout Europe, the only way forward is the way that has been pioneered by airlines in this country—airlines that are commercially viable and that are now the best in the world. Some continental airlines have seen the light. Lufthansa, for instance, is following the same route as British Airways, and that is to the advantage of Europe and customers throughout the European Union.
I also fully endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood about the Commission having negotiating rights with the United States. Not only do continental airlines have to prove their commercial viability but the Commission that has to be made to understand that—before it can take on the responsibility, if it ever does, for negotiating air rights with the United States and other parts of the world on behalf of European Union countries—it too must be seen not to support those who wish to subsidise airlines in their countries.
I strongly believe that we should not give negotiating rights to the European Commission until it stops allowing states within the European Union to subsidise their own airlines. I would also like to see a clear situation in which we have time, after the subsidies have stopped, to see how those airlines perform before any thought is given to giving some of our own rights away to Brussels.
There is no doubt in my mind that there must be a limit to the way in which airlines that are in the public sector continue to receive subsidies. It is all very well to say that airlines in the private sector will be able to compete because they are more efficient, but the problem lies in the way in which some of the subsidised airlines operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned Iberia and it is a classic case. The subsidised airlines use subsidies, not for infrastructure improvement or to reduce the number of employees and stop overmanning, but to target routes and make it difficult for competitors to operate profitably on those routes in the hope of getting sufficient market share to push competitors off those routes. That is the wrong approach and it will result in profitable airlines being unable to offer the service that they can at the moment and in those airlines that are not profitable asking for more subsidies to fly routes that were not profitable in the first place.
One of the lessons from the British Airways experience was that it considered its route structure 10 or 15 years ago. It considered all routes, however historic they may have been, and decided whether they were profitable. It cut the routes that were not profitable and cut the number of its employees in half in the process. It created a profitable airline as a result of the hard decisions that it took some 10 years ago. British Airways was then able to build up those routes again, and made routes that previously were unprofitable, profitable and in the process employed more people. British Airways now has twice the route network in miles flown, but it employs the same number of people. That must be the way ahead for state
672
airlines such as Air France and Iberia, rather than attempts to prop up an existing unprofitable, uncommercial structure with continuing amounts of state aid.
12.33 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for giving us the opportunity of this debate today. When he introduced the debate, at a rather unexpected hour, I thought that I perceived a note of mild and customarily gentlemanly disappointment in his voice at the thought that he and I would execute a pas de deux this morning. As an Under-Secretary, I declare myself on this occasion an unsatisfactory substitute. I assure my hon. Friend that, although on this occasion we are using the device of an Adjournment debate and although my noble Friend Viscount Goschen is the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport takes the issue that my hon. Friend raised today extremely seriously. As I say, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject and for expressing himself in such a clear and, if I may say so, trenchant fashion.
We also enjoyed an unexpected but none the less immensely pleasurable minor explosion from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who, although he is a parliamentary private secretary for a Transport Minister, was obviously speaking in a private constituency capacity. It would be a shame to lose him. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). My hon. Friends who have spoken are all characterised by the fact that they have taken an interest for many years in the subject. Heathrow is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre has long had an interest in aviation matters. I do not believe that there is an hon. Member who has been clearer about his interest in the issue of European state aid than my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
Some £56 billion of United Kingdom visible trade passed through British airports in 1994. Each year, expenditure by air travellers visiting the UK, and by foreign passengers on UK airlines, totals nearly £10 billion. Total employment in airlines and airports within the UK is estimated at over 100,000. Air transport is a major industry, and a substantial UK success story, which fully deserves the attention of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood will know that the Government, as he suggested, are firmly committed to competition in aviation, because competition is good for our airlines, good for our airports, good for the UK economy, and good for users. It is because we are convinced of the benefits of competition that the Government have long championed the cause of aviation liberalisation in Europe. The liberal bilateral agreements that the UK reached with Germany and the Netherlands in 1984, with Luxembourg and Belgium in 1985, and with Ireland in 1988, gave impetus to the momentum towards liberalisation throughout the European Community. The UK was instrumental in promoting and concluding the series of legislative measures, culminating in the so-called third package, which created the single market in aviation in Europe.
The single European market in aviation has formally existed since 1 January 1993. On international services within the Community, the third package opened up

673
access to all Community carriers. Member states must use the same criteria when issuing licences on grounds of safety and financial fitness. Member states can no longer favour their national carriers by issuing licences on a discretionary basis, and restrictions on cross-border investment have been removed.
Fares, frequency and capacity are now decided by airlines according to commercial principles, instead of being regulated by member states, subject only to safeguards against anti-competitive practices. The pattern of services can respond freely to changes in the pattern of demand. High-cost carriers can no longer rely on market protection from Governments to ward off more efficient and innovative competitors.
The only remaining restrictions apply on domestic services, and until 1 April 1997 member states may prohibit access to airlines registered in other member states. But that final barrier to access will be lifted in less than 12 months' time. All Community carriers will then be free to compete on all international and all domestic services within the Community. National carriers will no longer have the advantage of protection on busy internal routes from their major Community competitors. Competition will be further enhanced on international routes that are fed by those domestic services. The elimination of the final vestiges of regulated market access will present new commercial opportunities for UK airlines, which they are well placed to exploit with their experience of operating in the private sector.
European liberalisation has already brought pronounced benefits both to users and to efficient airlines. In both international and domestic markets, liberalisation has helped to trigger significant increased competition. For example, 43 new routes are being served, and 38 routes are now supporting an increased number of competitors. I am pleased to say that about a third of the new routes are within or to the United Kingdom.
Customers enjoy wider choice and lower fares. Small independent airlines now have a genuine opportunity to compete by differentiating their product in terms of price and quality. The larger flag carriers that are the target of the increased competition benefit indirectly as the pressures of open competition breed a more commercial attitude and greater efficiency, making them more competitive in the world market. It is true that on some Community routes fares remain higher than users might like to see them. But providing air transport is a high-risk, capital-intensive operation and competitive services may take some time to emerge. The legislative framework within which competition can flourish is in place. We can look forward with confidence to increasing benefits from liberalisation as time passes.
Even in domestic markets, where so far only home-registered carriers have been entitled to compete, the third package has had a number of beneficial effects. In Spain, Iberia's dominance of the Madrid-Barcelona route has been challenged successfully by two small airlines, Air Europa and Spanair. Iberia's share of the domestic Spanish market has fallen from 100 per cent. in 1992 to below 80 per cent. now. In France, Air Liberté has taken on Air Inter on the Orly-Toulouse and other internal routes, with resulting falls in business and economy fares.
I stress again that it is the United Kingdom that has led the way in encouraging free and fair competition. It is instructive and encouraging that the UK register boasts
674
more privately owned international airlines than any other member state. From BA and British Midland down to the smallest company, each makes an important contribution to the wealth of the UK. They flourish because of the Government's pro-competitive and liberalising policies. They are carrying the message into the heartlands of their competitors, with companies such as Deutsche BA in Germany and TAT in France.
In 1987, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, we privatised British Airways. Today, as my hon. Friend observed, thanks to Lord King and Sir Colin Marshall, British Airways is widely recognised as about the most successful and profitable airline in Europe. By any standards, it is a major player on the global aviation scene. It has been the model for other European major carriers to follow. Moreover, British Airways has created jobs. As my hon. Friends know, the conventional wisdom in some European countries was that flag-carrying airlines had to be owned by the state and financed by it, to protect employment. British Airways has shown that that proposition was crassly erroneous. In the private sector, BA has increased its work force by about 35 per cent. over the past 10 years. As a result, it is employing more people than before privatisation, but at much higher levels of productivity.
It is worth saying that BA—the same can be said about British Midland, Virgin, Air UK and other operators—has achieved its pre-eminence without a penny of state aid or subsidy from the taxpayer. The BA example is clearly, however, the most spectacular. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that state aid remains the greatest single threat to effective implementation of the single market.
State aid to national airlines has been an integral part of the aviation scene in several European countries for many years, yet it is entirely incompatible with the competitive regime that member states collectively have now established. If there is to be a genuine free market in air transport, the Community must put an end to the injection of public subsidies. They distort competition and penalise efficient carriers in countries that do not provide state aid. They perpetuate inefficiency and discourage innovation, to the detriment of passengers and business. There is no reason why taxpayers should subsidise airlines which, because of their inefficiencies, cannot survive in the marketplace.
As the House knows, the treaty of Rome puts the onus on the European Commission to control state aid. Over many years, we have been pressing the Commission to take a tougher approach towards member states that wish to continue paying outmoded state subsidies. Under the treaty, other member states have only limited powers to influence the Commission's decisions. The UK, however, has taken every opportunity to do what it can to ensure that state subsidies become a thing of the past. I can assure the House that we shall not weaken our efforts.
We have demonstrated our resolve, as my hon. Friend was kind enough to say, to tackle those issues head on by taking the Commission to the European Court over its decision in 1994 to allow the French Government to pay a £2.4 billion subsidy to Air France. Several European airlines, including British Airways and British Midland, have also challenged the decision. For the information of the House, the Government's case is currently stayed at our request, pending the outcome of the airlines' case. The Government had intervened in support of the airlines, and we hope that hearings will begin this year.

675
The Air France decision represented a major threat to liberalisation and to the interests of UK airlines. It was a massive injection of funds, equivalent at the time of the decision to about 60 per cent. of BA's market capitalisation. Aid on that scale could damage the European air transport industry for years to come.
United Kingdom airlines compete head on with Air France on several routes. They will be severely disadvantaged if Air France can reduce its prices or improve its quality of service as a result of state aid. United Kingdom airlines have to develop their networks out of their own resources. Air France's ability to maintain a wider range of services than it would without subsidy deprives efficient airlines of the commercial opportunities that they are entitled to expect.
Air France produced a restructuring plan to accompany the request for aid. We have grave doubts whether the plan can succeed. It was not based on cost reductions of the sort or on a scale that a loss-making private sector airline would put in hand. On the contrary, Air France intended to purchase a substantial number of new aircraft. That itself was unnecessary, and would have utilised funds that might have reduced the effect of the aid that was sought. A loss-making private sector airline would have to focus on its core activities if it wanted to achieve viability. The Commission's decision did not ensure that Air France financed as much of its proposed restructuring as possible by disposing of non-core assets, which is the obvious route that a private sector operation would take.
All in all, our view was that the Commission made a thoroughly bad decision, apparently without due consideration. We look to the courts to rectify the situation. Meanwhile, we are maintaining the pressure. Air France has realised its investment in Sabena and postponed some of its aircraft orders since the aid was approved. We have pressed the Commission to take that into account in deciding whether final payment of all the aid is justified.
The recent Commission decision to approve a £460 million payment to Iberia is the latest in a long line of disappointing decisions. The Iberia case is not directly comparable with that of Air France. The funding is not on such an immense scale, although it is still very large. Largely for geographical reasons, the immediate commercial threat to UK airlines is not so great. As the Commission has decided that the payment to Iberia is justified as a commercial investment by the Spanish Government as a shareholder, the case raises different issues.
The Commission says that the approved funding is not state aid. The effect, however, will be the same—to shore up an inefficient company and to distort consumer choice. It is the second large payment to Iberia—my hon. Friend drew attention to an extraordinarily large catalogue of payments—over four years. As my hon. Friend said, £670 million was approved in 1992. We are now faced with the latest payment. It is unfair to airlines such as British Airways, British Midland and other UK carriers that compete without subsidy.
We are especially concerned about the possible precedent that could be set for other state-owned airlines that might seek capital injections in future. We could not tolerate a situation in which state aid was allowed to pass
676
when dressed up as commercial investment, thereby circumventing the Commission's powers to disallow state aid under the treaty. That would undermine all our efforts to close the door on aviation subsidies. The Government have made clear to the Commission their views on that decision, and we are looking closely at its text to see what further options are open to us. My hon. Friend may be assured that the Government will act in whatever way is best to protect the long-term interests of the UK's aviation industry and, indeed, in a way that best promotes our objective of eliminating altogether state subsidies to airlines.
It is worth putting it on the record that not only state aid is a threat to liberalisation. As a few minutes remain, I shall, with my hon. Friend's indulgence, refer to one or two areas where it will be equally important to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place. My hon. Friends will be aware of the importance, for example, of airport slots. It is unlikely that the growth in transport across the Community will be able to keep pace with the increasing demand for air travel, so congested airports will be increasingly common. We must ensure a fair and efficient system for managing airport capacity if the benefits of the liberalised market are to be realised.
Heathrow and Gatwick are respectively the first and fifth busiest airports for international traffic in the European Union, so the UK's airports have had a head start in developing processes for the allocation of take-off and landing slots. European law has already established the principle of a slot co-ordinator who is independent of airlines and the airport itself. It also gives preferential access for new-entrant airlines into the most congested airports, especially airlines that are willing to compete on monopoly or duopoly intra-Community routes.
The existing EC regulation is now due for review, and the United Kingdom Government are taking an active role in that process. Given the experience of three years' operation of the regulation, we are stressing the need first and foremost for its provisions to be properly implemented in every member state. In particular, that means that allocation decisions must be entirely free from interference by Government or any dominant airline.
We also believe that there is scope for the market to play a greater role in the distribution of slots. We acknowledge, of course, that a free-for-all auction would bring immense practical difficulties, but we are pressing for some trading of slots to be permitted between airlines once they have been allocated by the co-ordinator. That would tend to channel slots towards airlines that value them most, and strengthen the link between provision of services and consumer demand.
The second potential threat to liberalisation is air traffic control constraints, as delays add to the operating costs of airlines. Following UK proposals in the late 1980s, the European civil aviation conference launched initiatives to increase airspace capacity: through the establishment of European-wide flow management; by harmonising and integrating European air traffic management; and by increasing capacity in and around airports. In Europe, since 1990, air traffic control delays have halved in duration, while traffic has increased by an average of 5 per cent. a year. The United Kingdom wholeheartedly supports those initiatives.
Restrictions on the provision of ground handling services at Community airports are another potential brake on liberalisation. At some airports, monopolies run by the

677
airport authority or the dominant carrier provide inefficient or unduly costly services. We have therefore been a strong supporter of moves to open up the ground handling market.
We are pleased that the Community is close to adopting legislation to end monopoly arrangements and require all larger airports to permit potential suppliers of ground handling services to compete for contracts with airlines. Airlines will also have the right to carry out their own handling. Although the implementation of those measures will be phased in over a longer period than the United Kingdom would have preferred, they represent a positive step, to remove harmful restrictions. Opening up the ground handling market will provide the United Kingdom and other Community airlines with competitively priced and more responsive services, and will enable them to pass on those benefits to their passengers.
The United Kingdom aviation industry, the UK economy as a whole and UK passengers benefit, as my hon. Friend said, from a fully liberalised market in aviation. The Government therefore favour extending the single market beyond the borders of the European Community to other European states. Already, Norway is part of the liberalised arrangements, and negotiations are under way with Switzerland. We have said that we support a further extension to embrace the countries of central and eastern Europe, which in due course will lead to further opportunities for United Kingdom airlines and greater choice for users.
Mr. Wilkinson: I welcome what my hon. Friend is saying about the Government's strong desire to see an extension of liberalisation throughout the European economic area and, I presume, all European civil aviation conference member countries' jurisdictions as well. However, would it not be utterly wrong if the European Union were to arrogate to itself the right to negotiate air service agreements on behalf of its member countries, because that would create a dual situation in Europe, which could lead only to conflict and be to the advantage of the European economic area countries rather than those that are, like ourselves—for the time being at any rate—members of the European Union?
Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend reminds me of the important point that he made in his speech about who would negotiate in relation to third countries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, his predecessors, are absolutely clear that it is appropriate for
678
member states to continue to negotiate such matters unilaterally and that there is little to commend the proposition that services be negotiated at Community level by the Commission. I suggest that it is hard to determine the advantage, other than the theoretical advantage, which would accrue. The interests of member states, their relationship with third countries throughout the world, the history of that relationship, and the ties of language, tradition or custom may bind individual members of the Community, but there are areas that differ between member states. All that suggests that unilateral negotiation is infinitely preferred. My hon. Friend is right to make that point.
If the definition of subsidiarity is that the Commission shall do only that which the member state cannot better do itself, that proposition in relation to the negotiation of third-party agreements would appear to commend exactly my right hon. Friend's proposal, and I know that in due course he will wish to say more on that extremely important subject, where, sadly, our view and that of the Commission would appear to be at odds.
In conclusion, I merely repeat how pleased I have been to be able to debate this subject, however inadequately, with my hon. Friend. Some member states have not always been predisposed towards an open market in aviation, and the United Kingdom has a justifiably proud record in leading Europe down the path of liberalisation. The Community has made good progress in recent years in creating the legal framework for a single European aviation market, but opening up access to routes is simply not enough. We need to root out any obstacles to free and fair competition, and the greatest of those obstacles is state aid. The benefits of liberalisation will be seriously diluted if efficient airlines cannot fully exploit their competitive advantage because other carriers are bolstered by state handouts.
The Government look forward to the time when all member states accept that any form of state support to airlines is fundamentally inconsistent with the principle of the single market. United Kingdom airlines have prospered without receiving any form of state aid, despite facing unfair competition from airlines in member states that do. The Government are committed to seeing the end of those practices, and to seeing aviation services provided on a genuinely commercial basis.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue, and I hope that he will have observed, from the clarity with which I am able to put forward the Government's position, that we take the issue extremely seriously.

Probation Service (South Yorkshire)
12.59 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I sought this debate after meeting South Yorkshire probation officers about two weeks ago to discuss the operation of the service. I was accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). Since then, I have met probation officers to discuss subsequent developments.
Sir Irvine Patnick: I presume that that was a party caucus meeting; otherwise, I would have expected to be invited.
Mr. Clapham: It certainly was not. I thought that invitations had been distributed to Members from both main parties throughout South Yorkshire, and I am unable to elaborate on whether the hon. Gentleman received one—or, indeed, on why he did not receive one, if he did not.
It was clear from our discussion that the South Yorkshire probation service had responded positively to the challenges of recent years. I assume that the Minister has seen the service's annual report for 1994–95. If he has, he will have noted the increase in all aspects of probation work.
The number of pre-sentencing reports to the criminal courts has increased by nearly 15 per cent.; the supervision of offenders given community sentences has risen by 18 per cent., nearly twice the increase in 1993–94; there has been a 17 per cent. increase in the amount of automatic conditional release work; occupancy of bail hostels has risen by 10 per cent., and demand for welfare reports in the family courts has increased by 3.5 per cent. There has clearly been a dramatic rise in the work of the South Yorkshire probation service.
Impressive though those figures are, I must emphasise that the organisation aims not just to achieve numerical volume but to provide an efficient and effective service. What is not evident from the figures is the commitment to developing work programmes for specific groups of offenders that are intended to deal with certain types of offending behaviour. I think that the Minister will agree that that is an important development—a development that has taken place not just in South Yorkshire but throughout the probation service.
The South Yorkshire probation service's main function is the supervision of offenders on community orders, with the aim of preventing reoffending. In that way, the service makes a positive contribution to the community, ensuring public safety and strengthening ties. It works not in isolation, but in the community. Officers constantly interact with offenders who, while conscious of their actions, are not always conscious of the consequences of those actions. Those who have decided to change the qualifications for probation officers do not seem to have taken that on board.
Probation work is done in a social context. It is a complex process, often requiring the fixed ideas of offenders to be broken down so that they can be integrated and can live with others in harmony, without causing the problems that led to their initial contact with the probation service. Such a complex social process requires mature
680
officers with good education and a good training; it requires the understanding that mature recruits bring to the job.
That understanding, however, needs to be underpinned by education and training of a high standard. I believe that the necessary educational qualifications should be gained in universities, which can provide theoretical knowledge that can then be linked to practical skills.
The South Yorkshire probation service feels that the abolition of the requirement for people to hold diplomas resulting from a two-year course in social work or its equivalent before they can be appointed as probation officers amounts to deskilling. I agree. I do not believe that the proposals for in-service training will provide the necessary combination of theory and practice. Even at this 11th hour, I ask the Minister to consider implementing a new two-year diploma course. If he cannot do so, he should at least be able to tell us that he is prepared to review the matter again with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.
I am aware that the National Association of Probation Officers referred the whole matter of training to a judicial review. That review did not fully support NAPO's contentions, but I understand that the judge said that there was now a void, and that there should be appropriate educational and training qualifications for probation officers. Perhaps the Minister will expand on that.
According to the Dewes report, which was commissioned by the Government, the diploma in social work inhibits the recruitment of potentially valuable probation officers. The figures show, however, that the service is not losing nationally or regionally: it is obtaining mature recruits. In 1993, more than 50 per cent. of recruits were over the age of 30, and more than 40 per cent. had previous work experience. Perhaps the real disincentive has been caused by the fact that, in 1994, the Government cut £17 million from the probation service's education budget, thus reducing the number of available places.
Why, the South Yorkshire probation service asks, do the Government want to dismantle the current system of education and training, which is supported by NAPO and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation? The Industrial Society found its training and recruitment methods very effective.
It would seem—no doubt the Minister will expand on this—from leaks in the media that the Government wish to dismantle the probation service qualification, so that they can recruit more ex-service men and women, in the belief that they will instil more discipline. If that is really their objective, it results from a mistaken view of the probation service's work—like the belief that recruits do not require theoretical knowledge.
I again draw the Minister's attention to the fact that probation officers work with drug addicts, with people who are responsible for sexual abuse, with people who have been involved in family violence as well as family breakdown, and with the mentally ill. There is a need for a great deal of understanding, and that comes from an educational qualification steeped in much of the theory that applies to social work. Such education, linked to practice on the job, can provide the necessary skills to enable a probation officer to work well in the community.
Another reason why the Government want to dismantle the probation service came to the fore in an announcement only a week or so ago. The Guardian carried the headline

681
"Probation Pay Linked to Crime". I do not know whether the Minister saw that article, but he will no doubt be aware of the proposal for a pay-related bonus system. Probation officers in South Yorkshire feel that that would devalue the service. As we are now aware, the Home Secretary seems to be seriously considering the introduction of what I would refer to as a ludicrous performance-related pay system, which is linked to whether a probation officer's clients reoffend.
That barmy idea was proposed for the police force and withdrawn. The work that a probation officer does, to which I have referred, is even more complex, and a pay-related system would lead to all kinds of problems. It is an absolutely ridiculous idea, and would result in probation officers recommending for supervision under community orders only offenders they judge are least likely to reoffend. That would be the obvious way to ensure that they would receive their bonuses.
Those people who had been to prison or had a record of reoffending would not be recommended for community service. The system will ultimately lead to reduced pay levels in the service, which will deter the high-calibre recruits currently joining it.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the system's ultimate results. Are we saying that judges will be on bonus-related pay, and that their payment by results will be related to the length of sentences they impose? If that increased, as it ultimately would, the prison population, would prison officers be paid more to supervise the rise in the prison population? If so, are we to say that they are likely to receive decreases in pay if the prisoners they have been supervising were to reoffend? On reflection, I am sure that the Minister will agree that introducing a bonus-related pay system in the probation service is ludicrous and barmy.
As I am sure the Minister will be aware, there has been a fall in recorded crime of 2 per cent. in South Yorkshire. Burglary overall has fallen by 11 per cent. There was a fall of 1 per cent. in violent crime, and there has been a fall of 10 per cent. in the number of sexual offences. Those figures reflect in part—I emphasise, in part—the effectiveness of the South Yorkshire probation service. I say "in part" because I am aware that other agencies are involved in those welcome statistics, such as the police and the social services.
The probation service approach to offenders really works. There is a mountain of evidence to support that contention, but I shall use only two examples.
A cost-benefit analysis of probation-style programmes in America showed that the net saving of such programmes was $68,000 per offence. A study in the United Kingdom in 1993 followed a group of young offenders who had taken part in an intensive probation programme and compared them with a group of offenders who had been given custodial sentences. It showed that the volume of reconvictions of those given custodial sentences was 100 per cent. higher than for those who had undertaken an intensive probation course. The probation service approach is successful.
The whole approach could be undermined by an inadequate training system and a barmy payment-by-results system. The probation officers in South Yorkshire are extremely concerned by the Government's proposals—or should I say lack of them—on adequate education and training. They feel that the service will be
682
deskilled. Moreover, they are worried that the proposed payment-by-results system will devalue the service, and that the ultimate loser will be the community. I share those fears.
The Government's ill-conceived proposals will undermine the confidence of the professionals in the service and be to the detriment of the community. I therefore urge the Minister to think again, and to work with probation officers, chief probation officers and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to arrive at a satisfactory solution to the education issue. I urge him to drop the barmy idea of putting probation officers on a payment-by-results system.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I welcome this opportunity to reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), and I pay tribute to the South Yorkshire probation service and its work, and to the probation service as a whole.
We in government fully recognise the tremendous contribution that the probation service makes. The criminal justice system is clearly not all about prison. Many offenders, as the hon. Gentleman said, will very much benefit from a community sentence. That is central to our policy. We are very well aware that the probation service faces a greater and greater challenge, and I am glad to say that its overall resources have remained in real terms at a consistent level, which reflects our attitude.
What the hon. Member said about training is very important. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's decision last year to withdraw the requirement for a two-year social work degree has been misinterpreted, and misrepresented widely. It has been said, as it has again in this debate, that the decision represents deskilling. I reject that claim altogether.
We believe that we need very much more broad-based probation training in order to face the challenge of today's crime scene. No one would deny that social work is relevant to probation work, or that any new training scheme introduced should contain an important element of social work training, but other disciplines are equally important. Probation should be seen as a discipline in its own right, and any training scheme must incorporate all the relevant skills—whether in criminology, sociology or psychology—and expert knowledge that is required.
The hon. Member said that working with drug offenders is very important. This morning, I launched the south London drug strategy, which will involve a great deal of work by a number of professionals—including social workers and probation officers—in arrest/referral schemes. We must make sure that we can offer people who are passing through the criminal justice system—at the time of arrest, in court or during community sentences—the support they need to get off drugs. In doing so, we can reduce crime. That area formed a much smaller proportion of the work of the probation service five or 10 years ago.
We propose that the training and qualifications for probation officers in the future should contain all those elements, and should not be dominated by one particular discipline or by those with university qualifications. The training should be composed of the elements that the service believes are needed. The service should design the

683
course, which should contain enough flexibility to ensure that all the necessary elements are included. I hope that the negotiations will go ahead, and there is a meeting today between the Home Office and the profession. With good will on all sides, I am certain that the Home Office, the employers and managers of the probation service and higher education can come up with a course that reflects the needs and challenges of today.
Sir Irvine Patnick: May I join the Minister in praising the work of the South Yorkshire probation service? He may be aware that I made representations on behalf of that service to the previous Minister, and that those representations were considered before the changes that took place in the probation service. I am grateful for that, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to comment.
Mr. Sackville: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We need a relevant professional training qualification. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone pointed out that the present system has attracted many mature people to the service, but we should not get carried away with the idea that we are trying to attract large numbers of ex-service men, who may or may not have relevant experience.
There is a strong argument that telling someone who wishes to join the service and who has relevant experience—someone who has worked with young people or has done a variety of work in the field—to undertake a two-year social work course could be a considerable disincentive. That is not the case for everyone—many people who are highly qualified and suitable for the service may be happy to get the degree.
Mr. Clapham: The probation service has experienced no difficulty whatsoever in attracting the kind of recruits it requires. We are not talking about apprentices, or about people who work with mechanical parts. We are not talking about people who work with widgets. We are talking about training for men and women who are to work with people. They will need a theoretical education to underpin the skills they will require to work with drug abusers and sex offenders.
Mr. Sackville: The hon. Member ignores this fact—there is no reason why all the theoretical knowledge could not be gained within a more flexible framework. It will be up to the probation service, in conjunction with all other concerned groups, to design relevant courses that contain all these elements. All that we are saying is that a two-year social work degree should not be compulsory.
I am convinced that certain qualified and suitable people will be put off if they are told that they have to take a two-year social work degree. Many people may
684
need social work training, but not necessarily the full social work degree. I think that that was the burden of the earlier remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick).
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone also mentioned performance-related pay. Again, this matter has been widely misconstrued—including in the article to which he referred. The background is that a Home Office options paper was put to the employers' side of the joint negotiating committee. It made no specific proposal, and certainly did not specifically propose that performance should be linked specifically to reoffending. That would be difficult, and would be a caricature of any sensible performance system.
Some unnecessary fears have been expressed about the subject. It will always be up to the employers and local committees to decide on the nature of any performance-related scheme. All services should already be using the standard competence-based appraisal scheme that was introduced two years ago with the backing of all concerned. If properly used, such a scheme should provide an objective way of assessing and comparing performance, and it was designed to bear the weight of performance-related pay if necessary.
There are many ways of assessing performance—timeliness in producing pre-sentence reports; timeliness in producing welfare reports in family court cases; quality of pre-sentence reports; and compliance with national standards. There is no reason to caricature the proposal as in some way linked to a raw measure of reconviction. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone's rather absurd analogies with judges and other parts of the criminal justice system did not add to the argument.
I accept the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone. Probation and the probation service do work, but they work alongside other aspects of the criminal justice system. Probation is not a substitute for prison. Given that the reconviction rate is about 50 per cent., we must assume that the reoffending rate—whether for those leaving prison or those who have gone through community sentences—is considerably higher.
That is an argument for the fairly robust line taken recently by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has recognised that—in cases of burglary, for example—very short sentences are passed from time to time on people who have offended and been convicted many times. There is room within the criminal justice system for an effective probation service, and we must make sure that the public are protected by taking those who persistently offend out of circulation.
We very much value the work of the probation service, and we hope that the present disagreement about the future of the probation training qualification—it has been going on for some months—will be resolved. There is no reason why we cannot find a flexible scheme that satisfies all sides and ensures that the probation service continues to play a vital part in our criminal justice system.

London Electronics College
1.29 pm
Sir Nicholas Scott: At a time when images of Culloden pour from our screens and appear in our newspapers and other journals week by week, it may be that it is another lost cause that I espouse in this brief debate this morning, in which I look forward to the response of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
The London Electronics college in my constituency was founded in 1892 as the British School of Telegraphy. Although it did not invent the morse code, it was the crucible within which morse code was developed and expanded across the world. Morse code became a method of communication which saved many lives in the course of the century which divides us from the beginnings of the British School of Telegraphy. Morse code has now been largely supplanted by other means of communication on land, sea and air, but it still exists in a reduced state in different parts of the globe. The London Electronics college has in the 104 years which separate us from its founding played its part in those events, but more recently has devoted its attention to the development of courses in electronic engineering. It has been a leader in the provision of such courses to a considerable number of students, both students from overseas who come to learn and develop their skills here and our own young and not so young people who wish to acquire skills in electronics which they can bring to bear in their own commercial and industrial futures.
In the past few weeks we have discovered that no new contract is to be given to the London Electronics college for its development of electronic engineering skills. The college faces in the next 12 months a progressive winding down of operations in Penywern road and, unless fresh thought is given to the issue, closure. My case for the college rests not on some sentimental adherence to the past but on the important and crucial role that I believe that it may be able to play in the future.
Last year it was my privilege to visit the college and see the exciting work that was being conducted there and the commitment not only of the students aiming to develop their skills but of the staff and management, who have devoted themselves to improving and developing steadily the teaching and output of the college.
We all know how immensely important the future of engineering and perhaps particularly electronic engineering is to the commercial future of the country. My hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology was recently keen to stress the importance of encouraging high calibre young people to take up careers in engineering, including electronic engineering, and he has been instrumental in introducing into our schools schemes, such as the engineering education scheme and headstart, to encourage young people within the mainstream education system to take an interest in and develop an enthusiasm for engineering. That is an admirable, indeed essential, part of our commercial and industrial future.
We now know not only that the London Electronics college faces closure in the not-too-distant future but that, as the principal of the college wrote to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister about four weeks ago in response to a speech by him on the engineering profession:
686
"All technician training in London has effectively been closed down by Centec"—
the training and enterprise council responsible for training in central London—
"and there is now no GNVQ advanced engineering or NVQ electronics servicing training by any of the eight London TECs provided within the national adult retraining programme commonly known as TFW.
Coincidentally but distressingly, that decision was announced during national science, engineering and technology week. One hopes that the Government might rather better co-ordinate some of their decisions in this important field.
The London Electronics college is a major part of the system in London for the development of electronic engineering skills. The clouds are gathering over its future. None of the fault can be laid at the door of the management or staff. There is no lack of applicants to take up places on the courses in the college. Complicated administrative reasons play some part. They involve first the Government, who operate mainly through the Government Office for London, then Centec—the organisation responsible for training across a range of skills in inner London—and the London Electronics college at the end of the process.
The chief executive of Centec is Mrs. Gwyneth Flower, a lady for whom I have considerable admiration. I have watched the enthusiasm that she has brought to her task. In a letter to the London Electronics college in the middle of last year she set out the reasons why clouds were beginning to gather, even then. She said:
"Firstly, the category of trainees for which we are responsible are defined by the Government and are as follows: those six to 12 months unemployed, those 12 to 24 months unemployed, those with more than 24 months unemployment and those with special training needs. Between Government and ourselves we have to attempt to forecast the number of trainees in each category over the year in order to establish our average contract value. Each of the above categories is paid for at a different rate and you will see that this leads to a fairly complicated situation which has a major influence on our contractual flexibility"—
that is to say their ability to provide what people who are out of work need in order to acquire the skills necessary to return to productive work.
Mrs. Flower went on to say:
"I wish to make the point that it is Government policy to emphasise the delivery of jobs from TEC training programmes and, as a consequence, the value of a higher education qualification has been reduced from four to two points"—
that is to say in assessing the performance of the providers. She continues:
"This is not of our making; it is part of a Government requirement placed upon us. While we may protest about this, the requirement remains."
If we are looking ahead to our future in the business of electronic engineering, the continued provision of high-quality skills will lie at the core of what we all, if we look at it in a rational way, should endeavour to produce. In essence, we are taking too short-term a view of the development of skills in what I reiterate will be an important part of our future commercial success.
We have reached the point where no training and enterprise council offers advanced engineering training for adult retraining in the London region. Last month, Centec cut all training provision by one third with only two weeks' notice. TECs are influenced—"encouraged"

687
may be too strong a word—to place payment emphasis and recruitment on job outcomes, not on national vocational qualifications or on higher education. I believe that that is a short-term way of looking at this area of activity.
I understand that some TECs are now paying commercial recruitment agencies to obtain jobs for them, which would have been obtained by applicants anyway. Agencies are then double funded—by employers and by TECs. I am also told—the Minister can confirm whether this is true—that some recruitment agencies have been making special deals with his Department to get this funding.
TEC funding is not going to the long-term, high-quality training that ought to be our first priority in this important area. As I understand it—I have no reason to doubt the information that I have been given—in order to achieve the training outcomes set by the Government, emphasis is increasingly being given to things such as low-level keyboard skills or to what is called, in the jargon of the trade, training hamburger flippers—that may be an overstatement. There is a reducing emphasis on high-quality skills and an increasing emphasis on low-level skills that can produce the right figures but do not underpin our industrial success for the future.
Our jobless youngsters deserve better than this. Young people who have been unemployed for more than six months undertake low-level training schemes that have a low skill requirement and they receive short-term training. They then go back on the register. That may do something to reduce the number of people on the unemployment register at any particular time and it may help to keep those figures down, but our young people deserve better than that. They ought to have the opportunity to acquire higher skills that not only provide them and their families with proper levels of remuneration but underpin our success in these areas for our industrial future. I am sure that our future prosperity depends on a better answer than the one we have at the moment in the training area. The London Electronics college provides that. It would be a tragedy if it were to close.
1.42 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). I know of the high reputation of the London Electronics college and I was appalled to hear that no new contract will be forthcoming, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend. First, I was the Secretary of State for Employment who introduced training and enterprise councils. The idea was to get away from the kind of bureaucracy that had harmed training in this country for quite a number of years. We had a so-called national training system that was far too bureaucratic, that was not owned and that was entirely ineffective.
The aims of the training enterprise councils were that they should be owned locally, that they should be flexible, that their training should be relevant to the people living in the area, that the public sector should be involved and that we should train people with skills and for skills. I am bound to say that I have been concerned about the complaint after complaint—my right hon. Friend graphically illustrated this in the letter that he read out—
688
that I have heard about what I would call a creeping bureaucracy coming back into the training and enterprise council system. If that is so, it is certainly not what was intended. I hope that the Government will look at the points made by my right hon. Friend in this respect.
Secondly, the aim of the training and enterprise councils—indeed, the aim of any sensible training system—is to train people in skills. It is important that there should be a job for people at the end of the day, but one cannot have a training system entirely plugged into the employment market in every respect. It may be that in some areas training—for example, training at the London Electronics college—will lead to higher education and further training. One should not turn one's back on that.
I am concerned with the issue that my right hon. Friend has raised. There are signs that the new training and enterprise council system that the Government introduced to get away from the national bureaucracy of the old Manpower Services Commission and all that that entailed is being slightly misused. I hope that the Government will be able to give some indication that the future of the London Electronics college will be looked at again and that a better solution will be found.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) for initiating the debate. He has shown considerable diligence in this matter over some months. He raised the issue in a letter to the Secretary of State. Obviously, he is concerned about the future of the London Electronics college, which is in his constituency. I preface my remarks by making it clear that it is primarily a matter for the parties concerned. I shall address the points raised by my right hon. Friends the Member for Chelsea and for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). The detail of the contract is a matter for the parties concerned.
The college has been a Central London training and enterprise council provider for the last four years. The use of the name "college" does not mean that it is necessarily part of the further education sector or that it is a formal college under the local education authority. It is a wholly private organisation—Government Members would not expect me to suggest that that is a criticism; I am putting the matter into context.
The college has been a Centec provider for the last four years and it has been providing courses in a number of areas related to electronics, engineering and applications systems. It has offered national vocational qualifications at levels 2, 3 and 4. The college has been successful in meeting the targets set in its contracts for the number of trainees achieving NVQs—in fact, 38 per cent. of the trainees obtain an NVQ.
However, the college has been unsuccessful in meeting the targets for the number of trainees who leave training and then enter employment. That is now the key performance indicator under training for work, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea referred. My figures show that only 4 per cent. of its trainees obtain jobs at the end of their courses, compared with the national target—and achievement—of close to 45 per cent. That is a clear difference in achievement—it is not a matter of a few points.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the issue of training and its relationship to jobs. Of course, training must not be wholly related to the jobs that exist at the

689
time. However, it is equally true that training cannot take place in a vacuum away from the labour market. Obviously, I pay immense tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield for introducing TECs with a considerable amount of vision.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield will recall my humble membership of the Employment Select Committee at that time and the considerable enthusiasm that its Conservative members had for his proposal. The development of TECs is a great change in the delivery of training. One of their principal duties is to examine the local labour market and ensure that the training that is provided relates to its needs. Clearly, it is important that the training for which TECs contract relates to local needs, where real jobs exist.
My right hon. Friends know that TECs are, rightly, independent companies led by local business people for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield described when he set them up. They work under performance-related contracts with Government and their mission is to provide the country with the skilled and enterprising work force that it needs. There can be few hon. Members who would dissent from that mission.
Each TEC agrees a corporate plan with the Secretary of State in line with cross-Government strategic guidance and an economic assessment of the needs of its area. Those corporate plans are publicly available and form part of longer-term, three-year licensing arrangements. We are coming to the end of the first phase of the licensing programme because the majority of TECs now have three-year licences. Each has a duty to secure value for money and to maximise performance. They have a duty in respect of, and are accountable to this House through me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for, their guardianship of public funds.
Ultimately, it is not the future of individual training providers that matters—over time quite a number have closed their doors for various reasons—but future adequate provision for the labour market and for all potential students who wish to undertake some form of training. I entirely share the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield for the concept of TECs and his concern about the rumours of what he called "creeping bureaucracy". There is no doubt that some training providers are concerned about that. My right hon. Friend may know that an efficiency scrutiny of the Government's relationship with TECs has recently been undertaken. A 40-point plan came out of that and we have rejected only two of those points. Almost all of them were implemented at the beginning of April. One or two of the bigger points will take until next April to implement.
There is also some concern—I have raised this with TECs and we are taking it forward—that some bureaucracy has been generated, not by Government but by individual TECs. We must tackle that. Putting my tongue in my cheek, I could say that the price of setting them up as independent companies, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield rightly did, is that I have that much less control over what they do. However, I am anxious to address the problem of bureaucracy.
The performance of every TEC is kept constantly under review and we publish each autumn tables comparing achievements that relate especially to the annual contract
690
with my Department. As part of those negotiations, we expect that in the current year 197,000 training opportunities will be provided under training for work, which will lead to 45 per cent. of those trainees obtaining jobs. I emphasise the difference between that 45 per cent. and the actual achievement of the London Electronics college.
My right hon. Friends will no doubt be aware of this morning's excellent news that unemployment has fallen yet again to 7.8 per cent. of the population. That is an important factor because it underlines the Government's belief that the principal responsibility for training, especially to higher level skills, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea rightly referred, must lie with employers. The Government cannot be expected to provide all the training that may be required by employers.
We believe that training for work should be focused on getting unemployed people back into the work force and doing something useful. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea referred to hamburger flippers and low-level skills, that is not the objective of training for work—although there are some service jobs that may fit that description. We want people to get back into work and, once there, for employers to shoulder the burden of improving and developing their skills. We have ample evidence that that is happening. The surveys that came out this morning with the unemployment figures show that employers are expecting, yet again, to increase their investment in training.
I shall now deal with the specifics of the London Electronics college. I understand that Centec, the TEC that covers the area, reviews the performance of all its training providers as part of a continual examination and review of its training strategy. We all appreciate that it is important for it to review its contractual partners and, where necessary, to make changes. As a result of that, Centec decided not to contract with the college this year.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea made two suggestions that he believed to be correct. I think that they are both wrong but I will check them. He first suggested that Centec cut its training for work programme by a third at two weeks' notice. Colloquially, I may say that it is news to me if it did; there would be no justification for that. The Government have not cut training for work by a third and certainly not at two weeks' notice. Our plans for training for work for the coming year were published in the public expenditure survey at the end of November last year. I do not believe that Centec would have had any justification for doing that. I would therefore be very surprised if it had done it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea also referred to the suggestion that recruitment agencies operate to get people into work and that there may be special deals with my Department. Certainly, there are no special deals with my Department. As far as operations with TECs are concerned, I cannot say that categorically but, again, I would be surprised if that is happening. I would be very disappointed and would wish to investigate the matter further. As far as the Department is concerned, it is not happening.
I know that Centec has been in discussion with the college and that they have discussed how the college might attract alternative funding. I was concerned when I read the information about the college to find that more

691
than 90 per cent. of its funding is from contracts with TECs, principally with Centec. That is a very high proportion of its eggs in one basket.
Alternatives may be possible. For instance, the college may wish to consider the possibility of funding from the Further Education Funding Council as an external institution. The council may provide funds to institutions and bodies outside the further education sector for provision that falls within schedule 2 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and where the council can be persuaded that existing provision is inadequate. Currently, applications for council funding by external institutions must be sponsored by an institution in the FE sector. The Government have already made it clear in the last competitiveness White Paper that we intend to remove that requirement, but it exists at present.
Ultimately, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea said, we must be concerned about where people will get training in future. In the past 24 hours I have carefully examined what is available in central London. Several FE colleges serve the area—Southwark, Lambeth, City of Westminster and Hammersmith and Fulham. They provide a range of full and part-time electronics and
692
electrical engineering courses. It will be for the FEFC to decide whether there is a need for further provision. If it did so decide, it could fund it.
I shall not bore the House by going through the substantial list of courses that are currently provided in the area that my right hon. Friend represents. Alternatives are already available. That undermines the statements made by the head of the college in the letter to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, to which I know he will respond shortly. There is clearly alternative provision. Despite that, the college may wish to consider approaching FE sector colleges in its area with a view to seeking sponsorship for funding in the year to come.
I know that my remarks will not have brought all the help that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea wished for. I am sorry that I am unable to be as helpful as that, but I hope that I have explained some of the background and, most importantly, that there is alternative provision. There is scope for the college to consider other ways forward and I hope that it will do that.
I hope that I have convinced both my right hon. Friends that there is a considerable amount of good work happening in the TEC movement, for which we all wish to pay tribute to its progenitor. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea for raising the subject.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Small Businesses
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance is given by his Department to help small businesses; and if he will make a statement. [23915]
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals his Department has to assist small and medium-sized businesses; and if he will make a statement. [23921]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms and aim to assist them by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative, administrative and taxation burdens. A range of measures and schemes has been introduced to help small firms, in particular, the network of business link one-stop shops of which there are now more than 200 in operation.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the recent referendum of small business people, 75 per cent. asked for competition in the installation of water meters and public utility services? Is he also aware of the anger and frustration that late payments have generated in the world of small business? Will he stress to his Cabinet colleagues the need for early legislation to help small business people in their campaign for fairness over late payments?
    Mr. Lang: We are still on question No. 1, Madam Speaker, and question No. 2 deals with late payments, but since the hon. Gentleman started with a reference to referendums, I must point out that the majority of small business organisations are against statutory arrangements to deal with the late payment of debts. I warmly welcome the conversion of some Labour supporters to the importance of competition in the provision of goods and services. Competition has led to improved efficiency in electricity and the substantial reductions in gas prices in recent years.
    Mr. Llwyd: Is the Minister aware that the latest European Business Monitor survey shows that two thirds of businesses monitored are of the opinion that economic growth will come from small and medium-sized enterprises? Given their important role in the economics of the United Kingdom, when will he offer some practical help? It is all very well talking about interest rates, and so on, but more important things should be done. What about the crippling effect of business rates on smaller businesses? What about the burden of value added tax? What about assisting small businesses to expand and take on new trainees and so forth? When are the Government going to do something and not just talk?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman does not know what is going on in the world. The Government long ago recognised the importance of small businesses in
    694
    generating employment and economic activity. Unlike the Labour party, we have identified and implemented specific measures to help. The hon. Gentleman mentioned VAT. He may not realise that the VAT threshold was increased again in the last Budget; it is the highest in the European Union and has exempted 75,000 companies from VAT. He may not be aware of the changes made in auditing requirements, capital gains tax and inheritance tax, and the reduction in small firms' corporation tax. The Government have identified the problems of small business and found measures to help.
    Sir John Cope: My right hon. Friend did a good job in organising the "Your Business Matters" conferences throughout the country, which concluded last month. Several important proposals came out of those. Can he tell us any more, particularly about the proposals to streamline local authority registration and controls on fire, planning and so forth into a one-stop shop affair and about single registration of new companies for income tax, VAT and other things?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was an extremely successful series of conferences at which the Government consulted very closely with small businesses all round the country. A number of measures were announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the final conference in London, including the streamlining of development controls, new rights in enforcement actions, and single notification for tax and national insurance arrangements for new businesses. In addition to those welcome measures announced at the conference, we made it clear that further announcements and a response to the input from all the conferences will be published with the competitiveness White Paper in June.
    Mr. Dover: Is not the acid test how many small businesses are formed? Did not the number of small businesses grow from 2.5 million to 3.5 million between 1979 and 1993, showing the confidence that firms have in setting up under this Government? And did not the number of company insolvencies fall by 13 per cent. last year compared with the previous year?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right on both points. Between 1979 and 1993 the number of businesses in this country rose by 50 per cent.—an increase of 1.2 million—and it is clear that under this Government opportunity for enterprise, the building up of economic activity and the creation of small businesses has been greater than ever before.
    Mrs. Roche: How can the President of the Board of Trade be so complacent about small firms and late payments in view of the Government's record? Whenever a survey on the statutory right to interest is conducted in the small business community—such as that conducted by Lloyd's Bank—such a right is overwhelmingly supported and 65 Conservative Members have signed an early-day motion supporting Labour party policy. How can the Minister be so complacent about the Government's record on small businesses when he now proposes to exclude more than 100,000 small catering firms from the loan guarantee scheme? Does not that proposal expose the gap between Government rhetoric and reality?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady is quite wrong. The loan guarantee scheme has been redesigned and extended in

    695
    some important ways, but we are also avoiding displacement of existing economic activity by that scheme. On late payment of debts, the hon. Lady may like to know that eight out of nine business organisations are opposed to the introduction of statutory interest payments on late payment of debts. Government policy such as the requirement to disclose payment policy has been warmly welcomed and we are now consulting on disclosing payment practice. We are encouraging and are signing on for the Confederation of Business and Industry code of payment conduct. It is important to change the culture in relation to late payment of debt, because no amount of legislation will succeed unless the culture changes. That is what is happening under the Government.
    Mr. Congdon: Is not the best assistance to small businesses the continuation of economic policies that have led to the creation of a stable macroeconomic framework, which has today led to a further reduction in unemployment of nearly 26,000 people? Is that not the right way to achieve benefits for small businesses, rather than imposing burdens on them such as the social chapter and the minimum wage?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like him, I warmly welcome the further fall in unemployment this month of 25,700 people. Unemployment has now been falling at an average of 10,000 people per month and is now very substantially over 3 percentage points below the European average. My hon. Friend is also right to identify what would be the cause of job losses in very large numbers: the social chapter and the national minimum wage, which are policies supported by the Labour party.
    Ms Lynne: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the recent meetings he has held with representatives of small businesses about late payment of commercial debt.[23917]
    The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): The Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade and I were all present at the national "Your Business Matters" conference on 11 March, which was attended by representatives of all the major small firms organisations. A number of important issues were raised, including the late payment of commercial debt. In addition, I have recently consulted all the small firms' representative organisations on late payments and legislation for a statutory right to interest. The outcome will be published soon.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that some small businesses in Rochdale are facing increasing financial difficulty because of late payment of debt by many companies and by Government Departments? We know that he is currently consulting small businesses. If that consultation reveals that small businesses are in favour of interest being paid on late payment of debt, will the Government introduce legislation to make it possible?
    Mr. Page: I have to put it delicately to the hon. Lady that she is labouring under a misconception. The problems being experienced by small firms are not caused by their not being paid by large firms. Research has shown that in fact the problem is that small firms are hitting other small
    696
    firms. Research by Professor Wilson of Bradford university, which is to be published shortly, will confirm previous investigations. He found that the problem is caused by small firms themselves. He also concluded that some 40 per cent. of small firms do not undertake proper up-front credit control and that the companies which do have proper front-ending credit control have a 35 per cent. better chance of being paid promptly than those which do not. Small firms therefore have a management responsibility, too.
    In specific response to the hon. Lady's question, consultation is under way. I shall be announcing the results shortly and any decisions will flow from those results.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that most small firms want less rather than more legislation and that they do not want legislation on the payment of debts? Does he agree that it would be much better to make public companies state in their accounts what their payment policy is and how promptly they pay their bills? Should we not get the Government and local government to pay small firms promptly? If that could be arranged, would not the problem largely be solved?
    Mr. Page: As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said, eight out of nine of the small firms' representative organisations have stated that they are against the introduction of a statutory right to interest on commercial late payment. I shall have to take that into account in evaluating the consultation.
    As for payment practice and payment policy, it has already been agreed that public companies will have to put payment principle in their annual accounts. The Prime Minister has asked that consultation take place on payment practice, and I believe that is to happen in the next month or so.
    Mr. Gunnell: A number of small firms in my area contributed to the consultation on the Latham report and wonder why nothing has happened as a result. Is the Minister promising legislation? Companies in my area think that the Government have been dilatory in this respect. They wanted something to happen urgently. They submitted evidence and the report was published, but nothing happened.
    Mr. Page: I can give the hon. Gentleman some very good news. The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill currently going through the House of Lords will for the first time introduce a proper payment practice for firms in the construction industry. It will prevent the pay-when-paid scandal and help small businesses immensely. It is a positive move in the right direction.
    Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend referred to a recent meeting that he had with small business men. How many of them asked him to sign up to the social chapter and a national minimum wage or recommended that people earning £35,000 a year should pay more income tax?
    Mr. Page: I have to chide my hon. Friend for being political, which is not a path that I wish to pursue. All I can say is that if we adopted a national minimum wage,

    697
    unemployment would rise by nearly a million and small business men would be the hardest hit if the Labour party were successful and a national minimum wage were introduced.

    Land Mines
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to ban the (a) manufacture and (b) export of land mines in (i) part and (ii) complete form. [23918]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson): We already have in place a wide-ranging national moratorium on the export of anti-personnel land mines. I have no plans to ban the manufacture of such land mines, although they have not been manufactured in this country or exported for a number of years.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Minister follow the lead of General Schwarzkopf, 14 other high-ranking United States generals and the Australian Government in banning the use of anti-personnel land mines? Will the Government press for such a ban at the convention on inhumane weapons in Geneva next week?
    Mr. Nelson: We keep those matters under constant review and we take careful notice of what our allies—particularly those in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—do in that regard. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, the proper place to discuss such matters is at the United Nations weaponry convention, which holds its concluding session towards the end of the month and I hope that it may lead to the implementation of a tighter regime. For the time being, however, the British Army and the British Government believe that land mines are necessary for our use and that casualties would be incurred if we did not have them. We do not export or manufacture them and we have imposed a moratorium and a ban on their export in a wide range of categories to a large number of countries.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend take the matter very seriously, as hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the proliferation of land mines which are disturbing even the aid going to Bosnia, including the recent very successful trip to that country organised by Welsh Rotary and supported by the international company Hasbro? Will my hon. Friend combine with officers in the Ministry of Defence and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that our voice is the loudest to speak out on the international scene against land mines?
    Mr. Nelson: I of course take very seriously the points that my hon. Friend raises. We play an active role in international discussions about this issue and we abhor any loss of civilian life involved with the use of so-called dumb land mines. However, we must recognise that many land mines are used in internal conflicts in developing countries. When introducing any regimes or bans, it is important to ensure that the world acts in concert rather than unilaterally.
    Many Opposition Members—67 of whom have signed an early-day motion on the subject—continually hark back to unilateralism. That would be absolutely pointless
    698
    in this and in other areas. International agreement is important and Her Majesty's Government are intent upon achieving it.

    Engineering
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on engineering (a) investment, (b) exports and (c) profitability. [23919]
    Mr. Lang: Information on the profitability of the engineering industry is not collected centrally, but engineering industry exports were £75 billion in 1995—an increase of 18 per cent over 1994. As for investment, the business trends survey of the Engineering Employers Federation shows that it continues to be buoyant.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend, who was at school with me, accept the views expressed by the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance—and shared by the Engineering Employers Federation—that quality of training is vital to the manufacturing industry and contributes directly to investment, exports and profitability? Does he agree that a skilled and a motivated work force is one of the United Kingdom's greatest assets? Will he and his Department help to drive forward the recommendations in Sir Ronald Dearing's review of qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds in order to ensure that quality of training is a priority?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend and I were indeed at school together, although he looks far too young, and I agree absolutely that training is important. I warmly welcome Sir Ronald Dearing's proposals, which are not very different from those that I introduced in Scotland some years ago. I recognise the importance of improved training, and the improvements in the engineering industry are reflected by the fact that productivity in that industry rose by 21 per cent. between 1990 and 1995.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is it not clear that the Government have shamefully neglected the importance of the manufacturing industry? Thankfully, that has now changed, but the Government still do not appreciate the importance of manufacturing investment. Capital allowances are only 25 per cent., which is less than depreciation in the first year. That is equivalent to a tax on investment in the first year. Should not the President of the Board of Trade be doing something about that?
    Mr. Lang: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be a little out of touch with the manufacturing industry investment figures, which for plant and machinery rose by almost 10 per cent. last year and by some 15 per cent. in the past two years. He may be interested to know that unemployment in the manufacturing sector fell by 3,000 last month. Clearly, the success of the United Kingdom manufacturing industry is a reflection of the Government's successful management of the economy.
    Mr. Dunn: Given the increase in manufacturing exports of some 90 per cent. since 1979, does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of the minimum wage and the social chapter would create an absolute nightmare for British success overseas?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Looking at the social chapter alone, non-wage labour costs in the

    699
    United Kingdom are some 18 per cent. while in Germany they are 32 per cent. and in Italy and France they are more than 40 per cent. It is because we have become more competitive and avoided such additional costs that United Kingdom manufacturing industry is now so successful.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman condemn the decision by GEC to close its electrical engineering subsidiary, Long and Crawford at Gorton road, Manchester, with the destruction of 135 jobs, many of them held by men with a lifetime of skilled and dedicated service? The company is offering meagre redundancy payments and 100 workers who are being transferred to another site are having their pay reduced by £60 per week. Exports to the middle east, the Gulf and south America are being thrown away and the site is being asset stripped at a profit to GEC. Is that not a disgraceful way to approach manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Lang: I regret the loss of any job in any factory in any constituency, but I simply do not recognise the picture that the right hon. Gentleman paints of GEC, which is one of our most efficient, competitive, aggressive and successful companies in export and domestic markets all over the world. GEC has made a substantial contribution to the rise in British manufacturing exports of 90 per cent. since 1979 because the Government have allowed it to manage its own affairs in the way it thinks best.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike the motley crew opposite, who are made up of ex-journalists, ex-trade union officials and ex-failed polytechnic lecturers, I worked in the engineering industry? Does he realise that the social chapter would not only produce the additional on-costs to which he has already referred, but that if we were to sign up to that terrible document, we would be signing a blank cheque with heaven knows what result for British industry, particularly engineering?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As British industry, particularly our engineering industry, has become so efficient, it has been able to achieve the figures that I have given the House. That is why the prospect of growth for next year also looks most promising.
    Mr. Ingram: Will the President of the Board of Trade confirm the shocking figures that his ministerial colleague gave the House on 20 March when he said:
    "In the United Kingdom … only 12 per cent. of science and engineering graduates are in engineering. In Germany, the figure is 18 per cent.; in France it is 21 per cent. Germany produces a third more engineering and technology PhDs per head of population than we do and five times as many people are qualified to MSc standard."—[Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 326.]
    Who is to blame for that shocking state of affairs? Is it our competitors, because they are so much better than us, or is it the Government, who systematically destroyed our manufacturing and engineering base during the 1980s?
    Mr. Lang: There has been a substantial increase in the number of engineering graduates in recent years. Next year, the Government will be sponsoring the Year of Engineering Success, which I am sure will be as successful as the recent Science, Engineering and
    700
    Technology Week. The successful management of the economy and the encouragement of better skills has meant that engineering has contributed to British exports, which since 1981 have grown faster than those of Germany, France or Japan.

    Mis-selling of Gas Contracts
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Director General of Gas Supply about mis-selling of gas contracts in the south-west. [23920]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): My Department is keeping closely in touch with the Office of Gas Supply about the progress of gas competition in the south-west.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that trading standards officers in Devon have received record numbers of complaints about the selling by Swebgas of contracts to customers who were tricked into signing those contracts? Is he aware that Ofgas is totally helpless to protect customers? Is this yet another example of the Government looking after the market and putting the interests of consumers second?
    Mr. Eggar: I have never heard anything more nonsensical, even from the Opposition. This Government introduced competition in the south-west and made it possible for consumers to be offered reductions of up to 25 per cent. in their gas bills.
    Mr. Hicks: While in no way condoning unnecessarily aggressive salesmen, does not the introduction of other companies supplying gas in Devon and Cornwall afford the opportunity for gas price reductions in real terms, particularly in a region which hitherto has suffered as a consequence of regional differential pricing?
    Mr. Eggar: I absolutely agree. Consumers in the south-west trial area can choose their gas supplier from 10 different competitors, a number of which are offering supplies without a standing charge or with substantial discounts to low-use as well as high-use consumers. That good news for consumers has been widely welcomed throughout the south-west.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Given the record number of complaints from customers in the south-west about mis-selling, how can consumers trust the same company to take over half the country's electricity generation?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman always accentuates the negative. He is meant to represent the interests of consumers for his party, but we have not heard a single word of welcome from the hon. Gentleman for the substantial reductions in gas prices for individual consumers. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that individual consumers in the south-west can get reductions in their gas bills of up to 25 per cent. Why does the hon. Gentleman not welcome that fact, even though he has always opposed competition up to now?
    Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend reject the predictable carping of Labour Members and accept the

    701
    genuine thanks of consumers across the south-west, who welcome increased competition which in some cases will mean £70 off the average gas bill? Is that not a good example of Conservative policies in action to the benefit of consumers?
    Mr. Eggar: I completely agree. Those Conservative policies were introduced in the face of opposition by Labour Front-Benchers, whose arguments have been disproved by the results of competition so far in the south-west. I have no doubt that in the coming months large numbers of my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit considerably from reductions. He mentioned £70 off the average gas bill, but in my view that figure may be extended—and there are likely to be increased standards of service to individual consumers in addition to price reductions.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to help promote renewable energy sources and industries in the United Kingdom. [23922]
    Mr. Page: The Government are stimulating the development of new and renewable energy technologies and industrial and market infrastructure via the non-fossil fuel obligation and a supporting programme.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister consider further steps to help this country's environmental technology industries—including, for example, solar power, for which the global market was worth £1 billion in 1993. At that time, Britain had 10 per cent. of solar panel exports but was spending less than 1 p per person on solar research. Should not a research framework be established so that the UK can be the enterprise centre for creating new energy sources, making sure that British companies get a fair share of the world market?
    Mr. Page: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's particular interest, and I broadly agree with the thrust of his question. He is right to remind the House that we sometimes take access to electricity for granted. We should never forget that millions of people have no electricity and that the only means of obtaining it will be through the use of photovoltaics. I can give the hon. Gentleman some good news. BP Solar alone achieved 7 per cent. of the world market in 1995 and has so far attracted orders in excess of £15 million. The market is huge, as the hon. Gentleman told the House, and I certainly want to see it developed.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will know that the Government have been encouraging local authorities to burn municipal waste to create energy, but will he carefully consider the representations on the subject? Most constituents are in theory happy with that approach, but they do not want the effluent from incinerators anywhere near their homes. I wonder whether the Government have got local popular opinion wrong.
    Mr. Page: The decision on where to locate any particular NFFO project is a planning matter for the local authority. The NFFO project is a two-pronged objective. One objective is environmental improvement, to reduce
    702
    the pollution that comes from conventional methods of energy production, and the other is the creation of a manufacturing base in renewables.
    Mr. Battle: As the Minister said that he agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and that he is especially keen on photovoltaics, why does he not open up the fossil fuel levy, which at present excludes support for photovoltaics? Would it not be better to let them in to ensure that we end up a world leader in that industry and do not fall further behind?
    Mr. Page: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the whole purpose of the non-fossil fuel obligation is to bring about a convergence of energy production from renewables so that that approach can actively and competitively compete in the market against conventional energy producers. The question of photovoltaics will be considered alongside all the others when we consider NFFO5 and, if it can achieve some market convergence, it could certainly be included. I would want to be convinced that the market convergence will be obtained, because I do not want to waste taxpayers' money.

    Manufacturing (East Midlands)
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to visit Leicestershire for discussions with representatives of the manufacturing sector about Government policies to encourage exports and inward investment from and into the east midlands. [23923]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): Ministers in the Department keep in touch with all regions on a regular basis to stress the Government's commitment to competitiveness. The latest available figures show that the east midlands has the highest proportion of manufacturing gross domestic product of all the regions.
    Mr. Garnier: Is my hon. Friend aware of just how successful the manufacturing sector of the east midlands and Leicestershire is in exporting not only to the European Union but to the wider world? Does he agree that one of the reasons for that is the highly useful role that the business links offices in Leicester and Market Harborough, which cover my constituency, have played? Does my hon. Friend also agree that the reason why we attract so much inward investment into those business regions is that we do not have a statutory minimum wage?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, and it is not just the east midlands that has benefited. A recent survey showed that while the manufacturing productivity gap with Germany expanded to its widest margin by 1979, we in Britain have closed three quarters of that manufacturing productivity and competitiveness gap with Germany since 1979. That is quite an achievement and it shows that the period when Britain was in danger of becoming a second-rate, non-manufacturing, skivvy, low-wage economy was not under the Government but in the heroic days of Labour's industrial strategy.
    Mr. Purchase: Is it not true that the majority of our productivity gains have been caused by loss of labour in

    703
    key manufacturing areas? Is it not also true that, in the face of Tory complacency, manufacturing as a fraction of GDP fell by more than a third in the years of Tory control? How does the Minister explain that away?
    Mr. Oppenheim: First, the manufacturing sector in relation to GDP in Britain is at about the same level as in other European countries, such as France and Italy. Secondly—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen would listen, they would hear that the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen in virtually every industrialised country. It has risen slightly in this country recently. What matters is not just the jobs in manufacturing but manufacturing productivity, which has risen because of organisational and efficiency improvements and manufacturing output. The key point is that whereas manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government, it has risen sharply under this Government.

    Rural Depopulation
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further incentives he proposes to assist industrial development in those rural areas in the United Kingdom experiencing depopulation; and if he will make a statement. [23924]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): The Government provide a number of measures to encourage industry and commerce in rural areas. Some rural areas, such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency, also qualify for European structural funds objective 5b programmes and from Community initiatives programmes such as Leader II, for which further funding will be announced shortly.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister confirm that unemployment levels are still the determining factor for eligibility for regional selective assistance? Does he accept that some rural communities—such as Hawick in my constituency, which is not unique because there are similar communities throughout the United Kingdom—find that people leave the area to find work rather than sign on and register as unemployed? Will the Minister therefore give urgent consideration to making rural areas potentially eligible for regional selective assistance, where they can show long-term population decline as a result of job losses?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right; unemployment has always been one of the dominant criteria. However, many factors are included in the RSA calculations. I pledge that I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about depopulation is considered when the criteria are next reviewed.

    Plant and Machinery
    Mr. Pope: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of manufacturing investment in plant and machinery in (a) 1989 and (b) 1995. [23925]
    The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): Manufacturing investment in plant and machinery, measured in constant prices, was £12 billion
    704
    in 1989 and £10.3 billion in 1995. Investment in plant and machinery has grown by 16 per cent over the past two years as the economy has recovered from the recession.
    Mr. Pope: Manufacturing accounts for only 20 per cent. of gross domestic product. Almost 3 million jobs in manufacturing have been lost since 1979. Manufacturing output is stagnant. This appalling state of affairs is the result either of incompetence or of malice on behalf of the Government; which is it?
    Mr. Taylor: The manufacturing base has been immensely strengthened since 1979 when compared with the appalling performance under the Labour Government. Manufacturing output has reached a peak. It is recovering very quickly. I am delighted that 3,000 extra jobs were created last month alone in the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing output has risen 6.25 per cent. above its previous peak. That is all good news on the 20th anniversary of the Royal Academy of Engineering, which I shall be celebrating with it this evening.
    Mr. Batiste: Is it not clear as we look around the world, including at Japan, America, Taiwan and Germany, that companies that are the best manufacturers regard Britain as the best place in Europe in which to manufacture? Is that not a consequence of the range of Government measures introduced since 1979, which have been opposed root and branch by the Labour party, year in and year out? Those measures are even now threatened by the Labour party's commitment to the social chapter, which would tie us irrevocably to the social costs that are making German manufacturing uncompetitive.
    Mr. Taylor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Over the past 10 years the United Kingdom has received £100 million-worth of inward investment, which has created employment throughout the country. We are the only Group of Seven country in which non-manufacturing costs form a lower proportion of total labour costs than in 1980. Our manufacturing record and the way in which we have responded to world competitive challenge are remarkable. The Labour party should remember to give some praise to British manufacturers' efforts.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the Minister take the opportunity to dissociate the Department of Trade and Industry once again from one of the more dangerous recent statements of the Deputy Prime Minister, when he suggested that levels of investment in manufacturing offered no cause for concern, especially as his justification was that business investment in the United Kingdom was a higher percentage of gross domestic product than in most other countries within the Group of Seven? The Library tells me that it is unable to substantiate the statement.
    Does the Minister accept that, as the confidence of the Deputy Prime Minister seems to be misplaced, so too is the Government's rejection of measures such as investment allowances, which would encourage increased investment in manufacturing?
    Mr. Taylor: I shall not get into a debate over librarians' statistics with the right hon. Lady. I want to get it across to the House that manufacturing industry is making an enormous effort to compete in the world. The CBI figures show that manufacturing investment could be

    705
    up by 9 per cent. this year. Even the Institute of Manufacturing's figure is up by 7 per cent. The right hon. Lady would be best served if she gave attention and encouragement to that process.

    Future Large Aircraft
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what request his Department has received for launch aid from aircraft, aero-engine or aerospace equipment manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom towards participation in the Airbus Industrie future large aircraft project. [23926]
    Mr. Eggar: No such request has been received. Launch aid is granted under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and is not available for military projects.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am reassured by that answer, as the market to which the FLA could be directed is already dominated at the one end by the C130J, in which British industry has a large stake, and at the other by the C17 McDonnell Douglas transporter. Would not launch aid be much better applied to Airbus Industrie's construction of a new jumbo jet, preferably in collaboration with McDonnell Douglas, which also wants to build such an aircraft, so that we can take on Boeing and fill the last remaining gap in Airbus Industrie's inventory of aircraft at the top end of the range?
    Mr. Eggar: I take note of my hon. Friend's views. With regard to the future of Airbus Industrie, it is the Government's view that the highest priority is the rationalisation and increased competitiveness of Airbus Industrie, thus enabling it to compete effectively with Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers.
    Mr. Cousins: Will the Minister make it clear that there will be no question of support for Airbus Industrie's jumbo jet project if it continues to have exclusive agreements with General Electric of the United States to build aircraft engines, to the disadvantage and exclusion of British aircraft engine manufacturers?
    Mr. Eggar: Certain of the Airbus Industrie aircraft already use Rolls-Royce engines, but clearly it is important that if Airbus Industrie is to add to its existing range of aircraft, it should do so in a commercially sensible way, producing the highest quality aircraft at the lowest cost, thus giving a return both to shareholders and to Governments.

    Internet Terminals
    Mr. French: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Internet terminals there are in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany and (c) France. [23927]
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Figures are not available for terminals, but for hosts—in other words, computers directly connected to the Internet. In February 1996, the UK had more Internet hosts per head than either France or Germany, with 7.8 hosts per 1,000 inhabitants as against 5.6 for Germany and 2.4 for France.
    Mr. French: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming those figures, which show the UK to be in the
    706
    lead in this matter. Will he tell the House what progress he has made in reaching agreement throughout Europe on putting in place arrangements to screen out certain material from the Internet and in particular whether he has had an opportunity to make an appraisal of the proposals made by CompuServe?
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising what is a difficult issue, but I must tell him and the House that Governments should tread warily in trying to control the information on the Internet, which is a network of networks that has had remarkable success largely because it has grown entirely through private initiative since its early days in the defence sector. If it is designed to survive a nuclear attack, it is likely to be resistant to Government regulation, as the German Bavarian Government found. That does not mean that there is not a large onus on the network service providers to provide a highway code for potential purchasers of software. I am encouraging them to do that, and I hope that we shall see progress over the next few weeks.
    Mr. MacShane: If the Minister is so keen on the spread of information, why has his Department undertaken legal action of the most outrageous nature against Mr. Adam Raphael of The Economist to gag—
    Madam Speaker: Order. "Erskine May" clearly says that a supplementary question must follow the substantive question closely. We shall move on.

    Oil and Gas Reserves
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest estimate of the oil and gas reserves in the United Kingdom continental shelf. [23928]
    Mr. Eggar: The reserves estimates for 1995 are still in preparation and will be published in volume 2 of the "Energy Report" later this month.
    At the end of 1994, however, remaining discovered reserves were estimated to lie between 575 million and 2,075 million tonnes of oil and 660 billion and 1,915 billion cu m of gas.
    Mr. Canavan: As our trade deficit would be even worse if it were not for oil and gas reserves, which have brought revenues to the Treasury amounting to a total of £137 billion in today's prices, is it not one of the greatest national scandals of our time that the Tories have frittered away most of that money instead of investing it in the nation's future?
    Mr. Eggar: The considerable revenues that have flowed from North sea oil and gas have been invested in infrastructure, the health service and education—and, I might add, in repaying a fair proportion of the debts left to the country by the last Labour Government. But the most important aspect of the North sea oil and gas industry is the employment that flows from it, both directly and indirectly. It is estimated that well over 300,000 jobs depend on the industry, and many of our most technologically advanced manufacturing companies produce goods related to it.
    Mr. Jenkin: How much oil and gas would have been discovered over the past 15 years if oil and gas in the

    707
    North sea had remained in public ownership, and the companies concerned had remained under state control—starved of the private finance that is necessary for investment? How much revenue would we have earned, and how many losses would the Government have had to finance?
    Mr. Eggar: I speak from memory, but I believe that in the late 1970s there were confident predictions from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the United Kingdom would be coming to the end of its oil production during the latter part of the millennium.

    Energy Pre-payment Meters
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that customers on prepayment meters are not discriminated against in the competitive energy supply markets after 1998.[23930]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Competition is the best way of reducing prices and improving services for all customers. In the competitive gas and electricity markets, all customers of the current public suppliers—including those on pre-payment meters—will be free to choose their supplier.
    Mr. Martlew: Is it not a fact that those with pre-payment meters now pay considerably more than those who pay by direct debit? With the freeing up of the market, what action will the Government take to protect the poor and most vulnerable from exploitation? Will they give those people hope, and say that they should be paying the least for energy? At present, those people are paying the most.
    Mr. Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman says, there is evidence that, historically, additional costs have been involved in supplying pre-payment customers. However, the regulators are charged with ensuring the existence of safeguards against discrimination in the marketplace. New gas suppliers are offering savings to customers, whatever their level of consumption—an average of 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. off—and I understand that new suppliers also plan to offer savings to pre-payment customers.

    Aircraft Exports (India)
    Mr. Madden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the supply by British Aerospace to India of Hawk 100 aircraft. [23931]
    Mr. Nelson: None.
    Mr. Madden: India and Pakistan have gone to war over Kashmir in the past, and both countries now have a nuclear capability. Does the Minister agree that another war over Kashmir is potentially the most dangerous conflict in the world today? Given that serious situation, does he also agree that it is grossly irresponsible for Her Majesty's Government to promote sales of Hawk aircraft or other arms to either India or Pakistan? Instead of promoting arms sales, should they not press the Governments of India and Pakistan to come to the negotiating table, under the auspices of the United
    708
    Nations—in line with UN resolutions—to reach a political settlement of the Kashmir dispute that would give the people of Kashmir the right to determine their own destiny?
    Mr. Nelson: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern—a concern that must be felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House—about the continued unsettled, simmering situation in Kashmir. However—although it is not directly my ministerial responsibility—I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not necessarily accept that we should not be engaged in the sale of defence equipment to India.
    I have not considered an application for a licence for the export of Hawk aircraft. We know that India requires an advanced jet, and—along with the Prime Minister and others—I have taken opportunities to commend Hawk to India. We await events, but we must follow our own licensing application procedures. We must also be careful not to do what the Labour party seems increasingly to be doing—turning down virtually every export market that we have for defence equipment.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hawk 100 is one of the most successful aircraft of its type, built as it is partly in my constituency, and that, in export terms, British Aerospace is one of the most successful companies worldwide? Does he therefore agree that any attacks on the credibility of customers who want to buy such aircraft from such companies, as has been occurring recently in certain aspects of the British media in relation to Saudi Arabia, does nothing but damage prospects not only for the aircraft and the company but for the jobs of many people, including those in my constituency who are contributing substantially to the economy's future?
    Mr. Nelson: I concur whole-heartedly with what my right hon. Friend says about British Aerospace and our specific export market in Saudi Arabia. British Aerospace is this country's top exporter and is responsible for employing 25,000 people. Yet, at every opportunity, the Opposition seem to be turning down export markets. Some of the reports, malicious and mischievous as they have been, about one of our principal markets for defence sales, the market in Saudi Arabia, have potentially been most injurious. The Government certainly do not share those views. It is a most important market to which we want to continue to supply defence and other equipment.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to meet his European Union counterparts to discuss manufacturing industry. [23933]
    Mr. Lang: My colleagues and I meet our European Union counterparts regularly to discuss a range of industrial issues.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, out of the 15 members of the European Union, Britain ranks 11th in manufacturing output and that, since his party has been in power, more than 40 per cent. of manufacturing jobs have been lost? What lessons does he think he can learn from all those countries whose manufacturing output is higher than that of the UK?
    Mr. Lang: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his figures from, but he might like to know that the

    709
    British economy grew faster than the Group of Seven average in 1993–94, and is expected to be ahead of the pack, along with Germany, in 1996. If he looks at investment, he will see that under this Government it has risen six times faster than it did under Labour. Indeed, alone among our main EU competitors, British companies' investment in research and development rose again last year for the fifth successive year. I simply do not recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman is trying to paint.
    Mr. Hoon: Why do the Government claim to have made Britain the enterprise centre of Europe when, according to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures, only four out of the 15 EU countries have lower levels of manufacturing output, Britain is in 11th place in the EU in investment per head of population, and in trade with other European countries Britain has the worst trade deficit of every country except Greece?
    Mr. Lang: I have already given the House the investment figures. On the competitiveness of the British economy, the hon. Gentleman will be aware—if he is not, he ought to be—that the British productivity growth rate was bottom of the league under the Labour party and is now at the top.

    Intermediate Development Areas
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of Great Britain is now designated an intermediate development area. [23934]
    Mr. Oppenheim: Development areas cover 16 per cent of the working population of Great Britain and intermediate areas cover a further 17.75 per cent.
    Mr. Jones: Why did the Government strip my constituency so unnecessarily of full development area status? Will the Government please restore it, bearing in mind our employment problems and the fact that we are encountering problems with inward investment as a result of the lack of development status? Does the hon. Gentleman know that it was noted in my constituency that full development area status was given to a neighbouring English constituency that is represented by the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt)?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman's constituency has benefited, and still does, from a certain amount of regional aid. Since 1983, that has helped to safeguard 10,000 jobs and attracted a number of new companies to his constituency. In November 1995, we announced that the map would not be revised again this Session. It is only just under three years since it was last revised. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that we need some stability, especially to allow investors to make their long-term decisions. The other point that he should remember is that the EU limits the total area to which we are able to give coverage, and if we were to give further coverage to his constituency, it would mean a reduction in another area.
    Mr. Michael Brown: I take issue with the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) for this reason. Like him,
    710
    I had a development area in my constituency; but we lost it when the map was last revised—thank goodness. The fact that we lost development area and assisted area status is a tribute to the growth in the economy in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend take it from me that industry now comes to my constituency not because it has the begging bowl of development area status but because unemployment has come down? Will he tell the hon. Gentleman that the real benefit that comes when a constituency no longer has development area status is that it has a growing economy and is therefore successful?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His constituency lost jobs in the early 1980s, and it was a difficult time. The steel industry, for example, employed a lot of people in his constituency. That industry lost billions of pounds a year under Labour. It was the world's largest loss maker, and we had a £1 billion a year deficit in iron and steel products. Now British Steel—in a country where the manufacturing base has supposedly been devastated—is the most profitable steel company in Europe, and we have a £1 billion export surplus in iron and steel products. That shows the difference between our policies and the dead hand of old Labour's industrial policies in the 1970s.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to improve the quality of senior managers in British manufacturing industry. [23937]
    Mr. Eggar: The Government have been working with a wide range of organisations to promote and improve senior management skills which are an essential component of improving competitiveness.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Minister will know that, apart from the low quality of Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry, the most difficult barrier that our manufacturing industry faces is a scarcity of high-quality managers. Will he speak to Professor Kumar Bhattacharyya and look at the Warwick experience in terms of training high-quality manufacturing managers? We need a scheme that clones or replicates that development of qualified and specialised postgraduate managers. If we did that, we could start to repair some of the damage that the Government have done to our manufacturing sector.
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman rightly pays tribute to the work of the university of Warwick, and I join him in that. He fails, however, to recognise the considerable increase in the number of graduate business schools which are developing manufacturing expertise among senior management. He fails also to pay tribute to the work done at those business schools. Any fair-minded analysis of the present state of British manufacturing industry would recognise that there has been a considerable change in the quality of management at all levels. I also pay tribute to most of the work force in British manufacturing industry, whose skills have improved dramatically since the late 1970s.

    Exports
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current level of exports in (a) manufacturing, (b) financial services and (c) other areas. [23938]
    Mr. Nelson: In 1995, manufacturing exports were £127 billion, exports of services were £43 billion—of which £5.5 billion were net financial services—and earnings from overseas assets were £90 billion.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that success breeds success? Would it not be right to show those excellent figures all around the world? Will that not lead to more jobs being created in this country? Would that not be better than the negative attitude of Labour and the other parties, who constantly talk down the great success that our exports are having?
    Mr. Nelson: The answer is certainly yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the record export of goods and services and receipts from foreign investment. Those should be a matter for joy and celebration on both sides of the House, but they clearly are not. We should advertise our successes more—for example, we are now exporting more per head than Germany or Japan. That is happening not just because of business but because of the policies of the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister put in the Library any information his Department has about exports to the Rabta project in Libya, alleged by some to be a chemical weapons site and by others to be major water-producing site? What is the British Government's reaction Government to the alleged refusal to send an international inspection team at the invitation of the Libyans to see what they are up to?
    Mr. Nelson: I do not recognise the allegations that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I would be very happy to look
    712
    into the matter and to write to him. If he then wants to table a question, I will endeavour to answer it as fully as possible.

    Equitas Rescue Plan
    Mr. Timms: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make an announcement on the Equitas rescue plan initiated by Lloyds. [23940]
    Mr. Nelson: As I announced on 29 March in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), I authorised Equitas on that day.
    Mr. Timms: I think the Minister will confirm that this will be the biggest single reinsurance transaction in history. Given that his approval was only conditional when he made his announcement on 29 March, can he tell us when he expects to be in a position to consider giving full authorisation to the project and what he will require before he does that?
    Mr. Nelson: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there were a number of conditions precedent to the full authorisation of Equitas. It will require principally a vote of the names to support the reconstruction recovery programme and the paying in of sufficient funds to capitalise Equitas not only to meet its long-term liabilities under the policies but to provide the sufficient margin of solvency that I am required to be satisfied about under the Insurance Companies Act 1982. I have set out those requirements and criteria carefully and I hope that the matters can be decided on by the autumn. That is a matter not for me but for Lloyds and Equitas in particular. When they come back to me, I will have to consider whether the conditions have been met and whether full authorisation can be granted.

Points of Order
3.30pm
Mr. Bill Michie: On a point of order on the rights of Back Benchers, Madam Speaker. At column 509 of the Official Report of Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, in answer to my Question 2, the Prime Minister claimed that Sheffield city council had an uncollected debt of £558 million. In fact, the £558 million is the Government-approved borrowing requirement for housing, schools and other important things. He also said that Sheffield was a "rubbish" city council, because of its bad collection record, yet the Department of the Environment admits that Sheffield is second from the top of the big six, and has a collection rate of more than 90 per cent.
Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Michie: Is it in order for me to continue and raise the issue—
Mr. David Shaw rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment. Let me deal with one point at a time. The hon. Gentleman is over-anxious, as always.
If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) seeks to make a point of order, it must be a matter of procedure for me to deal with.
Mr. Michie: It is.
Madam Speaker: Then tell me how I can deal with it.
Mr. Michie: It is a matter of misleading the House. The problem is that everything that the Prime Minister said was totally untrue. He should be asked to withdraw those remarks, and apologise to the House and the people of Sheffield.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House knows, I have no responsibility whatever for the content of answers given by Ministers at the Dispatch Box, but the hon. Gentleman has made a point and he must pursue it by other methods. He can do that by means of the Order Paper and in many other ways of which I am sure he is well aware.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been a tradition of the House that, if a major inward investment proposal comes to this country, the Deputy Prime Minister or the President of the Board of Trade inform the House that that is the case. Can you account for the fact that no Government statement appears to be in position, yet there is an article in today's Times that suggests that hundreds of millions of pounds of inward investment are coming to the Hartlepool area?
It appears that a Member of Parliament on the Opposition Benches has been to the far east to get hundreds of millions of pounds for his area. Why is none
714
of this money coming to other constituencies? We would all like some of that money. Could we not have a Government statement on the position?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that any Minister seeks to make a Government statement today. I do not always believe what I read in the newspapers. Newspaper people are often inclined not to spoil a good story with the facts.
Mr. Denis MacShane: I raise a point of order concerning the rights of a Back Bencher. Madam Speaker, you gently rebuked me during question time when I sought to raise a question about Mr. Raphael of The Economist. How can I, under our procedure, ask the President of the Board of Trade to defend this most monstrous assault on press freedom, and, in particular, to get an assurance from him that no gagging order or further attempts against The Economist will be pursued?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman tried to put his question in a supplementary question on question 12 which dealt with Internet terminals. He should try to put his question in the correct order, in the usual way—through the Table Office—to the appropriate Minister.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I raise a genuine point of order concerning the procedures of the House and the ability of Back Benchers to correct misleading impressions that are given in oral questions. Madam Speaker, on three occasions recently I have given you notice when information that has been given in answers by Ministers from the Dispatch Box has been untrue or at least highly misleading.
You will recall that, yesterday, I asked a question on a serious matter involving 200 deaths from the drug paracetamol. The Minister said that there were 45 to 60 deaths. I checked with the Library, and it confirmed that my figure is correct—that there have been 220 net deaths from paracetamol alone, and that there have been 585 deaths in which paracetamol was involved. This is a matter of enormous importance. My figure is far removed from the Government's figure.
The matter that I wish to raise—I have asked the Procedure Committee to look at it—is whether we could have a period during our day in which we can raise these matters, not under bogus points of order—as occurs in other Parliaments throughout the world. We would have the opportunity to raise issues and to correct untrue impressions that have been given from the Front Bench—inadvertently or otherwise.
Madam Speaker: I have been present in other Parliaments where they have the use of zero hours, which I assume the hon. Gentleman is seeking. I would not recommend it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished my response—I have been asked a number of questions.
The hon. Gentleman has followed the correct procedure, since he has referred the matter to the Procedure Committee. He also wrote to me following the

715
answer to his question yesterday. He followed the right procedure by writing to the Minister concerned setting out the detail, giving what he believes to be the correct figures, and asking for a correction. Perhaps he should now wait for the Minister to give a response to that letter as he wrote it only yesterday.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Order Paper, where he can table further parliamentary questions on the matter. He can also use the Order Paper to put down an early-day motion if he feels that he has been unfairly and incorrectly treated.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) ought to pursue his point in a different way. It is a matter for you, Madam Speaker, and for the Procedure Committee. It is a matter of procedure rather than substance in this case.
There is an entirely new practice in this House, whereby senior Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, rubbish local authorities without having had the courtesy to check with those local authorities on the facts. I cannot talk about the particular case of Sheffield, as you would rule me out of order. However, there is the general issue of the elected Parliament treating elected authorities with maximum discourtesy. I think that is a matter for the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker: As I said in reply to the original point of order, the Speaker of the House—as the hon. Gentleman knows, and as all hon. Members know—has no authority whatsoever in relation to the content of answers and speeches that are made in the House, including those made by Ministers. If, through the usual channels, the hon. Gentleman seeks—and the House wishes to have—a debate on this matter, it might be a good way of opening up the issue about which he is concerned.
Mr. Richard Caborn rose—
Madam Speaker: Another one from Sheffield.
Mr. Caborn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) raised is important for the integrity of the House. Examples of the House being misled have been given this afternoon. Will you guide the House by saying that you disagree with such deliberate misleading, and that facts should be checked, because the House is being brought into disrepute?
Madam Speaker: I have made it quite clear that the Speaker has no responsibility for the content of answers
716
given by Ministers. The Order Paper is there to be used. If hon. Members wish to make it plain in an early-day motion that they feel that incorrect information has been given, it is there for them to use it to gain publicity and to press for debates on those matters. That is the only way to pursue such points, unless hon. Members want to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee.
Sir Michael Neubert: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you deprecate the suggestion that the House was deliberately misled, because that is out of order?
Madam Speaker: I certainly deprecate that, and it is not the case. Ministers, as well as hon. Members, are responsible themselves for the comments that they make here. It is certainly untrue that the House was deliberately misled yesterday. I would have deprecated it at the time had I thought that that was the case.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have not the exchanges involving my hon. Friends from Sheffield shown once again that the Government would not recognise the truth if it was sprayed on their eyeballs?
Madam Speaker: I do not recognise a point of order there, so we may proceed.

BILLS PRESENTED
  NORTHERN IRELAND (ENTRY TO NEGOTIATIONS, ETC)
  Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Howard and Mr. Michael Ancram, presented a Bill to make provision for elections in Northern Ireland for the purpose of providing delegates from among whom participants in negotiations may be drawn; for a forum constituted by those delegates; for referendums in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 105.]
  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. Michael Jack and Mr. Anthony Nelson, presented a Bill to amend section 2 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978 to confer further powers on the Commonwealth Development Corporation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Implementation
3.40 pm
Mr. Gordon McMaster: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the coming into force of the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 relating to the appointment and rights of authorised representatives, the assessment by local authorities of the needs of disabled persons, and the procedures to be implemented when a person is discharged from hospital, and to make corresponding provision in respect of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.
It is almost exactly 10 years since the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) received an unopposed Third Reading. A few weeks later, the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 was given the Royal Assent and passed into law. Yet a decade later, four major sections of that Act of Parliament have still not been implemented. Those provisions would have made a tangible difference to the lives of countless thousands of disabled people and people with mental illnesses.
The Government's continued refusal to implement the law of the land is an insult to those people and their carers. But it is more than that—it is an insult to the House, and to democracy itself. Surely it cannot be right for a Government stubbornly to ignore a law passed by Parliament. A Bill that is enacted and then not acted on cannot change anything for anyone. An Act that is not put into action is reduced to empty words and broken promises. Disabled people are disappointed—and, yes, angry—that that Act is still not being fully implemented; but they are not surprised.
It is not the first time that legislation designed to improve the lives of disabled people has been passed by Parliament and ignored by Government. For example, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was piloted through the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), has suffered the same fate. Many hon. Members, and countless thousands of disabled people throughout the country, deeply regret my right hon. Friend's decision not to seek re-election. The best tribute that we could pay him for his years of dedicated service to the cause of disabled people's rights would be to implement both his Act and the 1986 Act, in full and now.
Earlier today, along with hon. Members from both sides of the House, I attended the launch of a new campaign called Time to Care. Hundreds of people from all parts of the country came here to demand an urgent overhaul of care in the community. This Bill would be a significant step forward in that campaign, because it would give disabled people, people with mental illnesses and those with learning difficulties the right to have an advocate, the right to be consulted on their care, the right to be represented, and the right to have a proper assessment of their needs. A 30-minute meeting involving advocacy, could rescue someone from a lifetime of misery.
When my hon. Friend the Member for, Monklands, West drew first place in the private Members' ballot more than 10 years ago, he introduced a Bill that had the support of all parties in the House. The Health Minister
718
at the time described the Government's position as "sceptical neutrality". Following an intervention by the then Leader of the Opposition, Neil Kinnock, the day before the Bill was to be read the Third time, the Prime Minister—Mrs. Thatcher, as she was then—agreed to let it pass, subject to some redrafting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West then found a queue of Ministers at his door—Ministers who had refused to discuss the Bill with him during the preceding months. He worked with them through the night to redraft and amend the Bill, and the next day it had an unopposed Third Reading. That is what makes the Government's failure to implement the Tom Clarke Act all the more absurd. They are refusing to implement important sections of an Act that they had a hand in drafting.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister boasted in this Chamber about the Government's record on improving the lot of disabled people. I would challenge that claim, and so would millions of disabled people. How can they be full and equal citizens if they do not enjoy the fundamental and basic right to be consulted about the services delivered to them? How can their potential be maximised if they do not have the right to be represented, when, for whatever reason, they cannot represent themselves? How can services be targeted and tailored to suit their needs, if those needs are not assessed?
The Government place great emphasis on the citizens charter. We are told that it is all about empowering individuals. That is precisely what the 1986 Act is about—empowering disabled people, people with learning disabilities and those with mental health problems to have a say in their own lives, and, where they cannot have that say, to have an advocate speak for them.
It is not only plain wrong to impose care packages on people without giving them a say in what those packages should contain: it can also be wasteful. It can be costly to provide inappropriate community care—costly to the provider, the individual and the community. We all know of cases in our constituencies of people who have been discharged from long-stay institutions and have caused problems in the community. That is bound to happen when there is no proper assessment of need.
In a recent case in my constituency, someone was discharged and given a house in a community with which he had no connection and where he felt lonely and isolated and had no one to offer support. Almost inevitably, he drifted into a life style that caused problems for his neighbours, who came to my surgery to ask for my help. Coincidentally, the person they were complaining about came to see me later the same day. It took no more than a few minutes to establish that he had family support available in another area. Had his needs been properly assessed, and had he been consulted, the situation could have been avoided.
We all know of the two separate tragedies that occurred in lion's dens because of the lack of proper assessment before discharge. But each and every day, people are discharged from long-stay institutions and find themselves in a metaphorical lion's den because their needs have not been assessed. There are increasing numbers of mentally ill people in prisons across the length and breadth of the country because the courts have nowhere else to send them. Advocacy, consultation, and, above all, the assessment of needs before discharge, would do much to avoid that situation.

719
If we take a walk along the streets of any major city any night of the week, we see people that community care has failed. It has given them only cardboard homes and cardboard hopes. The nation is shocked at newspaper headlines about another murder or tragedy involving someone who has been discharged from a long-stay institution.
The natural reaction is to blame community care. That is wrong. It is not the concept of community care that is wrong, but the lack of support and assessment. It is a great disservice to the United Kingdom's 6.5 million disabled people, the hundreds of thousands with learning disabilities and the 7 million carers that they face this plight. It is also an appalling waste of the talents and abilities of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, including young people, who would be willing to be voluntary advocates. They have been denied that opportunity of personal fulfillment.
All I am asking is that the examples of best practice that already exist in some places in the UK should become the norm for the entire nation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West said when he introduced his Bill in 1986, for too long disabled people have been "done unto". He was right. Disabled people craved independence then, and they still crave it now.
If the Tom Clarke Act was right and necessary in 1986, it is right and even more necessary in 1996. I call on the House to remove a blemish from its reputation, and to deliver this aspect of civil rights to our disabled people. In that spirit, I commend my Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Alfred Morris, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. John Hume, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Peter Thurnham and Mr. Tom Clarke.

Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Implementation
  DISABLED PERSONS (SERVICES, CONSULTATION AND REPRESENTATION) IMPLEMENTATION
  Mr. Gordon McMaster accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the coming into force of the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 relating to the appointment and rights of authorised representatives, the assessment by local authorities of the needs of disabled persons, and the procedures to be implemented when a person is discharged from hospital, and to make corresponding provision in respect of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
Opposition Day
  10TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Railtrack
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.51 pm
    Ms Clare Short: I beg to move,
    That this House, noting both the public opposition to the privatisation of the railways throughout the United Kingdom and the undertaking given by Her Majesty's Government during the passage of the Railways Act 1993 that Railtrack would remain a publicly owned company for the foreseeable future and believing that the flotation of Railtrack will damage the national interest, lead to short term profits being put before long term investment and to lower safety standards, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the present plans for the sale of Railtrack and to conduct a thorough review with the aim of securing for the nation higher levels of rail investment, improved services and the best possible return on taxpayers' money.
    The motion points out that the overwhelming majority of the population of the United Kingdom—which of course includes Northern Ireland—are opposed to the privatisation of the railways. It also draws attention to the fact that the House of Commons has never given its consent to the sale of Railtrack, which owns the track, signalling, bridges and stations that lie at the heart of the railway network.
    It is notable that, during the passage of the Railways Act 1993, the House was repeatedly assured that Railtrack would remain a publicly owned company for the foreseeable future. Many quotes are available to prove that point, but I will give the House only two today. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), speaking on Second Reading, said:
    "Outright privatisation of all the railway is not on the agenda for the foreseeable future, not least because subsidy from the taxpayer is needed, and we have made it clear that we shall continue to provide that."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 160.]
    The then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), speaking in Committee, said:
    "Railtrack will be in the public sector for the foreseeable future".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 February 1993; c. 400.]
    That assurance was repeated time and time again during the passage of the Railways Act 1993.
    I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that rail privatisation with the core of the system remaining publicly owned is very different from privatisation with Railtrack as a private company. It is fair to say, therefore, that Parliament was misled about the Government's intention when the Railways Act 1993 was passed.
    It is because we believe that the privatisation of Railtrack is deeply damaging to the national interest that we have arranged today's debate. We are aware from the Save Our Railways poll taken some months ago that, when Tory Members of Parliament were asked anonymously whether they supported rail privatisation, 20 per cent. of them said that they were opposed to it. The challenge to them today is to vote for what they know to

    721
    be right, and to vote for the national interest. It will be very interesting indeed to see the strength of their consciences.
    Northern Ireland is also threatened with rail privatisation, although it is on a slower track than that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Rail privatisation will obviously damage the transport system in Northern Ireland, and it will be very interesting to see how hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland vote today.
    Before going any further, I should like to say a word about tax. The cost of privatising the railways amounts to an extra £106.38 for every taxpayer in the country. That is equal to an extra 1p on the basic rate of income tax. Those who are concerned to reduce taxes should therefore vote with us to halt the sale and save the taxpayer a lot of money.
    Mr. Den Dover rose—
    Ms Short: I shall not give way on that point.
    The costs of privatisation to the taxpayer are shockingly large. It cost the taxpayer £1 billion to prepare British Rail for privatisation. That was one-off spending, but surely the money would have been better spent improving the west coast main line, which is my line and which is falling into ever greater disrepair and becoming more unsafe and unreliable. On top of that, it is costing the taxpayer an extra £850 million every year to run the privatised structure, which is less efficient and more costly than the old British Rail. In other words, the taxpayer is paying more for a lesser service.
    Under the privatised structure, the taxpayer is expected to pour £2 billion every year into the top of the system. That trickles down, providing profits for all 100 companies that British Rail has now become, but there is no accountability to the public for the expenditure of that money and no return on taxpayers' investment. As the right hon. Member for South Norfolk said when he uttered the words that I cited earlier, that is a ridiculous set of arrangements.
    If we consider specifically the cost of the sale of Railtrack, we come across other major problems. There has been a big fattening up and a creation of sweeteners to get the company sold at any price, no matter the cost to the taxpayer or the damage to our railways. Thus, a company whose modern equivalent value is £6.5 billion is to be sold for an estimated £1.5 billion, which is disgraceful in itself.
    In order to get the company sold, £1.46 billion of debt—money owed to the taxpayer—has been written off. An unprecedented £69 million of profits earned while Railtrack was owned by the public is to be given to shareholders who have not yet even bought a share. Nevertheless, that money is being prepared for them. Big bonuses are on offer to the top six executives if they manage to maximise short-term profits. That is the opposite of what rail needs—rail requires long-term thinking and long-term investment.
    I am afraid that the damage of Railtrack privatisation goes even further. To get the company sold, track access charges have been set very high. Thus, it costs £170,000 a year in track access charges alone to put one passenger coach on the railways. That compares with £300 to £450 in vehicle excise duty for a coach on the roads. To get
    722
    Railtrack sold, the costs of using rail have been set so high that there will be no expansion of rail use under the privatised structure. Given the current projections of congestion on our roads, we must get more passengers and freight on to the railways to keep the country moving and breathing in the future. Under the arrangements in place, that cannot be done.
    Although the Government babble about increased investment under privatisation, the reality is that the prospectus makes it clear that there is no expectation of growth in the use of rail under the proposals. Page 29 of the prospectus states:
    "Railtrack's passenger access income is unlikely to benefit materially from any increase in passenger use".
    Page 30 of the pathfinder prospectus states:
    "The opportunities for expanding rail freight operations are limited."
    There we have it; they are the real intentions.
    Mr. Dover: I am sure that every hon. Member will join the hon. Lady in wanting more passenger and freight movement on the railways, but, after 20 or 30 years of falling passenger and freight rail movements under the nationalised system, what formula has she for increasing them?
    Ms Short: We will increase the amount of freight and the number of passengers on the rail network by ensuring that there are higher levels of investment and better quality, more reliable and faster services—the opposite of what is occurring under the privatisation process.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I am interested to hear the hon. Lady's commitment to higher levels of investment: where will it come from?
    Ms Short: We have made it clear to the Secretary of State and to others for a long time that we are interested in mobilising public-private partnerships. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made that recommendation as shadow transport spokesman in order to secure more investment in the rail network. That is occurring in other countries, and it should happen here also.
    In addition to the terribly high track access charges that will prevent expansion in rail use, another major worry with the sale of Railtrack is that it controls much valuable land: stations are situated on valuable commercial land at the centre of every town and city in this country. There is a real danger that a Railtrack interested in maximising short-term profits will seek to misuse land that is needed for rail development in order to make a quick profit. That would constitute a major breach of the national interest.
    I turn now to the reports in today's press about the serious leak yesterday of the letter from the chairman and chief executive of British Rail, Mr. Welsby—a Tory appointee. He wrote to the permanent secretary of the Department of Transport complaining that the prospectus is significantly misleading. That is a very serious allegation. The issue involves the penalties that Railtrack is required to pay if it fails to keep its agreements with other railway operators.

    723
    Page 41 of the prospectus explains:
    "at present performance levels, Railtrack will be making significant net payments to the train operators".
    It goes on to say that Railtrack will have to make those penalty payments to train operators for things that are outside its control, such as severe weather, as well as for things within its control, such as industrial action. The prospectus states that Railtrack has been allowed an additional £75 million per year in access charges in order to cover what it might have to pay out in those circumstances.
    Page 41 of the prospectus explains that the company directors, having assessed what improvements they can make to Railtrack's performance, still
    "do not believe these improvements will be sufficient to match"
    the amounts allowed for penalty payments in the Government's figures. That is a very serious point when considering the company's viability.
    At the top of page 42—hon. Members may wish to check it—the prospectus says that, under the arrangements, a single day's cessation of train services will cost Railtrack about £12 million. According to my rudimentary calculations—the sum is not difficult: even Conservative Members could do it—Railtrack has enough money put by in the £75 million allowance for fewer than seven days' loss of services. In summer 1994, services were lost for 18 days.
    After the first seven days, every additional day's lost service will cost Railtrack £12 million out of its profits. The big question is: how long could Railtrack last in those circumstances? Are Mr. Horton's management skills considered so great that he can do now what he signally—if I may use that word—failed to do in 1994?
    Railtrack's profit last year, as stated on page 63 of the prospectus, was £189 million before tax. If one adds to that the whole £75 million additional penalty allowance, I calculate that Railtrack's annual profit would be wiped out in 22 days.
    But the position is far worse than that. Page 66 of the prospectus shows that last year, with no days of complete cessation of train services, Railtrack still paid £80 million in penalties—that is £5 million more than the £75 million that is allowed for. If one assumes that the allowance is used up by ordinary disruption—as it was last year—Railtrack's profit would be extinguished altogether after fewer than another 16 days' lost train services. That is a very serious matter.
    When the chairman of the British Railways Board—I remind the House that he is a Tory appointee—writes to the permanent secretary to the Department of Transport complaining that "material information for investors" on a desperately important subject has been left out of the prospectus, the country can see for itself that the Government, who have been consistently tainted by sleaze and underhand dealings, are prepared to sell Railtrack on a false prospectus.
    I am conscious that the Government are keen to shift attention from the damage that they are doing to the railways to what Labour will do about it, assuming that we win the next election. I have said before that it is rather like a vandal who is about to destroy a monument saying to the caretaker of that monument, "Tell me how you will
    724
    restore the monument after I have destroyed it." The answer is simple: do not destroy the monument. How dare the Government ask us what we will do to put right the destruction that they are imposing on the nation?
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Lady will be astonished to discover how much we agree about encouraging passengers and freight back to the railways. However, she described British Rail as a monument. Although some people are working very hard to encourage people on to the railways, unfortunately British Rail is a monument to the uselessness of a nationalised industry.
    When the hon. Lady and I were born, there were 15 railway stations in my constituency. They have all been closed by nationalised British Rail. In the hon. Lady's constituency, there used to be a railway line from Handsworth towards West Bromwich, and from the centre of Birmingham near New Street station past Winson Green. Those lines were closed by nationalised British Rail. How can the hon. Lady describe British Rail as a monument?
    Ms Short: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that we are about to build a metro on that line, which runs through my constituency. That will be a lovely advancement of public transport provision for Birmingham and my constituency, and we look forward to it very much indeed.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the old British Rail was far from perfect, and that we need a higher quality model to achieve the levels of investment and the use of the railway to meet future needs; but it is absolutely clear that the old British Rail was better than the privatised model. That is proved by the fact that, each year, the Treasury has had to find an extra £850 million to provide lesser services from the privatised model than we had under British Rail. If something is imperfect, we should not make it worse; we should try to develop something better.
    We in the Labour party are keen to be absolutely clear and straight with anyone contemplating investment in Railtrack. In my Swindon speech, which is printed in full in the prospectus, I set out our intentions. We want to be straight with all potential investors about the intentions of an incoming Labour Government.
    I shall not dwell on those plans today, because today's aim is to halt the sale, but we have made it clear that a Labour Government will use all the levers at their disposal. We shall use the power of regulation, the power of the £2 billion subsidy, and the power to acquire ownership to reintegrate the railways under a renewed British Rail and to mobilise public and private partnership to increase investment in rail and secure the increase in passenger and freight use that the country needs.
    I should say something about regulation, because many of the commentators on my Swindon speech missed an important point. We want all potential investors to be clear about our intentions.
    The power of regulation over the railways is significant. The Rail Regulator is more powerful than any of the other utility regulators and his reach into the heart of Railtrack's business is far deeper. The powers exist now, and they will be useful to the new Government.

    725
    The existing mechanisms give the regulator considerable powers to secure changes to the regime as it applies to Railtrack. They do not require negotiation with Railtrack or its agreement; they can be effected, if necessary, against the wishes of Railtrack. Those changes may be made to alter Railtrack's obligations, and thus its priorities, in order to achieve the objectives of the public interest rather than those of the shareholders.
    To place our hands directly and securely on those powerful levers of control and immediate change, we shall need only a simple amendment to the Railways Act 1993—to make the Rail Regulator answerable to the Secretary of State, and therefore the public interest, to a far greater extent than is now the case.
    When that has been achieved, the new Labour Government will have at their disposal all—or substantially all—the means to control the economic behaviour of Railtrack in significant areas. Those include the direction of Railtrack's investment spending, controls on its access charges, restrictions on the disposal of its valuable land assets, and the possibility of a clawback on substantially all its property disposal income. I ask potential investors to look carefully at what I said about regulation in my Swindon speech, because the use of regulation to protect the national interest will change the likely rate of return to shareholders.
    There it is. The sale of Railtrack will be deeply damaging to the national interest and terribly costly to the taxpayer.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe rose—
    Mr. John Home Robertson: He is going to join the Labour party.
    Mr. Rowe: As Madam Speaker said earlier, one should not believe everything one reads in the newspapers.
    Will the hon. Lady explain whether the powers that she proposes to take over Railtrack will return to profitability the company that she has just portrayed as certain to lose money?
    Ms Short: The powers that I described are intended to be used to ensure that Railtrack serves the national interest, and does not seek to maximise short-term profit and damage the national interest. The powers will be used to get more investment in rail and to develop greater use of rail, which is what this country's future and its transport needs require.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Lady explain why she is so proud of nationalised British Rail when, particularly under the last Labour Government in the 1970s, BR was not merely a national but an international joke?
    Ms Short: That was not a terribly impressive joke, either. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening when I answered the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
    The old British Rail was not perfect, but the privatised structure is worse. An incoming Labour Government will create something better. If the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) supports the Government tonight, he
    726
    will be helping to create something massively more costly and massively worse than the old British Rail. Conservative Members must face that fact.
    I was saying that the sale of Railtrack will be deeply damaging to the national interest and terribly costly to the taxpayer. The privatised structure will also prevent any expansion in rail use. It is in the national interest that the sale be halted. If it is not, we are confident that an incoming Labour Government can reintegrate rail, and mobilise higher levels of investment and use. We will do that, but the present Government must take responsibility for the damage and the waste of taxpayers' money that they are causing now. The House has the opportunity today to stand up for the national interest. I hope that that opportunity is taken.
    4.12 pm
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "congratulates the Government on the progress that it is making with privatisation, with the franchising in the last three weeks alone of the InterCity East Coast, Gatwick Express and Network South Central lines, offering the prospects of better services and higher investment at less cost to tax-payers; recognises that this demonstrates that the Opposition's attempt to halt privatisation has failed; and looks forward to the flotation of Railtrack in May as a golden opportunity for the railways to gain access to the private finance necessary for investment, and for people to become real stakeholders in the railways, thanks to the Government's policy of wider share ownership".
    How relieved we are that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) has been allowed to open the debate and give her overworked deputy a much-needed break. After the events of the weekend, we were concerned that the shadow Home Secretary might have dreamt up some new and terrible punishment for the hon. Lady. I quote the words of a senior Blair aide in The Guardian today:
    "She accepted that she has screwed up big time."
    Ms Hilary Armstrong: Will the Minister give way?
    Sir George Young: No, because I would like to cover a little of my journey before I pick up my first passenger.
    Even the mild-mannered Opposition Chief Whip was obliged to pick up his pen to write an article that also appeared in The Guardian this morning. He used politer language, but none the less delivered a public rebuke under the trendy headline, "Don't rock the roll". We only wish that this debate could take place at 8 am on Sunday, as that is when the hon. Member for Ladywood speaks without restraint.
    Ms Armstrong rose—
    Sir George Young: I shall give way in a moment.
    Many Conservative Members can remember the days when Labour Members might have been criticised for suggesting that taxes on middle incomes should be cut. Not long ago, Labour voted against such reductions on a three-line Whip.
    Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could the Secretary of State advise the House what on earth his speech has to do with the subject that we are discussing?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State should be allowed to develop his speech. He has been on his feet for only one minute.
    Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Ladywood spoke briefly about tax at the beginning of her speech. I remind the Opposition that Labour's former deputy leader, another distinguished Birmingham Member of Parliament, said:
    "Labour now has a clear choice. It can be either the party of higher taxation and proud of it, or the party of higher taxes which it is ashamed to describe, afraid to admit and incapable of calculating with any accuracy. It cannot be the low taxation party."
    Those are the words of a former deputy leader of the Labour party.
    Ms Armstrong: Does the Secretary of State think that it was the press that gave the real comment on Tory tax policies this weekend? Was not it the electors of South-East Staffordshire?
    Sir George Young: I now regret having given way on that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The criticisms of the hon. Member for Ladywood have not come from Conservative Members: they have come from the Labour leader's office. It is absurd for the hon. Lady to be criticised for articulating a belief that united Opposition Members when they joined the Labour party. One can but contrast the way in which the leadership embraced and protected the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) for sending her son to a grammar school and silenced the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Some of us are somewhat bored with this dissertation on other matters. Could we revert to the topic of the debate?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I see the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. We have had a good bit of knockabout and now perhaps we might revert to the amendment.
    Sir George Young: I conclude my opening remarks by saying that the hon. Member for Peckham was endorsed for acting like a Tory and the hon. Member for Ladywood was rebuked for speaking like a socialist.
    I welcome the opportunity presented by the debate for three reasons. First, I wish to remind the House why the Government believe that their policies for the railways are the right ones to reverse decades of decline. Secondly, now that we have made further progress with those policies—drawing in private sector funds to complement those of taxpayers, attracting into the industry fresh skills and talents to work alongside those already there and restructuring the industry so that it focuses more clearly on its customers—we can stand back for a moment, look at some of the fears that have been expressed, including
    728
    some of those mentioned by the hon. Member for Ladywood, see whether they are justified and examine the achievements to date. Thirdly, I wish to contrast the clear vision that we have of tomorrow's railway, and our resolution to secure it, with the muddled, divided views of the Labour party and the trade unions that support it and the vagueness of their purpose. Then I wish to ask the House who is more likely to deliver the expanding, confident, well-resourced railway that the whole House wants to see.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Sir George Young: In a moment.
    Which is more likely to deliver? Is it a party that opposes privatisation and thereby denies Railtrack access to fresh funds and, at the same time, refuses to make similar funds available from the public sector? That party offers no future to the railways.
    Mr. MacShane rose—
    Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—
    Mr. Bruce Grocott rose
    Sir George Young: I shall give way to the hon. Member for—
    Madam Speaker: Halifax?
    Sir George Young: No, to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott).
    Mr. Grocott: If the Secretary of State is determined to persist with the sale of the land and assets of Railtrack, which currently belong to my constituents, to me and to the whole of the population of this country, against our wills, can he at least tell us when we shall each receive the cheque for the sale of our assets and how much it will be?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman knows that Railtrack will be sold at the end of May. There will be a receipt for the taxpayer that goes into the Exchequer. He also knows that under a privatised railway, the costs of funding investment will no longer fall on the taxpayer. They will fall on the privatised railway. I hope to show that investment in the railway will increase at a faster rate than if it had remained in the public sector. That is the kernel of the case for privatisation.
    Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, in setting the context of the debate, that the five franchises that have so far been let will all be run at a lower cost by those who have taken them than the cost at which British Rail runs them, and will all provide better services for my constituents?
    Sir George Young: I hope to make exactly that point.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Sir George Young: No, I shall not give way. I want to make some progress. I shall not give way for the time being.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I want to be helpful.
    Sir George Young: Even with that kind offer, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman for the moment.

    729
    When the House voted the Railways Bill on to the statute book in 1993, it took a decisive step to reverse the historic decline of the railways. That decline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said in an intervention, had seen the industry's share of the market shrink from 17 per cent. in 1953 to 5 per cent. now. Its share of the freight market had dropped even more dramatically. The era of nationalisation was marked by poor industrial relations, low productivity, rising fares and an attitude towards passengers and freight business that was often patronising. It is hardly surprising that those users stayed away.
    The old railway was a monolithic, monopolistic, slow-moving nationalised industry, which never had the inclination or the initiative to focus on the needs of its passengers and freight users. Yet it was an industry full of talented and committed people, shored up with vast quantities of taxpayers' money.
    How did the industry fail? It failed because it was insulated from commercial pressures. It failed also because, as a public monopoly, it never had to confront long-term competitive challenges from other forms of transport. Similarly, it failed because it looked inwards at itself, not outwards towards its market, both passengers and freight. Taxpayers' money went into the industry and disgruntled users came out.
    British Rail failed to recognise the golden rule of service industries: the customer is king. There were several attempts to solve the problem by throwing money at it. But cash alone could not and cannot halt the railways' downward slide. The basic problem was structural rather than financial.
    Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend will have heard British Rail compared recently with a monument. To what does he think British Rail would be a monument?
    Sir George Young: It is a monument to post-war public industry, a monument that is now out of date. There are better ways of running our railway system than having it as a monument. Our policy, as set out in the Railways Act 1993, was directed to the problem for the first time. Its basic message was that the railway system could revive its fortunes only if it were given commercial incentives to win back passengers and freight. The policy built on the successes of previous privatisations, from British Telecom to British Airways. It adapted the main features of those privatisations to the unique circumstances of the railway industry.
    The Act brought in a new era, in which private sector dynamism could replace years of public sector stagnation. It introduced a new regulatory system to protect the public interest. It represented a recognition that investment in a publicly owned body would always have to compete with investment in health and education. By placing the railways firmly in the private sector, we would be able to free investment from that constraint.
    Mr. MacShane: In the wonderful world that the Secretary of State is describing, why is the franchising director saying that the number of services to Doncaster from London will be cut by half under privatisation? That is a deplorable attack on the business community in South Yorkshire.
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman has confused the passenger service requirement with the level of service that emerges at the end of the franchising process.
    730
    Our policy recognised that other transport operators—ferries, buses and airlines—might have skills that could help regenerate an important but declining industry. That was the philosophy behind the 1993 Act. Nothing has happened in the past three years to challenge either our analysis or proposed solution.
    I now come to the progress to date. We have been fed a constant diet of scare stories on rail privatisation by the Opposition, and by others: that fares would escalate; services would be cut; investment would fall; the railways would be less safe; people would not bid for the franchises; the Labour party would stop the flotation of Railtrack; and, if it did not, no one would want to buy the shares. I shall go through those accusations and contrast the rhetoric with the reality.
    Passengers were told that their services would be cut. The fact is that the franchises awarded so far are all based squarely on existing levels of service. South West Trains has already introduced new co-ordinated bus links to rail stations and embarked on a £3 million programme of improvements to station and passenger facilities such as security, lighting, waiting rooms and information services. It also plans to improve business travel services, to offer new concessions for senior citizens and to restore or expand services to Epsom, West Croydon, Southampton and Salisbury.
    Great Western plans to introduce more trains, faster journey times, refurbished rolling stock, a Motorail service between London and the west country, new bus links to rail services, increased capacity for bicycles and a radically improved telephone inquiry service. London and South Coast, which won the Network South Central franchise, plans to introduce new services in south London.
    The Gatwick Express franchisee has similar improvements planned: a better passengers charter, new off-peak discounts, and on-board check-in facilities for club class passengers.
    Mr. David Chidgey: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, as he flashed through my region so fast that I could hardly catch his eye. I refer him back to South West Trains. As some constituency examples have already been given, I hope that he will bear with me. Is he aware that the 8.50 train from Waterloo to Poole, which should have passed through Eastleigh this morning at approximately 9.30, was, unfortunately, mistakenly signalled on to the Salisbury line? One does not have to be a railway buff to know that the line from Waterloo to Weymouth, which goes through Poole, is electrified. The line to Salisbury is not. So, consequently, the train ground to a halt just west of Basingstoke, where the staff on the train led passengers to safety by torchlight. Is that the new, modern railway that the Secretary of State talks about?
    Sir George Young: The crucial difference between the new regime and the old is that, under the old regime, there would have been no commercial penalty on British Rail whatever. Under the new regime, there are financial incentives on Railtrack and on the franchise operator for trains to run on time. For the first time, we have a

    731
    commercial structure that will reward operators that run trains punctually and penalise those that do not. That incentive never existed with British Rail.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Sir George Young: I shall give way once more, but then I must make some progress.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the improvements that Great Western proposes were also proposed by the Great Western Railway in 1946, but were never implemented while the industry was nationalised?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the reinvolvement of the private sector in the railways, and I am grateful to him.
    Passengers were also told that they would lose key network benefits, but the fact is that through tickets, discount cards for the young, the elderly and disabled people, impartial sales information and the telephone inquiry network are legally safeguarded as a result of privatisation. We were then told that franchising would drive up fares. The fact is that for the first time ever, as an integral part of privatisation, key fares such as saver tickets and standard weekly seasons have been capped. They have been pegged to inflation since January and will begin to fall below inflation in just over two years. Contrast that with a real increase of 22 per cent. under the previous Labour Government.
    Everyone has been told by the Opposition that investment would fall off once services were franchised. The fact is that each of the new franchisees plans new investment in the network: refurbished rolling stock, upgraded passenger security and better facilities for disabled people. The National Express group, which will run the Gatwick Express service, plans to have completely new rolling stock by 1999. Great Western will refurbish its entire fleet of high-speed trains. The franchisee on the InterCity east coast line plans to spend more than £17 million on service enhancements, including £7 million on improvements to the reliability of the class 125s, new passenger lounges and passenger security.
    Ms Armstrong rose—
    Sir George Young: I shall certainly not give way to the hon. Lady again. It is nothing personal.
    The Network South Central franchisee, London and South Coast, will spend a further £10 million over the next three years on improvements to rolling stock and stations.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Sir George Young: Not now; I might do so later.
    I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the franchising director announced today that shortlisted bidders for the South Eastern franchise would be asked to bid on the basis of a 15-year franchise, and that their
    732
    proposals should include the replacement within three years of all 83 of South Eastern's class 411 units, most of which are concentrated on the Kent coast line.
    Mr. Rowe: Has my right hon. Friend any idea of the number of occasions on which Kent Members have either visited or written to the directors of British Rail demanding the upgrading of rolling stock? Does he realise how much glee will greet one of the first fruits of privatisation—the fact that the rolling stock that British Rail consistently refused to give us has now been promised?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend's prayers have been answered. I know that he and many other Kent Members, some of whom are present—my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is not; he is in a Select Committee—will welcome this afternoon's announcement by the franchising director.
    Ms Short: The trouble is that reality is completely different from the promises that are made. Can the Secretary of State explain why, if there are so many new orders, there has been a massive slump in investment? The ABB carriage works in York have closed, and all the rail manufacturing companies are laying off skilled workers and are desperately concerned about their future. Reality is not as the Secretary of State describes it.
    Sir George Young: The key difference between the hon. Lady and me is that I am able to make an announcement that will have no impact on public expenditure. The hon. Lady can make no such commitment, because she is committed to public sector procurement, and her hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will not allow her to make a commitment such as the one that I have just made to the House.
    Mr. Bob Dunn: My constituents—Kent commuters—will benefit enormously from my right hon. Friend's announcement. The county of Kent has battled long and hard. When does my right hon. Friend expect the new trains to be in service?
    Sir George Young: They will be available within three years. I am delighted that the private sector has been able to provide what the public sector could not.
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Sir George Young: No. I want to make some more progress.
    The franchisee will also be required to put forward proposals to replace all the remaining 95 units of slam-door rolling stock. That will mean that, together with the new Networkers already operating on the inner suburban services, South Eastern will have a completely updated fleet. As we have just heard, my hon. Friends who represent the people of Kent have argued for many years that more rolling stock investment is needed on their rail services, and franchising will give them that investment.

    733
    We have sold the three passenger rolling stock leasing companies to increase the possibility of new and refurbished rolling stock. In the short time during which they have been in the private sector, one of those companies, Angel Train Contracts, has announced a £400 million funding facility for new train building and refurbishment. In addition, on 2 April Porterbrook Leasing announced a £75 million-plus programme of refurbishment to its mark III fleet, which is good news for service on mainly the cross-country, midland main line and west coast main line.
    We were told that franchising would cost taxpayers more. In fact—as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) implied—the first five franchises alone will be funded in the private sector, by year seven of the franchises, to the tune of £95 million, compared with British Rail's current £300 million. That is over one third of the franchises costing taxpayers over two thirds less. GNR even plans to need no subsidy at all by the end of its franchise. The Gatwick services will pay taxpayers a growing dividend year by year. By any standard, that represents a huge reduction in the cost to taxpayers of running rail services. If savings on that scale are repeated throughout the country, in a few years, the subsidy bill for the railways will be reduced substantially.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has just said once again shows the success that this privatisation will be, in taking the burden away from the taxpayers, producing profits for them and improving services, just as the privatisations of British Telecom and British Airways did? Does he also agree with my prediction that very shortly the Labour party will realise how successful and popular privatisation is, as it did with British Telecom and British Airways, and its policy will change such that it will claim that it was its idea all along?
    Sir George Young: We might have to wait a year or two before that flash of inspiration. My hon. Friend is right. Not only will privatisation reduce the cost to taxpayers, but it will improve services and there will be more investment by the franchisees. So it is a win-win situation.
    We were told that safety would be jeopardised by privatisation. Railways continue to be the safest form of land transport. The independent Health and Safety Commission has confirmed that there is no evidence of any overall decline in health and safety standards since Railtrack was set up. Indeed, recent statistics show some improvement in safety standards. In 1994–95, the number of significant rail accidents fell and total fatalities on the network, excluding trespassers and suicides, fell to their lowest ever level.
    Railtrack has made it clear that safety is its first priority. It is in the company's commercial interests to provide demonstrably safe service to attract and retain customers. British Airways' move to the private sector has not compromised safety. I should make it clear once again that I am not complacent about safety. I expect it to remain the paramount concern of everyone in the rail industry.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Secretary of State will know that the Health and Safety Executive has published a report on the Forth rail bridge, the south end of which is in my constituency. Paragraph 100 of its report says:
    734
    "While the general condition of the bridge does not give rise to immediate concern in respect of its carrying capacity, some members have suffered a loss of section due to corrosion to an extent which makes repair or replacement necessary as part of a planned maintenance strategy."
    Apart from the fact that the bridge is the greatest monument to 19th-century civil engineering anywhere in Europe, the entire question of the railway system north of the Forth should be addressed. Will the Minister who winds up give a considered answer about how the Government view the financing of the work that the Health and Safety Executive thinks is of great importance?
    Sir George Young: I shall certainly see that my hon. Friend the Minister gives the hon. Gentleman the considered reply for which he has asked. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the HSE report confirmed that the bridge is safe. Railtrack fully accepts that the bridge requires a thorough maintenance regime and it is fully committed to the HSE recommendations.
    We were also told that Labour would stop privatisation. It said that it would stop us in the Division after Christmas; it has said that it will stop us today, and it will be wrong again.
    Then we were told that nobody would want to buy shares in Railtrack. On Monday, we published the pathfinder prospectus, announcing the sale of substantially all the Government's shares in the company and giving details of the first instalment—
    Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
    Sir George Young: I should like to finish this paragraph before giving way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I must make some progress. We also gave details of the timetable. Further pieces of the jigsaw will be put in place over the next two weeks, culminating in the publication of a price-ranged prospectus on 1 May. The public will then have another two weeks to apply. We expect the start of dealings on 20 May. One million prospective shareholders are now registered with share shops. They are ordinary investors like all those who have followed and supported the Government's programme of privatisations since we took office, which is why there are almost 10 million shareholders compared with fewer than 3 million in 1979.
    The Daily Telegraph reported yesterday:
    "One of the largest stockbrokers in the country, Sharelink, said the number of people registering for the sale next month was already twice its expectation".
    So much for the Labour party's claims that the public are not interested in the privatisation.
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) referred to the letter that the chairman of British Rail sent to the permanent secretary at the right hon. Gentleman's Department on 2 April, which stated categorically that the prospectus was deficient and misleading in many highly significant and influential respects. Since then, no alteration has been made to the prospectus. As the chairman of British Rail and the prospectus cannot both be telling the truth, does the Secretary of State agree that a stock exchange inquiry is required to find out the truth?
    Sir George Young: Certainly not. Mr. Welsby was responding to a request from my Department as part of

    735
    the process of writing the prospectus. We received a comprehensive response from British Rail, which has been considered carefully as part of the process of finalising the prospectus. For example, the prospectus now contains a full statement by the Rail Regulator, setting out his views on investment. Railtrack has addressed British Rail's specific concerns on the west coast main line modernisation. The directors of Railtrack Group plc have a duty to ensure that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the information in the prospectus is in accordance with the facts and contains no material omissions. I am confident that the prospectus issued on 1 May will fully satisfy those requirements.
    Rail staff will also benefit from share ownership. Railtrack's staff will be offered special share offers, such as free shares, up to £500, plus more for each year of service, and discounts of 20 per cent. Great Western last month offered more than half the shares in the company that won the franchise to all its staff. Those on offer were priced at 50p with a minimum stake of £100, and the company is so keen to encourage its staff that it is matching the first 200 shares purchased. That is what Conservative Members call real stakeholding.
    I am sure that many trade union members, who sponsor so many Opposition Members, will take up those offers. As The Guardian put it yesterday,
    "For those prepared, however, to put the moral outrage to one side and consider Railtrack's possibilities in the private sector, the prospects could be quite alluring. It is a classic utility business with possibilities for ratcheting down costs through new technologies such as modem signalling systems; ending Spanish practices in the labour force and outsourcing some services. Who knows, Railtrack, like another transport firm British Airways, could well prosper in the private sector."
    Mr. Keith Hill: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Sir George Young: I shall give way one more time, and then I propose to make progress.
    Mr. Hill: I presume that the Secretary of State is an enthusiastic fan of the £69 million flotation sweetener out of the so-called "profits" of Railtrack. Can he inform the House where those profits have arisen from? Is he aware that, last year, Railtrack salted away £150 million out of its maintenance programme? That money, which should have been spent on maintenance, is now being distributed to potential shareholders. Will not the motto of Railtrack in future be, "Putting profits before passengers"?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman knows that Railtrack is heavily regulated, and has been told by the regulator to reduce the access charges that it charges the train-operating companies. The companies will be operating within a tough regulatory regime. No money is "salted away", to use his expression—that money is needed to invest in, modernise and improve the nation's railways. The existence of the dividend will impact on the value of the shares when they are floated, so that the interests of the taxpayer will be fully safeguarded.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend be gentle with the Opposition, as this is
    736
    a sad day for them? They are seeing the last of the great state corporations demolished and returned to the private sector. He should be sensitive, if I may say so. It is a happy day for the traveller, but a sad one for the Labour party.
    Sir George Young: Even sadder is the fact that Labour cannot give a commitment to buy it back, and I shall say a word about that in a moment.
    Having disposed of some of the myths, let us look at the reality. Nearly half the rail industry—some £4 billion-worth by aggregate turnover—has been transferred to the private sector. That is made up of 51 businesses, including the five franchises that we have awarded so far. We have sold the three rolling stock companies, as the press has reported, for £1.8 billion. We have made good progress with the sale of BR's freight businesses. Rail Express Systems and the trainload freight companies have been bought by North and South Railways, a consortium led by Wisconsin Central Transportation. Wisconsin has a wealth of railway experience from around the world and will bring new ideas and successes to rail freight in Britain. It has plans to invest heavily in new locomotives. In the private sector, those businesses will have commercial incentives to win freight traffic from the roads.
    The public want an improved railway service, and the key to that will be the sustained programme of expenditure on the infrastructure that Railtrack intends to undertake. That expenditure amounts to some £9 billion at current prices over the next five years—a significantly higher level of expenditure than Railtrack has managed under the public ownership and public accountability so beloved of Opposition Members. In practice, that expenditure could not be achieved without substantial private sector finance. I believe that Railtrack's privatisation will unlock the barriers to that private investment in our railway infrastructure. Those are the facts.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Sir George Young: No. I said that I had given way for the last time, and I meant it. I have given way fairly generously in the course of my remarks.
    Let me return finally to the alternative—to the policy vacuum on the Labour Benches. Last winter, we were treated to the unedifying sight of the Labour party in search of a policy for rail. It was like a tank engine, going backwards and forwards in a goods yard. That culminated in the speech in Swindon last month by the hon. Member for Ladywood, purporting to explain Labour's ideas. That speech was an insult to a great railway town. If her doom-laden analysis of the railways is right, her solution is wholly inadequate. If it is wrong, her solution is irrelevant. Either way, her speech in Swindon was incoherent intellectually and financially.
    The rhetoric of old Labour, with its party conference call for public ownership, sits uneasily with the so-called reality of new Labour and the avoidance of commitments. Its policy statement said much about the tensions in the Labour party, but very little about the needs of a modern railway. First, Labour Members talk of an integrated railway system. What do they mean by that? Under this

    737
    Government, we have increased the integration of the railways into other transport systems. We have opened new lines such as the Robin Hood line in Nottinghamshire. We have opened more than 200 stations, whereas under Labour more than 600 were closed. Thanks to the private train operator, South West Trains, we now have new bus services in Hampshire linking towns to those with train stations. That is what any sensible person would call an integrated transport system. And, of course, we are extending the rail network, and knitting it closer together, with Thameslink 2000 and the channel tunnel rail link, taken forward by a private sector company under our private finance initiative.
    Then the hon. Member for Ladywood talks of a "reconstituted British Rail". There will not be much, if anything, left of British Rail to reconstitute by the time of the next general election. Much of what was British Rail Labour has agreed not to buy back. We have already got about £5 billion-worth of the old BR either sold or on the market, with the remainder following on apace.
    Let us recall Labour's views on all this. It has already said that it will not break any contracts. That means that, even if Labour was in office, it could not renationalise the franchises, which could remain privately run, for the life of the next Parliament. It has also said that it would not buy back the rolling stock, the freight or the maintenance units. It is now in the absurd position of claiming to be opposed to the flotation of Railtrack, while at the same time refusing to say whether it would buy it back. Under a Conservative Government, it says that Railtrack must be publicly owned. But, if there were a Labour Government, it could remain privately owned. Where is the sense or logic in that?
    Then the hon. Member for Ladywood promised tougher regulation. I wonder whether she has seen the article in The Independent on 15 April. Under the headline, "Labour to woo British Gas by scrapping regulator", we see a different line from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). The article says:
    "He is keen to stress that those in his party who have what he terms 'a 1940s to 1960s mindset' will have their hopes of possible renationalisation dashed, and that it is crucial that the regulatory framework is simplified to make the companies' lives easier."
    He is quoted as saying:
    "I do not want them to be like Gulliver, tied down with millions of little ropes. That is the problem with over-regulation. Provided they maintain their social obligations the size of their profits is up to them."
    The hon. Lady is promising more regulation, while one of her colleagues is promising less regulation of another former nationalised industry. It is small wonder that neither the travelling public—
    Ms Short rose—
    Sir George Young: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady as I have already done so—I have given way for the last time.
    It is no wonder that neither the travelling public nor the City has taken much notice of the Labour party's rail proposals. Indeed, The Sunday Times reported last week:
    "Labour's transport spokeswoman has huffed and puffed, but has failed to blow rail privatisation down."
    A lot of people want to know about the Labour party's policies on fares, services, public subsidy and investment. The Labour party talks glibly of higher levels of
    738
    investment, but it does not say where the money would come from—perhaps from higher taxes on Members of Parliament?
    We are the only party with a clear strategy to bring more investment into the railways—from the private sector, not from the taxpayer. Perhaps the hon. Lady would rather have higher borrowing. Or would she do what Labour did before and close branch lines and stations? The hon. Lady clearly admires the French railways. I read a flattering article that appeared in The Guardian today, in which she stated:
    "I have assembled a policy which will give us a better railway … It'll be like the French side of the Channel Tunnel".
    I wonder whether she is aware that the French railways announced earlier this year that they are £27 billion in debt. Is that a model that we should seek to emulate? Perhaps her investment pledge would be paid for out of higher fares. The Labour party has never said what it would do about fares. Does the hon. Lady think that fares should be higher, to finance more spending on the railways? Or should they be lower, to encourage more people to travel by train? Or will she admit—as she has done with much of the rest of our privatisation policy—that we have got it about right? We hope to get an answer from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), a man of less ambition than the hon. Lady—while she wants my job, he just wants hers.
    I strongly believe that the railways should have a more important role in tomorrow's transport world, and I believe that our policies will secure that role. I have no confidence that the Labour party knows what to do with the railways. The Labour party is ashamed of its past, silent on its future and not fit to govern. I urge my hon. Friends to join me in voting tonight to ensure a better future for the railways, for taxpayers and for Britain.
    4.51 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall concentrate on one narrow but desperately important aspect: the future of the Forth bridge. It is not just any bridge—it is the greatest monument to engineering of the 19th century. The whole railway network depends on the Forth bridge—to Fife, Dundee, Aberdeen, the North sea oil industry, Inverness and points north. This is not a trivial matter.
    I am glad to have the Secretary of State's attention because I do not put this issue forward in a partisan way. I recall that it was action in the House that shamed the Health and Safety Executive and Ministers into having a report that was conducted under distinguished engineers. I shall make my points from the results of the report. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), the former Secretary of the National Union of Miners, Scotland, who knows a good deal about engineering, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), who was a steel worker before he came to the House of Commons, and I were cautiously taken over the bridge by Paul Prescott, the director of Railtrack. One just cannot wander on to the bridge—the up trains and the down trains have to be stopped. We were treated most courteously in being taken over to see for ourselves.
    I have loved the bridge since childhood and I was shocked by whole globules of paint coming off and by rust setting in—after all, rust never sleeps. I was shocked when I went up to the Jubilee, or South tower to examine the mess—which is called the guano in the report—in

    739
    many of the nooks and crannies. It may be that no damage has been done yet, but cosmetic damage soon ceases to be cosmetic.
    First, I shall concentrate on the condition of the bridge. The report states:
    "Although some corrosion was found on the primary structure members, it was judged that the level of corrosion found was not significant in the structural analysis."
    I do not want to be alarmist—and here I share the view of the Secretary of State—but
    "The level of corrosion on some of the secondary members which brace the main structural members, was found to be higher with significant section loss having occurred. Although not critical to the present structural integrity of the bridge, these damaged members need to be repaired or replaced. Repairs of this nature have routinely been carried out to the bridge in the past."
    The expression "being painted like the Forth bridge" has crept into the language but there is a problem. For 90 years, painting was done in the traditional way with slings. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will know that several families around South Queensferry, which he knows well, for generations devoted their lives to the maintenance of the bridge. The Marshall family of Dalmeny station lost both husband and son on different occasions in painting the bridge. A good deal of blood has been spent, not only by the builders but by the maintainers.
    I am the first to say that the Health and Safety Executive was justified in introducing new regulations but, of course, they make maintenance of the bridge more difficult and more expensive than when it was done by the old ways. My reply is that, with modern materials—especially fibreglass materials—it should, with money, be possible to conduct that maintenance. I must impress on senior Ministers that once rust gets a grip of any of the major structures, heaven knows what the cost would be of repairing it or whether it could even be done. If ever a domino theory were to operate, it would be in that complicated structure.
    Mr. Dover: Does the hon. Gentleman accept from me, as a civil engineer and Chair of the Select Committee that considered the Severn second bridge, that much more extensive repairs were necessary on the Severn bridge? They were done by Laing-Entrepose, a private sector UK-French joint consortium, at a cost of tens of millions of pounds which was obtained by charging river crossing tolls. That paid not only for the repair work but for a new crossing, which is to be handed back to the Government after 20 years. Is there any difference between that and what the Government propose for the Forth bridge? A privatised company will levy the Railtrack charges to make sure that the repairs are done more than effectively.
    Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman rendered a service to the House in his studies of the Severn bridge. The Severn bridge is not unlike the Forth road bridge. I am told by Professor Paul Jowett of the department of engineering at Heriot-Watt university and some of his colleagues that it would be much easier to repair the Forth road bridge—and, therefore, a bridge of the Severn type—than it would be to repair a structure of the 1880s and 1890s, when techniques and materials were very different. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is a different problem. It is certainly an exceedingly expensive problem.
    740
    The report also referred to the problem of access to the tubes, which is through small inspection hatches. It continues:
    "the tubes themselves are confined spaces. In the areas inspected by Pell Frischmann"—
    the firm that carried out the work—
    "the steel was found to be in good condition and it is considered that there is no significant corrosion inside the tubes. The inspection hatch covers were removed some time ago and, as a result, there is an accumulation of guano and other detritus which needs to be removed."
    I gather that removal would be quite expensive.
    I have a greater concern, which has arisen since publication of the report. Rightly or wrongly, Scottish Power had the idea of floodlighting the bridge. A number of holes had to be bored in the old structure to arrange for floodlighting. I have not seen the holes because access is impossible, but I am told by John Watson, the ferryman, who has an honourable record of campaigning for the maintenance of the bridge, and his successor Colin Aston that it is likely that rust is forming in the holes drilled for the wiring of the floodlights. Since I have this unexpected opportunity, I ask the Government formally to produce within a month or two at least some considered opinion from the Health and Safety Executive on that new development.
    Paragraph 94 of the report continues:
    "From the consideration of fatigue loading by Pell Frischmann, the HSE was satisfied that the structural integrity of the primary bridge structure was not being adversely affected by fatigue and a considerable fatigue life still remained. Any damage which was occurring was to the railway track supporting structure or to deck plates both of which are capable of being repaired."
    In his reply, I want the Minister to make it clear who will be responsible for that work in the short term.
    I am not in the habit of criticising individuals on the Floor of the House and I will certainly not criticise Paul Prescott, who is well known to Ministers, for saying so, but he told my hon. Friends the Members for Midlothian and for Cunninghame, North, "If money is available, you had better understand that the Forth bridge is my third or fourth priority. My top priority is the signalling system outside Bearsden and the bridge is rather far down the list". If that is Railtrack's view, given the HSE report, where do the Government think that the bridge should come in the list of priorities?
    I will list a few of the HSE's conclusions.
    Mr. Wilson: On the question of who is going to pay, will my hon. Friend join me in rejecting the idea that the Forth rail bridge, which has been maintained as railway property for generations, should become a monument to be financed, not by the railway authorities but by some organisation responsible for historic buildings and monuments, which is another idea that has been floated by Railtrack?
    Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to be too personal, but my wife is a member of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Royal Fine Art Commission, which will certainly not have the resources. They do think that it is their job to finance out of their limited funds work that could be extremely expensive.
    It has to be made clear to prospective purchasers of Railtrack that the organisation has the obligation of spending a great deal of money—we are not talking

    741
    peanuts—on the bridge over the next five years. That ought to be made clear in any prospectus. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North that I hope that it will be made very clear that the financial obligation for the Forth bridge should be included in any prospectus put to prospective shareholders.
    I do not want to abuse the time of the House, but I must draw the Minister's attention to the following recommendations. Recommendation 99 states:
    "The condition survey revealed a significant deterioration in the paint coating on the bridge. A more satisfactory protective coating system to the traditional paint needs to be developed and the protection restored as part of a planned maintenance strategy."
    Has Railtrack—and Bob Horton in particular—accepted that there will be a planned maintenance strategy such as that envisaged by the HSE?
    When the Secretary of State courteously gave way, I raised recommendation 100, so we can take that as read and in Hansard. Recommendation 101 concerns the principal roller bearings. I am told by engineers—I think that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) will bear this out—that the bearings are crucial in the life of the whole structure. The HSE recommendation states:
    "The principal roller bearings at the north and south portals do not appear to be functioning as intended and there is some evidence of past damage and repair. The structural analysis indicates that this does not at present affect the integrity of the structure. Further consideration needs to be given as to how these bearings are actually functioning and how they may be restored to an acceptable condition. HSE recommends that a system for monitoring the movements of all bearings should be instituted."
    Is that going to be Railtrack's responsibility? Some Railtrack personnel have told me that the bearings have not been functioning for some time and so it is a historic obligation that should be taken on using Scottish Office funds. I asked the Scottish Office if it had the money to do the work and it said that it was not in its budget. Who is responsible for the bearings?
    Recommendation 102 continues:
    "Although the knuckle pin bearings at the 'fixed' ends of the suspended spans are not correctly aligned to the structure by modern design, the structural analysis indicates that this does not compromise the structural integrity of the bridge. The 'rocking posts' at the 'free ends' of the suspended spans appear to be capable of functioning but no means of lubrication was observed. Further consideration needs to be given to what action is required to ensure the continued acceptable operation of these bearings."
    I do not suggest that it is the business of the Secretary of State to go out with a lubricating can or to be personally responsible for the lubrication of a particular bridge, but it is fair to ask Ministers how that work is to be done and whether they are prepared to ensure that it is.
    Recommendation 103 states:
    "The bearings at the base of the skewbacks appear to be seized. Analysis has demonstrated that this lack of movement has no significance with regard to the structural integrity of the bridge."
    But, recommendation 104 continues:
    "The lubrication system of the bearings on the approach viaducts does not appear to be functioning and further consideration of this aspect is necessary."
    I am told by other engineers that, in terms of the long-term life of the bridge, the position and functioning of the bearings along the lines that the builders intended has been somewhat underestimated by the HSE inspectors and that that ought to be considered.
    742
    Recommendation 105 states:
    "Cracks identified in the rail troughs should be repaired in the near future. The integrity of the previous repairs should be investigated. Any repairs and the repositioning of the longitudinal timbers over the transoms should be undertaken as part of a planned maintenance strategy. Similarly the tears in the deck plates need to be repaired."
    Again it is the same question: who will finance the repairs? I hope that the Minister will say at 9.30 tonight that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and his colleagues need have no worries that Railtrack is undertaking the total financial responsibility of the HSE report.
    In the hours that the Minister has between now and making his closing remarks, I hope that he will take the opportunity to get on to Railtrack, which has been well appraised of the problem, and ask Bob Horton, or whomsoever, what they are prepared to undertake. I think that the House of Commons is entitled to know the future of what is not only a vital link to the north of Scotland but the greatest monument to British, European or world engineering of the 19th century.
    I thank hon. Members for their courtesy in hearing me.
    5.10 pm
    Sir David Madel: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Later in my speech I should like to say something about safety on the railways, although not so much in relation to the topics that he mentioned.
    Railway privatisation, as has been said by hon. Members, has been the most difficult and complicated privatisation ever undertaken, although it has been one of the smallest. Rail travel affects many people's lives daily, but, in view of the furious political controversy over privatisation, it is bound to be some time before the public can judge whether they think that it has been a success.
    The Government have quite understandably drawn attention to the fact that they will save money in the short and long terms, not only because of the sale but because of the declining subsidies that they will have to pay.
    As a start, I suggest that the public would strongly support the proposal that the money that is saved should be recycled back into other parts of the transport system. I am in no sense advocating more motorways or the endless widening of existing ones. We have known for some time that there is virtually no new road-building programme planned for London.
    The current situation, however, leaves one aspect of transport policy still requiring urgent attention. If the House will excuse me for a few seconds, I shall of course refer to the bypasses that are vitally required round so many of our towns.
    Transport Ministers, who have listened to me very patiently over the years, will understand why I shall take this opportunity to make a short, sharp further plea to get started on Dunstable's bypass. I know that it cannot be started overnight, but the sooner we at least start the pre-public inquiry conference and then the public inquiry into that bypass, the sooner morale in the town will be lifted—not least because of the current acute local economic difficulties that are much tied up with our transport system.
    I should also like to raise briefly another local matter, which is of direct relevance to Railtrack. I hope that Railtrack, once floated, will want to expand its asset base

    743
    by re-opening disused railway lines and generating business and profits from them. We have such a disused line in my constituency, between Dunstable and Luton, with track and rails already there and a powerful local campaign in place to get it re-opened.
    Re-opening the line will of course cost a bit of money, and I agree that it cannot be accomplished overnight. I hope, however, that Railtrack will do an early feasibility study on the value of opening that railway so that people in Bedfordshire can know whether it has any plans or desire to make use of that existing infrastructure. I cannot think of a more environmentally friendly way in which to try to solve some of our problems in Bedfordshire than to get this railway line re-opened and used.
    As I said at the beginning of my speech, I should like to say something about rail safety and the west coast main line modernisation. There has of course been much talk about how Railtrack will steadily improve its financial performance and build up its profits. There has also been much talk about cost cutting and the potential for cost cutting, which has inevitably led to fears about safety. Those fears must be allayed. In the chapter on work force safety, on page 10, the "Railway Group Safety Plan 1996–97", which was published by Railtrack, states:
    "Organisations new to the railway also work at the trackside and the management of the arrangements to manage such contracts will be key to sustaining the improvement in trackside safety that has been achieved."
    That sentence is self-explanatory, because it refers to new companies in the railway business that will get new contracts to improve and modernise the track. As the companies are obviously very new to the business—otherwise the document would not mention that they are—it is vital that the Health and Safety Executive becomes involved with them at a very early stage to ensure that safety rules are drawn up, which are new to those companies because they have never engaged on railway work before.
    A second, equally important paragraph on page 10 refers to work force safety. It states that
    "organisations should develop their objectives aimed at reducing that risk to as low as reasonably practicable"
    and refers to other groups of workers who are exposed to risk.
    Those organisations obviously must define what the other risks are, but they must also do something more. They must build up a joint management-work force committee that can identify and minimise the risks to safety to the lowest level that is practicably possible.
    We all want to benefit from a new system of awarding contracts for railway work and to see new companies getting railway business and, hopefully, taking on more people, but the philosophy must always be value for money plus safety—the two simply must not be separated.
    As a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in the south-east of the country, I should like to see the earliest possible start on the Bedfordshire-Euston section of the west coast main line, not only for the benefit of current users but for the benefit of future users who want to get to work in London or to stations down the line.
    I have one comment to make on the document produced by Railtrack on the west coast main line modernisation. There is a section on page 33 of the document entitled
    744
    "The Core Investment Programme". In relation to the new signalling arrangements, which is the subject of the section, the document states:
    "Staff from each of the control disciplines would be co-located to reduce costs and optimise flexibility in the event of an incident, allowing the possibility of multi-skilling in the future."
    That statement must raise some anxiety among the work force because the statement is—understandably because of new technology—hinting at the possibility of job losses in that part of the industry.
    As we know, Railtrack had an extremely unhappy beginning because of the dispute with the signalmen. A wider point to be made in relation to technology is that some, though not all, privatisations have created real public disquiet and because of insensitive remuneration packages for directors and senior staff. The management of Railtrack must take the work force with it and work with the grain if it is successfully to make changes in the industry for the good of everyone.
    I have always felt that one of the reasons why the possibility of privatising the Post Office was stalled was that the management simply could not get across to the work force the benefits of privatisation. Railtrack is about to float. It is incumbent on Railtrack management and of vital importance that it really does get across to the work force the benefits of privatisation.
    Complicated and difficult though this privatisation has been, it can succeed because investment is at last freed from unnecessary, fiddling Treasury control. At last, we can get an increased volume of investment, which can transform the industry.
    Years ago, Rab Butler used to stress to Conservatives the need to practise the patience of politics. We are going to need plenty of patience before the fruits of privatisation become apparent, but become apparent they will.
    5.19 pm
    Mr. David Chidgey: Reflecting on the opening contributions to today's debate, it would be easy to regard the debate as an adversarial contest between a dying Government clinging desperately to their dogma and an Opposition bursting with condemnation but somewhat short on conviction. However, the debate goes far deeper than that and that first impression was surely false.
    This debate goes to the very heart of whether Britain is to have an efficient modern transport system to boost our economy into the next century or whether we shall be left with the bare bones of a transport network, fought over by private interests motivated only by their personal and corporate profit.
    The future of Railtrack and rail privatisation is vital to our economy and the environment. Incidentally, so far very little has been said about the environment, but I hope that other hon. Members will say something about an element that is so important to our transport system. Strategic investment and the decisions that go with it cannot be made in isolation. We have to consider the whole transport system—rail and road—as one. The various elements cannot be separated from each other when making strategic investment decisions.
    If Railtrack is to become a linchpin in a revitalised transport system, we should be considering a series of key objectives and assessing how privatisation would or

    745
    would not meet them. We need to create an investment culture to modernise, develop and expand the railways within an integrated transport system. Passenger and freight—especially freight-patronage has to be greatly increased to take up the spare capacity on the railways, which is running at about 50 per cent.
    The railways need new customers, attracted by fast, efficient, frequent and, above all, cheap services. We need a modern and efficient rail system that delivers good value for money to the taxpayer. Above all, customers for the new modern railway must be able to use the system in the certain knowledge that it is maintained and operated to the highest safety standards. I believe that we have to set the proposals for the privatisation of Railtrack in the context of achieving those aims and examine the impact of privatisation so far. Perhaps we can forecast what is likely to happen with the privatisation of Railtrack.
    Franchise after franchise has been let with no requirement for a commitment to invest in desperately needed rolling stock. There are one or two exceptions, which the Minister cited, but the vast majority of franchises have been let with little or no requirement to invest in rolling stock. Rail privatisation seems to have been driven by a sort of manic belief that competition and market forces are the ultimate goal if one is trying to provide an efficient railway system, yet a combination of the Government's desperate need to raise cash as quickly as possible and the Treasury's insistence that franchises should be limited to the minimum period that the Government can get away with has stifled investment in our railway system and, in fact, lost the very benefits that could have been gained from a partnership between the private and public sectors.
    I shall cite one example. Last week, it was announced that the Network SouthCentral franchise has been let. As many hon. Members know, that part of the system has some of the oldest rolling stock in the country still trundling around. That rolling stock still has some of the notoriously dangerous slam doors, which have been the subject of so much condemnation by the Health and Safety Executive.
    The franchise winners are not committed to invest a penny in new rolling stock. That is hardly surprising, because their franchise runs for only seven years. How can they be expected to invest substantially in new rolling stock, which has a life of at least 30 years, when, after seven years, they could lose out and see their investment disappear?
    To date, the major impact of rail privatisation seems to have been to squeeze the life out of the rail industry. Not one new rail locomotive has been ordered in the United Kingdom for more than 900 days. The UK rail industry is on its knees and in danger of going into terminal decline.
    Franchises should be renegotiated and not just allowed to run out, as the Opposition believe. I know that many rail franchise winners are eager to renegotiate and may already be talking to the Secretary of State about the possibilities that would provide the opportunity to invest in new rolling stock and improve rail services. One of the first jobs of a new Government should be to reconsider the franchises to update, renegotiate and widen them and make them attractive to the investor and the user.
    Figures on investment in Railtrack are bandied about in all directions and plucked out of various pockets of air, but they rarely add up. The Rail Regulator's report to the
    746
    Select Committee on Transport stated that, in 1994–95, Railtrack spent £150 million less than the average £483 million required in its asset management plan to maintain the rail network. That is probably an accurate statement. In its 10-year plan, Railtrack proposed investing less than Britain Rail had planned. Railtrack proposed £1.03 billion a year compared with British Rail's £1.11 billion a year. That seems to make sense to me. Of course—
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts)rose—
    Mr. Chidgey: I thought that that might drag the Minister to his feet.
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman is citing past figures for investment by British Rail, but will he acknowledge that he is talking about investment in infrastructure and rolling stock? In previous years, there was heavy investment—£4 billion over 10 years—for 4,000 new pieces of rolling stock. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like, even if the total figures that he is citing are correct.
    Mr. Chidgey: I thank the Minister for that comment and I shall return to it later when comparing the subsidy paid by the taxpayer to British Rail in the past with the subsidy that the taxpayer is now expected to contribute under the privatised system. Perhaps the figures taken together will give us a greater insight into the overall cost of our railways.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Do the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave for British Rail's investment in infrastructure and rolling stock include the cost of works associated with the channel tunnel and the upgrading of the line to the tunnel?
    Mr. Chidgey: The figures that I am using are those for maintenance and do not include investment in the channel tunnel rail link.
    Setting aside the lack of investment, what hope is there that a privatised Railtrack will increase patronage? What steps will be taken under the new system to attract more passengers, and especially more freight, on to the railways which, as I said, are running at only 50 per cent. capacity? With the Rail Regulator's guidelines set firmly to maximise competition, there seem to be very few incentives to increase patronage. In fact, Railtrack seems perversely to be bent on driving away custom.
    Railtrack's charges are so high that train operators are now moving rail vehicles and even locomotive fuel by road because it is cheaper to do so. The marginal costs of adding one extra coach to a train are £170,000, as I think the shadow Secretary of State for Transport said. The operator could provide a fleet of buses to move passengers around the country for less than that.
    Railtrack's approach to attracting freight customers beggars belief: it is widely reported that Railtrack is erecting barriers to companies that would prefer to switch to rail. Developers hoping to build rail terminals and sidings accuse Railtrack of exploiting its monopoly and demanding excess sums for links with the rail network. Complaints are rife that Railtrack demands fat

    747
    consultancy fees up front to carry out freight link feasibility studies instead of sharing the initial risk and recouping its fees if the project is successful; that is the standard way of operating in business and in every other sector of industry of which I am aware.
    I emphasise my point by referring to an article that appeared in the Financial Times on 14 February this year. Railtrack was accused of demanding excess wayleave payments from developers who needed to build roads and bridges over railway land, even though it was not involved in those projects. A classic case is the £380 million freight terminal that PowerGen is building at Hams Hall near Birmingham. Before allowing PowerGen to build a road bridge over the track, Railtrack demanded a half share in the full profit from the £380 million development in which it was not involved and had not invested. That is the ransom that it demanded for granting wayleave over its land.
    Instead of nurturing a culture aimed at creating and increasing business, developers are faced with monopolistic exploitation that will only worsen under the current privatisation programme. What hope can we have that a privatised Railtrack will provide a modern, efficient rail system that delivers good value for money to the taxpayer? I think that there is little hope of that.
    I return to expenditure on the railways. I examined the Government's transport report while preparing my speech, and compared the figures in that report with those provided by people with knowledge of British Rail's performance. I found that, according to British Rail's figures, the taxpayer provided some £930 million in 1993–94 to support passenger services and £105 million to support passenger transport executives—a total of about £1 billion.
    In 1994–95, under the Government's new regime, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising—Opraf—support grants had risen to £1.74 billion, together with PTE support of another £340 million. Public support for the railways rose to £2 billion. Government expenditure plans show that, by 1995–96, Opraf will provide a support grant of £1.7 billion to which must be added the PTE support—that figure has not been produced, but one could reasonably expect it to be about £300 million. Therefore, public support for the railways would again be around £2 billion. It is likely to be the same in 1996–97. As a result of privatisation policy, the taxpayer's support for railways has doubled to £2 billion since 1994–95 and will continue to increase at a rate of £1.5 billion a year into the next century.
    While the new rail companies remained in public hands, there was no great impact on public expenditure because the profits earned by the train operating companies, the ROSCOs—the rolling stock companies—and Railtrack were recycled to the Treasury. However, as the railway is fragmented and sold, the profits—paid for with taxpayer subsidies—will go not into vital investment in the railways but into the pockets of directors and shareholders, with a minimal commitment to expanding services and increasing passenger numbers and freight.
    So we come to the flotation of Railtrack: the ultimate giveaway of public property, garnished with profits rightfully due to the taxpayer. We are told that Railtrack shares are likely to fetch some £1.5 billion on the stock
    748
    market. Yet the net book value—never mind the replacement cost—is calculated in the prospectus at some £4.3 billion.
    It is enlightening to see how financial advisers are marketing the share sales. I am pleased that the Minister is still in the Chamber, as he may not have had the opportunity to receive this sort of feedback. I refer him to one so-called "share shop" and its pamphlet which one can buy for an annual subscription of £40—I hasten to add that I did not buy it; it was given to me as an example. It is interesting to see how it is marketing the Railtrack shares. The pamphlet states:
    "Railtrack is essentially a property company and the land that Railtrack will own could be regarded as one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the United Kingdom".
    It goes on to describe how the track passes through
    "valuable commercial and industrial sites all over the UK".
    It refers to those as being ripe for exploitation—they are not my words, but those of the salesmen—with retail developments at main line stations competing with major department stores up and down the country. The pamphlet then describes how stations can have
    "a captive audience of passengers who are all potential customers".
    It refers to the passengers who either arrive too early and have time to spare or, better still, who
    "arrive at the last minute, missing their train, and have possibly an hour or so to wait until their next train.
    This waiting time is valuable selling time for retailers and food providers".
    So now we know: the aim is not to run a fast, frequent and efficient railway; it is to capture passengers at railway stations that have been redeveloped into shopping centres. That is the hidden agenda. It is no wonder the article is entitled "Railtrack—could this be the end of the privatisation gravy train?".
    It may be good business for Railtrack to act as a property developer, but it is emphatically poor value for taxpayers, who have the right to expect that the billions of pounds that they pay in subsidy will be invested in a modern, busy railway. Taxpayers have the right to use a railway system that is maintained and operated to the highest safety standards. Under Railtrack, there has been a catalogue of failures to maintain safety standards which experts forecast will only worsen if it is privatised.
    Mr. Tredinnick rose—
    Mr. Chidgey: I am about to conclude. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later in the debate.
    The Health and Safety Executive report on Railtrack's formal management systems concluded that the weaknesses in those systems could eat away at safety margins and increase the risk of harm.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Chidgey: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not give way; I shall finish my speech. I am sure that, in time, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to contribute.
    Mr. Tredinnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. In a debate in which all hon. Members have given way generously, is it not a breach of normal behaviour in the House for the hon.

    749
    Gentleman to refuse to give way, despite the facts that there are no restrictions on the debate and he has ample time in which to do so?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The rule is very clear and I expected the hon. Member for Bosworth to know it: it is entirely at the discretion of the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether to give way.
    Mr. Chidgey: It is clear that overall responsibility for safety has become confused and that a culture of blame is developing. When something goes wrong, it is a case of, "It's not my fault, it is someone else's." A classic example was the recent Stafford rail crash. Railtrack's immediate response was to claim that the accident had nothing to do with it. In its haste, it wrongly advised one family that a relative had been killed.
    I recently questioned the Minister about a derailment at Euston station last December which paralysed a major part of the network. It has emerged that Railtrack ignored three earlier warnings from its contractors about the condition of the track. Under the old British Rail regime—that old monument, as we were told earlier—the manager responsible for such dereliction would have been sacked on the spot. Railtrack did nothing, and the Minister has yet to tell me why. Is it any wonder that more than 80 per cent. of Railtrack's middle managers are opposed to the sale of Railtrack, stating as one of their major reasons the fact that safety standards are declining as commercial pressures start to drive the business?
    In terms of investment, attracting new customers with fast, efficient and frequent services, providing modern, efficient rail systems delivering good value for money and providing a well-maintained and, above all, safe railway, Railtrack is failing, and it will fail faster under privatisation.
    If we are to combat the growing congestion on our roads and the increasing pollution of our environment, we have to transport more people and freight by rail. The railways have a great unused capacity. Investment must be a priority to allow faster, more frequent and more convenient rail travel. The choice between investing in major new roads and investing in railways is vital to our economy and our environment. It is not acceptable to allow a private company to take such decisions solely in the interests of its shareholders.
    The Liberal Democrats are prepared to pledge that, in the next Government, we would issue fresh guidelines to the Rail Regulator. He would no longer be required to promote competition; instead, he would be obliged to set ambitious targets for maximising patronage, to cap the dividends of Railtrack and to prevent it from exploiting its property assets at the expense of the taxpayer. Development profits would be used to invest in the railway rather than to benefit the shareholders and Railtrack would be forced to use its asset base as a financial instrument to raise capital to reinvest in the railway. Perhaps most significantly in terms of the operation of the railway, the Rail Regulator would have guidelines that forced Railtrack to charge freight operators only the marginal wear-and-tear costs of access to make sure that we brought freight back to the railways.
    Our vision offers simplicity—fewer lawyers, fewer accountants, more passengers and less pollution—a busy, expanding railway giving value for money to the taxpayer.
    5.40 pm
    Mr. Gary Waller: The public are fed up with the old arguments about privatisation. They deserve a more intelligent debate in which it is not always claimed that every conceivable human activity must be run in the private sector. At the same time, however, the Labour party must learn that it need not inevitably resist it to the death, as it invariably has done and is doing today.
    I start from the position that commercial activities are better run by free enterprise than by Ministers and civil servants. That is unarguable, but even after 17 years and many benefits arising from previous privatisations, the Government cannot assume that the public will always see an overwhelming case for the private sector to run such activities. In each instance, the case must be made on its merits and I believe that in this case the merits are very great indeed.
    What makes privatisation successful? What makes it work more effectively? In a word, it is competition. That is why the Government have sought to introduce genuine competition where it does not exist or exists only to a limited extent. Where competition is absent or very limited, it is necessary to substitute a strict regulatory regime. However, regulation has its limits. The more successful a company becomes at running its business, the more a regulator may find it necessary to intervene. Thus, the share price of a private enterprise may be affected more by investors' perception of a regulator's determination to exercise his powers than by almost any other factor.
    Rail is a natural candidate for privatisation because it offers considerable opportunities for competition. The method of rail privatisation adopted by the Government certainly involves greater risks—especially political risks—than a straightforward single privatisation of the industry, but it also offers much greater opportunities for the future.
    The franchise method means that many potential operators are competing for the right to run services over a period of years. If they are successful, they will operate a commercial enterprise with considerable potential to compete effectively with other domestic modes of travel, particularly road and air. As competition will exist when the franchises are awarded and then throughout the term of each franchise, I believe that it will not be necessary for the Rail Regulator to exercise his responsibilities with a heavy hand. That is why the operation of rail services falls naturally into the private sector. We still have to prove that case. Far from having difficulty in doing so, I welcome any opportunity to argue from that position.
    Whatever criticisms may have been made of British Rail in the past, the fault lay mainly with the system under which it operated. Rigorous control of the railways by the Treasury has produced disastrous results for British Rail over many years. The franchising director, Roger Salmon, has explained that whereas capital expenditure often demands 30 and 40-year time horizons, the British Railways Board could often look forward only a few months. Capital expenditure had to be controlled until quite late in the year in case revenue fell short of what had been anticipated. If capital expenditure is managed in such a way, it becomes impossible to plan effectively and sensibly. I maintain that, ultimately, the success of privatisation can be properly assessed only by rail customers, and in those terms some of the benefits that

    751
    ensue from the ability to plan on a longer-term basis are already apparent. I refer in particular to the guarantees that have been given about rail fares over the next seven years and about service levels, both of which are entirely new concepts. In relation to those factors, to access charges and to extending competition, the franchising director and the Rail Regulator can use their powers to benefit passengers in a way that Ministers never could or would.
    The variety of train operating companies inevitably means that there will be variations in management style and practice. To some extent that will reflect the differences between the businesses that they run, but I believe that there will be opportunities to emulate best practice in a way that could not be secured in a monolithic structure.
    Train operating companies will be able to plan ahead in a way that rail managers never could because of the confidence that there will be a steady flow of investment by Railtrack in renewal, maintenance and new capital investment. Those in British Rail who ran the trains could never be confident that their colleagues who provided the tracks on which the trains ran would be able to deliver. It was not that they did not want to do so, but it was possible that they might not.
    The need to plan spending on an annual basis in the public sector meant that projects were subject to frequent interruptions. British Rail could not take advantage of supplier discounts and contractors had little incentive to invest in the most modern equipment. I understand that one project cost double the initial estimate because of frequent interruptions to work when annual funds were exhausted.
    The only appropriate way to measure the success of rail privatisation is via customer satisfaction, but in time I am sure that there will be a repetition of the benefits to the taxpayer and the customer which have characterised previous privatisations.
    In 1979, the borrowings and losses of state-owned industries were costed at some £3 billion a year. A decade later, newly privatised enterprises were making a contribution in terms of tax paid to the Treasury of some £2 billion. To anyone who claimed that we were selling off the family silver, I would respond that it was a strange analogy to use if having it on our shelves cost us good money whereas its use by others produced a handsome return.
    Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend will recall that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and who is not in his place at the moment, argued against the utilisation of land at stations and against the improvement of facilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to use those assets effectively and that it is in the public interest to do so, although it is obviously against Liberal policy?
    Mr. Waller: I entirely agree. There has been a desire in the city of Bradford for many years to provide a shopping centre at Forster square station. I believe that that would be easier to do in future.
    Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fairness to the hon. Member for Eastleigh
    752
    (Mr. Chidgey), I want to point out that he left the Chamber only to give his speaking notes to Hansard. That was an extremely cheap point by a rather expensive hon. Member.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I said that the hon. Member for Eastleigh was not in his place, which was correct. I did not say that he had left the Chamber. He was sitting at the other end of the Bench.
    Mr. Waller: I believe that it will be easier in future to provide a shopping mall of the sort to which I referred, which has taken so long to develop in Bradford. Far from regretting that land will be developed, I think that is to be welcomed. The assets in question have been underdeveloped in the past. British Rail often wanted to develop them but was unable to do so because of limitations on its activities. The hotels that British Rail used to own remained underdeveloped compared with hotels in the private sector until the time that they were sold, which preceded this privatisation exercise. The sale of those hotels has been good for their customers and for taxpayers, who previously had to bear the hotels' losses incurred but who subsequently saw some benefit.
    State ownership limits an industry's ability to look elsewhere for loans and investment. When a state-owned enterprise borrows money, the Government underwrite the loans, which make them indistinguishable from all other forms of public sector borrowing. Demands of enterprises such as the railways have often been fairly low on the list of priorities. Any Government first have a responsibility to the economy as a whole. As there are times when the needs of individual state enterprises must inevitably take a back seat to macroeconomic requirements, politicians often have to curtail the ability of state enterprises to borrow. Railways, like other industries, have never been able to achieve their potential under state control.
    A recent editorial in the Financial Times stated:
    "If the railways were working well, there would be an argument for leaving them alone. As it is, even with some of the highest fares in Europe, they are under-invested; passengers are still too often made to feel as though they are an encumbrance to the running of the railway, rather than the reason for it… Privatisation has already raised investment levels and transformed management in other industries… If the Government gets it right, its plan presents the best prospect of providing Britain with the attractive and well-run railway it needs."
    I note that The Guardian has also acknowledged the potential in privatisation and that one should not discount that potential, which Labour Members are again doing tonight.
    Other countries are not immune to the imperatives that drive privatisation forward in this country. Britain's record of investment in a nationalised rail sector is often unfairly compared with that of Germany and France. If the comparison is related to investment per mile of route, Britain by no means does badly.
    The true cost of state ownership is now more fully appreciated in other countries, especially as losses increase. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport referred to the losses already accrued in France. Suggestions that the French Government intended to make a significant cut in the scale of their subsidy to the railways as a possible prelude to privatisation were sufficient last autumn to drive mollycoddled rail workers to strike action. France is watching closely what happens

    753
    in Britain, because France appreciates that it cannot ignore the advantages that we are now grasping. The German Government have adopted a 10-year programme to transfer a major part of the rail network to the private sector, and many other countries are following the logic of that process. We are in the forefront of the process, but we are far from alone—other countries are waiting to learn from our success. Everywhere, competition is seen as the way forward.
    Railtrack has announced that in the 10 years after privatisation it will spend more than £1 billion a year on maintenance and renewal of the rail network. When the sale of Railtrack is complete, it will have access to new sources of finance, enabling it to proceed with major projects. In the last 10 years, rail fares have risen more than 22 per cent. above inflation. I do not think that the customer has had a good deal for the money that he or she has spent. In the new privatised railways, key commuter and leisure fares will be pegged to the rate of inflation for the next three years, and they will be frozen below inflation for four years thereafter. Through tickets and railcards will still be available. Many of the scare stories that have been bandied about are simply not true.
    In the past three weeks, the InterCity East Coast franchise has been awarded to Great Northern Railways, a subsidiary of Sea Containers. Judging by the plans announced by GNR, that looks like a good deal for users of the east coast main line, including myself. The outcome must be judged by deeds, not words. It is certainly good news for the taxpayer that GNR plans to change InterCity East Coast to a business that no longer relies on public money. Passengers—certainly from the north of England—will primarily be concerned with assessing the service that they receive.
    I welcome the commitment to an improved passengers charter and upgraded facilities—especially at stations, with particular emphasis on passenger security measures and improved access for disabled passengers. It should prove possible to improve existing scheduled travelling times on Sunday, bearing in mind that InterCity East Coast has regularly allowed at least an extra 20 minutes on scheduled arrival times to allow for possible delays, usually enabling the claim to be made that the train has arrived up to 20 minutes ahead of time.
    I hope that Great Northern Railways, in considering new business opportunities, will talk to Railtrack about the possibility of operating at least one London-bound train a day from Skipton, because many people believe that there is considerable potential for additional patronage from stations in the Aire valley. It is a great advantage that the line is already electrified, but I understand that additional work must be done to accommodate InterCity rolling stock—such as lengthening platforms and upgrading overhead power lines. I am afraid that they are the wrong kind of wires.
    Many of the trains operated on the Airedale line and all those running on the Wharfedale line in my constituency are supported by West Yorkshire passenger transport executive under section 20 agreements. I welcome the Government's intention, stated in their response to the Transport Select Committee's report on railway finances, to use the standard spending assessment mechanism to provide support for PTE-secured rail services, which will enable them to deliver sufficient funding to maintain existing services in future years. Bearing in mind that, 15 years ago, the Wharfedale line in particular was
    754
    threatened with extinction, it is welcome that local rail travellers can now look forward to a much more encouraging future.
    The future for regular users of the Airedale and Wharfedale ultimately depends on the acquisition of new trains. We need to make up for a grievously shortsighted approach by the Treasury which, following electrification of the track infrastructure, was unwilling to give guarantees to the banks that were putting up the finance for new trains to be leased, and which were deterred by a number of uncertainties at the time—including the future of passenger transport authorities. The acquisition of second-hand trains that previously operated on the London-Tilbury-Southend line was the best deal that could be done in the circumstances, but slam-door stock—which first came into use in the 1950s—is a hopelessly unsatisfactory alternative to the acquisition of new trains. It is inadequate in safety terms and it comes nowhere near the standards that we should rightly expect on behalf of disabled people. For instance, it is impossible to get wheelchairs into those trains. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), then the responsible Minister, did his best to tie up a deal, but unfortunately he was not successful.
    Despite money being spent on refurbishing the old LTS trains, serious technical failures occurred last November—fortunately without injury to passengers. The need to take all the electric rolling stock out of use and for it to go back to ABB at Crewe has resulted in an inadequate service for rail users in recent weeks. That has been a severe setback because patronage had increased following electrification of the line.
    The problems have given a new impetus to talks that had already begun to discover whether an order could be submitted to bring new trains to those lines by around 1998. Some of the uncertainties that prevented the deal from being concluded some time ago, including the question whether the PTEs had a future, have now been resolved. Other matters, such as the length of a franchise for the operation of trains on the lines, have yet to be determined. I believe that a 15-year franchise term would provide a better prospect of securing a satisfactory leasing arrangement. As in the past, the best possible deal could be done by tying the acquisition of new trains to others being ordered elsewhere so that the benefits arising from economies of scale can be grasped.
    I hope that it may be possible for an order to be submitted this year, enabling the new trains to be delivered in 1998. Unfortunately, recent setbacks may have led to a loss of confidence by some passengers and everything possible needs to be done to reassure them. For commuters, students and shoppers travelling to Leeds and Bradford, the train should be a convenient, comfortable and environmentally friendly alternative to the car. We must do everything we can to make that so. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who referred to the importance of the environment. If we can encourage the use of trains, it can do nothing but good for the environment. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads is aware of my local situation and I hope that we can rely on his support in achieving our objectives.
    Privatisation is designed to halt and reverse the decline in railway use. As has been pointed out already in the debate, £54 billion has been invested since 1948 but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his

    755
    speech, the share of journeys by rail has fallen from 17 per cent. in 1953 to just 5 per cent. now. That has been bad for everybody. Privatisation offers a great opportunity for change. We already have some encouraging signs that many individuals and enterprises in the private sector want an opportunity to show that they can do better. We owe it to rail passengers, to the environment, to the companies and to the future of this country, which depends greatly on a good transport infrastructure, to give privatisation every encouragement.
    6.2 pm
    Ms Glenda Jackson: The Secretary of State attempted to convince the House—with a marked lack of success—that the Government's plans for the privatisation of our railways and the creation of Railtrack were already an unqualified success. That has not been the experience of my constituents, certainly from the beginning of this year. [Interruption.]
    I seem to be causing some concern to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). If he would like me to give way, I would be happy so to do. He is checking in the list of Members' interests, and I have little doubt that he is about to accuse me of not declaring an interest as a Member sponsored by the rail drivers union, the Association of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen or ASLEF.
    The situation has changed since the House has reconvened. I, in common with all my right hon. and hon. Friends, am no longer sponsored by trade unions. Such sponsorship as the trade union movement continues to devote and dedicate to the Labour party is via the constituency parties and not to individual Members of Parliament. I hope that I have set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. [Interruption.] I clearly have not, so I will give way.
    Dr. Spink: I was not going to make any accusation about the hon. Lady. I am delighted that she has explained the situation, and I am delighted that she no longer speaks for that vested interest. Perhaps she will join Conservative Members in speaking for the public interest and the passengers.
    Ms Jackson: Would that Conservative Members spoke sufficiently frequently for the vested interests of their constituents and the public. If Conservative Members spoke for those interests, I have little doubt that they would join us in the Lobby tonight and vote against the flotation of Railtrack.
    The point that I was attempting to make leads directly from the contribution by the hon. Member for Castle Point. The privatisation of our railways and, indeed, the formation of Railtrack have not been in the interests of my constituents, especially those living in two roads in the Cricklewood area. Since the beginning of this year, necessary work—I have no doubt that the work is necessary—on the tracks that run alongside those roads has been causing problems.
    I have received a letter from one of my constituents, on behalf of the Fordwych Residents' Association, which states:
    756
    "I write … to advise you of the very considerable discomfort, inconvenience and apprehension of danger to their homes and properties experienced by many of the residents in this area as a consequence of the very much increased vibration from the railway track which runs parallel"
    to those roads. He continues:
    "people … have lived for many years adjacent to the railway line and have become inured and habituated to the normal level of traffic"—
    but he says that they regarded the current level of vibration to be abnormal. That letter was dated 14 March.
    A response to that letter, dated 1 April, came from the infrastructure services manager of Railtrack Midlands to my constituent. The reply states:
    "Your fear that vibration from the railway may lead to long term structural damage to your house must be denied."
    There is no reason why my constituent must deny the experience that he, his family and neighbours are living through at the moment, but the most important paragraph of the letter is the last one. The letter is signed by Mr. K. B. Humphrey and states:
    "The above may not be what you want to hear but I am afraid Railtrack do operate their railway with the benefit of statutory authority and in the absence of proof of negligence they are not liable to adjoining landowners for noise, vibration or otherwise."
    Many Conservative Members, in our debates on the channel tunnel rail link, have voiced the concerns of their constituents about the possible vibration and noise that may be contingent upon the construction of that high-speed line. The letter is a fairly clear proof that Railtrack is not putting the customer first. We are told that that is the basic overriding priority of any privatised company—the Secretary of State said it today. The phrase he used was that the customer is king. Clearly Railtrack does not regard its customers as king.
    For me, there is another cause for concern in the exchange of correspondence on that issue, and I am sure that all hon. Members would share that concern. There has been much correspondence between myself and my constituents, and between Railtrack and myself on behalf of my constituents, since the beginning of this year. On 12 April, I received a letter from Railtrack East Anglia, from Miss Sandra Jones, the public affairs manager. Her letter states:
    "The line in question is in Railtrack's Midland zone. I have forwarded your letter for them to deal with. To speed up these matters in the future"—
    clearly Railtrack believes that such difficulties will not abate—
    "would you be pleased to mark on a map which railway lines in your constituency are ours and which belong to other Railtrack zones?"
    I find it bewildering that Railtrack does not know what it is supposed to be in charge of—it seems not to know which are its lines, where they are and what responsibilities it has.
    We have heard about the overall benefits that must inevitably arise for the travelling public from the Government's privatisation plans. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) talked about closed circuit television, which has been a proven success in reducing crime, whenever the Government have managed to find the funding to assist local authorities, for example, to install it. The automatic presumption, indeed assumption, that privatisation will bring about many necessary

    757
    benefits—over the past 17 years, successive Conservative Governments have markedly failed to consider them—is not realistic.
    I visited Edmonton Green earlier this week. There, the local Labour-controlled authority, Enfield council, had been in consultation with the West Anglia and Great Northern railway to install closed circuit televisions in the four stations in the area. I should say that in one of the stations, Bushill Park, CCTV has already been installed. There were three other stations, however, where the Labour-controlled local authority and the railway company were wishing to install CCTV. These were Edmonton Green, Silver Street and Angel Road.
    Only on Tuesday of this week, I believe, the West Anglia and Great Northern railway had to put the scheme on hold, due to uncertainty about its future after privatisation.
    Dr. Ian Twinn: It was kind of the hon. Lady to announce that she had been to my constituency, although she did not have the grace to say beforehand that she was going to do so. I am glad that she has acknowledged that it was Tory action that led to the installation of television at Bushill Park station.
    Do not the hon. Lady's remarks confirm that we need to ensure that British Rail is in the private sector, so that there is freedom to invest and so that uncertainty can be removed? The hon. Lady is suggesting that there will be further Treasury cuts and stop-starts in providing funding for BR under her scheme, which means that my constituents would be even more disadvantaged if she were ever to be in power.
    Ms Jackson: I cannot think of a greater disadvantage for any constituent in any part of the country than to be represented by a Conservative Member. If they have failed consistently for 17 years to bring basic improvements into the railway system, such as safety—[Interruption.] Conservative Members have voted consistently for reductions in services generally.
    In the railway industry, over the past 33 months during which the Government have been introducing privatisation, there have been job losses for 24,872 people, at a cost to the taxpayer—to Conservative Members' taxpayers—of about £500,000 a day in redundancy payments. Yet Conservative Members have the audacity and the temerity to attempt to convince the House and the country generally that the Government's policy of privatising the railways has brought benefits to the taxpayer.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench on transport matters, had occasion to say this afternoon, the actual costs to the taxpayer of the Government's attempt to privatise the railways, and the flotation of Railtrack, is approaching £2.6 billion. Not one penny piece of that sum has gone into improving track and signalling. None of that sum has been used to install CCTV in the three remaining stations in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn). Services have not been improved.
    Constant and consistent unmanning seems to be the first step that every franchise operator takes. When a franchise has been awarded, unmanning will do nothing to attract people on to the railways. As the hon. Member
    758
    for Keighley said, it is virtually impossible for people with disabilities to use our railways, as they would undoubtedly wish to do, if stations are unmanned. It is equally highly unlikely that women will consider travelling late at night on our railways if stations are unmanned and the only other person on the train is probably the driver. The dangers are too well reported for that to be a possibility.
    Will the Government's policy attract people from their cars on to the railways? My hon. Friend the Member for Lady wood stressed how grossly unbalanced is the present structure for those freight operators who would like to move freight from the roads on to the railways. There is nothing in the Government's privatisation plans or in the flotation of Railtrack that will balance the current basic inequity. Yet we must acknowledge that the way forward, both economically and environmentally, is to attract greater passenger use of our railway system, and certainly greater freight movements by rail.
    Privatisation and the flotation of Railtrack, far from expanding the use of railways and improving the presently integrated system, will lead to the break—up of the system. It is nonsense for the Government to argue that the £2.6 billion that the taxpayer has already spent on a benighted policy will improve investment in our railways.
    Railtrack has announced, I understand, after the publication of its prospectus, that it perceives spending £10 billion over the next 10 years as investment in our railway infrastructure. I believe that it was three years ago that Mr. Horton trumpeted with some pride that Railtrack intended to spend £800 million over the next 10 years on the west coast main line alone. That £8 billion would, over the 10 years to which he referred, have brought the west coast main line to the level at which it stood in 1973. That amount of investment would have produced a west coast main line that was 30 years out of date.
    Apparently the magic door that will open to the treasuries of the world after Railtrack is privatised will produce for the entire network—not one line—only £10 billion over the next 10 years. There are already massive lengths of track along which trains must run slowly. There are speed restrictions because the lines have not been maintained to enable trains to run at the speeds of which they are capable.
    We have heard much about the possibility of new rolling stock. If memory serves me correctly, Network SouthCentral, the most recent franchised line, stated categorically that it had no plans to provide new rolling stock on its lines. Network SouthCentral has 60 per cent. of the old slam-door trains. At the end of three years, the majority of its rolling stock will be 50 years out of date.
    Network SouthCentral acknowledges that, over the next three years, it intends to invest £10 million in the line. That is £3.3 million a year. That is entirely inadequate, as anyone who knows anything about railways would agree.
    There is no possibility, as we have seen ever since the Government introduced privatisation, 0that their proposals will create a railway fit for the 21st century and fit for the people. The only privatisation that our railway needs after 17 years of less than benign neglect by successive Conservative Governments is, as the Labour party has consistently argued, a public-private partnership. That is not, as the Government clearly wish, to wash our hands of the whole affair and push the railway system into the private sector.

    759
    I believe that it was the Secretary of State who said this afternoon, in attempting to rubbish—with no success whatever—my hon. Friend's commitment that the Rail Regulator would have infinitely more powers, that he had read in The Independent that the Labour party had argued for dispensing with the regulator in the gas industry. I do not remember the newspaper in which it appeared, but there was a report that the Government intended to abolish the Department of Transport, so one either believes what the newspapers say or one does not, and the Secretary of State was somewhat selective.
    By their marked failure to create a properly integrated public transport system for this country, with the railways as the central pillar of a properly integrated public transport system, the Government have done nothing but unmitigated damage. Morale of those dedicated people who have worked all their lives in the railway industry, and who would wish to see out the rest of their working lives in the railway industry, has never been lower.
    If Conservative Members really are concerned with the vested interests of their constituents, they should know that the electorate and the nation as a whole have consistently argued against rail privatisation. Every opinion poll has shown that more than 69 per cent. of people in this country are totally opposed to it, and I have little doubt that they are totally opposed to the flotation of Railtrack, particularly when it is their money that is being given as sweeteners to people who will take it out of the railway system and put it into private pockets.
    I strongly urge Conservative Members to consider voting with Labour Members tonight. Perhaps they will do so out of self-interest, because one of the most recent opinion polls on the privatisation of the railways highlighted the fact that one in five people who voted for a Conservative Member of Parliament at the previous election stated categorically that they would seriously reconsider that decision on the single issue of rail privatisation.
    As the South-East Staffordshire by-election showed only last Thursday, there is virtually no issue that the people of this country believe a Conservative Government could do anything to improve, and in the main they regard the problems of this country, quite rightly, as the exclusive prerogative of an incompetent and, as they say, arrogant and uncaring Government.
    Here is an opportunity for Conservative Members to refute that argument, although that it is virtually impossible now, by arguing for once for the interests of the nation and their constituents by voting against the privatisation of Railtrack.
    6.23 pm
    Mr. Den Dover: The key issue before us is whether it is better to take the rail system forward in privatised hands or whether it should remain nationalised. After 50 years of nationalisation, we have seen a lack of investment, a reduction in safety standards and no way forward.
    I challenged the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, to say how she should increase passenger movements and the carriage of freight. She was unable to
    760
    say, other than by investment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State challenged her on where that investment would come from. The answer was that it would have to come from taxpayers, and that it would cost an enormous amount, increasing taxation, borrowing, interest rates, inflation—the old socialist dogma, which, as we have seen, has failed over so many decades.
    We have this evening a chance to break out and ensure that the management of Railtrack continues to provide a much better system, investing where people want them to invest and improving the infrastructure. I was surprised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey)—a civil engineer like me—who seemed to be opposed to the investment in stations and land. Surely that is where Railtrack's assets will increase enormously, to the benefit of shareholders who will buy into Railtrack in the coming months.
    We want better facilities at our stations. We want the travelling public to be better catered for. We want facilities that are more in line with our European competitors, because having served on the Select Committee that considered the channel tunnel rail link, I know only too well that the high-speed rail system on the French side is much better than any system that exists over here, unless Railtrack is privatised and improves facilities throughout the country.
    The Opposition motion calls for
    "higher levels of rail investment, improved services and the best possible return on taxpayers' money."
    We shall get that through privatisation. Railtrack's plans have already been announced. It will spend billions of pounds over the next 10 years, and will have to show that to its shareholders in terms of improvements to the whole rail infrastructure. The improved services will come from the rail operating companies. I am delighted that franchises have already been awarded for quite a large percentage of the rail system, and that percentage will improve and become more than 50 per cent. in the not too distant future.
    The best possible return on taxpayers' money will be achieved by privatisation, and the taxpayer will benefit by almost £2 billion. Instead of writing off enormous sums by way of large subsidies, subsidies will be dramatically reduced in the coming years. Added to that, corporation tax will be paid, as it has been in every other privatisation in the past 17 years. Huge corporation tax income will flow to the Government. Indeed, the Government's amendment talks about
    "the prospects of better services and higher investment at less cost to tax-payers."
    We need private finance for that investment.
    I shall briefly instance some of the disadvantages that we have seen in my constituency from the rail system being in nationalised hands. Parbold station—a village station—on the way from Southport, which is on the coast, to Manchester, has never had access for the disabled. We were promised disabled access before the 1992 general election, and that we would have it within two months. It took three years of my chasing—often weekly and monthly—to ensure that we had disabled access.
    I am certain that, under the privatised regime, disabled access will be a right at all our stations. Chorley station, which I opened some 10 years ago, has never had a telephone or a toilet. Surely, in privatised hands, we would see better facilities.

    761
    I liken the plans for privatisation between Railtrack and the operating companies to our proposals for health, which have been carried through to fruition, where we have the purchaser-provider breakup. In this case, the purchaser, the operating companies, require from the provider, Railtrack, the right facilities: terminals, stations, rail track, signalling systems, and high levels of safety. They will be able to demand and obtain those from their franchises.
    After privatisation, Railtrack will be completely free to make long-term investments, as was so ably pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). At the moment, having to compete with education, health and the myriad Government priorities is impossible on such a short-term basis. We want long-term investment, in the interests of shareholders and taxpayers. We will see that in the private enterprise.
    I am delighted to support the Government's amendment. I look forward to this country having a first-class rail system with more investment. I have total confidence in Bob Horton and his team. The idiotic criticism by the shadow Secretary of State for Transport was totally uncalled for. Bob Horton has proved over the years in the private sector that he knows how to run a show in the interests of shareholders.
    I look forward to ensuring that there are fewer subsidies over the years, and a return to the investors in the shares. I look forward to buying some of those shares myself, and I would strongly recommend that to any hon. Member or any member of the public listening to the debate this evening. That is the way forward.
    According to the opinion polls, most people think that the rail system will become less safe and reliable, and that there will be fewer services. We hear the same criticisms of every privatisation, but every privatisation has been a success, and I look forward to the resounding success of rail privatisation in the capable hands of Bob Horton and Railtrack.
    6.29 pm
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate. It follows the publication of the pathfinder prospectus earlier this week, which was a further step in the privatisation of Railtrack.
    The Secretary of State did not say much about the Government amendment, and, having read it several times, I am not surprised. Let me draw attention to one little word in it—"prospects". The amendment refers to
    "offering the prospects of better services and higher investment at less cost to tax-payers".
    I believe that the word "prospects" suggests a lack of certainty, even on the Government's part, that privatisation will deliver what is claimed for it. I have "prospects" of winning the national lottery—I buy a ticket every week—but as yet I have failed to win more than £10. Nevertheless, I think that my chance of winning the lottery is higher than the Government's chance of winning the next general election.
    I do not believe that the Government are very confident about their proposal. They know that the opinion polls show that the public are opposed to rail privatisation. I shall not refer again to figures that have been cited several times today, but the fact remains that the public continually demonstrate their opposition to the
    762
    privatisation of the railways. Even more important, having been on the doorstep in South-East Staffordshire trying to get their people to vote for them in the recent by-election, the Conservatives must know that even the potential Conservative voters who remain are opposed to privatisation. They must also know that the majority of those who may have some sympathy with the proposal consider the method—the fragmentation—nonsensical. The general view is that we need an integrated, co-ordinated public transport system, and an integrated, co-ordinated rail system within that.
    The one thing on which there has been broad agreement in the House is the need for investment in the railways. Everyone agrees that there has been a lack of investment—in varying proportions—over the past 50 years. Opposition Members believe that such investment should be made by a partnership: that public and private sectors should work together. We should not have the privatised nonsense that the Government propose; the public sector must play a major role.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) pointed out, it is not just a question of investment. If we want people to use the railway system, we must employ more people. A few months ago, I travelled by rail to Tooting, which is not so far from the House of Commons. Although the station is manned during the day, it is unstaffed in the evening. On both platforms, people who clearly had no intention of travelling were throwing bottles and stones from one platform to another. It was late in the evening, and I was returning to the House to vote. I waited anxiously for my train, feeling somewhat wary and cautious. If I had been an old-age pensioner or a woman, I would have been terrified and would not have gone near the station. That is one reason why people are not using the railways: they are often afraid to.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned access to trains and stations for the disabled. It needs to be improved. I accept that that cannot be done overnight—the cost would be astronomical—but passengers should be able to know where they can get on and off trains, and to expect assistance from staff whenever they choose to travel, not just until 6 pm or 7 pm. I do not think that the privatisation of Railtrack will provide the necessary investment.
    In response to two interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said—quite fairly—that British Rail was not perfect. She also said, however, that it was better than what the Tory Government now proposed. Conservative Members should remember that their party has been in government for 30 of the 50 years in which British Rail has been in the public sector, and that in a couple of weeks they will have been continuously in government for 17 years. They have a good deal of responsibility for the faults in the system. Yes, British Rail is not perfect. The Government may have to accept that they have failed in their duty as the nation's shareholder, controlling it without improving the position.
    I accept that there are faults in British Rail. I am currently pursuing two issues with Railtrack. They may sound very simple. One involves litter on the track throughout the country. The track opposite Sefton terrace in Burnley was cleared only when we had a royal visit a few years ago, and has not been cleared since: it is currently an appalling eyesore. Must we arrange another

    763
    royal visit? Another eyesore is the track on the line to Padiham, where a power station has closed. The track has not been used for a couple of years.
    Railtrack has responsibilities for such matters. I have not examined the Pathfinder prospectus, and I do not know what it says about Railtrack's responsibility for litter and fencing on the land that it owns following privatisation; but safety is currently Railtrack's responsibility, and it must clearly remain its responsibility following privatisation.
    Why are the Government changing their policy? I accept that, when the Railways Bill was passed in 1993, it gave the Government the power to do what they are currently doing; no one suggested that they could not take such action. But did not the Government repeatedly say that Railtrack would be in the public sector for the foreseeable future? Did not the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman)—then a Transport Minister—say exactly those words during debate on the Railways Bill? What, at that time, was "the foreseeable future"? Was it only a couple of years, or was the Government's statement misleading? We are not allowed to accuse them of being deliberately misleading, but was what they said misleading? Has it been accepted that there has been a move to the right, and that the Government now believe that they must privatise something whose privatisation they formerly did not consider necessary?
    Perhaps the Government need the cash for pre-election tax cuts. Perhaps that comment really hits the nail on the head. Perhaps they need the money. Perhaps they want to try to bribe the electorate. Would it not be a very expensive bribe to sell assets that are worth £6.5 billion for a potential income of £1.8 billion? It is outrageous if that is what the Government are going to do, because they are the custodians of the nation's assets.
    We all remember Harold Macmillan accusing the Government of selling the nation's silver. With this privatisation, the Government are selling the nation's assets, and they are not going to get anywhere near the value for them that they should. They are failing the nation if they go ahead with the privatisation. If the £6.5 billion is not the true value of the assets, why are track access charges being based on a Railtrack value of £6.5 billion? The Government cannot have it both ways; one thing or the other must be wrong.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said that the annual taxpayers' subsidy to a privatised Railtrack would be £850 million more than it was prior to privatisation. The Secretary of State never responded to that. Is that correct or not? The Minister needs to clarify it. If it is correct, what will we get for that extra £850 million subsidy? Who will benefit from it—top management or shareholders?
    The Secretary of State referred to employee shares and gave some detail on that proposal. We have seen it all before. Under the privatisation of PowerGen, National Power and others, special shares were provided for employees, but the employees did not get a director with those shares or any say in management. Although what happened with the Trustees Savings bank is slightly different because the Government did not get the proceeds of its privatisation, what happened to it is relevant. It also
    764
    said that it would ensure employees' interests through rights to discounted shares and that small shareholders would be protected. Within a very short period, once the protection under the relevant Act had passed away, the very small number of shareholders at the top were able completely to outvote the mass of small shareholders. Towards the end of last year, the TSB was no longer an independent body. It is now part of the Lloyds group.
    It is absolute nonsense to fragment the railways in the way that the Government are proposing. Some of my constituents have already had difficulties travelling. One travelled from Burnley to London and back, leaving Burnley Central station on the East Lancashire line, which is owned by one company, going on to the west coast main line at Preston for the InterCity part of the route, and returning by InterCity on the same part of the route. The journey ended not at the same railway station in Burnley, but at Burnley Manchester Road station on the Roses line, which was opened a few years ago and has been extremely successful. It must be said that the line was financed jointly by the National and Provincial building society, which is sadly disappearing into the Abbey National, and Lancashire county council, which supported it very much.
    My constituent's journey involved three different railway companies, and there was a problem on each part of the journey as well as at Preston station. Four people will have to deal with the complaint in four different sections of the newly privatised, glorified system of nonsense that the Tory party will force on us if it does not draw back from the privatisation of Railtrack. What a way to run a railway system; what a way to run a country.
    The prospectus confirms that nothing will be gained in the improvement of train services by privatising Railtrack. It says:
    "Railtrack's passenger access income is unlikely to benefit materially from any increase in passenger use".
    It also admits that increases in freight by rail are unlikely, stating:
    "The opportunities for expanding rail freight operations are limited."
    The previous Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, once responded to an intervention by saying that it was a funny old world. It is a funny old prospectus that says that even if passenger use is increased, not much money will be made by it, and that the only dividends will be those that the public provide in subsidy. That is why it is such nonsense to create an initial profit to give to shareholders almost as soon as Railtrack is privatised. What a bribe to get people to buy shares. What a fiddle. I call it that because that is what the majority of people believe it to be. That is not the way to do things.
    Debt has been written off from every privatised industry. If anybody else takes over a company, they have to take over any debt as well. Yet when the Government privatised water, the debt was written off, and a massive debt will be written off when Railtrack is privatised. Why should not the privatised company be liable to pay that debt back to the nation in years ahead? Orange was recently floated. It was a completely new flotation, so I am comparing one new flotation with another. It has made no profit to date, yet the Government would not give it any money to give to its shareholders or say that they would subsidise its first dividend for anyone who decided to respond to its prospectus.

    765
    Safety is important, and there are growing concerns about it on the railways partly as a result of the state of the infrastructure. Fifty sections of track on the west coast main line are now subject to speed restrictions as a result of the state of the track. There was none when the British Rail infrastructure was transferred to Railtrack. Already, within a couple of years, it has deteriorated.
    The west coast main line is in need of investment—we all know that. I recognise the difficulties and, to be fair to the Minister, I know that he recognises the need for investment and is sympathetic to it. We all know that investment concerns not only signalling, track, overhead cabling or rolling stock. Those things must all be invested in to produce the type of rail service that we need on the line, which, with all respect to the east coast, carries much more traffic and is much more heavily used. Major investment is needed.
    We recognise the difficulties, especially for parts of the track on which high-technology signalling and a low-technology system for local services that use some of the same parts of the track will be needed, such as the track feeding into Preston, and so on. There would be such difficulties, whoever owned Railtrack. What the Government are proposing offers no speedier solution to the need for improvements to the west coast main line. The Minister will disagree, but the Government have got it wrong. We need a publicly owned railway transport system.
    We need a combination of private and public sector investment, to ensure that we can improve the track and rolling stock to give us the service that we need as we move towards the 21st century. I believe that the way in which the Government are moving is totally wrong, and that the Labour party is showing the right way ahead. If the Government do not heed us and change their mind, they will find that this one issue will add even more nails to their coffin when they finally have the courage to face the electorate.
    6.49 pm
    Mr. Bob Dunn: The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has been extremely frank tonight—not least in his last few words. He said that he is in favour of a publicly owned rail service. He is at odds with the Government, but also with Opposition Front Benchers and we await the speech from the shadow Minister to see whether that gulf exists.
    I begin by welcoming the announcement by the Secretary of State about the requirement placed upon the successful bidder for rail services in the south-east to make a clear and unequivocal commitment to replacing all of the 40-year-old rolling stock on one of the busiest rail routes in the country. That is something that Members of Parliament representing Kent constituencies—including myself—have made representations about for some time, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has met the concerns of commuters in the county of Kent.
    Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I have a constituency interest in the matter. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—when he was a Transport Minister—said that the rolling stock would start to be delivered in 1995. Had the Government stuck to their commitment, the carriage works in York would still be in business. I agree that it is good that the rolling stock is
    766
    coming, but it is a shame that, under public sector control, the Government blocked the provision of that rolling stock, leading to the closure of the carriage works in my constituency.
    Mr. Dunn: If called, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) can make his own speech later. All I say is that we have received an undertaking from the Secretary of State today that new rolling stock will be in place within three years. I will hold all concerned to that date, given that commitment by my right hon. Friend.
    Hon. Members from both sides of the House have said what they want from the rail service. We all want a punctual and reliable service, and—from the consumers' point of view—we want as low cost a service as possible, but constant emphasis has been placed on the safety of the service. I resent the notion that in future under a privatised scheme there will be more examples of bad practice, dangerous accidents and damage to people and services. It is not beyond the recollection of many hon. Members—I do not want to make a political point on this—that there have been major disasters in the past, such as at Hither Green and Harrow and Wealdstone. We must be careful about making points about safety, as that can be deemed to be scaremongering. I am sure that Opposition Members would not wish to do that, and we must be careful about the extent to which we refer to safety.
    Mr. Wilson: If postulated in that way, such claims can be deemed to be scaremongering. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand the distinction between saying that private operators are less likely to operate a safe regime—which is not the argument—and saying that a fragmented railway is inherently less safe than an integrated railway? If he needs further evidence of that, he should look at the Health and Safety Executive's report on rail privatisation, which said that a fragmented railway was likely to lead to more serious accidents than less. The report then made 38 serious recommendations to counteract that possibility. Is it responsible for a Government to put in place a railway that is inherently less safe than the one we have at present?
    Mr. Dunn: The point that I was trying to make is that however much every hon. Member hopes for the minimum number of accidents, the fact is that—in its earlier nationalised state—there were accidents on the rail network. It is wrong to pretend that there was a golden age, and I hope that Opposition Members are not trying to pretend that there was.
    Any debate on privatisation is bound to show clear blue water—the clear philosophical difference between the Conservatives and the Opposition. This debate on rail privatisation is no different from many of the debates that we have had in this House in the past 17 years, with—I am sorry to say—the same predictable estimates of gloom and doom, full-blown rhetoric, half-facts and scare stories from the Labour party. Why does Labour do it? It is fed partly by Labour's deep-rooted hostility to free enterprise and partly as a result of instructions from the vested interests—the trade unions that sponsor many Opposition Members.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) is not here, as I was going to refer to her statement that she is no longer sponsored by ASLEF and is therefore able to speak in any way that she

    767
    likes. Her constituency party, however, is now sponsored by that union. The extent of that sponsorship is there for all to see. When she last registered her sponsorship, her constituency party received £5,500, and 80 per cent. of her election expenses were paid by the union.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us who contributes to his election expenses, what firms he is connected with and what speeches he has made in this Chamber that vaguely reflect some of his involvement in industry?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. Lady knows that I am a great admirer of her—from afar. If she checks the Register of Members' Interests, she will see that I am sponsored by no one. I receive no sponsorship, and I have no outside interests. I speak entirely for the people who elected me—the people of Dartford. I understand her point, as clearly union sponsorship is a huge embarrassment to Labour. It is clear that any sponsored hon. Member is bought—not in the direct sense of money changing hands, but indirectly. Undue influence—or due influence—is brought to bear on individual Labour Members who have representatives from the unions that sponsor them sitting on their general management committees. If the hon. Member does not do what the union likes, he is called to account.
    I was referring to scare stories, and I shall give two examples from the past. The House may recall the debates in the early 1980s on the privatisation of BT. During one such debate, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said:
    "The public telephone box could be threatened with extinction."—[Official Report, 18 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 41.]
    The truth is that the number of BT call boxes has increased by more than 50 per cent. to 127,000, 96 per cent. of which work at any one time compared with 75 per cent. in 1987.
    The second example concerns British Airways. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—who has just walked into the Chamber—said in a debate on the Civil Aviation Bill that British Airways
    "will be the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all."— [Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 125.]
    Mr. Donald Dewar: That was 16 years ago.
    Mr. Dunn: It may have been 16 years ago, but the hon. Gentleman is as wrong now as he was then. British Airways is the world's favourite airline, and carries more international passengers than any other carrier—some 6 million more than its nearest competitor in 1993. We know what the Labour party wants. As the hon. Member for Burnley said—with the characteristic honesty and frankness that has made him famous throughout Burnley—Labour wants a state-controlled rail monopoly, run for and by the trade unions. We want a rail service that is modern and dynamic, run for and responsive to the needs of the British travelling public.
    Opposition Members have referred to opinion polls. We can all quote opinion polls in aid of our argument. The Guardian of today's date contains two interesting articles.
    768
    One is about the leaked letter from Mr. Welsby. The one underneath, which I would like to know more about, is headed "Short taxed again by Blair lecture". If that relates to the meeting between the shadow spokesman and the Leader of the Opposition, I really would like to know what commitment she had to give to him, but alas I am sure that we will never know what went on.
    The first article refers to the leaked letter dated 2 April to Sir Patrick Brown from Mr. John Welsby. It outlined a number of concerns about the prospectus. The article says that a spokesman for the Department of Transport said:
    "Sir Patrick has responded to Mr. Welsby and is satisfied that all his fears have been allayed."
    The article goes on to refer to an ICM poll that was taken between 12 and 13 April last. It asked 1,200 adults aged 18 and over whether they thought that when British Rail was fully privatised services would be better or worse or they did not know. The result was that 33 per cent. believed that services would be better, 20 per cent. did not know—they were neutral—and 47 per cent. believed that services would be worse. My arithmetic is as good as anyone else's and I conclude that 53 per cent. were either neutral or thought services would be better and a minority—albeit a substantial one—of 47 per cent. thought that services would be worse.
    The next question was whether those interviewed thought that when British Rail was fully privatised services would be safer, less safe or did not know. The result was that 34 per cent. thought that services would be safer, 24 per cent. did not know and therefore must have been neutral and 43 per cent.—still a significant minority, but fewer than in response to the previous question—believed that services would he less safe. It is interesting that the opinion poll commissioned by The Guardian—a paper not sympathetic to my point of view—gave that result.
    Mr. Wilson: Read the next question.
    Mr. Dunn: I have some difficulty with the next question because, unfortunately for The Guardian, not all the figures add up to 100 per cent. For the first question the figures add up to 100 per cent., for the second they add up to 101 per cent. and for the third—whether services would be cheaper, dearer or they did not know—they add up to 99 per cent.
    Mr. Wilson: Give us the figures about fares.
    Mr. Dunn: I must be in control of my own track on this matter rather than respond continually to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
    Opinion polls play a significant part in the thinking of the Labour party today. If Labour Members are motivated in their desires by an opinion poll of this sort, which they would say gave some credence to their ideas, what about the opinion polls in which 75 per cent. of those polled say that they believe that there should be a return to grammar schools? Why do they not take that into account? Labour Members are making highly selective use of opinion polls on this occasion. If they ignore opinion polls that call for the return of grammar schools and the restoration of capital punishment or come out against a federal state or a single currency—all the things that any hon. Member may care to adumbrate in a speech—why do they single

    769
    out this example? Why do we have the Labour party wholly run by opinion polls on this issue? It makes out that it responds to every issue on which the public express an opinion.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dunn: No. I am about to make an entirely new point.
    Not too much mention has been made today about the fat cats. I thought that we would get a certain amount of that. I wonder why. It is interesting. I think there is a problem here. Fat cats in the former privatised industries are one thing, but what about the fat cats in the private sector per se? The Labour party complains about those who receive large salaries for having huge responsibilities. It does not complain about the chairman of ICI or the chairmen of the boards of J. Sainsbury or Marks and Spencer, but they complain about people who have huge responsibilities elsewhere. It is a fair point and they can make it as often as they like, but what about the fat cats who support the Labour party?
    What about Maureen Lipman, Melvyn Bragg and Ken Follett, who earn hundreds of thousands of pounds a year? We have to be careful in our attitude to fat cats. The Labour luvvies, whom Labour Members love to adore, are the fat cats who pay for the champagne parties that they all go to.
    Mr. Terry Dicks: Who elected their leader and pays for his expenses?
    Mr. Dunn: I do not know about that. I am sure that my hon. Friend can make that point in a different way. It all comes down to the fact that the Labour party has not changed. It is still being run for the unions and by the unions; Labour Members' links to the unions are their Achilles' heel. Do not claim victory yet. There is a long way to go to the next general election. When people start to see the traditional links between the Labour party and the trade unions and the range of activities that will count against it, it may well be in deep trouble.
    A little has been said today about the esteem of the workers. A newly privatised rail service would give those who work in the railway service a chance to be proud of the work that they do. Railway workers will not be the music hall joke of the past. They will not be the butt of the joke at the dinner party. They will be given a real chance to show that they can work with efficiency, pride and determination in a privatised system. I am sure that they will do that.
    Labour opposes privatisation for the railways today, as it opposed every other privatisation. It believes in nationalisation, public control, levers of power and giving more powers to the regulator—about which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) made a thin point. I am not sure what all these levers are going to do and what these notions will bring about. Nationalisation is Labour's only policy and it has proved a failure. Therefore, I urge all my hon. Friends to support the Government's amendment tonight.
    7.5 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I must begin with an apology to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House. As the Government refuse to debate
    770
    transport in their own time, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition frequently have to use the time allocated to them for debates on transport. Those of us who have a specific interest in transport were upstairs in the Select Committee on Transport when this debate began. I apologise to the Secretary of State for not having heard his speech. I hope that the Minister for Railways and Roads, as well as the Secretary of State, will not think that I am being unduly familiar if I say that I have heard them once or twice before on the subject. I can quote almost verbatim most of the well-worn excuses that they trot out on every occasion.
    Mr. Watts: Without wishing to be discourteous, I could say that the feeling is mutual.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am happy to continue the relationship until the Minister leaves us at whatever point, either because in his Department the only thing that is certain is that there will be a rapid changeover or because the electorate finally get the opportunity to express too plainly their views on the Government's policies on transport and on every other aspect of their political programme.
    The reality is that tonight we have one simple and important case. It is nothing to do with the absurdities that we have heard this evening. It is a charge of bad faith. That is the simple, essential charge against the Government. They came to the House of Commons, not in one debate but in many weeks of debates in Committee, and said consistently that they would privatise the railways and bring enormous benefits to the customer and everyone working in the system, but that in order to do so they would not privatise Railtrack. Railtrack, we were told—the core of the system—would remain within state control. That was the constantly reiterated argument.
    The Government admitted that they intended to fragment and flog off all the other bits, always to the advantage of the people buying the assets, and every known piece of land to a private company, but they said that that should not worry anyone because Railtrack would remain within the state system; it would not be immediately privatised. The Government soon discovered that from their point of view that was not an acceptable plan. The reason was terribly simple. The privatisation had been forced with indecent haste. It had so little to do with the subject matter that sometimes it gave a certain legitimacy to suggest that the Government were doing it because they cared about transport. The reason they were doing it was very simple: they wanted to fill their coffers before the next general election. There are still Conservative Members—not many—who have a sense of responsibility to their constituents and who know that what is proposed is totally unacceptable and unworkable. Tonight they will have their last chance to vote against it.
    The reasons against privatisation have been adduced so often and in such clear terms that we do not have to say to people, "Look at what has happened since privatisation, look at the problems with the safety case, look at the difficulties with people who we were sure were going to produce new rolling stock and improve facilities, and look at what is already becoming clear," because those things are already plain to the travelling public. People who use Euston station have no doubts about the problems and difficulties that arise as a result of privatisation. They can tell us that every train is late—up to 94 minutes late.

    771
    It is far worse than that. In their period in office the Government have consistently followed one plan in relation to the railway system—to capitalise on the assets and to get rid of the amount of money paid from the Treasury for the maintenance of the transport system. That is why it is quite funny to listen to Conservative Members saying, "Look at the other side of the channel and at what is happening in France. They have got a good system—we do not have one like that." Of course we do not have a system like that in France—it has a socialist Government who put money into infrastructure.
    In my constituency, British Rail Engineering Ltd. was sold—a firm that not only was capable of producing high-quality rolling stock but had a long experience of doing so. All the information structures—information services that provide high-quality management control to the British Rail network—were sold off to private departments. A series of small depots were hived off in a way that somehow showed that they were expected to take vast amounts of maintenance work from the old workshops. Of course, because the Government reneged on their promises about the amount of money that they would make available—both for the rolling stock and for the development of new systems—all the people who bought state assets have been faced with the reality that the Government did not mean what they said.
    The firm that bought BREL in my constituency was assured that because it was a private firm it did not have to worry—there would be a big order book and there would be a lot of new rolling stock. They were told by the Transport Select Committee that there would be a hiatus for a minimum of three years if privatisation went ahead. However, that was ignored. The private buyers were told, "Don't worry—all the new rolling stock is needed, all the new contracts will be placed and all the new private buyers will find that they are making a large amount of money."
    That did not happen at all. Not only was my constituency decimated in terms of jobs, but the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) was so badly damaged that thousands of people lost their jobs. Derby is in the same situation as Crewe. I am referring to rolling stock, which is just one side of it.
    The Government have created a highly complex system of financing and they are not prepared to remind the electorate that at the end of all this—when the Government have sold off every platform, every station and every square yard, when they have managed to cheat all the existing employees out of their rights to have any say in the future of their industry—they will still come back to the House and demand more than £600 million extra subsidy for the private system. That is what is happening—that is total effrontery.
    The Government are not concerned with creating a modern transport system and they never have been. Their simple aim was to cut down the amount paid by the Treasury in subsidies and to rearrange it in such a way that when it went to the private sector it was not nearly as obvious how much their colleagues in the City were going to walk away with. That is what they have done—and very successfully.
    772
    The Government have deprived my constituency of trained jobs, they have deprived the railway system of rolling stock and they have fragmented the basic core railway in such a way that there are real problems with safety, development and management. They have undermined the morale and the future of the people working in the industry and, in return, they have assured us that we do not have to worry about it and it will all be marvellous in the future. That is not only dishonest but unacceptable.
    The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) said that we should look at what happens when people give their views to opinion polls and assess whether that is something that we should worry about. I remind him of an opinion poll that was much more effective: the one for the by-election last week. If that does not make him and his colleagues think seriously, there is absolutely no hope of their treating this subject with the importance that it deserves.
    When we go into the Division Lobby tonight, Conservative Members ought to consider strongly the charge of bad faith. It is something that their constituents will hold against them. People are not stupid. They can work out that if the Government sell off Waterloo international station, plus all the land around it and all the benefits of the Euro-line and rolling stock, they are not handing away a debt but giving a positive benefit to a private developer. People do not have to be told that privatisation is a great success—they have only to look at the water service utilities and at the Japanese flag flying over the Greater London council building to know what the reality of privatisation is under this Government.
    I am deeply angered by the Government's cynicism and their refusal to take the interests and the needs of their constituents into account. I find it difficult to behave as though Parliament can accept the totally superficial and embarrassing level on which some speeches have been made tonight. To me what is important is that the transport system is being wrecked for purely ideological, purely unacceptable and deeply ignorant reasons. I can only say to Conservative Members: on their heads be it. Frankly, the electorate have noticed what they are about and they do not like it.
    7.17 pm
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Towards the end of her speech, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) accused the Government of creating something far worse than the old British Rail. As she said that, I had a vision of her standing at the Dispatch Box when we debated the gas privatisation legislation. I heard her saying, "Today the Government are creating something far worse than the gas board"—we can now look back and see that the price of gas has gone down 25 per cent. for domestic users. I then saw the hon. Lady speaking on the electricity legislation; domestic prices for electricity have fallen substantially—and they fell in the first three years post-privatisation.
    Mr. Wilson: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is interested in historical accuracy, but he will get some. Will he confirm that the price of gas is higher than it was when the Tories came to office in 1979 and started to force gas prices up pre-privatisation? I pre-empt his next

    773
    remarks and ask him to confirm that, since privatisation, the electricity industry has given less to the Exchequer in tax proceeds than it did prior to privatisation in profits.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I shall not trade statistics with the hon. Gentleman, but the gas control centre for the southern part of England, which I visited recently, is in my constituency. There is general agreement that consumers have benefited from gas privatisation and that prices have come down.
    Consider the privatisation of British Airways, a remarkable global company. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) quoted what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). What would the hon. Member for Ladywood have said then—that the Government were creating something far worse than the old British Airways? That is nonsense. All the privatisations that have been conducted under my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Baroness Thatcher since 1979 have benefited the consumer and cut the drag on the taxpayer. The old industries imposed enormous costs of about £55 million a week at one time, but they developed into profitable industries and many of them are taking on employees.
    What about British Telecom? What would the hon. Member for Ladywood have had to say about "Post Office Telephones"—or was it "Post Office Telegraphs"? I forget. Where would Britain be today if our telecommunications network were still run by the Post Office? I remember selling computer and fax equipment in the 1970s when one could not get telephone lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford referred to the problems with telephone boxes, but one could not even get lines installed.
    Mr. Stephen Day: It used to take weeks.
    Mr. Tredinnick: It took weeks. Businesses and private subscribers used to bribe Post Office engineers to stay in during their lunch breaks to put the lines in. The argument that privatisation has failed the consumer is simply not true. The hon. Member for Ladywood has got into a lot of trouble in the past few days over her proposal to put up taxes for the middle classes. She spoke with conviction, and the attempt of Labour party minders to muzzle her was not completely effective. She tried to commit the Labour party in its next election manifesto to a massive further increase in spending, because she talked about getting a high level of services by high investment. We know that she is against privatisation, because she has spoken against it this afternoon. Where will the high level of investment come from? It will come from the taxpayer. Taxes will have to rise if the sort of the investment that she outlined is to manifest itself.
    This is one of the most important denationalisation debates in the four terms of this Government. Privatisation will vastly improve the quality of passenger services. I hope and believe that it will improve the distribution of freight, although there is a much work to be done on that. If we get freight right, the cost to businesses across the board will be reduced. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) that the Bill is important from an environmental perspective. Environmental issues are, generally speaking, of greater concern to the public than they were a few years ago, and that concern will increase.
    774
    What about the quality of service for passengers? When I went to buy a ticket from British Rail, I always felt—especially at main line stations—that I was doing the man behind the counter a favour. The attitude was that I was jolly lucky that he was selling me a ticket. I always resented that and it was quite wrong. Under British Rail, the railways have been run as much for the employees as for the passengers. I do not dispute what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said about the case for looking after employees. She and the hon. Member for York have argued that case eloquently over the years. Nevertheless, in considering the national railway system the passenger and related issues must be the overriding concern.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined the improvements that have already been provided under the privatisation proposals that have been implemented so far. I will not run over all his points, but he mentioned that South West Trains had introduced new bus services and new waiting rooms. The hon. Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) complained about the lack of facilities and waiting rooms. The truth is that the newly privatised companies are proposing to put in new waiting rooms on those lines. That is how to attract ladies to travel at night and stop the fear to which the hon. Member for Burnley referred.
    I will go further and say that privatised services will reintroduce conductors in certain carriages to ensure that people travelling at night feel secure. Other improvements have been mentioned, such as the new motorail services that Great Western has in mind and the South West Trains proposal to put services through to Salisbury and Epsom. Great Western has a significant proposal to put brand-new rolling stock on its express trains.
    Labour Members have argued that there will not be any rolling stock improvements and we have heard a lot about banging doors. The facts are different; they are in the public domain and available in the Library. Already some of the services, including Great Western and the Gatwick express, are committed—by 1999 for the Gatwick express—to have completely new rolling stock.
    Isambard Kingdom Brunel would have been proud of the newly privatised Great Western. He built that railway to a higher standard than those in the rest of the country with a 7 ft ¼ in gauge. It is a lasting sadness that Parliament decided that that gauge should go. If Great Western decides to run an improved service to the west country, it has the benefit of wider tunnels. The tunnel under the Bristol channel was built to the 7 ft¼ in gauge for two lines; Sonning cuttings is built for the same gauge. It is possible to run wider trains out of Paddington into Bristol Temple Meads. There are many possibilities of taking ahead Brunel's vision on the west country lines.
    I mentioned the possibility of conductors being used on services. Consider the rail infrastructure in New York. On the line that runs from 666 Fifth avenue in the middle of the midtown commercial residential area, the E train that goes to the major airports has guards and special facilities to help passengers. That was done to build confidence in the system. The way forward is the flexibility of the newly privatised companies that will enable additional services to be provided—not a reduction in services.
    Privatised railways tend to attract passengers. Two lines run from the centre of Tokyo, the capital of Japan, to the airport. The nationalised railways, which we know are

    775
    wonderful, include the Shinkansen high-speed rail system which runs around all four islands of Japan. It is one of the finest in the world, but there is also a private line that runs on a snake-like route through the suburbs. I travelled on that line a few years ago. It is a miracle of inventiveness because it is a terrible piece of track, but it is managed in such a way that it is run as a non-stop service despite going through level crossings right through the Tokyo suburbs. It has proved to be a better service and is more popular because it is more carefully managed. It provides what the people want.
    One surprising, although significant, aspect of rail privatisation is that the companies that are taking over parts of the network have decided not to create new names, logos or brands, but are using names that go back at least 50 years. Great Western and Great Northern are a return to the groupings that existed before the London and North Eastern railway. Another is Great Eastern. They are names from 50, 60 or 70 years ago.
    Why do people still look back to that era as a model to emulate? The straight answer is that those railway companies were run by people with immense pride—by the families who were associated with them. Lord Portman was the last chairman of the Great Western railway and he rode on the footplate at least once a week on his main line—[Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Lady if she disputes that.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just encapsulated the seriousness with which the Conservative party treats the debate on transport in 1996.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Lady. I was pointing out that the most important person in the company used to ride on the footplate with the engine driver and the fireman to find out how the service was running. I do not believe that that is happening in the nationalised railway of today.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: He was running his office while riding the train.
    Mr. Tredinnick: If the hon. Lady wants to intervene again, I shall give way.
    Mr. John Heppell: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many times Bob Horton has been working on the footplate in the past year?
    Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a point, and I do not blame him for that, but I said riding on the footplate, not working.
    Why were those railway companies held in such high regard? Why did they have that esprit de corps? I am provoking Opposition Members. I will give way to the Labour Front-Bench spokesman.
    Mr. Wilson: The merest twitch of a muscle and the hon. Gentleman offers to give way. It is very encouraging. We are on a serious point. Let us get a little consensus. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning any of the franchisees that reduce the two-man operation of trains to single-man operation by removing the guard?
    Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman is very ingenious in somehow linking the good name of the Great
    776
    Western and Great Northern railways with the two-man system of driving and guarding trains. I do not want to be drawn into a debate.
    Mr. Wilson: We are in a debate.
    Mr. Tredinnick: We are, and the facts are that some trains can now be run without two men—that happens on the underground in London because of the improved signalling system.
    There will be a different level of service on the new railways because of the new blood that is coming in. I shall give two examples of that new blood. A French company is buying in—I should say investing—as is an American company with much experience. That transfusion of new ideas is in no way detrimental to the interests of passengers or of anyone else in this country, and I foresee extra employees on trains.
    On the Japanese Shinkansen system, a trolley of food and drinks is constantly taken up and down the carriages and there are telephone services. I understand that Virgin is going to introduce telephone and even television services in the first class section. That is the way to get passengers back. Those needs have to be serviced with such facilities.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and I had the honour of serving on the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consideration of that Bill took longer than the Great Western Railway Bill in the 19th century. I think that the Committee sat for 300 hours. In fact, we sat for a year—long enough to walk from here to Madrid at a leisurely pace across the Pyrenees with a short stop in Paris. It was an instructive experience considering the difference between the French and British rail networks and the problems of the network in Britain.
    Looking to the future, if we imagine Britain's rail network coming into London as the branches of a tree, the channel tunnel rail link, when it is built—and it will be—represents the trunk. As people and freight travel down that high-speed rail link, it will become increasingly important for Britain's links with Europe and its prosperity. That new and vital railway is to be built, not by the state but with private money and to a very high standard. That is another reason why the railways should be privatised. It is incompatible to run the east coast, west coast, midland, Great Western and southern main lines—the five main groupings—as state industries when there is a tendency in Europe towards private systems, which are more effective.
    The principal hub in London will be at St. Pancras and there will be another at Waterloo. With the privatisation of our railway companies and the new CTRL line, we will have a dramatically improved service for everyone. Bringing the west coast main line into St. Pancras—the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill Select Committee did not recommend that, but the company that is to build the line has volunteered to do it—is significant and important for all hon. Members whose constituencies lie on or near that line.
    I must refer to two more issues, freight and the environment. First, one of the great catastrophes of the post-war British rail network has been the decline—one might say the demise—of freight. It is appalling that so little freight is carried on British Rail. In fairness to

    777
    British Rail, it has been difficult. The improvement in the road network has been a disincentive, but British Rail's pricing policy and the quality of the service has been poor. If we are to be competitive in Europe and to get our goods over there, we need the enhanced system that the channel tunnel rail link will bring. I certainly welcome the proposed new freight terminals—the one near the M1 and A5 near my constituency will be significant. Through privatisation, I hope that we will not only enhance passenger services but make it easier, cheaper and of greater interest to businesses to put freight back on to rail.
    Secondly, on the environment, people are increasingly concerned with environmental matters. The road programme is being cut and there is huge concern about fumes and congestion, as well as worries about protecting our countryside. I do not think that we will see improvements in the scale of the network, which is expanding again, or in the quality of rolling stock and equipment in a nationalised industry. For example, one notices quite a lot of pollution when travelling on diesel trains and I think that the denationalised private companies will start to filter the air on trains—[Interruption.] It is perfectly possible and the public will demand it.
    My hon. Friends have referred to improved facilities for the disabled—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford did so. People demand and expect better facilities for disabled people, and that is absolutely right.
    The midland main line goes through Leicestershire and I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I briefly refer to the importance of that line. National Express is the preferred bidder and I understand that the bid is with the Office of Fair Trading. To understand the possibilities for the midland main line when it is privatised, my constituents must consider what has happened with Great Western, South Western and the other lines that have already been privatised.
    A betting person would have to say that, given the new facilities that have been introduced, many benefits will flow to the midland main line, which goes from London St. Pancras to Leicester and on to Sheffield. I expect a much enhanced service. Having served on the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill and having always taken a great interest in railways, I look forward to pressing National Express, if it wins the franchise, to provide the kind of service that my constituents expect. If it wins the franchise, that company will have a wonderful opportunity in that the service will finish at the new and soon to be much improved St. Pancras terminus.
    Privatisation is the only way forward for Britain's rail system. It will greatly benefit passengers and will enormously enhance their lives and the quality of travel. Privatisation is also vital if we are to get freight back on to the network. It is a disgrace that so little freight is carried by rail. We need to attract it back to the railways to take the pressure off the motorway or road system. The public now have a greater awareness of and interest in environmental matters, and privatisation of the railways will improve the environment, something to which we all aspire.
    7.40 pm
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) concentrated more on the railways and associated matters than many Conservatives
    778
    who have contributed to today's debate. He spoke of freight, but the pathfinder prospectus for the sale of Railtrack states that the carriage of freight on the railways has declined for several reasons. One is the collapse of heavy industry in this country—it is mainly heavy materials that are more suitable for carriage by rail rather than by road—and another is the Government's decision to increase to 44 tonnes the size of lorry allowed on our roads.
    To say that privatisation will magically shift freight from road to rail, which needs to happen for environmental reasons, and to say that without any evidence of the policy changes to make it happen, is simply to express a pious hope. We need those policy changes, but it will be harder to introduce them when the freight companies are not run by the Government.
    The hon. Gentleman said that the quality of service on a publicly owned system is poor and inevitably poorer than on a privately run system, but that is not so. His examples of what a private company could do are already being done by a public sector British Rail. There are telephones on trains—I use them every week going up and down to York. I say "telephones" because there are more than one. A trolley service goes up and down the train offering tea and coffee, and there are complimentary seat reservations.
    The man who used to run the east coast main line service travelled on it every day. Unfortunately, he has not won the franchise to run the service. When he ran it as a British Rail service, it made a profit of £76 million a year, which went to the Treasury or to British Rail's coffers and was recycled to provide other services that needed a public subsidy. The person who has won the franchise to run the east coast main line will be paid a similar sum to run the service but he will be subsidised by the Government instead of contributing the profits to the rail network.
    It is not true that all public rail services are bad and all private rail services are good. Rail services in which decent investment is made are good and those in which it is not are bad.
    The Independent yesterday carried an article stating that Railtrack's executive directors will pick up bonuses this year that could double their salaries. That will cost almost £1 million a year. According to The Independent, the bonuses will be paid in Railtrack shares.
    From the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who has now left the Chamber, we heard the new politics of envy—the Conservative party saying that it is deeply upset that a number of successful business people are contributing to the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman felt that that was a disgrace.
    The public in general are angry about the telephone number salaries of directors of recently privatised companies. They are surprised because those directors are doing broadly the same jobs as they did when they ran public sector water companies or various public sector utilities. In the main, their jobs are substantially different from those of directors in sections of the economy that have always been in the private sector.
    If a company is manufacturing a product in competition with another company manufacturing the same product, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to be rewarded if he takes market share from the competitor, but the vast majority of the newly privatised utilities are private monopolies.

    779
    A senior manager of a big food company in my constituency recently told me that he was seething with anger at the way in which the bosses of the privatised industries had inflated their salaries two, three or fourfold. He was angry because he said that they are not engaged in competition. They work in monopolies and can simply abuse that monopoly to pay themselves more.
    The public will therefore perhaps not be surprised by the news in The Independent that Railtrack's executive directors are getting on the gravy train with which we have become so familiar. However, I am surprised because of the answer to a question that I asked on 23 October last year. I asked the Secretary of State:
    "how many shares and share options will be issued free or at a reduced price to Railtrack directors when the company's shares are put on the market; what he estimates the total value of directors' free shares and discounts will be; and how many directors will be eligible".
    I received a simple, straightforward answer from the Minister for Railways and Roads:
    "There will be no share options for Railtrack directors."—[Official Report, 23 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 581.]
    However, we now find that the directors are to double their salaries and that that doubling will be paid in shares.
    The pathfinder prospectus, which was issued on Monday, is meant to promote the sale that we are debating, but it reads more like a dodgy estate agent's list of property particulars. We all understand the technique. Such particulars say, "This property has panoramic views", which means that the sunlight is blocked by the gasworks; or they say, "This property has excellent letting potential", which means that it is not suitable for owner-occupation. That very technique is used in the pathfinder document.
    The important thing about the 250-page document is not what it says but what it skates over, weaves around, or leaves out. For example, page 15 states:
    "It is Railtrack's policy to develop its property portfolio with a view to maximising the benefits to Railtrack's customers and shareholders."
    One might have thought that that was a good thing and that perhaps customers might benefit, but the customers are not the passengers. According to the small print, the customers are the 25 train operating companies. In other words, the privatised train operating companies and Railtrack shareholders will get the benefits of the sale of Railtrack's property assets; the travelling public will not.
    Railtrack's relationships with the train operating companies were graphically illustrated last autumn by the pathetic pantomime of the publication of BR's winter timetable, which was found to be so riddled with errors that Railtrack was forced to print a 400-page revision. It contained so many errors that Railtrack then published a further 91-page correction. Hon. Members may think that I refer to that incident to make a gratuitous sideswipe at the way in which Railtrack has been run, but I do not raise it simply for that reason. The implication is obvious: Railtrack failed to do the job that British Rail, as a public sector company, managed to execute perfectly twice a year for a long time.
    Mr. Hawkins: Surely the hon. Gentleman will concede that British Rail, as a nationalised organisation, was
    780
    forced to publish substantial corrections to its timetables on several occasions. It certainly did not always have a perfect timetable. If he wishes, I can give him chapter and verse of the many occasions on which British Rail was forced to publish supplementary corrections.
    Mr. Bayley: I have seen supplementary corrections to the BR timetable: they are usually quite small and printed on newsprint-type paper. British Rail never published a 400-page correction so riddled with errors that it was followed by a further 91-page correction.
    That was a classic failure by Railtrack and it is important to the debate because the timetable is the core document in Railtrack's business. The timetable is enormously important to passengers, who are having difficulty working out when trains will run because of that fiasco.
    Page 10 of the prospectus states that Railtrack's principal customers are the train operating companies. It says also that 94 per cent. of Railtrack's income is derived from track access charges, which are based on train movements. The overwhelming majority of train movements—about 99 per cent.—are set out in the timetable. If Railtrack cannot specify train movements correctly in its timetable, it cannot bill the train operating companies correctly.
    As the timetable is central to Railtrack's business, the regulator takes an interest in how it is prepared. The regulator has produced track access conditions requiring Railtrack to publish six times a year a timetable—upon which the public timetable is based—for those working in the industry. Linked with the six editions of the working timetable are three consultation and bidding rounds for the train operating companies. As required by the regulator, they receive a draft timetable and they may then bid for changes to it.
    As Railtrack is completely unable to run the system properly, the Rail Regulator has been forced to reduce Railtrack's obligation temporarily from six working timetables per year with three bidding rounds to two timetables per year with two bidding rounds. He describes that as an interim measure. However, if one refers to page 31 of the prospectus, one can see that Railtrack believes that it will never manage to meet the Rail Regulator's timetabling conditions. Therefore, it intends to ask for the interim measure to become permanent.
    Why is that necessary? As Labour Members warned when the Railways Bill passed through the House, Railtrack has found that a fragmented railway—with many different, competing companies reaching agreements and billing each other for services—is much more difficult to organise and to operate than the vertically integrated, single national railway that existed under the BR system. Therefore, at the heart of Railtrack's business is the computer system into which the train operating companies enter bids for train paths and by which Railtrack bills companies for the paths that they use.
    That computer system is ready to crash: it cannot meet the Rail Regulator's requirements for 18 bidding rounds a year and six working timetables. Railtrack intends to ask the Rail Regulator to reduce the 18 bidding rounds to four, as that is all that it can cope with. It also wants to reduce the number of working timetables from six to two.

    781
    The old system BR operated was relatively simple: the Protim software system managed train paths in each of the eight BR regions. Information was fed into that system and the timetable was produced. As the operation of the rail system is much more complicated nowadays—companies do not simply register a single journey, but are billed for a journey stage by stage—and as rebates must be paid when the service provided by Railtrack does not meet the specifications agreed with the train operating companies, Railtrack has contracted a computer software company, SEMA, to design a new software system to run its computerised heart.
    The system is called A-Plan. Railtrack has spent about £10 million on it, but it does not work. As a result, Railtrack has been forced to go to the regulator and say, "The bidding process that you have specified cannot be met. We must change to a much simpler system not temporarily, but permanently".
    Page 32 of the prospectus states:
    "In producing each working timetable, information is transferred between Railtrack and the train operators, usually on paper."
    It is transferred in that way because Railtrack's computer system cannot perform the task electronically. The prospectus continues:
    "New computer systems which will allow more data to be transferred on electronic media within Railtrack and between Railtrack and the train operators are currently being developed and tested".
    They are the computer systems that Railtrack was required to have in place and up and running before the sale, but it has failed to meet that requirement. Those are the sorts of dodgy, estate agent-type particulars in the prospectus. I am sure that lawyers have pored over it in detail and that the prospectus contains no information that is untrue. However, I am sure also that many points have been omitted and that many others are intended to mislead.
    The Government do not seek to warn prospective investors of the dangers that they face if they invest in a project that has run behind schedule ever since the passage of the Railways Bill and has been devised as it went along. Despite running Railtrack as a public sector company for two years, the teething problems have not been resolved. Railtrack is being sold not as a going concern but as a body that cannot meet the Rail Regulator's requirements.
    The computer system is not the only thing that is not ready for the sale. On Monday this week the Transport Salaried Staffs Association released the results of a survey of Railtrack managers. Some 82 per cent. of middle managers working for Railtrack oppose the privatisation of Railtrack and 51 per cent. of senior managers oppose its sale. Almost three quarters of Railtrack managers—73 per cent.—say that the Government should delay the sale. Many of the managers who responded to the survey wrote to explain their views. One of them wrote:
    "Asset condition surveys and record updates won't be completed by April."
    The prospectus admits that, albeit in a very roundabout way. On page 35, it states in relation to the asset condition of the track:
    "Although Railtrack has limited data on ballast renewal requirements, the Directors believe that, based on the knowledge and experience available to Railtrack, they have been able to make a reasonable assessment of the likely rates of renewal of rail sleepers and ballast over the ten years from 1 April 1994."
    782
    The prospectus includes some figures, but admits that they are based on guesswork, not an engineering survey of the condition of the track.
    In relation to route structures such as bridges, culverts, cuttings and tunnels, the prospectus states:
    "Railtrack has undertaken a review of … the information it has on the condition of its assets. The Directors are satisfied that, notwithstanding the variable quality of the data currently available … they have been able to make a reasonable assessment of the likely requirements for the maintenance and renewal of route structures."
    Again, that is based on guesswork.
    People are buying into a business where the long-term costs are unknown and unquantified. That applies not only to route structures but to the backlog of maintenance of buildings, stations and signalling. All those issues were meant to have been spelt out before Railtrack reached the point of privatisation. That has not happened. Even to those who are in favour of privatisation it is clear that Railtrack is being privatised before it is ready.
    In their response to the survey, the managers said that there were serious safety implications. One wrote:
    "Safety systems are not ready."
    Another said:
    "No safety systems are in place. There is total chaos in my area—possession planning."
    That is the business whereby Railtrack takes over the train path from the train operating company in order to carry out maintenance. He continued:
    "It is an accident waiting to happen."
    We should bear in mind that that was not a small survey; it covered 559 Railtrack managers.
    The Government should heed the advice of managers in the industry that they are trying to privatise. If they do not do so, at least some Conservative Back Benchers—some of the 20 per cent. who say privately that they now have doubts about rail privatisation—should vote to delay the sale. In the words of a senior Railtrack manager, the sale
    "is an accident waiting to happen."
    I represent an important railway town that has been grotesquely affected by rail privatisation. York has lost some 3,000 out of the 4,700 railway jobs that existed when the Railways Bill was presented to Parliament. Many hon. Members have heard me talk about the loss of rolling stock manufacturing jobs, but jobs have been lost throughout the railway industry. There have been substantial job losses affecting those who maintain the track and infrastructure, the managers of rail services and skilled design engineers.
    Despite that, and despite the serious consequences of rail privatisation on the economy of my constituents and the livelihoods of thousands of men and women and their families, I do not have a blinkered ideological view of the railways. I do not believe that public is right and private is wrong. I support partnerships between the public and private sectors.
    The Labour party is not squatting on the ground of a private finance initiative. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) proposed such a partnership and said that the Ryrie rules on public sector capital investment were an anachronism. When Ministers said that those rules were sacrosanct and

    783
    could not be changed, the Labour party argued for change. Eventually, the Government saw the sense of that argument and introduced the private finance initiative.
    The way in which the Government are going about rail privatisation will not bring extra investment into the railways; it will simply substitute private sector money for public sector money. The Government hope to raise £1.8 billion from the sale. Presumably, they assume that owners of private capital will want to invest £1.8 billion in railways in Britain. Why do we not encourage them to invest in our railways—in new rolling stock, new signalling systems, new lines, repairing the backlog of maintenance, putting right the repairs that are needed and improving the system and the quality of service to the public?
    The £1.8 billion will not be spent on improving the railway system. It will simply buy the railway system that we have at the moment and any investment to improve it will have to be additional to that.
    One might ask where that £1.8 billion will go if the rail flotation goes ahead and the money comes in. It will go to the Treasury and it will not be invested in the railways. It will be frittered away on one-off bribes to the electorate at the next general election in a desperate—and, I believe, forlorn—attempt by the Conservative party to garner enough votes to stagger on for another term in order to push through even more desperate privatisations of the Post Office and the few public sector investments and endeavours that remain after four Conservative terms in office.
    If the Government really believe what they say and want investment in the railway and an improvement in rail services, they should invite the private sector into partnerships to invest in new schemes and improvements, instead of inviting it simply to take over the existing railway without a penny of the proceeds being spent on improvements and frittering away the resources that will be raised.
    Instead of being spent on new infrastructure, the huge private sector investment that the Government are encouraging will be spent on maintaining the status quo. If one tenth of that £1.8 billion had been invested in new rolling stock, it could have paid for the new carriages that Kent commuters require and their representatives in the House have promised, and it would have provided them three years earlier. It would have provided two years' work at the York carriageworks, producing 250 new carriages. Why did the Government not go for private investment to provide a better railway? I have given an example of what could have been achieved with just one tenth of the money. If it had all been put into rolling stock it could have bought 2,500 new carriages or created the west coast main line.
    Money can be spent only once. Once it has been invested in the existing railway system it will no longer be available to invest in a new system. Railtrack managers are saying that they are not ready for privatisation. Some of them are saying that safety is being compromised by an early sale. If Conservative Members are concerned about the quality of the railway for the travelling public, they should think before they vote tonight and vote to delay the sell-off.
    8.9 pm
    Mr. Peter Luff: I begin by declaring a lack of interest and an interest. As to the former, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) complained that the Government all too rarely allocate time to debate transport issues in general and railway issues in particular. The hon. Lady should cast her mind back to the various Supply days on the subject of rail privatisation during the course of this Parliament. Consistently in those debates, more Conservative than Labour Members have attended, and Conservative Members have expressed more passion about and interest in the railways. At one stage today, not one Labour Back-Bencher was in the Chamber except the individual who was speaking. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. The Opposition's lack of real interest in the railways should be registered.
    I cast an anxious eye over the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who makes a special point of picking up on hon. Members' interests. I declare my own. I have interests in organisations outside the House, but as far as I am aware, none of them has any link with railways. I advise one transport interest, the Chamber of Shipping, and I am extremely proud of that link. I also have shares in the Severn Valley Railway, which give me two third-class tickets each year.
    I have shares in Eurotunnel, which I should probably have sold—but some false romantic attachment to the concept of the tunnel meant that I kept them. I used them for the first time for my free tickets to use the shuttle at the Easter weekend. Next time, I speak in the House, I will have shares in Railtrack to declare.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) tried to get off the hook in respect of the accusation that she had failed to declare her interests when speaking in the debate. It is worth recalling that nine members of Labour's shadow Cabinet are sponsored by transport trade unions.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate told the House, in an ingenious piece of sophistry, that such support is no longer sponsorship because moneys are paid to constituency Labour parties rather than to Labour Members as individuals. I do not see the distinction. As I read the rules of the House, if a constituency association or party receives more than £500 from any outside body because of an individual hon. Member's candidature, he or she is obliged to declare it. That declaration must be made in exactly the same way as any other interest.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is it true also that the Hastings agreement, from which many Opposition Members benefit, pays up to 80 per cent. of election expenses—which can be a sum of up to £3,000 or £4,000? As there are only two legal entities in an election, the agent and the candidate, does that not mean that they receive vast sums of money that are not specified in their declarations?
    Mr. Luff: Sensing the mood of the Chair, I will not respond to that comment—except to say that I agree.
    I welcome the debate as a good opportunity to get across the truth about the benefits of rail privatisation in general, and of the privatisation of Railtrack in particular. I shall quote several sources to prove the growing tide of realisation that the change will bring real benefits to the

    785
    travelling public. There is an increasing belief in the value of rail privatisation and that the Government will achieve their objective of getting the bulk of the railways into private ownership or management before the next general election, and increasing disbelief in Labour's ability to deliver or develop any credible rail policy. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North must answer that charge when he winds up.
    I read the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in amazement. It states that the flotation of Railtrack will
    "lead to short term profits being put before long term investment."
    Do not the Opposition understand that the history of the railway system is that investment in it has been put second, often for reasonable reasons, to all the other many calls on the public purse, and that privatisation will exactly reverse that situation, allowing Railtrack, train operating companies and rolling stock companies to make the investment they deem commercially necessary—and to plan long-term for the first time since nationalisation?
    I read with joy the confident words in the Government's amendment, which refers to
    "a golden opportunity for the railways to gain access to the private finance necessary for investment."
    That is the truth about privatisation, and we must confidently trumpet that truth.
    The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) spoke at great length, and about as slowly as some west coast main line trains have to go because of the engineering work needed on that line. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that privatisation will achieve only some kind of delayed status quo. He could not be more badly wrong.
    As to the so-called fragmentation of the railways in preparation for privatisation, I see no such fragmentation. The network has been reduced to units that are more responsible to customers, which is a good thing. Lord Hanson is busy splitting up his conglomerate, to make it more responsive. He recognises that it is not necessarily a good thing to have a large company trying to do too many things in too many different spheres.
    I have the highest regard for the members of the individual management teams that serve my constituency—particularly Roger Macdonald of Thames and Brian Scott of Great Western. Thames has not been privatised yet, but the bids are in, and I believe that the franchise is due to be awarded in November. The increased responsiveness of Thames to the travelling public in preparation for that change is a joy to behold. Some status quo.
    I quote from the Evesham Journal of 4 April:
    "It's all change on Sunday's trains.
    Sunday morning trains are to be restored to the Cotswold Line from Easter Sunday, April 7.
    Three extra trains each way between Worcester, Oxford and London will be introduced in a two-month earlier start to the summer Sunday timetable.
    And more services are planned for the main summer timetable which will be launched in June."
    Under the old nationalised, monolithic British Rail that Labour is so keen to protect, we were told for years that it was impossible to run Sunday morning trains, for all kinds of reasons to do with the expense of employing signalling staff on Sunday on what is, sadly, a rather under-invested line in terms of signalling infrastructure.
    786
    Now Thames is providing that service, to the great benefit of the travelling public and of tourism in the Vale of Evesham and Worcester.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I have been listening carefully to some of the hon. Gentleman's claptrap, and it occurs to me to ask him how he can utter such remarks now when he put his name to a Transport Select Committee report produced under the late Robert Adley that came out profoundly and unequivocally against the crackpot method of privatisation chosen by the Government. What has changed since the hon. Gentleman, as a new Member of Parliament, put his signature to that thoroughly researched report? Is it promotion?
    Mr. Luff: I was foolish to give way to an hon. Member who has not been present for the debate but who made an opportunist intervention to prove to his constituents that he was representing their interests.
    The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. I put my name not to the report by the late Robert Adley but to a different report produced under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). If the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will read the succession of speeches that I have made in the Chamber on the issue, he will see that my support for rail privatisation has been unshaken.
    Mr. Wilson rose—
    Mr. Luff: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he made a cheap slur against me the last time we debated rail privatisation. I do not feel inclined to give way to him again.
    There are other changes for good on the railway that serves my county and constituency. They include improved timetables and better marketing, because there is for the first time an incentive to increase the number of passengers. There was no such incentive in the cosy old world of nationalised British Rail. The passenger service requirement for Thames currently out for consultation looks extremely encouraging.
    As for Great Western, I share the joy that the spirit of Isambard Kingdom Brunel is being resurrected in my part of the country. The staff of Great Western share that pleasure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, responding to the shadow Cabinet spokesperson, mentioned the share offer being made by Great Western to its staff. I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend that 60 per cent. of Great Western's staff have put up their own money to buy shares in their train company.
    The offer is one third over-subscribed. That means that 51 per cent. of that company is now in the ownership of the management or the employees. Those are the real stakeholders of the modern railway that we are building in this country.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Luff: No. I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that, after last time, the answer is no.
    What else has Great Western done? It has achieved—it is an important achievement in itself—a smooth transition to the private sector. None of the passengers

    787
    would be aware that the transfer had even happened were it not for the smiling presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the footplate of one of the first 125s into Paddington station at the time of the privatisation. The totally seamless transition proved how easy the process is for people who know what they are doing, as the Great Western management team clearly does.
    New products have been designed to make the railway more attractive, including business standard and business first. As a family man, I am especially keen on the new family carriage that is being introduced on Saturdays on Great Western trains. Parents with young children will be encouraged to travel, and it is hoped that the children will play with the other children. Activity packs will be provided from the buffet car, there will be a special children's food menu, and the company is considering the possibility of providing an entertainer on the trains.
    Mr. Wilson: You should do it.
    Mr. Luff: I would not mind volunteering for the job, because I would quite enjoy it. I have always wanted to volunteer to be Santa Claus on the Severn Valley railway, and I will do that one of these years, when I have the time.
    I have given some examples of the way in which services are being improved. That is not the status quo of which the hon. Member for York spoke, but a better railway that is being built and promoted. A new Cotswold business manager is being appointed to promote the railway.
    Great Western is refurbishing the railway stock. It is undertaking extensive refurbishment, not just putting a coat of paint on the outside of trains, as Opposition Members have sometimes tried to suggest. It is carrying out a substantial upgrade of the 125 stock, and it is considering the possibility of further investments in the fleet, improving service frequencies and increasing the number of trains. I suspect that the only constraint on the managers of Great Western trains will be the availability of 125 units, and they may have to consider more imaginative solutions to meet the demands that will be put upon them as they build a better railway.
    I appreciate that the Opposition will want to dismiss what I am saying, because I am a Tory, and I would say it. But it is not just Conservative Members making such comments. Third party endorsement—by which I do not mean the Liberal Democrats—from individuals not directly connected with the railways or the House is growing. For example, Jonathan Prynn in The Times on February 7 this year, wrote:
    "Impressive local managers, who for decades have laboured under the stifling corporatism of a state monopoly, are suddenly finding themselves liberated … Proper financial accountability is being established for the first time since nationalisation. Performance contracts set up to provide incentives for the train operators, Railtrack and the maintenance firms should deliver improvements in service."
    He continues:
    "Once the flotation"
    of Railtrack
    "is a fact, Labour's game is up. Railtrack is the keystone of privatisation, and once in the hands of millions of private investors, the sell-off will become a legal and financial nightmare to
    788
    dismantle … If it succeeds, privatisation will deliver higher levels of investment, private/public sector partnership, "stakeholder" employee share ownership and improved public services after 50 years of underperformance—all Labour aims. The case for yet another round of upheaval in an industry that has suffered permanent revolution for the past decade"—
    probably for the past century—
    "would be unsustainable."
    I have not always agreed with Andrew Neil, but he wrote an article for the Sunday Times on 11 February. He starts the article with an interesting quotation. He says:
    "'Call us about rail privatisation,' pleaded BBC television's new Breakfast Extra programme on the day privately owned trains ran on Britain's railway network for the first time in nearly 50 years. 'We want to hear your fears about the future.'"
    That has been the attitude of the media to privatisation.
    I vividly remember receiving telephone calls from radio companies, television companies and newspapers asking for my views on rail privatisation. When I said that I was in favour of it, the phone was virtually put down at the other end. The callers did not want to hear the good news. A BBC programme—I think it was "You and Yours", but I do not want to malign the producers of that programme, and it may have been another one—before any rail service had been privatised, invited listeners to telephone with their complaints about the privatised railway.
    I rang and lodged a complaint with the BBC about that gross misrepresentation of the truth about the railways. People were being invited to complain about the nationalised railway, not the privatised railway.
    Andrew Neil continues:
    "Fears? What fears? That the trains might now run on time? That somebody might have cleaned them before passengers boarded? That there is more to eat on board than a stale sandwich? That the buffet might actually be open? That surly staff might be replaced by people who welcome our custom? That clapped-out rolling stock might be replaced by spanking new carriages? That the railways henceforth might not be run entirely for the benefit and convenience of Jimmy Knapp's members or the jobsworths on the board of British Rail?"
    He concludes his article by saying:
    "Investment in public transport. New technology. Passenger protection. Penalties for the poor performance of private enterprise. Social subsidies. Even stakeholding. It reads like a new Labour tract. It is part of the absurdity of our party politics—borne of the public's phobia about privatisation—that the government is likely to get no credit for it, while Labour will continue to win cheap cheers by throwing bricks on the lines in an attempt to derail it."
    I intend to ensure that Government get some credit for the undoubted success that rail privatisation will be.
    How will the reorganisation work in practice? Contrary to suggestions by the hon. Member for York, it is working well. In my region, in addition to the two excellent managers of train operating companies, we have an excellent regional manager of the Great Western sector of Railtrack in Martin Reynolds. The new train operators and Railtrack are working well together, and they have no complaints about each other. That is as it should be. Railtrack is clearly achieving its objectives with the train operating companies, and ensuring that trains run safely and on time.
    The great advantage of the new system is that Railtrack will focus on its customers, and train operators will focus on theirs. Privatisation of both halves of that equation can only sharpen that focus. Both halves of the equation have, for the first time since 1948, an incentive to increase

    789
    custom. That is what I passionately want, and a nationalised railway will never have an incentive to increase custom.
    It was delightful to hear the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) talk about setting targets for increased custom on the newly renationalised railway. Does he really expect us to believe that setting targets generates custom? It does not. Serving the customer well generates custom, and that is done effectively only by a private company. There are now two pressures to increase the use of railways and to replace the cosy, genteel and totally unacceptable decline of the old system.
    Sadly, all too often in such debates, the focus is on passengers and we do not discuss the important role of freight traffic on railways. I am proud of the fact that, when I served on the Railways Act 1993 Committee, I secured the first amendment to that piece of legislation when I imposed on the Secretary of State and on the regulator a duty to promote the use of the rail network for goods. The word "goods" was missing from the Government's original clause. Rightly, the Government accepted that amendment, and now the Rail Regulator has a duty to promote the carriage of goods. I am delighted about that.
    Mr. Heppell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Luff: Yes, because the hon. Gentleman has been here for most of the debate.
    Mr. Heppell: How much has the carriage of freight increased on the railways since his amendment?
    Mr. Luff: That question rather misses the point. Wisconsin Rail, which now owns the freight services of British Rail, is determined to increase the carriage of goods. I am delighted that 90 per cent. of the inward demands for metal of Carnaud Metal Box, a company in my constituency, come by train. That is some 40 to 50-lorryload equivalents each week that do not travel along Worcester's narrow roads. That company tells me that Railtrack continues to give an excellent service, and it is delighted with that facility.
    Other companies in the Vale of Evesham are now considering the possibility of putting more freight on to rail. The Vale of Evesham has a crucial role as an importer and exporter of horticultural produce. Two different proposals, one at Honeybourne and one at Blackminster, are currently under active consideration, and the proponents of both schemes tell me that they have excellent relationships with Railtrack and no complaints about the service they receive from it.
    Opposition Members have derided the investment record and intentions of Railtrack. That record compares immensely favourably in the immediate past and in the future with anything that the British Railways Board could ever have managed. The list in the interim report for the six months ended 30 September 1995 of major improvements to the network is startling; it includes electrification of Heathrow Express trains; Ashford international station; Birmingham's new £28-million Jewellery line, which provides a significantly enhanced rail service for my constituents from Worcester; the Robin Hood line; and the Leeds north-west electrification.
    The list continues. It sets out improvements that have been achieved. Crucially, Railtrack states:
    790
    "Following flotation we will, for the first time, be able to implement long-range investment programmes, free from the short-term limitations of public sector finance. We look forward, with great enthusiasm, to showing what Railtrack can accomplish in the private sector".
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sort of investment to which he has referred should reverse especially the historic decline of freight traffic on the railways and correct the problems that he and I and other Members who were members of the Select Committee on Transport heard described by companies such as Castle Cement, which told us that it had to invest in a huge fleet of lorries because nationalised British Rail could not deliver trains on time to pick up loads of cement to take them throughout the country? That is what Railtrack, in a privatised form, will correct.
    Mr. Luff: I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's entirely accurate observation.
    It is interesting that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) chose to give one of his major statements on his attitude to railways to the Morning Star on 1 February. I hope that the brothers read only the first two thirds of his article, which contained all the traditional sops, such as it
    "is not railway engineering, but financial engineering."
    The hon. Gentleman stated:
    "The proposed sale of Railtrack is an audacious rip-off on a very grand scale."
    It is all there. It is great stuff in the first two thirds of the article.
    I hope, however, that the brothers did not read the last third of the article. The hon. Gentleman wrote:
    "Perhaps too much time was wasted on empty rhetoric about `taking back' when it was never our intention to take back every bit of the railways which had been sold off."
    The hon. Gentleman added:
    "We … never intended to bring the rolling-stock back into public ownership … We won't take back the freight companies if they are sold … Our message to potential franchisees is that we will respect legally binding contracts … but … there will be no coming back to the trough either for more money or derogations in terms of the level of service."
    I should hope not. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not accede to such requests. I am sure that he would not.
    It is incredible. The hon. Gentleman criticises the Government for wanting to privatise the railways, but he set out a list of measures that he accepted. As I have said, I hope that the brothers did not read the end of the article. It is fair to say that it contains nothing about Labour's policies. It merely refers to the bits of our policy that Labour accepts.
    Later in the article, the hon. Gentleman wrote:
    "In summary, Labour's policy towards the railways is positive, imaginative and utterly at odds with the present follies."
    I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can justify that ridiculous claim.
    We all know that these issues are splitting the Labour party from top to bottom. In a way, I feel sorry for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench on transport matters. I am very fond of her. I know that she is not fully at home with new Labour. She makes that clear, and I am

    791
    grateful to her for doing so. I appreciate her integrity and honesty. Nevertheless, Labour does not have a coherent policy to offer.
    I rather enjoyed a piece of imagery which I read in The Sunday Telegraph of 14 April, last Sunday. The authors wrote:
    "In the film North West Frontier, a fearless Kenneth More"—
    I suppose that they mean my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—
    "plays an army officer who commands a train half-way across India, battling his way through repeated attacks by be-turbaned rebels, fiendish spies"—
    they must be Opposition Members—
    "and across half-ruined bridges. Against all the odds the train limps to its destination in the final reel and delivers its rather bewildered passengers to safety."
    It may feel rather like that on occasions to Ministers in the Department of Transport. I have every confidence, however, that the train, the Government's policy, will reach its destination safely and deliver a much better railway in the process.
    8.32 pm
    Mr. John Heppell: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) gave us a good example of "Alice in Wonderland" adventures. He presented us with selective quotations from newspapers. For every person who wrote to him saying, "I am in favour of privatisation," I could provide the hon. Gentleman with a dozen letters of complaint.
    When I travelled down to London by train today, a woman sitting in a seat in front of me was complaining that trains were late because of the various changes that had been made leading up to privatisation. She was complaining that there were more train failures. Some failures are extremely serious.
    The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) told us that he was a member of the Committee that considered the channel tunnel rail link. I sat on that Committee for 300 hours, and rather more hours than the hon. Member for Dartford because at the time he was not allowed to take his place in the House for various reasons. I note that the Government Whip seems confused. The hon. Member for Dartford was suspended for a certain period.
    Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) was not suspended.
    Mr. Heppell: I am sorry. If I have referred to the wrong Member, I shall make my apologies after the debate has come to an end.
    I dispute the claim of the hon. Member for Dartford that the channel tunnel rail link was privately financed. More public money is finding its way into the rail link now than when the project was envisaged. The Government said that they would not allow the scheme to go ahead with public money. I forget whether twice or three times the amount of public money is being provided now compared with the sum that was made available originally. To use the rail link as an example of the Government's commitment to railways is probably just about right.
    792
    I recall a little story that was recounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. Many Members will have read about the illegal immigrant who escaped from a train as it went through Kent. He jumped off the train. My hon. Friend said, "He wouldn't have done that in France." The French already have a railway in place of which they can be proud. We still have not completed the legislative process, which must be finalised before we can build our railway on this side of the channel.
    I apologise to the Secretary of State because I missed his opening remarks. I apologise also to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) for missing her comments. I had an arrangement to meet some carers of disabled people, and I could not get out of it. I did not want to get out of it, to be honest. I understand that the Secretary of State, as well as the hon. Member for Worcester, talked about the Robin Hood line and what a great achievement it is.
    The Secretary of State might want to say, "Yes, I have built a railway," and will not go on to say, "Buddy, can you spare me a dime?" I remember, however, why the Robin Hood line was built. I am grateful to the Government for giving support to the line. Effectively, the Government were pretty much railroaded into the project. I remember the decision being taken that the line should go ahead. It was an historic decision.
    I should explain that, for years, I had sat on Nottinghamshire county council and had seen road schemes costing £10 million, £15 million and £20 million being nodded through. It was the council's policy to nod through road schemes. When it came to anything to do with railways, the response was, "No. That is a matter for British Rail. The council cannot possibly put any money into railways." With the Robin Hood line, however, the council decided that for the first time it would put money into a new railway. It put aside £6 million and went on to persuade the district councils to make money available so that stations could be built. The county council tried to get money from the private sector. It went also to the Government and to Europe. The Secretary of State would probably agree that the Robin Hood line was the initiative of Nottinghamshire county council. A tunnel was opened, for example.
    Privatisation of the Robin Hood line is scuppered. Patronage was double what was expected. Even so, there were difficulties because of privatisation. Access charges increased, and the cost of rolling stock almost doubled. Do not quote the Robin Hood line as an example of how Railtrack privatisation is working.
    Perhaps I have raised secondary issues. I did not intend to speak in the debate—
    Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman always says that.
    Mr. Heppell: No, I do not always make that comment. I usually say, "I shall be brief." I am told, however, that I never am. I did not say that today.
    I decided to speak, however, because I was a member of the Committee that considered the Railways Bill, along with the hon. Member for Worcester. I remember the White Paper of 1992. I remember also the full discussion that took place in Committee. We discussed the relationship between British Rail and the regulator, the

    793
    relationship between the regulator and the franchising director and the relationship between the franchising director and the train operating companies. The hon. Member for Worcester nods and laughs. I remember seeing a diagram—I am sure that I have mentioned this before—of all the different lines of communication criss-crossing a page to show how things were supposed to operate. It was very confusing. I could not understand it, and I worked for the railways before I came here.
    As I said, we discussed the consequences of investment and the effect of privatisation on fares and on discounted fares. We had long discussions on safety, and I shall come back to that in a while. We also discussed competition. We do not seem to discuss competition any more. I remember when the former Minister of State, Department of Transport, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), had to get up in Committee and, to the laughs and derision of Labour Members, admit that for a number of years there would be no competition between the train operating companies, which would be running on the same lines and bidding against each other, so that people would take up the franchises. Competition was shoved to one side. Before that, the assertion was that this was not some Orwellian concept. It was not that private is good and public is bad. It was to inject competition into the railway industry. But out it went at a stroke. If somebody can tell me where competition comes in with regard to Railtrack, I shall happily listen.
    My main point is that we discussed all those aspects of privatisation in depth, and I feel that we did a good job, even with the Government's limited information that was provided at the time. Never at any time were we told that Railtrack would be privatised. It was the exact opposite. The Government told us that they would privatise the train operating companies and that there might be 13 stations that they would asset-strip and sell off. We complained about that, but we were not told that Railtrack would be sold.
    I do not like it, but the Government have a right to pursue a privatisation policy. They are wrong, and the way in which they are privatising the railways is laughable. No one, except the new accountants who have been brought in, believes that privatisation can really work. I see Conservative Members shaking their heads, but I bet that they cannot find anybody—someone whom I would consider to be a railway person—who is not buying in to make a cheap profit and who believes that the system will work.
    I emphasise that we were not told about the Railtrack privatisation. I have two quotations, the first of which is from the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who did not have much involvement in Committee. He said:
    "Outright privatisation of … the railway is not on the agenda for the foreseeable future, not least because subsidy from the taxpayer is needed, and we have made it clear that we shall continue to provide that."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 160.]
    In other words, he was saying that the railway would not be privatised as long as we are paying subsidy.
    In Committee, the then Minister of State, Department of Transport said:
    "Railtrack will be in the public sector for the foreseeable future".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 February 1993; c. 400.]
    Conservative Members seem to have identified a new definition of "foreseeable future". I suppose that we should have heard last week that Labour would not win
    794
    South-East Staffordshire in the foreseeable future. I think that before the local council elections on 2 May we shall hear that there will be no Labour gains in the foreseeable future. The best one will be when the Government tell us that there will not be a Labour Government in the foreseeable future, because now I understand exactly what that means.
    I am not asking the Government to abandon their ideas about privatisation, but at least we used to discuss it. We did not just have one day to debate it in the Chamber; we sat for hours and hours and went through it in detail. No one can tell me that a publicly owned Railtrack, which owns the stations, bridges, tracks, lines and all the other bits that will be privatised, is the same as a privatised Railtrack, with all the bridges, land and so on. It seems to me that when Railtrack is privatised, there will be two possible sources of income. The first will be access charges. Where will the money come from? The train operating companies. Where will the train operating companies get the money from? Government subsidy. Is not that the way in which access charges work? I know that it is the way in which they are supposed to work.
    Just this week, the Secretary of State for Social Security told us that there is no such thing as poverty. If he believes that, he should visit my constituency, which has the eighth highest level of unemployment in the whole of Britain; higher even than any Scottish or Welsh constituency. He would see real poverty there. Perhaps the Conservatives still believe in the trickle-down theory. In this case, it trickles down from the taxpayer, through the train operating companies, into Railtrack and then into shareholders' pockets. Nobody can tell me that that is justified.
    There is another way in which Railtrack can raise finance—asset stripping.
    Mr. Gary Streeter indicated dissent.
    Mr. Heppell: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Initially, the proposals were that 13 stations would be sold off to the private sector and the rest would stay with Railtrack in the public sector. In Committee, we said that that was asset stripping. Individual private companies that took over those stations would be able to sell off the land around stations and make a healthy profit. Now it is worse, because it is possible to asset-strip not just 13 stations, but the lot.
    I am worried not only about asset stripping but about the consequences for the future, because I have seen the asset stripping of railway lines before, after Beeching. I shall tell the House what happened. The land that was bought up and used for development blocked off possible future transport links into the city of Nottingham and many other cities across the country. Once land has been built on, one cannot put a railway through it. That is not just asset stripping, but tying up land for the future.
    When Conservative Members come to their senses—sorry, I am wrong, because I am fairly sure that they will not. When we have a Labour Government, who decide that we really do want to ensure that the railways expand, with more passengers and more freight, we shall not block off the corridors to allow that expansion by asset-stripping under the present proposals. That is the only way in which Railtrack can raise money. The Government are talking

    795
    about the sale of the century. They are to give profits to shareholders who do not even own the shares yet. They will be guaranteed £69 million in the autumn—"Buy your shares and get your profit."
    How can anybody tell me that that is a sensible proposition, that taxpayers' money should be given to people in that way? I could understand it in some respects if the Government's dogma worked, and if privatisation allowed them to pull back on the subsidy to be given to the railways, but the reverse is true. One ends up paying more subsidy, but getting a worse service than before.
    I shall touch quickly on safety. Earlier, I heard an hon. Member—I think that it was the hon. Member for Worcester, but perhaps it was the hon. Member for Dartford—say that there was no reason—I am getting a signal from the Government Whips. I am not too sure whether I am supposed to take notice of them, but now I am getting a signal from my own Whip.
    In Committee, I looked at the brief produced by the Health and Safety Executive. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is right: there were 38 recommendations suggesting ways in which rail safety could not be improved, but could stay at the same level. The recent railway safety case lists 10 actions, many involving substantial cost, which would not make the railways safer but would attempt to make them as safe as they are now.
    There is no doubt that the cobweb of confusion that will be created by the new arrangements will lead to more accidents. I am a former railwayman, and, believe me, the "fail-safe" concept was drummed into us. Nowadays I just read the newspapers, but I am certain that the accidents that happen currently did not happen as often in my time. I read about fuel tanks and traction motors dropping off trains; apparently, there are fires on trains and no one can get off because the access has not been worked out. I read about axles snapping. Before that recent instance, when did an axle last snap on a British Rail train? We would have to go back hundreds of years—to the time of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and the man in a top hat sitting on the footplate. It may seem funny, but I believe that there is something fundamentally and radically wrong with the current safety arrangements.
    If Conservative Members do not agree to a review, or at least a discussion in a committee, they have only one option if they are to save the railways: they must vote Labour.
    8.51 pm
    Mr. Stephen Day: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate; I was serving on the Select Committee on Social Security.
    First, let me deal with certain issues on behalf of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, of which I have the honour to be joint chairman. For about two years the council has had a rail working party, which has made a number of recommendations and observations about rail safety. I am sure that members of that working party, who have a keen interest in—and vast experience of—both the rail industry and the academic aspect of railway matters, would not want me to say anything on their behalf that could be construed as scaremongering.
    796
    The advisory council does not take such an approach to rail safety issues; indeed, it takes a responsible and positive approach to transport safety issues in general.
    Hon. Members have made some rather over-excited comments about safety. 1 hope that what I shall say on behalf of the advisory council will not be viewed in that light; I intend to offer some positive suggestions. This is nothing new for the council. It has nothing to do with the fact that we are discussing the privatisation of Railtrack, or with the privatisation of the railways. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, the council has a long history of working with, and campaigning to change the mind of, the Department of Transport.
    My hon. Friend the Minister will also know that a number of organisations are currently responsible for safety in the new structure. Each train operating company must submit a safety case to be approved by Railtrack; Railtrack's safety case is approved by the Health and Safety Executive, which includes the railway inspectorate. Although the office of the rail regulator has no safety brief, it can act as independent arbitrator in the event of disputes between Railtrack and train operators. I understand that those arrangements were proposed in an HSE report entitled "Ensuring Safety on Britain's Railways", published in 1993—before the Government's decision to privatise Railtrack.
    I want to raise two aspects of safety management, which merit more attention than some of the scaremongering that we heard earlier. The first—about which both the parliamentary advisory council and I are concerned—relates to communication and liaison. The council believes that we must ensure that safety lessons that have been learnt can be easily transferred from one company to another. The previous structure of vertical national ownership had the weakness of inflexibility; the new structure, based on competing units, does not naturally lead to the sharing of knowledge and solutions.
    Secondly, much good work has been done on safety in recent years. Both staff and resources have been allocated to improve the safety of both passengers and work force. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider reviewing the 1993 HSE recommendations?
    Let me give my own views on the whole question of rail privatisation. I do not deny that I have expressed reservations about aspects of it in the past; indeed, I still think that it would have been better to "regionalise" the railways and sell them as a separate unit. Despite those reservations, however, I will not accept the invitation issued by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
    When the House has voted on rail privatisation issues in the past, not only have I stood on my feet to express the view that I have expressed again tonight, I have on occasions voted with the Opposition. Indeed, I remember well supporting the so-called wrecking amendment to allow BR to bid for franchise. That does not alter the fact that, at that stage, the House was debating legislation, amendments were before it and the debate would have had some practical effect. Tonight, we are not dealing with the Opposition trying to bring influence to bear on the Government's policy or their attitude towards the nature of rail privatisation. We have heard not helpful suggestions but hostility to the concept of privatisation in any form. That is where I differ from Opposition Members.

    797
    I am also aware that this Opposition debate has nothing to do with the issue itself and is all about something else. It is about trying to persuade Conservative Members such as myself who have expressed reservations in the past to join the Opposition in the Lobby in the hope that they can inflict an embarrassing defeat on the Government that would have no practical effect whatever. I am not going to be tempted.
    I have every respect for the Opposition. Indeed, it is their duty on every occasion to try to embarrass the Government. But I am sorry, when I speak on rail privatisation in this Chamber and cast my votes on it, I want them to be cast on the issue. I am not here to help the Opposition do their job in merely trying to embarrass the Government. People in the great wide world should understand the difference between when we debate legislation and when the Opposition are merely trying to play politics with such an important issue. There is no way in which I shall support the Opposition this evening.
    I hope that Opposition Members will stop accusing the Government of being purely dogmatic in their approach to rail privatisation. I have views on the alternative ways in which rail privatisation could have been brought about, but I am in no doubt that some form of privatisation is necessary for British Rail. That is fairly obvious to anybody who has travelled on it over the years. They recognise that improvements must flow from privatisation, as they have from the range of privatisations pursued by the Government.
    The Opposition are not interested in what sort of privatisation we propose—they would oppose privatisation of British Rail whatever its nature. Labour talks about Conservative Members approaching the matter on a purely ideological basis, but Labour is the ideological party in this respect. The Opposition have opposed every privatisation. Privatisation in general has been a great success for the people of this country, and I know that the only way in which that success and its benefits can be maintained is to ensure that the party that pretends that it will not overturn privatisations and that it has accepted the change in the culture does not take office. In its heart of hearts, as it has proved tonight, Labour is still bitter about everything that privatisation represents and against the private sector in general. I shall do all in my power to ensure that it never takes office.
    9.2 pm
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) said, and I agree with him in one respect. It should be said in the Chamber that, like him, I was serving on a Select Committee this afternoon, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Time and again, the people who run this House—the Leader of the House and perhaps others—arrange transport debates or Opposition Supply days when hon. Members who want to participate and who demonstrably have an interest in participating are in Committee, and hon. Members who perhaps do not have a bona fide excuse for not participating do not attend. Parliament is serving the fare-paying public badly when such an important debate is so poorly attended.
    I hope that the party managers will in future get their act together so that members of the Transport Select Committee can attend such transport debates and hear the
    798
    arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) and by the Secretary of State. We were denied that opportunity today because of the way in which the people who manage the House have acted.
    Having got that off my chest, I want to say that a lot of rubbish was spoken by some hon. Members, who diverted this important debate on rail privatisation into avenues relating to trade union sponsorship and so on. Some Conservative Members receive thousands of pounds from trade unions—quite legitimately—for acting as consultants, but that is not deemed to be inappropriate. That is a matter of fact—one such Member is in the Chamber at present.
    There is some agreement among the political parties about the parlous state of our railways. We agree that the railways are clapped out, that staff are demotivated, that we have a shortage of staff, that we have high fares and that the fare-paying public are sick and tired of our deteriorating rail transport system. The public want remedies, and that is where the parties differ. The fare-paying public believe that the parlous state of the railways is a result of the repeated starvation of resources by successive Governments, but particularly by the present Government who have been in power for a long time. They know that our railways are clapped out because of the failure of the Conservative Government to provide proper funding. That is the real problem.
    The Government are now trying to extricate themselves from their embarrassment and kick into touch the problem by flogging off this important infrastructure asset in such a way that the damage will not occur in the time in office of the current occupants of the Treasury Bench. The public want investment in our railways, and they want a modernisation of our railways. They understand that the fragmented scheme that the Government are proposing is a prescription for disaster, and will bring us to the brink of a second Beeching. If it goes ahead, the result will be higher fares, a diminished service and the closure of intermediate stations—particularly as the real estate is flogged off by the new owners of Railtrack. There will be a different map of our railway network a decade from now because of the actions of the Government. There is an opportunity tonight for Conservative Members—those who are in the Chamber—to stop the Government going down this foolish path. I hope that, even at this stage, they will join us in the Lobby and put the freeze on this crackpot course.
    The hon. Member for Cheadle said that he thought the proposed method of privatisation was foolish, as did the late Robert Adley. The scheme was not designed that way, however. The previous Secretary of State for Transport said that the Government were not going to privatise Railtrack for a long time. But the Government are running out of resources, they are running out of a legislative programme, and there have been changes on the Treasury Bench. The Government should have disposed of Railtrack in the way proposed by both the late Robert Adley and the hon. Member for Cheadle—if they had to privatise, they should have sold off the track and the trains on a regional basis. But that plan was abandoned by earlier Tory Secretaries of State, and the Government are now compounding their errors by selling off this important infrastructure because it is valuable real estate.

    799
    My constituents have suffered from the franchising process already. They have seen the halting of the London-Tilbury-Southend line franchise—the misery line—at the 11th minute of the 11th hour, and we do not now know what is going to happen. One thing revealed by the aborted LTS franchise was that the passenger service requirement was not worth the paper it was written on. When Enterprise Rail was creating its shadow franchise in the build-up to the sell-off, we were told that there would be four trains an hour at peak hours. At first glance, one would think that that broadly matches the present situation. But if one cross-examines and probes that statement, one finds that it means two trains one way and two trains the other way—there is no guarantee that the existing inadequate service will be maintained following rail privatisation. We have in a sense looked into the abyss, and we know that what happened to the LTS line is likely to happen elsewhere.
    The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who is not in his place, spoke a lot of humbug about trade unions. He also raised the question of safety. He alleged that Opposition Members were scaremongering. On my London-Tilbury-Southend line I already have a number of important privatised junctions to various industries along the river frontage. Lines go off at junctions with signal boxes to an Esso plant, car freight depots and Vandenburgh and Jurgens. I am concerned because we are already suffering from the fragmentation of control and the training and employment of staff, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has referred in interventions.
    On 10 April an incident occurred on a private track off the LTS line in my constituency. A freight train was going in or out of a private yard and there was an incident on the crossing. The private train, going into a private yard, was left sticking out on the main line and the fare-paying public on the LTS line were left stuck, not in stations, but on trains for two and a half hours because the privatised signalman, or his crossing, was not operating properly. There was absolute chaos and a potentially enormous hazard was created. That scenario will be compounded as track and operators are privatised. We will find that the frustration of people who pay fares will increase because their trains will not run. Various organisations will blame each other and argue about who should remedy the situation. I believe that dangers will be created as a result of the fragmentation of control.
    I am about to conclude, but I am grateful to see that some more Tory Members have come into the Chamber. On the last occasion when I spoke, I referred to all the stations on the south-west lines. I shall not go through the litany again. In a few years' time when their constituents are complaining, Tory Members of Parliament here tonight, if they are still Members of Parliament, will put the violin music on in the background and say how dreadful it is that their stations have closed, there are no trains at weekends, fares have gone up, and so much has changed on the railway network. Some branch lines will have closed. Tory Members will put on a phoney act of weeping and gnashing of teeth saying that it was not them. We shall remind them that it was they who went into the Division Lobby prepared to sell off this public asset to the disadvantage of their constituents. If and when it happens, they will be to blame.
    800
    I hope that when my right hon. and hon. Friends get on the Treasury Bench, they will be able to minimise the impact of this foolish privatisation and, with some boldness, bring back into public control, if not public ownership, our railway network.
    9.12 pm
    Mr. Brian Wilson: We have heard some valuable speeches from Labour Members. I particularly recommend that Conservative Members, if they are capable of listening and learning, listen with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who spoke about safety. It takes someone who has worked on the railways, as he has, to understand the complexities and the folly of what is being done and to set aside on the basis of that reality the trite reassurances that Tories offer to themselves. They are playing with fire in this privatisation.
    Just as important, as I have said throughout this process, and just as wrong as the privatisation, is the process of fragmentation on the railways. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said, the Government can take no comfort from anything that the Health and Safety Executive has said at any stage in that process. It has said specifically that an inherently less safe, more dangerous railway is being created. It has made recommendations to counter the fragmentation process. If the Government are prepared to put in place an inherently less safe railway network, what kind of responsibility to society does that show? Steps of enormous complexity have had to be taken to guard against what the Government are doing.
    Let us get rid of one of the international canards and be absolutely clear that no Government or country has embarked on anything remotely resembling the process of rail fragmentation in which the Government are now engaged. I would suggest that no other country has done that not for ideological reasons but for safety reasons; other countries have realised and accepted that a fragmented railway system is inherently less safe.
    I shall quickly refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), because I would be in terrible trouble if I did not. I have great respect for what he said and I share an interest in the subject. I call on the Minister to address the important concerns about the Forth bridge, to which my hon. Friend referred today and which he has pursued tenaciously over many months.
    I refer to the speeches of Conservative Members. Today I thought—not for the first time in this long process of debating rail privatisation—would that Robert Adley were with us at this hour. I have noticed the empty Government Benches. I refer to the Tory Members who signed the amendments that Robert Adley drew up, which included measures to give British Rail the right to bid for franchises. Where are they tonight? They have escaped to their tents with their knighthoods—and I hope also with their consciences. They signed the amendments and they knew the wrongness of what was being done. As soon as the leadership and the courage of that one Tory Member disappeared—for the most tragic reasons—they deserted the cause to which they lent their names.
    Mr. Day: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to me because on that occasion I voted with the Labour party on the amendments in relation to British Rail being allowed to bid.
    Mr. Wilson: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman voted for that— and I am not sure whether he was one of the Conservative Members who signed the amendments. I remember very well that the last time I met Robert Adley in this place was in the Members Lobby. He told me with great pride that he had six Tory names on the amendments. I asked him whether they included the right to bid and he said, "Of course, that is the one that matters. That is the one that will scupper the whole thing."
    Six Tory Members put their names to the amendments—and they have disappeared like snow on a dyke or cowards off a battlefield. That amendment was won in this place and the Ministers sitting here tonight have reneged on it shamelessly. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman puts himself in the same category as other Conservative Members if he votes for the wrongdoing that is continuing and that is in direct contradiction to the amendments that he claims he voted for in the past.
    We have heard a lot of fantasy politics tonight—about all, about the wondrous gifts that will be bestowed on the railways through this fantastic process of fragmentation and privatisation. There is absolutely no evidence in that regard—it is fantasy politics, it is a wish list of all the things that the companies will do. All we are asking tonight is that the process be slowed down so that what has happened thus far can be reviewed.
    Of course, to Conservative Members, we are asking for the impossible. They are not interested in the arguments about what has happened so far. They are not interested in the implications for the taxpayer or for the passengers. They are interested only in rushing this measure through before a general election as part of the general scorched earth policy. Asking them to slow down is asking them to abandon the policy because they know that they will not be here in office to live with the consequences.
    That is part of the immorality of what has been done. There is no interest in the implications, because other people, other politicians and other generations will have to clean up the mess that will be created. They are politicians without responsibility for they are legislating for a period when they will not be in office to live with the consequences.
    Mr. Pike: Although what my hon. Friend says is true, will not the proceeds of privatisation have been squandered and lost for ever more?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is right. Many of the assets, and the people, will have been squandered as part of this reckless wrecking process. I have said before that people who believe in Tory rebellions probably also believe in the tooth fairy, but I am told that some of the Tories who might have rebelled give as a reason, strangely enough, for not voting with us tonight the South-East Staffordshire by-election. Tory Members come up to us quietly and say, "We would love to, but it is too dangerous now to vote against the Government because it could bring the whole pack of cards tumbling down." That is the new line of rationalisation. That is one way of interpreting the lesson of South-East Staffordshire; but if they had started re-examining policies such as this, they would not have been in the mess they were in there.
    I listened to the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) this morning—before he was carried off by the men in white coats—reacting to questions on the
    802
    "Today" programme. He was asked in the mildest of manners by Miss Sue MacGregor what would be the equivalent of the dramatic action before the last general election when Thatcher was disposed of and the poll tax dropped. He chose to concentrate on the parallel—I can understand his mind being active on this—between the fate of Baroness Thatcher and the current position of the Prime Minister. He might have concentrated on what legislative measure should be dropped before the next general election. If he had done, rail privatisation might have occurred to him, because the one is as unpopular as the other.
    Instead of the dreams of Conservative Members about top-hatted managers travelling on footplates—at one point we had refreshment cars going up and down the engines—let us consider what is really happening. The smugness, complacency, ignorance and contempt that they display in the name of privatisation are beyond belief. There is a private railway industry in Britain; it is called manufacturing. There are hundreds of splendid privately owned and operated companies that work in the railway industry—and good luck to every one of them. Many are doing well in the export field, which is what is saving them.
    What have the Government done in the name of privatisation to private manufacturing industry in the railways? Some 8,000 jobs have gone. The great railway town of York will never build another train. The Government have ignored all the warnings about the blight on investment in the railways. They brushed it aside and said that it would never happen. For 160 years, Britain led the world and built trains for the world. In every one of those years, Britain built trains for our national railway network. Since the lunatics were put in charge of the asylum, there have been three solid years without a single train being operated, and the existing private railway industry—the manufacturing industry—is bleeding to death. That is their first achievement in the name of privatisation.
    What about the record on employment so far? Eight thousand jobs gone in railway manufacturing. They do not care about that. Jobs have started to go at South West Trains. They will start to go in every franchise. That is not because the railways are overmanned—there have been massive efficiency gains in the past few years, especially through the organising for quality programme. It is not because those people are not needed for a safe, good railway or to deliver a service to the disabled and to elderly passengers. It is simply because the franchisees have entered into contracts from which they have to work backwards in financial terms. They cannot control the costs of access charges or of leasing trains. The only variable cost worth talking about is the cost of labour. To make it pay, they have to get rid of people. That has implications for service and safety and is the inexorable logic of this privatisation.
    Mr. Dover: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in any industry, productivity is the name of the game? If management, particularly new management, can get more out of the work force, so much the better.
    Mr. Wilson: It is an interesting philosophy, and productivity is the name of our game, but—this is where the two sides of the House differ—it is not the name of the only game. It is certainly not the name of the only

    803
    game when one is delivering a public service. A safe and efficient public service is also part of the game, but that is neglected in all this privatisation because, within seven years, the companies have to squeeze their profits out of franchises that they have entered into on the basis of fixed figures. I would expect the hon. Gentleman to understand that distinction.
    We are told that hundreds of companies have been busting a gut to get hold of railway franchises. Look at the London-Tilbury-Southend line fiasco—the Government did not do very well there, did they? What about the Resurgence Railways fiasco, when Ministers were prepared to give away Great Western to a failed double-glazing salesman? We have heard several hon. Members say what a wonderful job the Great Western management are doing under the privatised franchise. As the Government are well aware, the management owe to the Opposition the fact that they are doing the job at all. Their bid had been chucked out. The franchise was going to be given to the double-glazing salesman and the vice-chairman of the Huntingdon Conservative association, until the Opposition managed to establish, by the simple process of looking at the records at Companies House, what a shower of shysters they were. It was only at that point that the Resurgence Railways bid was thrown out and Great Western management brought back in.
    Stagecoach appeared on the scene as a white knight, with its 22 references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission behind it. On Network SouthCentral, it was the Compagnie Generale des Eaux—described in the most flattering terms by a French judge as one of the two most corrupt companies in France. Doubtless, as we meet, Ministers are desperately trying to attract the interest of the other.
    The east coast main line has been handed over to James Sherwood within weeks of his saying that the franchising formula was a formula for a no-investment railway. He went to the only place in the country where £1 billion of public money has been invested in the railway and was given that franchise instead. That meets his criteria—he does not have to invest—and it meets the Tories' criteria, as they have managed to give away the most valuable piece of the British Rail network.
    The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) had something important to boast about. He said that, within seven years, the east coast main line would be a service that no longer required public money. He must be suffering from a serious loss of short-term memory because, two years ago, the east coast main line not only did not require public money but was such a profitable piece of railway because of the public money that had gone into it that it cross-subsidised the remainder of the inter-city network. That is what we believe in. Where there is investment, there is profit and east can subsidise west, day can subsidise night and urban can subsidise rural services. That is the way to run a railway network.
    If it is Tory management of the economy to take out of the network the part that has had the bulk of public investment in the past 10 years and then wave a flag saying that in seven years' time it will not need a subsidy, no wonder the Government are in a dire plight.
    We heard a miraculous statement about South Eastern Trains today—there will be investment in trains for the line. That is great. The trains are 50 years old, so let us
    804
    hope that there is going to be some investment. I wonder why, last week, when the Government announced a parallel contract that has been awarded for Network SouthCentral, which has exactly the same conditions and age of rolling stock, there was no mention of any new trains. Where are the Members of Parliament who represent that area? A couple of the usual suspects have been waving their flags today and welcoming the prospect of new trains for South Eastern Trains, but where are the Tory Members for the Network SouthCentral area? Their commuters have been told that, because of the glories of the franchising system, there will not be any new trains for another seven years.
    I can tell the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and whoever else was cheerleading today that they should not count their chickens. If I were told by any of the jokers on the Government Front Bench that there would be new trains in three years' time, when even the most simple arithmetic told me that that is two years the other side of a general election, I would not put that assurance into the election address just yet, particularly because that contract has not yet been awarded. That is the difference—the one that has been awarded contains no mention of new trains for Network SouthCentral, whereas the one that has not been awarded represents another promise to be added to the wish list.
    I could go on about the details of franchising, but I am a mere artisan; let us leave it to the master, to the man who has recognised the real potential of franchising, the saviour of the Tory party who represents the symbiotic relationship—the back scratching—between the Tories and Stagecoach. I see that Mrs. Gloag is now the second richest lady in the country; perhaps she will now be applying for the position and the money of the richest.
    Probably unaware that he was being reported addressing what is jokingly called the British Venture Capital Association, Mr. Brian Souter, the chairman of Stagecoach, got on to the subject of rail privatisation. His comments combine the issue of franchises with the question of what kind of deal the taxpayer is getting. In his after-dinner speech to the British Venture Capital Association, Mr. Souter spelt it out in terms with which I would not begin to compete. He is reported as saying:
    "There was a £4bn integrated rail business which had £800m of government subsidy. Now there is a desegregated £9.5bn rail business with £1.8bn of subsidy. While everybody else was taxing themselves about the structure of privatisation, we stuck with a very simple question: what happened to the £1 billion?"
    According to the report, there was "approving laughter" from the assembled entrepreneurs.
    I can tell the House what happened to the £1 billion. It is coming out of the Treasury, not to create a single extra service or to run an extra train£far less to order a new one£but to be the extra raft on which the whole superstructure of privatisation is to be floated. Two years ago, £800 million of taxpayers' money was going into the railways; now £1.8 billion is going into the railways, not for an extra service or an extra train but solely to sustain the profits and superstructure of privatisation. That is what it is all about.
    Let us now deal with investment. We hear investment spoken of as if it were something new and as if it had never been made in the railways before. Let us consider the evidence of Richard Hope, a well-known authority in the railway industry. Railtrack came out with a statement

    805
    about a £10 billion—£1 billion a year—investment programme, on which Richard Hope's comment was "Big deal!" Railtrack's own written evidence to the Select Committee on Transport on 2 February 1995 says that
    "annual steady state maintenance should be £800m which"—
    these are Railtrack's words—
    "'does not provide for any catching up of outstanding work' … Renewals are given as £570m … so steady state spending on the rail infrastructure should be not less than £1370m."
    To maintain the current condition of the railway requires £1,370 million a year. Despite the ballyhoo, Railtrack is offering £1 billion a year.
    The proof is in the pudding. If Railtrack were offering some new investment instead of a reduction, it would be talking about electrification schemes and Tory Members would be able to return happily to their constituencies, whether in Blackpool, Aberdeen or any of the other places where there have been good, credible campaigns for rail electrification. However, unless a Tory Member lives within a three-mile radius of Heathrow, he cannot promise his constituents electrification because there will not be any for at least the next 10 years. The word "electrification" does not appear in Railtrack's 10-year investment plan. That is the reality of its investment programme.
    For all that the Tories despise the public sector, I know that, in my constituency and in every part of the country to which I travel where electrification has taken place, it has been of immense benefit to the routes and communities that have it. It was delivered by the public sector, but we are now told that, for the next 10 years, there is to be no electrification by the private sector. To be parochial for a moment, I hope that the two Tory Members from the north-east of Scotland who won their seats by promising that the only way to deliver electrification to the north-east of Scotland was through privatisation will lose their seats, because they now have to say that the only way to guarantee that there will be no electrification is through privatisation. What they said was the reverse of the truth.
    Sir Roger Moate: The hon. Gentleman's problem is that most people remember that, for all its good intentions and commitments, the last Labour Government reduced investment in the railways not for one or two years, but year after year. The hon. Gentleman derides our investment plans through the private sector, but will he confirm what commitment a Labour Government would make to investing in the railways? How much would a Labour Government invest in a public railway system?
    Mr. Wilson: Why look in the crystal ball when one can read the book? Two years ago, investment in the railways was at its lowest level in real terms since nationalisation in 1948. I can point to a record of investment, but the Tories can point only to dreams of investment. They now have an investment bible which, by their own admission, will yield no new electrification schemes around the country.
    I shall run through some of the flotation arguments. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) has already drawn attention to a grubby little document that tells every unsolicited recipient of it that
    806
    "Railtrack is not an operator of trains … It is essentially a property company and the land that Railtrack will own could be regarded as one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the UK".
    That is how the sale of Railtrack is being marketed. I ask the Secretary of State what action the Government have taken against one of their official share shops for describing Railtrack as a property speculation company. If he intends to pursue it over that matter, he can also inform it that, when Labour comes to power, we will quickly take regulatory action to ensure that every penny in property proceeds from the railways is reinvested in the railways, as occurred in the past. The Tories are yet again selling their product in a manner that is in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
    I refer briefly to the £69 million of taxpayers' money. We must understand what is going on. I thought that, according to the theory of capital, investment is about risk; yet taxpayers' money is being recycled as Railtrack's profit. It will be sprinkled like confetti among Railtrack's shareholders£not one of whom was a shareholder when the money was raised. Where is the morality in that and where is the risk?
    Some £69 million will be given as a bribe to potential shareholders. It could have paid for major electrification projects such as the Glasgow, Queen Street to Edinburgh line or the north trans-Pennine Leeds to Manchester and Liverpool line. It could have been used to replace the remaining Kent coast rolling stock. There are no ifs, buts or talk about in three years' time: that is what the £69 million could have achieved. Will Tory Members of Parliament representing Kent constituencies take that message to their constituents instead of the bogus one that they were peddling?
    I turn to the last of the great incentives and the letter from Mr. John Welsby. I would love to scrutinise it in great detail, but time is pressing. The Tories' deceit is again writ large: if the letter had not been leaked, we would never have known that the chairman of British Rail had written to the permanent secretary at the Department of Transport, with copies to Mr. Roger Salmon and Mr. Robert Horton, saying that the Railtrack prospectus contains several fundamental untruths. The prospectus is seriously misleading. It fails to inform potential investors of Railtrack's performance as manager of the rail infrastructure network and it fails to provide them with "material information", in the words of Mr. Welsby.
    Investors have not been told the truth because Ministers will do anything to carry through the privatisation, irrespective of the taxpayer, the travelling public, of decency and of promises made to the House. That is what the Tories are about. They may win the vote tonight and privatise the rail industry, but they will pay the electoral price every day until the general election.
    9.39 pm
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Those who rely on leaked documents are unlikely to get to the whole truth. The letter from which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was quoting was written in response to a request to the British Railways Board to comment on the first draft of the prospectus.
    One of the points that Mr. Welsby made in the letter was that there should be a clearer exposition of the role and powers of the regulator. The letter from the Rail

    807
    Regulator containing the statement that is now printed in the pathfinder prospectus was sent by Mr. Swift the day after Mr. Welsby's letter. As the reply from the Permanent Secretary indicates, all the concerns expressed by British Rail have been taken fully into account in the final version of the prospectus, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) has not seen because it has not yet been published.
    Ms Short: Is this one misleading?
    Mr. Watts: That is the pathfinder prospectus and I am not saying that it is misleading. The hon. Lady has difficulty in putting the right words in her own mouth. She should not try to put words into mine.
    This is probably our sixth rail privatisation debate in 15 months. The Labour party is obviously over-ambitious in trying to fill a full day's debate. Although the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is not in his place, had difficulty squeezing into the debate, throughout the afternoon Opposition Members struggled to find anything new or relevant to say. Even the hon. Member for Ladywood could manage only a 20-minute speech.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Watts: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's point later. If I give way now, I shall have less time to do so.
    It is clear that, after all this time, the Opposition are still trying to fill their policy vacuum in transport, as in much of their approach to politics. What should they do if they have a policy vacuum? The Labour motion suggests that the answer is to call for "a thorough review". Is its alternative to a policy to fill the vacuum with calls for a thorough review?
    Reading on, I find some of the aims in the motion wholly admirable. It aims to secure
    "higher levels of rail investment, improved services"
    and finally, and quite importantly,
    "the best possible return on taxpayers' money."
    The problem for the Opposition is that our policy, not theirs, meets those objectives. Having struggled for so long to find a policy, why are they so shy of adopting their normal approach, which is simply to embrace ours? They have done so on many other matters of policy, so why do they not on rail privatisation?
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) reminded the House, the shadow Cabinet, reliant as it is on the support and sponsorship of the trade union movement, is unable to adopt an honest policy because the union bosses will not allow it.
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North mentioned the investment plans of Railtrack and quoted rightly the statement that Railtrack intends to spend more than £1 billion a year for the next 10 years. What he did not quote, although he could have found it in the pathfinder prospectus from which many hon. Members have quoted so readily throughout the debate, was that in the five years to 31 March 2001 Railtrack intends to spend approximately £8.125 billion. That appears to be higher than the £1.37 billion that the hon. Gentleman said was necessary to achieve steady state spending.
    808
    My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) dealt with the only real news of the day when he welcomed the announcement that, in letting the franchise for South Eastern Trains, there would be a requirement for new rolling stock. Incredibly, I heard during the course of the day that the trade union front organisation, Save Our Railways, said that it was opposed to that idea. It cannot even accept one piece of good news.
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North asked how a promise to be fulfilled in 1999 could be given any credence. The final bids, which are to be made on the basis of the replacement of the rolling stock, must be with the franchising director by mid-June. When the franchise is let, the new franchiser will be locked into a contractual commitment to meet all the terms of the franchise agreement, including that to replace rolling stock. My hon. Friends know that they now have a promise on which they can rely, which they have not received from the nationalised railway industry.
    Sir Roger Moate: Did my hon. Friend note that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) expressed real disappointment that the order had been announced—and he got that wrong, as he did almost everything else? The hon. Gentleman said that the rolling stock would not be ordered until 1999. He missed the point that the rolling stock that will be life-expired by then must be replaced by 1999.
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is not just South Eastern that will have new rolling stock, because the contract for the 15-year franchise for the Gatwick Express requires a commitment to a completely new fleet of rolling stock. The first franchise for Great Western contains a commitment for the total refurbishment of all rolling stock in return for a 10-year franchise. A couple of weeks ago, Porterbrook Leasing announced a £40 million-plus deal with ABB for the refurbishment of other InterCity stock.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made important points about the Forth bridge. It is absolutely clear that responsibility for the safety and maintenance of the Forth railway bridge lies firmly and squarely with Railtrack. The bridge is part of Railtrack's existing infrastructure, which it has a commitment to maintain. Furthermore, the Health and Safety Executive has powers to ensure that Railtrack honours its obligations to maintain the bridge in a safe condition. The executive has said that it is minded to serve improvement notices on Railtrack. Whether that is necessary is a matter of judgment for the HSE, but I understand that Railtrack has fully accepted the recommendations made in the report. As for the hon. Gentleman's other important and more detailed points, perhaps he will allow me to give him full answers in writing.
    Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps many millions of pounds are involved. Should not that obligation be made clear in the prospectus?
    Mr. Watts: Although the hon. Gentleman may be well—[Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman is obviously well. He may well be right that the cost of the repairs may run into millions of pounds. I have been talking about investment and renewal obligations running into billions

    809
    of pounds. In any event, from today's debate the significance of the Forth bridge will be seized upon by people outside the House.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) raised three matters, including the Dunstable bypass, which he introduced intriguingly by suggesting that savings made by the efficiencies of rail privatisation might be used to fund it. I will not make any commitments about sources of funding, but it is our intention to take forward the proposals for a planning conference and to examine the Dunstable bypass and associated transport issues in the area, including rail issues, as quickly as possible.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire expressed concerns about track-side safety. Under the new safety regime, which is much more rigorous than that which existed before restructuring, every business that undertakes work on the railway must prove its own safety case as a prerequisite of being permitted to undertake any work on the line. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire mentioned the west coast main line. Railtrack has already let two contracts for the development of the new signalling and control system, and a third will be let shortly. Contracts for the main works will start to be let from June. The core project will be funded through existing, standard track access charges. Funding may be required for additional upgrades. Those matters will be considered when the cost and technical reviews of upgrade options are completed and discussions will take place between Railtrack, Opraf and the Department of Transport so that we can consider what funding may be necessary to enhance franchising of the route. The franchising director intends to bring forward the franchise for the west coast main line later this year.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that the case for privatisation must be made on its merits and he went on to do so extremely well. He mentioned the benefits of fare regulation. Never before have passengers had the assurance that key fares will be pegged to the rate of inflation for three years and then to 1 per cent. below the rate of inflation for the four years thereafter. It is also clear that franchising is good news for passengers, who can see that, far from services being slashed, as our opponents have claimed falsely so many times, they are at least being maintained and in many instances being improved. Of course, franchising is also good news for taxpayers who can see that, for the first five franchises that have now been let, services that required a grant of £300 million to be operated by British Rail will be operated in the seventh year of the franchise for only £95 million. That is good news and it gives the lie to the claims that franchising is an expensive way to deliver rail services—quite the contrary.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley also mentioned rolling stock for the Airedale and Wharfedale lines. I hope that he will take comfort from the announcement today about south-eastern trains and the possibility of a franchise term long enough to justify new rolling stock. That shows that, far from privatisation and franchising being incompatible with the provision of new rolling stock, they will facilitate its delivery. I understand that the PTE is working on a replacement options report, which it hopes to have ready by the end of June or in early July. I have agreed to a meeting with the PTE, which
    810
    I hope my hon. Friend will lead, to discuss any ways in which the Department can help to ensure that the full benefits of the electrification of the line can be obtained.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) entered the realms of fantasy when she claimed that privatisation would cost £2.6 billion. The reality is that the cost to the Government, from the start of the preparation to the end of the past financial year, is £145 million and the cost for British Rail and Railtrack is some £325 million. Against that, we have, so far, sale proceeds in excess of £2.3 billion. To put it another way, the total cost to date of £470 million is represented by only three years of savings on the average subsidy required for the first five franchises.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) said that privatisation of Railtrack will deliver commercial investment funded by the private sector. The Labour alternative, of course, requires more funding through public sector borrowing, from higher fares or from higher taxation. We know that the hon. Member for Ladywood is prepared to pay more in taxes, because she has told us honestly that she is prepared to do that, but that does not run for other Opposition Members, so we must conclude that a Labour Government managing a nationalised railway would not find the funds that Labour Members say are needed to provide adequate investment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley also mentioned access for disabled people. He will recognise that it is difficult to provide access at every station. Unfortunately, earlier generations did not build railway stations with disabled people in mind, but the Rail Regulator requires every train operating company to produce a disabled person's protection policy. The first step towards producing that is an inventory of the existing provision and facilities at stations, and that will be used as a benchmark against which further improvements will be measured.
    The position is much brighter when it comes to access to rolling stock. Anglia Trains, Chiltern Railway, CrossCountry, Gatwick, Great Western, InterCity East Coast, InterCity West Coast, Island line, Mersey Rail Electrics and Midland Mainline, for example, are all operating fleets that are entirely accessible to people in wheelchairs. Other operators have mainly wheelchair-accessible rolling stock, even now.
    The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) reminded me of the Government's responsibility, our having been in office for 17 years, to ensure that railways are in a position to operate efficiently and effectively. We accept that responsibility, and we are taking action in the form of the privatisation programme to bring about precisely the improvements in services that everybody recognises should be made.
    The hon. Gentleman used the odd term "fragmentation". The network is not fragmented. It was a policy decision that the entire rail network should be owned and managed by Railtrack as an integrated network. Network benefits, such as through ticketing, are all guaranteed by arrangements made by the franchising director and the regulator.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Watts: No. I do not have time to give way to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, who responded to the debate for the Opposition, overran his time and I must make the best use of mine.

    811
    The hon. Member for Burnley talked about Railtrack asset values. Track access charges are based on replacement values because the purpose of the charges is to ensure that assets can be replaced with their modern equivalents. Fixed assets in the most recent accounts were valued at £4.3 billion. Account must be taken, however, of the company's liabilities. The net assets of Railtrack—assets less liabilities—are only £2.4 billion, not the exaggerated figure of £6.5 billion that Opposition Members are so keen to quote.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) made some thoughtful observations on railway safety. It is still part of the culture to share experience on safety matters. Some of the so-called leaks on safety that make the Opposition so excited arise only because it is part of the system widely to disseminate information on safety matters within the industry. I particularly welcome my hon. Friend's support for the Government in defeating the Opposition's motion. Like many of my other hon. Friends, and hon. Members representing parties other than the Opposition, my hon. Friend is much too wily to be caught out by squalid little tricks from the Labour party.
    Mr. Paul Boateng: Is this the peroration?
    Mr. Watts: No. There is no peroration. I am trying to respond to the many points that have been made in a long debate.
    The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) accused the Government of bad faith over the privatisation and flotation of Railtrack, as did other hon. Members. I shall set the record straight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the then Minister for Public Transport, said on 23 February 1993:
    "Railtrack will be in the public sector for the foreseeable future".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 February 1993; c.400.]
    It is also true that my right hon. Friend said on Lords amendments on 1 November 1993:
    "Ultimately we wish to see Railtrack move into the private sector, although we cannot forecast when that will happen."—[Official Report, 1 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 43.]
    Lord Caithness, the then Minister of State, Department of Transport, said in July 1993 that the Government had made it clear that
    "Railtrack's existence as a government-owned company will last only until it is feasible to transfer it to the private sector." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1993; Vol. 548, c. 354.]
    Any accusation of bad faith is totally without foundation.
    I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to defeat the Labour motion for the nonsense that it is and to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
    The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 306

    Division No. 99]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Dewar, Donald

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Dixon, Don

    Ainger, Nick

    Dobson, Frank

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Allen, Graham

    Dowd, Jim

    Alton, David

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Eastham, Ken

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Etherington, Bill

    Ashton, Joe

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Austin-Walker, John

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Barnes, Harry

    Faulds, Andrew

    Barron, Kevin

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Battle, John

    Fisher, Mark

    Bayley, Hugh

    Flynn, Paul

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bell, Stuart

    Foulkes, George

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fraser, John

    Benton, Joe

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Galbraith, Sam

    Berry, Roger

    Galloway, George

    Betts, Clive

    Gapes, Mike

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Blunkett, David

    Godsiff, Roger

    Boateng, Paul

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bradley, Keith

    Graham, Thomas

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Burden, Richard

    Gunnell, John

    Byers, Stephen

    Hain, Peter

    Caborn, Richard

    Hall, Mike

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hanson, David

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hardy, Peter

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Harvey, Nick

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Cann, Jamie

    Henderson, Doug

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Henderson, Dr Joe

    Chidgey, David

    Heppell, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Church, Judith

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hoey, Kate

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Clelland, David

    Home Robertson, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hood, Jimmy

    Coffey, Ann

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cohen, Harry

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

    Connarty, Michael

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hoyle, Doug

    Corston, Jean

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cox, Tom

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Hutton, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunningham, Roseanna

    Ingram, Adam

    Dafis, Cynog

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jamieson, David

    Darling, Alistair

    Janner, Greville

    Davidson, Ian

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

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

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    813

    Jowell, Tessa

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Keen, Alan

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Khabra, Piara S

    Purchase, Ken

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Radice, Giles

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Randall, Stuart

    Lewis, Terry

    Raynsford, Nick

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Reid, Dr John

    Litherland, Robert

    Rendel, David

    Livingstone, Ken

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Rooker, Jeff

    McAllion, John

    Rooney, Terry

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McCartney, Ian

    Rowlands, Ted

    McCartney, Robert

    Ruddock, Joan

    Macdonald, Calum

    Salmond, Alex

    McFall, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McGrady, Eddie

    Sheerman, Barry

    McKelvey, William

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McLeish, Henry

    Short, Clare

    Maclennan, Robert

    Simpson, Alan

    McMaster, Gordon

    Skinner, Dennis

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    MacShane, Denis

    Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    McWilliam, John

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Madden, Max

    Snape, Peter

    Maddock, Diana

    Soley, Clive

    Mahon, Alice

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mallon, Seamus

    Spellar, John

    Mandelson, Peter

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Marek, Dr John

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Stevenson, George

    Martlew, Eric

    Stott, Roger

    Maxton, John

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Meacher, Michael

    Straw, Jack

    Meale, Alan

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Michael, Alun

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Timms, Stephen

    Milburn, Alan

    Tipping, Paddy

    Miller, Andrew

    Touhig, Don

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Trickett, Jon

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Tyler, Paul

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Vaz, Keith

    Morley, Elliot

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Wallace, James

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Walley, Joan

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mudie, George

    Wareing, Robert N

    Mullin, Chris

    Watson, Mike

    Murphy, Paul

    Welsh, Andrew

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wigley, Dafydd

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Wilson, Brian

    O'Hara, Edward

    Winnick, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wise, Audrey

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Worthington, Tony

    Paisley, The Reverend Ian

    Wray, Jimmy

    Parry, Robert

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Pearson, Ian

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Pendry, Tom

    Pickthall, Colin

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Pike, Peter L

    Mr. Eric Clarke and

    Pope, Greg

    Mr. Dennis Turner.

    814

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Dover, Den

    Alexander, Richard

    Duncan, Alan

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Dunn, Bob

    Amess, David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Arbuthnot, James

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Ashby, David

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Evennett, David

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Faber, David

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Baldry, Tony

    Forman, Nigel

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Forth, Eric

    Bates, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Beggs, Roy

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bellingham, Henry

    French, Douglas

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gale, Roger

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gallie, Phil

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Booth, Hartley

    Garnier, Edward

    Boswell, Tim

    Gill, Christopher

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bowis, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gorst, Sir John

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Brazier, Julian

    Greeenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Burt, Alistair

    Hamliton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butcher, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butler, Peter

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Butterfill, John

    Hannam, Sir John

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Harris, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Cash, William

    Hawkins, Nick

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hawksley, Warren

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hayes, Jerry

    Clappison, James

    Heald, Oliver

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hendry, Charles

    Colvin, Michael

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Congdon, David

    Hicks, Robert

    Conway, Derek

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Horam, John

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Couchman, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Cran, James

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Day, Stephen

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jack, Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Dicks, Terry

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Jessel, Toby

    815

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Paice, James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Pawsey, James

    Key, Robert

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Pickles, Eric

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Knapman, Roger

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Knox, Sir David

    Rathbone, Tim

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Lamont Rt Hon Norman

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Richards, Rod

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Riddick, Graham

    Legg, Barry

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Leigh, Edward

    Robathan, Andrew

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Lidington, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Lord, Michael

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Luff, Peter

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Sackville, Tom

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    MacKay, Andrew

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Madel, Sir David

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Maginnis, Ken

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Malone, Gerald

    Sims, Roger

    Mans, Keith

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Marland, Paul

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Marlow, Tony

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Mates, Michael

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Merchant, Piers

    Spring, Richard

    Mills, Iain

    Sproat, Iain

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Steen, Anthony

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

    Stem, Michael

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Stewart, Allan

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Streeter, Gary

    Moss, Malcolm

    Sumberg, David

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Sweeney, Walter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Sykes, John

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Norris, Steve

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Page, Richard

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    816

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Whitney, Ray

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Whittingdale, John

    Tracey, Richard

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Tredinnick, David

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Trend, Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Trotter, Neville

    Willetts, David

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Wilshire, David

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Waller, Gary

    Wood, Timothy

    Ward, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Wade, Charles (Bexhill)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Waterson, Nigel

    Watts, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wells, Bowen

    Dr. Liam Fox and

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mr. Simon Burns.

    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.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates the Government on the progress that it is making with privatisation, with the franchising in the last three weeks alone of the InterCity East Coast, Gatwick Express and Network South Central lines, offering the prospects of better services and higher investment at less cost to tax-payers; recognises that this demonstrates that the Opposition's attempt to halt privatisation has failed; and looks forward to the flotation of Railtrack in May as a golden opportunity for the railways to gain access to the private finance necessary for investment, and for people to become real stakeholders in the railways, thanks to the Government's policy of wider share ownership.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Order [25th March] relating to the Family Law Bill [Lords] shall apply to any sitting day on which the House resolves itself into a Committee on those provisions of the Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House; and proceedings in the said Committee may be taken, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND (ENTRY TO NEGOTIATIONS, ETC) BILL
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, Etc) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

  Gas Supplies (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Friday 29 December 1995 was the coldest day in a week of perishing cold weather in Scotland. But when my constituents in Prestonpans, Cockenzie and Port Seton woke up that morning, many of them found that the frost was gripping their bedrooms and kitchens as well as their gardens, because the gas supply to 4,180 households had failed.
  It took up to three days to turn the gas on again, so more than 10,000 people in my constituency had a horrible Hogmanay weekend, relying on emergency soup kitchens while the frost burst the water pipes in their homes. There was a similiar failure in the gas supply at Stonehouse in Lanarkshire, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) may wish to refer to that later in the debate.
  This major failure of the gas supply got some attention from the national media, and British Gas's distribution company, TransCo, had to bring in 150 engineers from as far away as Brighton and Cornwall to reinstate our local gas supply in East Lothian. I would like to express my constituents' thanks to those engineers, who did a good job in difficult circumstances when I am sure that they would have preferred to be spending the holiday week with their families at home.
  Three months later, the Director General of Gas Supply published the findings of the Ofgas inquiry into this incident. I am sorry to say that the Ofgas report has whitewashed the minor points and missed the main points altogether. The main point surely is that the circumstances were not unpredictable, so the failure of the gas supply should not have been allowed to happen. I am not satisfied that my constituents' experiences have been taken seriously, and I fear that similar failures will occur elsewhere in the future if we do not take steps to impose better standards on this highly profitable privatised industry. That is why I am raising this matter in the House.
  I will give a brief summary of the events in Prestonpans, Cockenzie and Port Seton at the end of December. As I have said, the weather was extremely cold. In Edinburgh, the temperature dropped to minus 8 deg C on Wednesday 27th, minus 12 deg C on Thursday, minus 13 deg C on Friday and minus 14 deg C on Saturday 30 December. But it was several degrees colder in other parts of Scotland. Both Glasgow and Aberdeen experienced temperatures of minus 20 deg C during that week.
  Evidently the main gas supply into that part of my constituency was not big enough to meet the morning and evening peak demands when people were heating their homes and cooking meals. There is a gasholder at Preston Links that fills up when demand is low, to boost the local supply at times of peak demand. The gasholder is checked regularly, and on 27 December it had 20 per cent. less gas than it should have had, and the pressure in the system was low.
  If TransCo had been paying any attention to the weather forecast, it would have realised that things were going to get worse, and it should have taken steps to avoid
  818
  the crisis that followed. But it did nothing. On the night of the 28th, the gasholder stock ran out, the incoming supply could not keep up with the demand for gas and the pressure in the system fell dangerously low, so all the gas customers in the area—4,180 households, more than 10,000 people—were cut off early in the morning of 29 December.
  The gas supply system had collapsed, and it was in a dangerous condition because air could have been drawn into the supply pipes. So it was necessary to isolate street sections, check each householder's gas installation and bleed off the air in the system before restoring the gas supply. That was a major task, involving 150 engineers, including 100 who came up from England. Some households got their gas supplies restored within 24 hours, but the unluckier ones had to wait for up to three days in very cold weather.
  East Lothian district council and Lothian regional council, together with the police and emergency services, had to go into action to provide support for elderly and disabled people, and to set up emergency reception centres and catering in the two local community centres. British Gas used its GasCare register to help to identify those most at risk, and information was provided through an emergency telephone service and the local media. TransCo helpfully distributed hundreds of electric heaters, but it was not altogether surprising that the resulting surge in demand for electricity in one street led to a temporary failure in the electricity supply, as if things were not bad enough already.
  I kept in close touch with the situation, and I was advised that the official standards of service for the gas industry would require the payment of compensation of £20 a day to affected householders. But of course, at that stage, everyone was rightly concentrating on the main objective of restoring the gas supply, which was eventually completed just in time for Hogmanay. There were still burst waterpipes to repair on 1 January as people began to count their costs, and TransCo started looking for excuses.
  TransCo rightly recognised the risk of a public relations disaster if it were to try to sidestep its liability to pay compensation. So it offered the two local community councils the princely sum of £1,000 each. It has not offered to contribute towards the substantial costs incurred by the local authorities—which I understand run into tens of thousands of pounds—but it did make the appropriate £20-a-day payments to affected householders "as a good will gesture". It stipulated that it was an ex gratia payment rather than fulfilment of any obligation, let alone an admission of liability. That bothers me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  TransCo has claimed that the failure of the supply was due to exceptional circumstances under its contractual standards of service, and that the company was under no obligation to maintain the supply or to pay any compensation. Amazingly, Ofgas has now endorsed that interpretation, and I put it to the Minister that those standards of service must be amended to avoid the risk of similar failures in cold weather in the future.
  Key standard 6 in British Gas's standards of service stipulates criteria for continuity of supply with an exception for
  "interruptions caused by circumstances beyond the Company's control where restoration of the supply within 24 hours is impossible due to exceptional circumstances".

  819
  Ofgas has defined "exceptional circumstances" as anything with less than a one in 20 chance of occurring, which means that British Gas can avoid responsibility for any supply failure in Scotland if the effective temperature falls below minus 6 deg C. That calculation in this instance was made on a national basis, with bizarre consequences: the lower temperature in Glasgow and Aberdeen, where the supply did not fail, has been used to help to justify the cut-off in East Lothian, where the weather was less severe.
  As things stand, it appears that, if the weather gets very cold, and if there is more than a marginal increase in customer demand for gas—just 12 per cent. in the case of East Lothian in December—this massively profitable privatised utility has no contractual obligation to keep the gas flowing. The company will go on paying Cedric Brown's £247,000 pension and Richard Giordano's £450,000 salary plus perks, but the poor old customers can freeze as far as it is concerned.
  I suggest a variation to the proverb: if you can't stand the cold, don't use gas in your kitchen. As climatic change seems to be leading to colder winters, Ofgas's one in 20 criterion is probably out of date. Do we seriously believe that it will be 80 years before the weather gets as cold as it was last winter? I do not think so.
  The experience of my constituents makes it painfully clear that British Gas must be required to upgrade inadequate parts of the supply network or face penalties if things go wrong. There are other areas with potentially dodgy supplies that depend on gasholders, including parts of Glasgow.
  The crisis should have been predictable. TransCo knew the limitations of the local supply system and knew that British Gas had taken on a lot of new domestic customers in new housing developments in the area. A total of 441 new houses have been built in the Prestonpans, Cockenzie and Port Seton area since 1990—almost all of them with gas central heating.
  We now know that TransCo had plans to upgrade the supply and to do away with the Preston Links gasholder. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the work will be completed before next winter, but I am afraid that the gasholder is still there—I saw it on Monday. The margin between capacity and possible demand should never have been so finely balanced in the first place.
  Paragraph 4.2 of the Ofgas report, under the heading "Action to Prevent a Recurrence", makes a significant tacit acknowledgement that all is not well in the system. It states:
  "TransCo Districts have been asked to undertake further planning and load sensitivity studies to consider whether any additional opportunities might exist to alleviate supply difficulties in periods of extreme temperatures at the limit of the system design criteria."
  It will take more than studies—we need assurances that the necessary work will be funded and carried out. It is imperative that the national criteria for the supply system be amended to guarantee the requirements of customers at times of greatest need; otherwise, it is quite possible that whole cities could be cut off as my constituents were last December
  No doubt British Gas and other commercial gas suppliers will be reluctant to pay their share of the cost of upgrading TransCo's pipeline network. However, Ofgas
  820
  must surely have an overriding duty to protect customers' interests by stipulating proper criteria for security of supply to avoid this kind of breakdown. Ofgas has seen fit to make excuses and to quote escape clauses for the failure of the supply in East Lothian last December. It is up to the Minister and the House to tell the Director General of Gas Supply to put public interests before the commercial interests of gas suppliers in the future.
  The risk of supply failures can and should be minimised—that is the important point that the Minister must address. However, it will never be possible to eliminate the risk altogether. We must have the best possible contingency plans and systems to provide for the needs of elderly, disabled and vulnerable people in the event of a gas cut. The GasCare system seems to have worked reasonably well in this case, although I understand that the register is far from complete.
  I am told that up to 1 million eligible customers are not registered under the current set-up. I gather that the threatened diversification of domestic gas suppliers could play havoc with TransCo's GasCare database in the future. I am advised that the register will show only the account number and address of elderly and disabled customers, so it will be a complicated task to find their names and telephone numbers in order to provide support and advice in an emergency, such as the one that occurred in December. The Government are promoting this market madness, so is it too much to ask the Minister to take account of the consequences for vulnerable people?
  In conclusion, I inform the Minister that a large number of my constituents are very angry about the failure of their gas supply last December, and they have not been impressed by the dodging and weaving of British Gas, TransCo and Ofgas in the aftermath of that failure. I am grateful to Prestonpans community council, Cockenzie and Port Seton community council, the local members of the East Lothian and Lothian councils and Mr. Euan Robson of the Scottish Gas Consumers Council for making representations on behalf of gas customers. People are entitled to expect appropriate action, especially in East Lothian and other parts of the country where the system may be risky.
  The clear conclusion is that this sort of predictable and avoidable gas supply failure must not be allowed to happen again in East Lothian or anywhere else. Effective contractual safeguards must be set and enforced. When I wrote to the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy in January, he replied:
  "it is important to know why it happened and what lessons can be learned".
  and said that these were matters for the Director General of Gas Supply.
  Sadly, Ofgas has whitewashed the incident and fudged the lessons, so I put it to the Minister that he has a duty to intervene to set proper standards for the gas supply industry.
  10.29 pm
  The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for raising this important subject. Although the hour is late and springtime is arriving, it is right that we should have an opportunity to discuss this subject. I pay tribute to the great interest that he has taken in representing his

  821
  constituents, and express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, for joining me tonight.
  Mr. Home Robertson: He is a constituent of mine.
  Mr. Page: I am delighted that he is, and I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend did not have his gas cut off just after Christmas.
  It might help the hon. Gentleman if I explained for the record how gas supply security has been approached by British Gas, and the standard licence conditions set by the President of the Board of Trade under the Gas Act 1995.
  There are two principal aspects to security of gas supplies. The first is to secure that each winter there is sufficient gas to meet demand. That is achieved by means of the network code, which provides the economic incentives for gas shippers and suppliers to obtain sufficient gas and the price signals that can trigger demand by larger users. Further flexibility arises where gas is conveyed on interruptible terms to large industrial consumers, allowing the suspension of supply where needed. Those arrangements are together designed to secure that sufficient gas is available to domestic customers to meet the demand that would arise in one winter in 50.
  The second aspect of supply security is ensuring that there is sufficient pipeline capacity to get the gas to where it is needed. That is a more complicated task, because it involves the operation of each part of the gas pipeline network in Great Britain, which runs to a staggering 0.25 million km of pipes. The criterion is that the system must be designed to meet the demand occurring on the peak day likely to occur in one winter in 20. The hon. Gentleman referred to his concern about that limit.
  Those security criteria have been used for the planning and development of the gas network, and were reviewed by British Gas in the context of the 1993 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. They have now been enshrined as specific regulatory obligations in the new licences.
  On the specific incident, let me again say, as I have already said at Question Time, how sorry I was to hear about the supply failure that affected part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency during what he admitted was exceptionally severe weather last December. Whether we are, as he suggested, entering another ice age is a matter for debate. I stress the word "exceptionally". I understand that the nearest monitoring station, the Royal Botanic Garden in Edinburgh, recorded the coldest temperatures since records began there. The hon. Gentleman emphasised that it was exceptional.
  It is an example of Murphy's law, and an undesirable fact of life, that many of the services upon which we depend are prone to break down just when we need them the most, because that is when they are placed under the greatest stress. In fact, the gas distribution system is highly resilient, and hardly ever breaks down through excess demand. That it did on this occasion was a consequence of prolonged very bad weather combined with higher than usual residential demand due to the Christmas and new year holiday.
  At this stage—I think that the hon. Gentleman has endorsed this—I should like to acknowledge the great efforts made by those working in the gas industry and the
  822
  local authority to minimise the disruption and inconvenience caused. I pay tribute to the way in which the people affected in both East Lothian and Lanarkshire coped with the incidents.
  As the hon. Gentleman is aware, high demand caused the supply disruption during the extremely cold weather. I thought that he might be interested to note that demand was 121 per cent. more than the demand for an average winter day, which is more than double. The local supply system, despite being built to the required standard, was sadly unable to cope with that unprecedented demand due to that operational constraint, which is already being removed. As the hon. Gentleman said, there was a risk of air getting in and a danger to the system, which had to be shut down for safety reasons. I understand that emergency plans and procedures, including those involving the local agencies, were duly implemented.
  Just over 4,000 homes were cut off in East Lothian on Friday 29 December, and 500 had their supplies restored the same day. As the hon. Gentleman said, engineers were called from the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, and worked ceaselessly and tirelessly to try to restore supplies. That process of restoring supplies required a visit to every house by a gas engineer. I believe that some of the delays were caused by the difficulty of getting access to some of the houses, which is why it took three days to reconnect some. As it happened, by Saturday 30 December most of the supplies were restored because those 100-plus engineers worked around the clock.
  Both TransCo and Scottish Gas made strenuous efforts to help those customers who suffered disruption to their supplies. They paid particular attention to those with special needs, such as the elderly. As the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, an incident room was set up in a local primary school to co-ordinate welfare provision and the restoration of supplies.
  In particular, British Gas liaised with the regional council to arrange food and warmth in community centres, town halls and schools. It provided several hundred electric heaters and cookers for those in greatest need, and supplied pre-paid power cards for distribution to pensioners and people on income support. Scottish Gas provided a 24-hour help line, and also made contact with those on the GasCare register—the record of customers who have notified British Gas of their age or special needs—to check that they had adequate heating and cooking.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister emphasised that the Lothian region performed extremely well, and so it did, but Lothian region is no more, thanks to the crazy local government reorganisation. It is far from clear that in West Lothian, East Lothian or Midlothian one, would get the same service if the situation were ever to arise again.
  Mr. Page: This is not quite the opportunity to debate the reorganisation of Scottish local authority activities.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman mentioned it.
  Mr. Page: Although I said that Lothian coped well, I am confident that its successors will have equally adequate support systems in place if such a disaster ever occurs again.

  823
  TransCo's efforts to keep consumers informed about the situation—including about 80 media updates and door-to-door calls—have been criticised. TransCo is considering how improvements in those procedures can be made. I will ensure that the comments of the hon. Member for East Lothian about having a register and the security of the register for the most vulnerable are drawn to the attention of British Gas, so that it can take those concerns into account.
  Unlike the hon. Member for East Lothian, I am grateful to the Director-General of Gas Supply for the thorough investigation that her office has undertaken into the incident in East Lothian. I do not so casually dismiss the work that she has done on the investigation. It has provided a basis of factual material that has certainly helped me to prepare for this debate.
  I understand that some of the hon Member's constituents believed that the interruption to their supplies was due to the diversion of supplies to Edinburgh. The Ofgas investigation paid particular attention to that concern, but concluded that the interruption arose from the demands placed on the local supply system, and not as a result of deliberate demand management by TransCo.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I realise that the Minister has been well briefed for the debate, but I did not raise that issue, precisely because I am satisfied with the explanation given by Ofgas. What I said was that the criterion to which the Minister has referred—the one-in-20 criterion—is plainly insufficient. If that criterion is taken as an acceptable baseline, it means that all of us will experience two or perhaps three complete shutdowns of the gas supply in our houses in our lifetime. That is not tolerable. It is up to the Minister and Ofgas to impose realistic criteria to ensure genuine safety of supply in cold winters.
  Mr. Page: Time is not on my side. I do not have enough to argue the point back and forth, but, if I recall correctly—I shall read the report of our proceedings—the hon. Gentleman used words such as "whitewash" in relation to the report. That is slightly dismissive. He says that the one-in-20 criterion is not adequate, but, apart from a small shutdown in Lanarkshire, the details of which I am not completely au fait with, the incident in East Lothian was the only one that I am aware has occurred in the past 10 years.
  Mr. Home Robertson: So that is all right, then?
  Mr. Page: I did not say that it was all right. As the hon. Gentleman is saying that there will be two or three
  824
  such incidents in the next year or so, I have to point out that, in the past 10 years at least, there has been only the one incident. It must not be blown out of all proportion. If the hon. Gentleman can contain his enthusiasm, I hope that I shall be able to bring him some comfort for the future.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the question, which was mentioned in the Ofgas report, of the monitoring of the gasholder at Prestonpans. It will, of course, become an academic question for this site when TransCo completes the current re-enforcement, which will connect the area directly to the higher capacity intermediate pressure system. However, the director general suggested improved inspection, and I understand that TransCo has now decided that, where a gasholder is critical to security of supply, it will be visited more frequently when conditions approach that one-in-20 situation.
  I must emphasis that, although the failure was in freak conditions that well surpassed the design criteria, I would not wish it to be thought that TransCo is simply shrugging off the whole issue. Steps are being taken to ensure that such incidents remain exceedingly rare.
  In the specific location, the operational constraint that caused the problem—the medium pressure link to the local area—is being replaced with an intermediate pressure link with a much higher capacity. That will effectively rule out a repetition of the incident, and is due to be installed in time for next winter. A stretch of pipeline 1.25 km long has already been installed. I shall ensure that TransCo is aware of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, and of the need to ensure that the work is completed before next winter.
  More generally, TransCo is considering its response to the recommendations of the Ofgas investigation. However, it is already undertaking further planning and load sensitivity studies to ascertain whether additional opportunities may exist to alleviate supply difficulties in periods of extreme temperature at the limits of the system design criteria. Also, I understand that the Edinburgh district is compiling a report detailing the procedures used throughout the incident, highlighting the learning points from its experience. The report will be distributed to other districts, and any learning points will be incorporated in emergency plans as appropriate. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
  As I said at the outset, I appreciate the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of his constituents, but I hope that what I have said this evening will provide some reassurance for the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Lateral Epicondylitis
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of people(a) discharged from hospital and (b) referred to outpatient clinics with the diagnosis of lateral epicondylitis in each of the last five years. [24203]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available centrally does not separately identify lateral epicondylitis, also known as "tennis elbow". The condition is one of a group—ICD9 726.3—under the general heading of enthesopathy of the elbow region. The information excludes admission by transfer from another specialty or hospital. Information relating to the year ended 31 December 1995 is provisional.

  (a) The number of hospital discharges in Scotland is as follows:

  Year ending 31 December

  Number

  1991

  377

  1992

  424

  1993

  382

  1994

  461

  1995

  437

  (b) Information on diagnostic reason for referral to an out-patient clinic is not centrally available.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the arrangements by which residents of Scotland, and foreign nationals convicted of criminal offences in Scotland, may apply for transfer to their home countries to complete their sentences; and how many such transfers have been made, by country, in each of the last five years. [24389]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Robin Corbett, dated 17 April 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question relating to the arrangements by which residents of Scotland, and foreign nationals convicted of criminal offences in Scotland, may apply for transfer to their home countries to complete their sentences and how many such transfers have been made, by country, in each of the last five years.
  492
  Such prisoners may apply for transfer under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 which makes it possible in certain circumstances for foreign nationals whose home country has signed and ratified the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons to be transferred back to their own country to serve the remainder of their sentence. No transfers from Scotland under these arrangements, have taken place in the last five years.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the 20 solicitors companies in rank order which have received the most money from the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the amount paid to them in each of the past five years. [24872]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have ascertained from the Scottish Legal Aid Board that detailed information regarding payments to solicitors' firms is available only for the past two financial years. The information, which has been supplied by the board, is set out in the tables and exclude outlays and payments to advocates.

  The ranking reflects the size of the firm and the number of fee-earning solicitors, among other factors.

  Table 1: Fees payments to firms 1994–95

  Rank

  Total for 1994–95

  1994–95

  £

  1

  Ross Harper and Murphy

  3,316,806.51

  2

  More and Co.

  1,707,959.83

  3

  Bruce Short and Co.

  1,622,307.08

  4

  Ian McCarry

  1,385,988.83

  5

  Gordon Thomson and Co.

  1,237,819.29

  6

  Blair and Bryden

  1,222,292.28

  7

  George Mathers and Co.

  1,184,485.15

  8

  Gilfedder and McInnes

  1,123,296.91

  9

  Gallen and Co.

  1,120,034.59

  10

  Grady and Co.

  1,084,417.05

  11

  Adams

  998,066.47

  12

  Drummond Miller

  992,831.18

  13

  Robert Kerr

  974,405.69

  14

  Livingstone Brown

  896,895.50

  15

  McKay and Norwell

  895,317.27

  16

  J C Hughes and Co.

  879,920.98

  17

  Turnbull McCarron

  854,051.46

  18

  Sinclairs

  799,767.33

  19

  Milligan Telford and Morrow

  762,136.74

  20

  McCourts

  736,095.95

  Table 2: Fees payments to firms 1995–96

  Rank

  Total for 1995–96

  1995–96

  £

  1

  Ross Harper and Murphy

  3,342,356.89

  2

  Bruce Short and Co.

  1,379,641.85

  3

  Ian McCarry

  1,233,680.24

  4

  George Mathers and Co.

  1,191,677.25

  5

  More and Co.

  1,154,260.29

  6

  Drummond Miller

  1,145,386.66

  7

  Blair and Bryden

  1,101,305.85

  8

  Gilfedder and McInnes

  1,093,197.87

  9

  Adams

  1,064,015.43

  10

  Robert Kerr

  1,036,861.54

  11

  Turnbull McCarron

  969,490.77

  12

  Livingstone Brown

  946,357.95

  13

  Gallen and Co.

  934,267.01

  14

  Gordon Thomson and Co.

  901,707.41

  15

  Ness Gallagher and Co.

  868,250.11

  16

  Sinclairs

  867,449.20

  493

  Table 2: Fees payments to firms 1995–96

  Rank

  Total for 1995–96

  1995–96

  £

  17

  J C Hughes and Co.

  858,152.55

  18

  McKay and Norwell

  831,929.28

  19

  Grady and Co.

  816,362.06

  20

  Caesar and Howie

  801,621.11

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that a proper record is maintained of the number of people dying from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and that public access to those records is ensured. [23811]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Monitoring of the incidence of and mortality associated with Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease is the responsibility of the Government-funded national CJD surveillance unit. The unit produces an annual report, which is published. Copies are placed in the Library. The records of individual patients with CJD are subject to the normal rules of medical confidentiality.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24862]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are 197 files in my Department out of a total of 1,134,270 marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes".

  The marking "Not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has set the fossil fuel levy rate for Scotland for the current financial year. [25866]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has set the levy rate for the period up to 31 March 1997 at half of 1 per cent. This levy will be paid in the first instance by all electricity suppliers in Scotland on electricity generated from fossil fuel sources and electricity generated under the Scottish Renewables Obligation.

  The moneys raised will support the generation of electricity from new renewables sources in Scotland under the first Scottish renewables obligation. Projects that will be supported by the levy include small hydro schemes, wind farms, and schemes for generating electricity from waste gas from landfill sites.

  The cost of the levy to the public electricity suppliers, ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro-Electric, is expected to be passed through to electricity consumers. The increase to individual's bills will be in the region of half the levy rate because only a proportion of consumers' electricity is generated from fossil fuel sources.

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those areas of Executive action where he has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for his decision. [20535]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: Records are not kept in the form requested, but in the vast majority of cases where the Secretary of State is empowered to take a decision in respect of an individual, there is no express provision which either requires him to give reasons or which provides that he should not do so.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24853]

  Mr. Willetts
  The marking, "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments, the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO whilst they are current. Eighty-six Cabinet Office and Office of Public Service files are so designated.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24856]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There are 84 files in the Lord Chancellor's Department, out of a total of 122,765, marked "Not for NAO Eyes". These refer to individual file parts. For each NAO study a number of divisions may be involved and each may possess a file with a number of parts.

  The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to NAO while they are current.

ENVIRONMENT

  Gas Installations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to empower landlords to enter their property to ensure the maintenance and safety of gas installations in their property. [24567]
  495
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The gas appliance and fuel maintenance and annual safety check requirements enjoined on landlords by the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994, as amended, do not include a right of entry for landlords to property let by them, and the Government have no plans to introduce such a right into these regulations. However, where the landlord has repairing obligations, a right of access will be implied by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, or the Housing Act 1988.

  Benzene Emissions
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the potential impact of benzene emissions in relation to forecast sales of lead replacement gasoline; and what assessment he has made of the advantages of banning the sale of super-unleaded fuel on the basis of its aromatic content. [24787]

  Mr. Clappison
  The proportion of unleaded petrol used in the UK will increase as the proportion of cars equipped with catalytic converters grows. This increase will in turn lead to substantial reductions in benzene emissions over present levels.

  The last budget increased the fuel duty on petrol and diesel by 3½p per litre. Duty on road fuel gases was reduced by 15 per cent. in recognition that they are relatively cleaner fuels. The duty on super-unleaded petrol will increase by a further 4p per litre in May in recognition that its use, in cars without catalysts, can lead to higher emissions of benzene than other petrols.

  Animal Species
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many animal species which are native to the United Kingdom were considered to be at risk in(a) 1985, (b) 1990 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24604]

  Mr. Clappison
  Statistics for native animals at risk have been drawn from the digest of environmental statistics, published annually by the Department of the Environment, which lists the number of native animals and categorises them as endangered, vulnerable or rare according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature red data criteria, or as being nationally scarce. These are termed at risk in that publication.

  It should be noted that comparisons between years may not be valid because of changes in the methods of assessing risk.

  Native species at risk

  Number endangered

  Number vulnerable

  Number rare

  Number nationally scarce

  1985

  532

  407

  857

  n/a

  1990

  280

  168

  389

  n/a

  19951

  577

  407

  726

  2,572

  1Comparable figures for mammals and birds are not included because their threat status is now considered in the international rather than the national context.

  Plants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many plant species which are native to the United Kingdom were assessed by his Department to be at risk in(a) 1985, (b) 1990 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [25016]

  Mr. Clappison
  Statistics for native vascular plants at risk have been drawn from the digest of environmental statistics, published annually by the Department of the Environment, which lists the number of native plants, and which until 1994 categorised them as endangered, vulnerable or rare according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature red data book criteria.

  1985

  1990

  Endangered

  51

  51

  Vulnerable

  93

  93

  Rare

  154

  154

  Statistics compiled for the 1995 digest were based on revised IUCN red list risk assessment criteria, and are not therefore directly comparable.

  1995

  Critically endangered

  16

  Endangered

  45

  Vulnerable

  132

  Near threatened

  109

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from small building firms as to the impact of the landfill tax on the future business prospects. [23936]

  Mr. Clappison
  Representations have been received from the construction industry, including the House Builders Federation, the Building Employers Confederation and others. The Government have had discussions with those interested bodies, and continue to consider representations made as arrangements for the landfill tax are being implemented.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24850]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There are 269 files currently marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" out of a total number of 1,461,000 files held in my Department.

  The marking "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the National Audit Office while they are current.

  "Going for Green" Initiative
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are now in place for operating the "Going for Green" initiative. [25850]

  Mr. Gummer
  The "Going for Green" advisory committee came to the end of its life on 31 March 1996. A private company limited by guarantee, Going for Green Ltd. has been established. The company took on responsibility for running the "Going for Green" campaign from 1 April 1996 and has agreed a programme of work with my Department.

  In 1996–97 my Department will make available to Going for Green Ltd. £500,000 core grant; £300,000 for area projects and up to £700,000 to match private sector sponsorship income on a 50:50 basis. This level of grant support recognises the value of Going for Green Ltd.'s work to the Government's strategy on sustainable development. We intend to make up to £1.5 million available to Going for Green Ltd. in 1997–98 and in 1998–99.

TREASURY

  Self-assessment
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the cost to small firms of self-assessment for the purpose of taxation. [23932]

  Mr. Jack
  Self-assessment is a major modernisation of the system of tax administration that will provide a permanent reduction for taxpayers in the costs of complying with their obligations. The changes will particularly benefit self-employed people. A compliance cost assessment detailing the estimates leading to this conclusion was published on 28 November 1994. A copy is available in the House Library.

  It contains the following summary figures: self-assessment generates a recurrent compliance net saving for businesses, mainly the self-employed, of some £125 to £250 million a year; this figure takes account of recurrent costs to employers who provide benefits to employees estimated at £20 million to £30 million a year; initial costs of adapting to the new system are estimated at £100 million to £200 million; and the typical small self-employed business which does not provide benefits in kind to employees could expect recurrent savings of £30 to £60 a year, more than offsetting the non-recurrent cost in a single year.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24858]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  There are 385 files. in the Treasury, out of a total of 191,420, marked "Not to be seen by NAO without reference to the appropriate Head of Division".

  These figures refer to individual jackets and parts of files. For each NAO study, several divisions in different locations may be involved and each may possess a file
  498
  with a number of parts. The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the NAO under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many compliance cost assessments were produced by his Department in 1995; and if he will place copies in the Library. [25270]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: The Chancellor's Departments produced 15 compliance cost assessments during 1995, in connection with the following measures. In each case, a copy of the assessment was placed in the Library at the time it was presented to Parliament.

  HM Treasury

  The Financial Markets and Insolvency (Money Market) Regulations 1995

  The Investment Services Directive (EEC/22/93) and the Capital Adequacy Directive (EEC/6/93)

  HM Customs and Excise

  Approval of Inland Clearance Depots

  Landfill Tax

  Excise: Two Band Duty Structure for Cider

  VAT: Groups (preliminary assessment)

  VAT: Change to Tour Operators Margin Scheme

  VAT: Annual Returns and Annual Payments for Small Businesses Registered for VAT

  VAT: Changes to the Payments on Account Scheme for Large VAT Payers

  VAT: Implementation of the Second VAT Simplification Directive: Fiscal Warehousing and other Technical Changes

  VAT: Extension of the Special Accounting System for Gold

  VAT: Credit Notes

  Inland Revenue

  Reform of the Taxation of Gilts and Bonds

  Proposed Changes to the Construction Industry Tax Deduction Scheme: Registration Cards

  Gilt Repo Regulations

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the annual yield to Her Majesty's Treasury from corporation tax levied on chargeable gains in the latest year for which figures are available. [21965]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: The yield of corporation tax on chargeable gains in 1993–94, the latest year for which reasonably complete information is available, is provisionally estimated to be £250 million. In addition, capital gains tax on individuals raised some £700 million.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many unemployed (i) male and (ii) female 16 to 24-years-olds in the west midlands have(a) never been employed and (b) been unemployed for more than one year. [25001]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information for the west midlands is available from the labour force survey for autumn—September to November—1995 and is shown in the table, not seasonally adjusted.

  Male

  Female

  ILO unemployed 16–24 year olds of which:

  47,000

  23,000

  Never been in paid employment

  20,000

  12,000

  Been unemployed for one year or more

  13,000

  1—

  1 Estimate below 10,000 not shown.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will break down the seasonally adjusted spring totals of the economically inactive population between 1979 and 1995 as shown in table 7.1 of labour market trends to

  New Earnings Survey—April of each year (West Midlands)

  Year

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Percentage of employees earning less than £1.50 per hour in 1995 prices

  £1.50 in 1995 =

  £0.98

  £1.02

  £1.07

  £1.15

  £1.26

  £1.34

  £1.40

  £1.42

  £1.45

  £1.50

  Percentage in earnings band

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.9

  Percentage of employees earning between £1.50 and £2.50 per hour in 1995 prices

  £1.50 in 1995=

  £0.98

  £1.02

  £1.07

  £1.15

  £1.26

  £1.34

  £1.40

  £1.42

  £1.45

  £1.50

  Percentage in earings band

  1.6

  1.4

  1.2

  1.0

  1.1

  1.0

  1.0

  0.6

  0.7

  1.1

  Percentage of employees earning between £2.50 and £3.50 per hour in 1995 prices

  £2.50 in 1995=

  £1.64

  £1.71

  £1.78

  £1.92

  £2.10

  £2.23

  £2.23

  £3.36

  £2.42

  £2.50

  Percentage in earnings band

  13.6

  12.2

  11.8

  10.7

  11.1

  10.0

  8.7

  7.8

  7.9

  8.4

  Percentage of employees earning between £100,000 and £250,000 per year in 1995 prices1

  £100,000 in 1995=

  £65,549

  £68,322

  £71,007

  £76,711

  £83,960

  £89,329

  £93,154

  £94,362

  £96,779

  £100,000

  £250,000 in 1995=

  £163,872

  £170,805

  £177,517

  £191,779

  £209,899

  £223,322

  £232,886

  £235,906

  £241,946

  £250,000

  Percentage in earnings band

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Percentage of employees earning more than £250,000 per year in 1995 prices1

  £250,000 in 1995=

  £163,872

  £170,805

  £177,517

  £191,779

  £209,899

  £223,322

  £232,886

  £235,906

  £241,946

  £250,000

  Percentage in earnings band

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0.1

  0.1

  1 Annual earnings are estimated by multiplying weekly earnings by 52.14.

  2 No cases in sample.

  1995 prices are deflated using the April Retail Prices Index.

  Employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence.

  Capital Costs (Industry)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's estimate of the cost of capital to industry in the United Kingdom; and what are the figures for(a) the United States of America, (b) Germany and (c) Japan. [25386]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  There is no universally accepted method for calculating the cost of capital to industry as a whole. All estimates are subject to conceptual and measurement problems, and international comparisons are especially difficult.
  500
  show the separate totals of men and women who are (a) retired, (b) housewives, (c) under 16-year-olds, (e) long-term sick and disabled and (f) others.[25320]

  Mrs. Knight
  It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the seasonally adjusted economically inactive data. However, a breakdown of the unadjusted economically inactive data into(a) retired, (b) people looking after the family home, (c) under 16 years, (d) long-term sick and or disabled and (e) others can be obtained via the quantime labour force survey available in the Library.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees in the west midlands earned (i) less than £1.50 an hour, (ii) between £1.50 and £2.50 an hour, (iii) between £2.50 and £3.50 an hour, (iv) between £100,000 and £250,000 per annum and (v) more than £250,000 per annum in 1995 prices, in each year since 1979. [24998]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information from the new earnings survey 1986 to 1995 is shown in the table. Data for the years prior to 1986 can be retrieved only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for the PSBR for the rest of 1996; and how this compares with projections in the 1995 Budget Red Book. [25358]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Budget forecast of the public sector borrowing requirement for 1996– was £22½ billion. The PSBR forecast will be updated in the Treasury's summer economic forecast.
  501
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected percentage increase in the PSBR in the financial year 1996–97. [25357]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Budget forecast of the public sector borrowing requirement for 1996–97 was £22½ billion, a reduction of 23 per cent. compared with the forecast for 1995–96.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers the Council of Ministers has to remove a member of the European central bank before the expiry of the eight-year term of appointed office. [24538]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Article 11.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks states that the term of office of members of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank "shall be eight years and shall not be renewable".

  The Council of Ministers has no powers to remove a member of the executive board once he or she is appointed, although it plays a role in the appointment of members. In accordance with article 11.4, "if a member of the Executive Board no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties or if he has been guilty of serious misconduct, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Governing Council or the Executive Board, compulsorily retire him".

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts of money have been paid out by(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations for which he is accountable to Parliament, to how many staff or former staff in respect of (i) alleged equal opportunities breaches which do not proceed to tribunals or courts and (ii) equal opportunities breaches which proceeded to tribunals or courts in (1) the current year and (2) the two previous years. [22510]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department has not made any payments under either category in this or the previous two years. Executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations for which I am responsible to Parliament and for which information is available have paid a total of £18,500 in respect of six cases that did not proceed to tribunals or courts in the previous two years. No compensation has been awarded as a result of any cases which proceeded to tribunals or courts in this or the previous two years.

DEFENCE

  Cyprus (Service Personnel)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to the British Government of the trial of the three military personnel convicted of the manslaughter of a Danish tour guide in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [24559]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 3 April to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson),Official Report, column 262.
  502
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when a Minister from his Department will visit Cyprus to discuss with the Cyprus Government and senior military personnel the behaviour of British forces when off-duty on the island of Cyprus; [24563]

  (2) what discussions he plans to have with (a) the Commander-in-Chief of British Forces, Cyprus, and (b) the Government of Cyprus in respect of the conviction of three British service personnel of the manslaughter of a Danish tour guide. [24561]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence plans to make a short visit to the sovereign base areas in Cyprus towards the end of May. While in Cyprus, he will discuss a number of issues, including the convictions resulting from the manslaughter of Miss Jensen and the conduct of off-duty British service men more generally.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he is having with the family of the Danish tour guide for whose manslaughter three British service personnel in Cyprus have been convicted as to compensation which may be paid to them; and if he will make a statement. [24553]

  Mr. Soames
  As yet, no claim has been received. If one were to be submitted, it would be looked at sensitively and sympathetically.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what pay and allowances the three British service men convicted in Cyprus of the manslaughter of a Danish tour guide currently receive; and if he will make a statement. [24555]

  Mr. Soames
  While in custody, each soldier has received approximately £20 per week for incidental expenses such as telephone calls and toiletries.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has(a) to review the general rules of behaviour of British service personnel on the island of Cyprus and (b) to investigate complaints made by Greek Cypriots as to the behaviour of British military personnel based in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [24565]

  Mr. Soames
  Both the educational and disciplinary arrangements relating to the behaviour of British service personnel in Cyprus are kept under constant review. Any complaints by Cypriots against such personnel are investigated fully either by the Cypriot police or service police, depending upon where jurisdiction lies.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department now plans to discharge the three service personnel convicted of the manslaughter of a Danish tour guide from the British army; and what benefits they will be entitled to on their discharge. [24562]

  Mr. Soames
  Discharge procedures have been initiated for all three soldiers. No immediate benefits are payable, but all three will be entitled to a preserved pension, based on length of service, which will be payable when they attain the age of 60 years.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is the policy of senior British military personnel to visit areas of Cyprus to monitor how British service personnel conduct themselves when off-duty; and if he will make a statement. [24552]
  503
  Mr. Soames
  Senior British military personnel do not visit areas in Cyprus to monitor how British service personnel conduct themselves when off-duty. They monitor the behaviour of personnel off-base through daily situation reports provided by the service police.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what personal contact has been made by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) senior British military personnel in Cyprus with the family of the Danish tour guide for whose manslaughter three British service personnel in Cyprus have been convicted; and if he will make a statement. [24554]

  Mr. Soames
  The then Commander of British Forces Cyprus wrote a letter of condolence to the parents of Louise Jensen on 29 September 1994.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military police personnel patrol areas of the Republic of Cyprus which British service personnel are known to frequent during off-duty hours; and if he will make a statement. [24558]

  Mr. Soames
  The tourist areas of Limassol and Larnaca are patrolled regularly by members of the Royal Military police and the RAF police. Precise numbers vary according to the perceived requirement.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which areas of the Republic of Cyprus are out of bounds for British service personnel and their families. [24560]

  Mr. Soames
  The area of Ayia Napa remains out of bounds to the vast majority of British service personnel and their dependants. The tourist areas of Limassol and Larnaca are subject to a 1 am curfew. Other areas and individual establishments are placed out of bounds for specific periods from time to time.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports are made by British military personnel on the behaviour of individual British service personnel serving on the island of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [24566]

  Mr. Soames
  Daily situation reports are produced locally in Cyprus by the service police and reviewed by the chain of command. Depending on the nature or gravity of the incident, details may be reported up through command advisers or specialist staffs to central staffs in MOD.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24852]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  Because my Department operates a decentralised registry system, the number of files so marked could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made by his marine accident investigation branch with its investigation into the grounding of the Sea Empress off Milford Haven on 15 February and the subsequent salvage operation; and if he will make a statement. [25849]

  Sir George Young
  The Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents has assured me that the investigation is progressing satisfactorily. The inspectors have interviewed many of the people from whom they need to take evidence and this process is continuing. All parties are co-operating with the inspectors.

  There has been a good response to the public notices placed in the press inviting people to make representations to the inspectors which would assist them both in determining the circumstances and causes of the grounding and in relation to the subsequent salvage operations. The chief inspector has received 35 detailed representations and a further 63 letters from people, some of whom wish to give evidence to the inspectors.

  The chief inspector's target for investigations of this kind is to submit his final report to me within 12 months of the date of an accident. Within this time, he has to carry out a consultation process on the draft, a statutory requirement which normally takes two months or more. If at any stage of the inquiry the chief inspector feels that he can usefully and properly publish interim recommendations, he will do so.

  In order to carry out the investigation speedily and thoroughly, the chief inspector tells me that he has appointed five of his nine inspectors to the investigation.

  I hope to publish the chief inspector's final report as soon as possible after receiving it.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24859]

  Mr. Norris
  There are 119 files in the Department of Transport, out of a total, 1,169,731, marked "Not to be seen by NAO without reference to the appropriate Head of Division", sometimes abbreviated to "Not for NAO Eyes". These figures refer to individual jackets —file parts. For each study, a number of divisions may be involved and each may possess a file with a number of parts.

  The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the tendering documents for the construction contract for the A34 Newbury bypass. [25184]
  505
  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: No.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 843, (1) if he will break down the costs of construction of the A34 Newbury bypass to indicate the cost of (a) the advance clearance contract, (b) the construction contract, (c) security during advance clearance and construction and (d) the enforcement by the under-sheriff of the various court orders for possession; [25340]

  (2) if he will make it his policy not to enter into a construction contract for the A34 Newbury bypass until the Department of the Environment has completed its public consultation on a special area of conservation to protect the terrestrial pulmonate snail Vertigo Moulinisiana. [25338]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 17 April 1996:
  As you know, the Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the costs of construction of the A34 Newbury Bypass and the timing of the award of the main works contract.
  At the time of award, the value of the contract for the site clearance was £1.684M. Although most of the work is complete, the contract is still extant and the final cost has yet to be determined.
  The cost of the security for the clearance work is likely to be in the order of £6M. This will cover the costs of the security firm hired by the clearance contractor and the costs incurred by the Under Sheriff in enforcing the eviction orders.
  Much of the work involved overlaps the clearance contract and the enforcement work. For instance, the cost of felling the trees increased because it was necessary first to trim a tree before evicting the protestors to allow the tree to be felled, rather than simply felling the tree in one go. We cannot therefore disaggregate the costs.
  We are still assessing the tenders for the main works contract so I cannot say what the costs of those works, and any associated security costs, will be.
  It is too soon to say when we will award the contract for the main works, or to speculate on whether any part of the area qualifies for designation as an SAC. English Nature will advise the Government on the latter on the basis of further survey work we and they have commissioned in respect of Vertigo Moulinsiana.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to enter into the construction contract for the A34 Newbury bypass. [25183]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 16 April 1996:]: It is too early to say when the contract will be awarded.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motor vehicles there are in the United Kingdom; and what estimate he has made of the percentage of them equipped with catalytic converters. [25013]

  Mr. Norris
  It is estimated that, at the end of September 1995, there were 25.51 million vehicles licensed to use Great Britain's roads. Of these 21.46 million were passenger cars of which, it is estimated, some 23 per cent. were equipped with catalytic converters. There is negligible use of catalytic converters in other vehicle sectors.

  A40
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) accidents were reported, (b) casualties required hospital treatment and (c) fatalities occurred on the A40 between Oxford and Gloucester for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [24908]

  Mr. Norris
  The table shows the number of personal injury accidents on the A40 between Oxford and Gloucester which were reported to the police, and the number of casualties resulting. Non-fatal casualties are classified as either seriously or slightly injured—the police do not record whether or not hospital treatment was required.

  Injury accidents and casualties on the A40 between Oxford and Gloucester: 1979–94

  Casualties

  Year of accident

  Injury accident

  Fatal

  Serious

  slight

  All casualties

  1979

  168

  5

  68

  148

  221

  1980

  157

  5

  63

  146

  214

  1981

  155

  14

  73

  132

  219

  1982

  164

  11

  78

  142

  231

  1983

  144

  9

  55

  147

  211

  1984

  184

  7

  66

  182

  255

  1985

  171

  11

  64

  171

  246

  1986

  158

  8

  61

  166

  235

  1987

  177

  6

  52

  174

  232

  1988

  188

  9

  68

  192

  269

  1989

  196

  6

  62

  214

  282

  1990

  136

  5

  39

  158

  202

  1991

  135

  10

  42

  152

  204

  1992

  152

  2

  33

  183

  218

  1993

  139

  3

  28

  168

  199

  1994

  140

  7

  39

  165

  211

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission the Transport Research Laboratory to Carry our a Full-scale assessment of the effectiveness of crash cushions. [25151]

  Mr. Watts
  No, a study into the situations where there may be a need to deploy crash cushions on the highway network has already been carried out. Generally, their widespread use is not cost effective because of the unpredictability and infrequent occurrence of the type of accidents they prevent.

  The Highways Agency has developed an effective prototype crash cushion, and other proprietary systems exist. They can be installed at particular sites on truck roads if in the light of the specific circumstances they provide an appropriate solution.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of accidents within the last two years where vehicles have left the road and descended down an embankment(a) where a barrier has been present and (b) where no barrier has been present. [25143]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not available.

  Coaches (Motorways)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the report commissioned by his Department from the Confederation of Passenger Transport on the trial ban on coaches using the outside lanes of motorways; and when he will make a statement on the outcome of the ban. [24620]

  Mr. Norris
  A copy of the report produced by Wootton Jeffreys on behalf of the Confederation of Passenger Transport, formerly the Bus and Coach Council, was placed in the Library in January 1995. A statement on the outcome of the ban on coaches using the outside lane of motorways with three or more lanes will be made after two years' accident data have been studied.

  Traffic Accidents (New Drivers)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many traffic accidents involving newly qualified drivers were reported in(a) 1993 and (b) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24584]

  Mr. Norris
  The table shows the number of injury road accidents in Great Britain in 1993 and 1994 which involved one or more drivers aged 17 to 21. The national road accident reporting system does not specifically identify newly qualified drivers, and final data for 1995 are not yet available.

  Injury road accidents involving drivers aged 17–21: Great Britain: 1993 and 1994

  Year of accident

  Accident severity

  1993

  1994

  Fatal

  764

  724

  Serious

  8,567

  8,309

  Slight

  42,560

  41,271

  Total

  51,891

  50,304

  Air Safety
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations are currently in place to ensure that military and civilian aircraft do not use the same air space at the same time; and if he will make a statement. [25478]

  Mr. Norris
  The same rules apply to civil and military aircraft with regard to avoiding other traffic. Within controlled air space, aircraft comply with instructions received from air traffic control. Outside controlled air space, there are procedures and minimum flight visibility rules to enable pilots to see and avoid other traffic.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what safety regulations are currently in place in respect of amateur pilot training; and if he will make a statement;[25476]

  (2) what plans he has to amend the safety aspects of the amateur pilot training regulations; and if he will make a statement. [25475]

  Mr. Norris
  The safety regulations relating to the private pilot's licence are laid down in schedule 8 to the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995, and policy and guidance material for PPL training and testing is set out in "Civil Aviation Publication 53", issued by the Civil Aviation Authority.
  508
  The CAA is responsible for amendments to PPL training regulations. This is an on-going process, in light of factors such as technological advances or the development of new EU regulations.

  Radar Detectors
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of banning the(a) sale and (b) possession of radar detectors for personal use.[25441]

  Mr. Norris
  The use of radar-type devices without a licence is an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, and the Radio Communications Agency would not issue a licence for any apparatus capable of interfering with authorised radio use.

  Helicopter Search and Rescue Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he plans to the helicopter search and rescue services operated by the coastguard on the south coast of England. [24573]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) on 28 March,Official Report, column 706.

  Overloaded Vehicles
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current sum devoted to enforcement of regulations against overloading of vehicles. [24894]

  Mr. Norris
  It is estimated that, in 1996–97, the Vehicle Inspectorate will devote about £2 million to the enforcement of the weight limits of goods vehicles.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many vehicle weighing centres there are in the United Kingdom; and what is the average period during which they are in use;[24892]

  (2) how many operators of heavy good vehicles were prosecuted for overloading in the last year for which information is available. [24891]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. Chris Davies, dated 17 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions on the number of HGV operators prosecuted for overloading offences and the number of vehicle weighing centres in the UK.
  In the financial year 1994/95, the Vehicle Inspectorate prosecuted 4,385 overloading offences (this number includes drivers and operators). The figure does not include any prosecutions taken by local authorities, Trading Standards and the Police, information for which we do not hold.
  The Vehicle Inspectorate is responsible for the maintenance and operation of 72 weighbridges throughout the UK. This figure does not include public weighbridges or private weighbridges (ie at operators' premises), information for which we do not keep. Information on the average period in which they are in use can only be provided at disproportionate cost. Roadside check programmes are arranged locally to allow maximum use of manpower and resources and use of the weighbridges will vary to ensure efficient use.
  509
  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the proportion of journeys made by heavy goods vehicles operating in an overloaded condition.[24890]

  Mr. Norris
  No surveys have been carried out recently on which an estimate could be based.

  However, in 1994–95 the Vehicle Inspectorate weighed 120,297 heavy goods vehicles of which 4,545 were prohibited from continuing their journey by reasons of being overloaded.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legal obligations are placed upon customers to ensure that operators carrying their goods do not overload vehicles. [24893]

  Mr. Norris
  None. It is the responsibility of the driver and operator to ensure that vehicles are not overloaded.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require customers to sign documentation indicating that they understand the loading restrictions placed upon the operators of heavy goods vehicles working on their behalf. [24895]

  Mr. Norris
  I have no plans to require customers to sign any form of documentation to this effect.

  Accidents (Cost)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost to the economy of each(a) fatal accident, (b) serious accident and (c) slight accident. [25146]

  Mr. Norris
  The values attributed to the avoidance of deaths and injuries in road accidents in 1994 were(a) fatal accident £913,100; (b) serious accident £ 108,100; (c) slight accident £10,600. These values take account of medical costs, lost production, human costs based on willingness to pay, the costs of police and courts, insurance administration, and property damage.

  Pedestrians and Cyclists
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) pedestrians and (b) cyclists were killed on the roads in each year in Great Britain since 1979. [25400]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the table. Figures for 1995 should be available in July.

  Road accident fatalities

  Pedestrians

  Pedal cyclists

  1979

  2,118

  320

  1980

  1,941

  302

  1981

  1,874

  310

  1982

  1,869

  294

  1983

  1,914

  323

  1984

  1,868

  345

  1985

  1,789

  286

  1986

  1,841

  271

  1987

  1,703

  280

  1988

  1,753

  227

  1989

  1,706

  294

  1990

  1,694

  256

  1991

  1,496

  242

  510

  Road accident fatalities

  Pedestrians

  Pedal cyclists

  1992

  1,347

  204

  1993

  1,241

  186

  1994

  1,124

  172

  Turnham Green Underground Station
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many members of the London regional passengers committee(a) regularly use and (b) live near Turnham Green station; [25140]

  (2) what representations he has received on the decision by London Transport that Piccadilly line trains should no longer stop at Turnham Green station from September; [25138]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effects, with special reference to early and late workers, of the decision that Piccadilly line trains should no longer stop at Turnham Green. [25139]

  Mr. Norris
  (a) None; (b) none.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have each received a number of written representations about this decision, and I shall shortly discuss it with the chairman of London Transport. Decisions on the timetabling of Piccadilly line services are, however, an operational matter for LT and London Underground Ltd.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24847]

  Mr. Howard
  No central record of files marked "Not for NAO Eyes" is maintained. The information could be obtained only by examining individually each of the 1.5 million extant files in my Department, and could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used rarely and in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the National Audit Office while they are current.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to take a decision on applications by prisoners detained in the United Kingdom to be transferred to prisons in the Irish Republic; and if he will make a statement; [24579]
  511
  (2) how many medical reports on Patrick Kelly he has requested in the last year; when the last report was (a) requested and (b) received by him; and when he expects to take a decision on Mr. Kelly's application to transfer to a prison in the Republic of Ireland. [24582]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: All requests made by prisoners seeking repatriation to the Republic of Ireland are determined on their individual merits. Repatriation in each case is subject to the consent of both jurisdictions and the prisoner concerned. Since 1 November 1995, when the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons came into force in the Republic, 70 requests have been received from prisoners in England and Wales wishing to be repatriated there. Twenty-nine requests including Mr. Kelly's have been referred to the Irish Republic for their consideration as required by the convention; a response has been received from the Irish authorities on Mr. Kelly's request and six others, one of which has now been granted.

  Six medical reports commissioned by the Prison Services of England and Wales and of Northern Ireland have been received on Patrick Kelly's condition; the latest of these is dated 11 April. In addition, three medical reports have been forwarded by Mr. Kelly's solicitors. Mr. Kelly remains on normal location within Maghaberry prison where his condition is regularly monitored.

  A decision on Mr. Kelly's repatriation request and all other outstanding requests will be made as soon as is possible.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made with his plans for a second demanding new regime for young offenders. [25618]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I am pleased to announce that we have decided to establish a new young offender institution on a site at the military corrective training centre at Colchester.

  Colchester young offender institution will begin taking its first prisoners this autumn, building to a maximum population of 32 young men aged between 18 and 21.

  The purpose of this initiative is to test the effectiveness of a regime similar to that followed by military detainees in improving the attitude and behaviour of young offenders and in reducing the level of their re-offending after release.

  Young offenders will be sent to Colchester having been assessed as suitable for the regime and conditions there. They will not be volunteers. Their day will be long and active, beginning with reveille at 6 am and ending with lights out at 10 pm. They will experience a combination of discipline, education and training reflecting the military ethos of the MCTC.

  Colchester young offender institution will operate under the young offender institution rules and Prison Service policy.

  It will be run by staff from the Prison Service and by military staff appointed as prison officers. The military commandant if the MCTC will be appointed as the
  512
  governor and he will have as his deputy an experienced Prison Service governor grade. Military staff appointed to the young offender institution will be thoroughly trained.

  Young offenders' progress will be monitored while at Colchester and afterwards. The results will be compared with those from a group of similar young offenders from a normal young offender institution.

  This is the second of two tough, disciplined and demanding new regimes for young offenders. The first is the high intensity training programme at Thorn Cross young offender institution which my right hon and learned Friend announced last year and which will take its first inmates in the summer.

  Together, these initiatives represent a serious and determined attempt by Her Majesty's Government to find a way to break the cycle of re-offending among persistent young offenders.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the differences between the ratio of prison officers with non-medical responsibilities to prisoners at Buckley Hall and those at male category C prisons, in respect of all shifts. [24278]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 3 April 1996]: 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 Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 17 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the differences between the ratio of prison officers with non-medical responsibilities to prisoners at Buckley Hall prison and those at male category C prisons, in respect of all shifts.
  The information requested, as at 1 April, is shown in the attached table. health care provision at Buckley Hall prison is contracted-out and so the ratio of staff to inmates includes all prisoner custody officers. The ratio for male category C prisons includes establishments where only a proportion of the prison population is made up of category C prisoners. The staffing ratio for these prisons comprises prison officers, senior officers and principal officers.
  Information concerning the impact of shift patterns on the staffing ratio is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Staffing ratios for non health care staff to prisoners

  Establishment

  Staff: Inmate ratio

  Buckley Hall

  1:2.7

  Male category C training establishments

  1:2.1

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners required medical treatment following the break-in by prisoners of the hospital at Buckley Hall in August 1994; how many received medical treatment in local hospitals; and who was responsible for the payment of the health care received by them. [24283]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 3 April 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange a reply to be given.
  513
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 17 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners requiring medical treatment following the break-in by prisoners to the hospital at Buckley Hall prison in August 1994; and who was responsible for the payment for the healthcare which they received.
  No prisoner required medical treatment in the 24-hour period following the break-in by prisoners to the hospital at Buckley Hall prison in August 1994.
  One prisoner subsequently received medical treatment in a local hospital and was returned to the prison. The Regional Health Authority responsible for the area in which this prisoner normally resided would be charged for his treatment.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance he has issued concerning the use of CS gas in the trials now being conducted; [23966]

  (2) what guidance is given to police forces testing the use of CS gas about its use in confined spaces; [23964]

  (3) if he will deposit in the Library the guidelines he issued regarding the use of CS gas spray by police forces in the pilot areas. [24710]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not issued guidance to police officers participating in the trials. The Association of Chief Police Officers has provided guidelines on the use of CS in any circumstances where this may be necessary and on the aftercare of subjects who have been sprayed. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Campsfield House
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a site has been chosen to replace the proposed Campsfield House site. [25197]

  Mr. Maclean
  No. An alternative site is actively being sought.

  Police Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations and police forces whose crime-fighting information will be co-ordinated via the new police information technology organisation; and if he will make a statement. [25023]

  Mr. Maclean
  The police information technology organisation exists in order to provide services to the police forces of England, Wales and Scotland. In particular, it operates the police national computer which holds information contributed by all these forces.

  Mr. Cohen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 March, Official Report, column 791, to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on police information systems and information technology, what evaluation he has made of extending the role of the Data Protection Registrar to cover arrangements for police data held by a private company following compulsory competitive tendering arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [25022]
  514
  Mr. Maclean
  The Data Protection Act 1984 will continue to apply to such data.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 791, to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on police information systems and information technology, if he will (a) list the specific exemptions, (b) set out the reduction in overall competition requirement, (c) list the number and nature of the likely contracts involved, their duration and what provision they will contain to ensure security of personal data and (d) list what tender procedures will apply; and if he will make a statement on the arrangements he proposes to ensure the security of personal data. [25021]

  Mr. Maclean
  The extension of compulsory competitive tendering to police authority information systems-information technology support services in England and Wales will be adjusted so as to exclude.(a) the user support and systems operation, excluding routine maintenance, of integrated communications infrastructures in support of operational policing, including radio, telephony and data services.
  (b) the user support and systems operation, excluding routine maintenance, of operational systems, and the provision of IS/IT technical expertise and support for investigations surveillance and crime preventions;
  (c) the user support and systems operation, excluding routine maintenance, for the operational investigation of computer crime;
  (d) all IS/IT services carried out by police authorities on behalf of regional crime squads; and
  (e) all operational and specialist IS/IT training, and associated training services, in respect of police officers and the IS/IT training of civilian support to the extent such training relates to preventing and detecting crime; upholding the law; bringing to justice those who break the law; and protecting, helping and reassuring the community.

  The overall competition requirement will be 55 per cent. It will be for individual police authorities to decide how best to meet their CCT obligations within the overall statutory framework. It is not possible at this stage to anticipate the number and nature of the likely contracts which might be involved.

  Convictions (Disclosure)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to publish a White Paper on the disclosure of convictions for those seeking access to children; and if he will make a statement. [25226]

  Mr. Maclean
  We expect to publish a White Paper setting out proposals for new arrangements for the disclosure of information from criminal records for employment and related purposes within the next few months.

  Police Force
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects his target of 5,000 additional police officers to be achieved. [25137]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are providing an additional £180 million in funding to allow an extra 5,000 police officers to be recruited over the three-year period
  515
  from April 1996 to March 1999. It is for chief officers of police and police authorities to determine the number of police officers in each force.

  Onley Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the operational guidelines and specifications issued to the tenderers for Onley. [25201]

  Mr. Maclean
  Copies of the design and build specification and supporting schedules, the operational specification and supporting schedules and an administrative paper which outlines proposed rules for the secure training centre at Onley were placed in the Library on 8 March.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when tenders were invited for the proposed secure training centre site at Onley; and which firms have(a) applied and (b) been invited to tender. [25196]

  Mr. Maclean
  Expressions of interest to design, build, manage and finance the third new secure training centre to be located at Onley, Northamptonshire, were invited on 9 August 1995. The following 11 companies or consortia expressed an interest:

  Esmor-Keir

  Group 4/Tarmac

  JarmanCare Ltd.

  Secure Care Service Ltd.

  Castle Homes/Taylor Woodrow

  Premier Prisons Ltd.

  Team Rehabilitation Services

  Henry Boot/STC Ltd.

  UKCC/Wimpey/Impreglio

  Tilbury Douglas/Bobby Ross Group

  Bristol Management Centre.

  Of these, the first four companies or consortia listed were invited to bid on 4 March.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of all assaults recorded by the police were domestic violence offences in each year since 1985.[24870]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is not possible to separately identify offences of domestic violence within the regular recorded crime series collected centrally by the Home Office.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refuges for women escaping domestic violence have been notified to his Department. [24897]

  Mr. Maclean
  The availability of emergency shelter for those fleeing domestic violence is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I understand that the latest information available from the Womens' Aid Federation shows that there are 418 refuges in England and 45 in Wales.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average number of hours worked per week by special constables; [24940]

  (2) what is the average number of hours worked per week by special constables in each constabulary; [24946]

  (3) what is the average number of hours of training received by special constables. [24947]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the funding provided by his Department for the training of special constables; [24896]

  (2) if he will list by police force area the cost of the special constabulary, (a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the budget for each force. [24888]

  Mr. Maclean
  Specials are not paid but they must be recruited, trained, equipped and organised. They also receive allowances and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. Each special constabulary is funded through the police grant for the force with which it is associated. It is for the chief officers to decide the level of funding to devote to their special constables and the proportion of those funds to commit to training purposes. Funds are occasionally augmented by support from sponsors.

  Costs for specials are not identified separately by most forces and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It is estimated that in their first year of service special constables cost about £1,400 and thereafter the annual cost is in the region of £500, although there are variations between forces.

  The Government have found an additional £10 million to encourage chief officers to recruit more specials and to improve their conditions of service, administration and training. It will help to meet the cost of implementing the most urgent recommendations of the Home Office special constabulary working group, whose report is due to be published this summer. The working group has recommended that forces do more to identify separately special constabulary costs.

  Most of the new fund is being offered on a challenge funding basis: forces must compete for the money through a bidding process, and those which secure tangible offers of support from other sources are favoured. But some £250,000 of the fund has been earmarked for a training package for those special constables who have been promoted into supervisory grades.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the number of special constables currently employed(a) in total and (b) in each constabulary; [24944]

  (2) what is the number of special constables recruited in each year since 1992–93;[24942]

  (3) how many special constables recruited in (a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96 have since resigned from service. [24941]
  517
  Mr. Maclean
  Special constables are not employed but are volunteers. The total number of special constables in post on 20 March was 19,834. This figure is broken down by police force area in the table.

  The number of special constables recruited in the calendar years 1992 and 1993 were 5,450 and 5,479 respectively. Thereafter, numbers have been recorded on a financial year basis. In 1994–95, 4,564 specials were recruited, and a further 2,150 were recruited between April and September 1995. Figures are not yet available for the second half of 1995–96.

  Those forces which keep records about resignations do not specifically include information about when each special concerned was recruited. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most specials resign after at least two years, which is longer than the national average for those involved in volunteering, and that they will have offered their services to the force for at least four hours every week.

  Force

  Number of specials

  Avon and Somerset

  685

  Bedfordshire

  187

  Cambridgeshire

  280

  Cheshire

  279

  City of London

  77

  Cleveland

  185

  Cumbria

  207

  Derbyshire

  419

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,097

  Dorset

  254

  Durham

  183

  Dyfed Powys

  301

  Essex

  622

  Gloucestershire

  329

  Greater Manchester

  721

  Gwent

  139

  Hampshire

  503

  Hertfordshire

  310

  Humberside

  385

  Kent

  557

  Lancashire

  548

  Leicestershire

  364

  Lincolnshire

  306

  Merseyside

  368

  Metropolitan

  1,758

  Norfolk

  319

  Northamptonshire

  300

  Northumbria

  477

  North Wales

  345

  North Yorkshire

  371

  Nottinghamshire

  554

  South Wales

  467

  South Yorkshire

  373

  Staffordshire

  705

  Suffolk

  415

  Surrey

  249

  Sussex

  518

  Thames Valley

  765

  Warwickshire

  341

  West Mercia

  603

  West Midlands

  944

  West Yorkshire

  783

  Wiltshire

  241

  Female Homicide Victims
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of female homicide 518
  victims were killed by present or former partners in each year since 1985. [24916]

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

  Percentage of female homicide victims killed by their spouse, cohabitant or former spouse or cohabitant, England and Wales1

  Year

  Per cent.

  1985

  39

  1986

  43

  1987

  34

  1988

  36

  1989

  43

  1990

  39

  1991

  38

  1992

  38

  1993

  34

  1994

  30

  1 As at 4 August 1995.

  Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Court Appearances (Polices Officers)
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the procedures introduced under section 48 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in respect of the time spent by police officers making unnecessary court appearances; and if he will make a statement. [24887]

  Mr. Maclean
  It was in order to reduce the waste of time and money which results from "cracked" trials—when defendants who intend to plead guilty delay doing so until the day of the trial—that the practice of giving discounts for early guilty pleas was put on a statutory basis in section 48 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  The latest figures from the Lord Chancellor's Department show that the proportion of cases in which the plea was changed to guilty on the date of trial fell by five percentage points between the last quarter of 1994 and the last quarter of 1995. Although it is uncertain to what extent section 48 contributed to this fall, any decrease in the incidence of cracked trials saves the time of the police and of other witnesses, as well as saving court time.

  Benefits (Police Officers)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the number of police officers in receipt of(a) income support and (b) other benefits. [24930]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Police Federation and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), in his capacity as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation, have made representations about those few police officers receiving such benefits.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes there are in operation in(a) each county in Wales, (b) Wales and (c) England; and if he will make a statement. [25012]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of neighbourhood watch schemes is collected by police force area, not county. At 31 March 1995, the figures were as follows:

  Neighbourhood Watch schemes in Wales, by police force area

  Area

  Number

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,455

  Gwent

  363

  North Wales

  3,381

  South Wales

  1,911

  Total

  7,110

  (b) Neighbourhood Watch schemes in England: 135,892.

  The number of schemes in Wales rose by some 23 per cent. between December 1993 and March 1995. I am delighted that the people of Wales are embracing neighbourhood watch so enthusiastically. It has a very important part to play in the fight against crime.

  Paedophiles
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to include the vetting of known paedophiles in his proposed White Paper on employment vetting; and when he expects to publish the White Paper. [24933]

  Table 3.10: Receptions1 into Prison Service establishments: by age, sex and type of custody, 1994

  England and Wales Young Offenders

  Number of persons

  Age on sentence

  Sex and type of custody

  All young offenders

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  All males and females on remand1

  19,459

  635

  1,103

  3,978

  4,808

  4,513

  4,422

  All males and females under sentence

  18,224

  747

  1,277

  2,096

  3,879

  5,023

  5,202

  All males on remand1

  18,712

  635

  1,100

  3,828

  4,604

  4,319

  4,226

  Untried

  16,140

  613

  1,042

  3,419

  3,964

  3,611

  3,491

  Convicted unsentenced

  10,513

  331

  626

  2,182

  2,582

  2,462

  2,330

  All males under sentence

  17,570

  715

  1,218

  2,038

  3,749

  4,855

  4,995

  Detention in a young offender institution

  14,058

  675

  1,103

  1,846

  3,188

  3,656

  3,590

  Custody for life

  20

  —

  —

  —

  2

  9

  9

  In default of payment of a fine

  3,123

  —

  —

  —

  542

  1,188

  1,393

  Section 53(1) C and YP Act 1933

  12

  —

  2

  5

  4

  —

  1

  Section 53(2) C and YP Act 1933

  357

  40

  113

  187

  13

  2

  2

  All females on remand1

  747

  —

  3

  150

  204

  194

  196

  Untried

  586

  —

  2

  126

  150

  160

  148

  Convicted unsentenced

  368

  —

  1

  65

  115

  87

  100

  All females under sentence

  654

  32

  59

  58

  130

  168

  207

  Detention in a young offender institution

  492

  28

  51

  54

  99

  118

  142

  Custody for life

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  520
  Mr. Maclean
  The White Paper, which will be published within the next few months, will set out proposals for new arrangements for the disclosure of criminal record information. In particular, it will propose new arrangements for checks on those seeking positions which will give them access to children. We also intend to publish shortly a consultation document which will canvass the full range of measures which could improve public protection against sex offenders, including additional supervision of offenders following their release from custody.

  Prisoner Admissions
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people were received into Prison Service establishments as(a) untried and (b) convicted unsentenced during 1994 by age and institution; and what factors led to the omission of this information from Prison Statistics England and Wales 1994. [25198]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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 Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 17 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many young people were received into Prison Service establishments as (a) untried and (b) convicted unsentenced during 1994 by age and institution; and what factors led to the omission of this information from "Prison Statistics, England and Wales 1994".
  The available information was published in table 3.10 of the 1994 edition of "Prison statistics, England and Wales" as usual. A copy of the table is attached for information. Information by individual Prison Service establishment is not published in "Prison statistics, England and Wales".
  521

  Table 3.10: Receptions1 into Prison Service establishments: by age, sex and type of custody, 1994

  England and Wales Young Offenders

  Number of persons

  Age on sentence

  Sex and type of custody

  All young offenders

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  In default of payment of a fine

  145

  —

  —

  —

  31

  50

  64

  Section 53(1) C and YP Act 1933

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Section 53(2) C and YP Act 1933

  16

  4

  8

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1 Total receptions cannot be calculated by adding together receptions in each category because there is double-counting (see paragraph 10 of Introduction). However double-counting has been allowed for in the figures of receptions of prisoners under remand where the figures for "all remand" record once only a person received as an untried prisoner who is subsequently received also as a convicted unsentenced prisoner.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the revenue spending estimated by his Department in connection with the private finance initiative for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [24883]

  Mr. Howard
  Estimates of payments under private finance initiative contracts are as follows:

  1995–96: £0.6 million

  1996–97: £6.0 million

  1997–98: £60.65 million

  Stalking
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) the Association of Chief Police Officers, (b) the Director of Public Prosecutions, (c) the Police Federation, (d) the Suzy Lamplugh trust, and (e) others about the need to introduce a criminal offence of stalking. [24935]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received no representations on this subject from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Police Federation. The Suzy Lamplugh trust has made no direct representations to the Home Office, but its concerns in this area are well known to us.

  In the past year, we have received representations on this issue from:
  the National Anti-Stalking and Harassment Campaign (NASH);
  individual police officers who have investigated cases of stalking;
  The Mail on Sunday, The Portsmouth News and Yorkshire Television;
  hon. Friends and hon. Members and noble Lords in another place; and
  49 members of the public, including victims of stalking.

  Buggery
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of non-consensual buggery of men were reported in the United Kingdom in(a) 1985 and (b) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24601]

  Mr. Maclean
  Following the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the offence of non-consensual buggery became male rape and statistics for the number of offences recorded in England 522
  and Wales in 1995 were published in table 6 of "Home Office Statistical Bulletin 3/96". Prior to the introduction of the Act, recorded offences of non-consensual buggery were contained within the overall offence of buggery and were not separately identifiable. Figures for total recorded offences of buggery in 1985 are published in table 2.16 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1994". Copies of both the above publications are available in the Library. Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Secretary of State in each Department respectively.

  Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners remanded on criminal charges currently receive a custodial sentence following conviction. [24826]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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 Richard Tilt to Mr. Robin Corbett, dated 17 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what percentage of prisoners remanded on criminal charges currently receive a custodial sentence following conviction.
  The available information on the proportion of remand prisoners in England and Wales subsequently receiving a custodial sentence is given in table 2.6 of "Prison statistics, England and Wales 1994" (Cm 3087), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers and passengers were summoned for travelling without a seat belt in(a) 1990, (b) 1992, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24600]

  Mr. Maclean
  There were 10,145 prosecutions for not wearing a seat belt in England and Wales in 1990, 11,258 in 1992 and 8,715 in 1994. Statistics for 1995 are not yet available.

  Metropolitan Police (Complaints)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints the Metropolitan police have settled on cash terms in each year since 1990 and in the current year to date; how many of those have been on
  523
  no-liability admission basis; what has been the total cash agreed for payment in each year; how many of these cases had a (a) racial and (b) sexual aspect; what was the cost per year relating to each of these; what is the total numbers of police officers involved in these cases; and how many have (i) been disciplined, (ii) left the police service and (iii) been subsequently promoted. [24624]

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  11996

  Settled actions

  78

  74

  85

  140

  174

  140

  48

  Amount paid

  £557,000

  £390,000

  £468,000

  £1,332,000

  £1,050,000

  £1,051,000

  £322,000

  Threatened actions

  49

  38

  51

  74

  100

  72

  18

  Amount paid

  £91,000

  £60,000

  £84,000

  £204,000

  £209,000

  £242,000

  £23,000

  Total actions

  127

  112

  136

  214

  274

  212

  66

  Total paid

  £648,000

  £450,000

  £552,000

  £1,536,000

  £1,259,000

  £1,293,000

  £345,000

  1 To 31 March.

  Firearms
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearm permits and shotgun certificates were issued in Wales in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24625]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available information on firearm and shot gun certificates was published in the Home Office statistical bulletin "Firearm Certificate Statistics, England and Wales 1994", issue 11/95, copies of which can be found in the Library. The bulletin contains the information that 768 new firearm certificates and 2,629 new shot gun certificates were issued in Wales during 1994.

  Driving Insurance (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for driving without insurance there have been in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [25256]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: Information on the number of proceedings at magistrates courts for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, for the latest five years which are available, are given in the table.
  Proceedings at magistrates' courts for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, England and Wales:

  Year

  Number of offences

  1990

  317,797

  1991

  364,035

  1992

  404,492

  1993

  446,568

  1994

  446,559

  Coroners (Wales)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many coroners were in post in Wales on Friday 29 March; [24479]

  (2) how many coroners had been appointed to the new jurisdictions established by the Coroners Districts (Wales) Order 1996, by Saturday 30 March, to hold office from 1 April, giving their appointment dates; [24523]
  524
  Mr. Maclean
  Information about complaints made against the Metropolitan police, which have been settled on cash terms, is given in the table. The information requested in the latter part of the question is not available centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  (3) which lead authorities under the Coroners Districts (Wales) Order 1996 have made (a) requests and (b) arrangements to use the services of coroners appointed to other areas after 1 April. [24524]

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for the appointment of coroners rests with the relevant councils. There were 16 coroners in post in Wales on 29 March. Five coroners were formally appointed to the new districts by 30 March to hold office from 1 April, with appointment dates of 29 March. I am informed that Wrexham county borough council and Denbighshire county council made arrangements to use the services of coroners appointed to another area. I am not aware of any other requests made.

  Morgan Report
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement the recommendations of the Morgan report, on the role of local councils. [24932]

  Mr. Maclean
  Over 200 local authorities are already engaged in crime prevention partnerships of the kind endorsed in the Morgan report. Given this level of activity, we see no need to burden them with new statutory responsibilities.

  Private Security Industry
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the transfer of core and ancilliary tasks from the police to the private security industry. [24885]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have conducted a major review of police core and ancillary tasks and a report of its findings was published on 27 June 1995. The review made no recommendations to transfer traditional police tasks to the private security industry, and we have no plans to do so.

  Prisoner Entitlements
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the entitlements of detainees at(a) HMP Rochester (b) HMP Haslar and (c) Campsfield

  525
  house to (i) receive incoming phone calls, (ii) make phone calls, (iii) receive personal and legal visitors and (iv) spend time in common areas not in cells or dormitories; and if he will make a statement. [25473]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: Responsibility for this matter as regards the Prison Service has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given in consultation with the Immigration Service.

  Rochester

  Haslar

  Campsfield House

  Incoming telephone calls

  Answer- Phone only.

  Dedicated telephone in each dormitory available 24 hours a day.

  0900–2200 daily via switchboard.

  Messages passed on by staff

  Emergency calls may be accepted at other times.

  Outgoing telephone calls

  One legal call a day at public expense. Cardphones available for as many calls as they can afford whenever unlocked.

  Two cardphones in each dormitory available 24 hours a day.

  Access to payphones 0700–2400 daily. Duty supervisor has discretion to allow calls at other times.

  Personal and legal visitors

  One personal and legal visit a day, except Sundays, subject to space being available in the visits area.

  Monday—Friday 0930–1200 1330–1630 Personal and legal visits

  Personal: 1400–2100 daily (at other times in emergency or on compassionate grounds).

  Personal: Mon—Fri 1400–1630 Saturday 1400–1500 1530–1630

  Saturday—Sunday: 1330–1415 Personal visits (legal visits exceptionally)

  Legal: 0900–2100 daily (exceptionally at other times).

  Time in common areas (not in cells/dormitories)

  10 hours 20 mins a day.

  Monday—Friday: 12 hours a day Saturday and Sunday:11 hours

  0700–2400

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Consumer Council
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received on the impact of the reductions in the budget of the National Consumer Council since 1993. [23935]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is regular contact between the National Consumer Council and my Department on matters including the council's funding. I have received no other representations on this subject.

  Heysham 2 Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representation he has received regarding refuelling problems at the Heysham 2 nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement. [23941]

  Mr. Eggar
  This event, which involved the automatic shutdown of one of the two reactors at Heysham 2 on 29 January, was raised in the House by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and other hon. Members during the debate on nuclear privatisation of 26 March. I have received no other representations on this subject. There was no danger from the event and it was not a matter that needed to be reported to Ministers under incident reporting criteria. However, Nuclear Electric has kept my Department informed about the event and the on-going investigation into its cause.
  526
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 17 April 1996.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the entitlements of Immigration Act detainees at Rochester and Haslar prisons, and at Campsfield House immigration detention centre.
  The information provided about Campsfield House, which is not a Prison Service establishment, has been supplied by the Immigration Service.
  The information requested is set out in the attached table.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to meet his European Union counterparts to discuss the implication of the IGC on European trading and industrial policies. [23942]

  Mr. Lang
  My colleagues and I regularly meet our European Union counterparts to discuss a range of issues, including, when appropriate, the implication of the IGC on European trade and industrial policies.

  West Cumbria Development Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department will give to West Cumbria development agency in the promotion of the Marypride project. [23943]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Maryport is an assisted area. Any proposals for investments which create or safeguard jobs would be considered for support in accordance with the normal criteria for regional selective assistance. West Cumbria is also an objective 2 area and is eligible for European funding for business support measures, training and re-skilling activities.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of our gross domestic project is spent on(a) Government and (b) private research and development and basic science. [23944]
  527
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In 1994, the latest year for which data is available, Government-funded R and D was 0.71 per cent. of GDP and private sector-funded R and D was 1.48 per cent. of GDP. Government-funded basic research amounted to about 0.24 per cent. of GDP and private sector-funded basic research was about 0.1 per cent. of GDP.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on Government funding for research and development. [23951]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In 1995–96 the total expenditure on research and development by Government Departments is expected to have been about £5.6 billion.

  Telecommunications Industries (Regulation)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the regulation of the telecommunications industries. [23945]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Telecommunications have a key role to play in building UK competitiveness, both in attracting new investment and in revolutionising the way all companies do business. The UK led the way for telecommunications worldwide by privatising BT in 1984 and by progressively liberalising the UK market. This policy has been an outstanding success. Business and residential consumers have benefited from lower prices, a real and growing choice of operator, and innovative new services. BT's prices have reduced by around 40 per cent. overall in real terms since 1984. Liberalisation has also stimulated the introduction of multimedia services, which will enable the UK to be at the forefront of the transition to the information society. The Government launched the information society initiative in February to increase awareness of the new opportunities created.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the level of manufacturing output in the UK as a percentage of gross domestic product; and what is the average for the European Union. [23947]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The OECD estimates that in 1993 manufacturing output accounted for 21 per cent. of gross domestic product the European Union and, measured on a comparable basis, 19 per cent. in the UK.

  Ice Cream (Inquiry)
  Ms Church
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking following the investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into the veracity of the evidence given by Bird's Eye Walls to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into ice cream published in 1994. [23948]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The matter is being considered with a view to deciding whether a criminal investigation should be undertaken. The decision taken will be announced in due course.

  Fossil Fuel Reserves
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates he has made of the life-span of remaining United Kingdom fossil fuel reserves. [23949]
  528
  Mr. Page
  Total British reserves of oil and gas in all known discoveries could, at 1994 rates of consumption, last respectively for 19 and 34 years. If the full potential from all possible future discoveries were to be included these would increase to over 50 years for both fuels.

  The remaining reserves of coal at existing mines are estimated at around 1 billion tonnes, while 53 million tonnes were extracted in 1995. However, the prospects for future coal production are limited not by the resource base but by the economics of opening new mines.

  Aerospace Industry (Lancashire)
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the aerospace industry in Lancashire. [23950]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has regular contact with the aerospace industry in Lancashire, including the Consortium of Lancashire Aerospace.

  Visible Trade Balance
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for how many years since 1979 the visible trade balance has been in deficit. [23952]

  Mr. Nelson
  The visible trade balance has been in deficit for 14 of the 17 years since 1979.

  Gas Contracts
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the Gas Consumers Council about the mis-selling of domestic gas contracts by Swebgas. [23954]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Gas Consumers' Council has kept my Department appraised of its views as to the progress of gas competition in the south-west.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the level of manufacturing output in the United Kingdom; and what is the average for the European Union.[23929]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Over the last European economic cycle, manufacturing output grew by 1.75 per cent. per year in the United Kingdom compared with 1 per cent. per year in the European Union.

  Sutton Enterprise Agency
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of Sutton enterprise agency. [23946]

  Mr. Richard Page
  The Sutton enterprise agency provides a valuable service, particularly to start-up and micro businesses in the borough. I welcome its involvement in local business link developments, particularly its co-location with other business support organisations in Sutton. This will provide an excellent opportunity to develop, through business link London south, a range of quality services appropriate to local business needs.

  Institute of Animal Health
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 27 March,Official Report, column 606, what are the reasons for the reduction in the number of scientists at the Institute of Animal Health between 1993 and 1995. [25186]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The change in number of scientists employed at the Institute of Animal Health's Neuropathogenesis Unit between 1993 and 1996, as given in my previous answer, was largely due to the expiry of a number of fixed-term contracts. In particular, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council refocused its BSE programme, winding down the first and introducing a second phase. This involved first a reduction and then an increase in number of staff. As far as possible, continuity of research effort has been maintained.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24860]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No central record is kept by my Department of files marked "Not for NAO Eyes". For each NAO study, a number of divisions in different locations may be involved and each may possess in its registries a file with a number of parts—for example, individual jackets. The information requested is therefore not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

HEALTH

  BSE
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the reliability of the research carried out by Dr. Harash Narang into tests on live animals and humans to detect BSE and CJD. [24907]

  Mr. Horam
  Dr. Narang has proposed a number of tests to detect bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The first of these concerned a technique for examining the brain tissue of dead animals but in trials this proved to be no more successful in identifying cases of BSE than other better-established techniques.

  Dr. Narang has also stated that he has developed urine tests for identifying BSE and CJD in live animals and humans. Such test, if effective, would be of great value and Dr. Narang has been invited to supply details of them so they can be independently evaluated. However, he has so far declined to do this although this question is still being explored with him.

  Health Authority Cars
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cars, and of what engine capacity, were provided for senior managers and board members of (1) the former Yorkshire regional health authority, (2) the former Northern regional health authority and (3) the present Yorkshire and Northern regional health authority in each year since 1992. [22895]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Northern regional health authority

  Yorkshire regional health authority

  Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority

  Northern and Yorkshire regional office

  1992–93

  101

  261

  —

  —

  1993–94

  124

  224

  —

  —

  1994–95

  —

  —

  231

  —

  1995–96

  —

  —

  87

  —

  1996–97

  —

  —

  —

  44

  1. Engine capacity varied from 1100 cc to 2500 cc. The costs of any car in excess of a base vehicle were borne by the employee.

  2. Leases were issued using the terms laid down by Whitley Council.

  Community Health Councils (Chief Officers)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received from(a) individual community health councils, (b) the Association of Community Health Councils in England and Wales and (c)other organisations in respect of his Department's proposed regrading procedure of community health council chief officers; and if he will make a statement; [25459]

  (2) if he will list those community health councils whose chief officer will financially (a) gain and (b) lose from his Department's proposed regrading procedure of community health council chief officers; and if he will make a statement. [25458]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has not proposed a formal regrading procedure for community health council chief officers. The national health service executive has recently completed some exploratory work into how a common national framework for chief officer gradings might be created. Regional offices of the NHS executive may choose to use that work as a basis for any regrading of chief officer posts taking into account any other local factors that they consider appropriate. A letter setting this out was sent to regional offices on 14 February and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Written representations about the letter have been received from the Trent Regional Association of Community Health Councils, the Society of Community Health Council Staff, and Sheffield Community Health Council. The Association for Community Health Councils for England and Wales also made representations about the letter at a meeting with me on 26 March 1996.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24848]

  Mr. Horam
  The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  The usual practice in the Department is to assign the marking to individual documents rather than to files. Information on the number of documents so marked could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  South Manchester University Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what fees were paid by the South Manchester University Hospital NHS trust to the Audit Commission in 1995–96; what audit work was carried out by the commission during the year; what part the commission had in discovering the accountancy error that led to the closure of 64 NHS beds in Manchester, and if he will make a statement. [25295]

  Mr. Horam
  The Audit Commission played no part in discovering the accounting error. The payment of fees is a matter for South Manchester University Hospitals National Health Service trust and the right hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Peter Hadfield, trust chairman, for details.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what additional funding is made available to hospital trusts to take account of the proximity to airports and motorways;[25296]

  (2) what extra funding was made available in the last financial year to the South Manchester University Hospital NHS trust to take account of its proximity to Manchester Airport and the motorway network. [25297]

  Mr. Horam
  Trusts are not funded directly by my Department but from contracts with purchasers.

  The proximity to airports and the motorway network will impact mainly on accident and emergency work and be reflected in the contracts for this work placed with trusts by their host health authority.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many partial birth abortions have been carried out for the latest year for which figures are available; [25298]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ban the technique of partial birth abortion in the United Kingdom. [25300]
  532
  Mr. Horam
  We are not aware of this procedure being used in the United Kingdom. Methods of abortion are a matter of clinical judgment.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued on partial birth abortion. [25299]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Pensions
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people's national insurance contributions record leaves them without entitlement to a full retirement pension; and how many of these are(a) women below retirement age and (b) women above retirement age. [20736]

  Mr. Heald
  [pursuant to his reply 19 March, Official Report, column 181]: The information I provided was incomplete. A revised answer follows.

  At 31 March 1995, 4,642,330 people over state pension age in Great Britain were in receipt of either a contributory or non-contributory state retirement pension below the standard rate of basic retirement pension. Of these, 4,449,500 were women.

  Some people who are over the state pension age and not in receipt of state pension may be deferring their pension in order to earn increments.

  Equivalent information is not available for people under state pension age or for people over state pension age who have no entitlement to any state pension.

  Source:
  10 per cent. sample of Pension Strategy Computer System.

  Notes:
  1. The figures do not include people receiving Incapacity Benefit or Widows Benefit in place of Retirement Pension.
  2. The figures include 540 men and 1,688,000 women who are not entitled to a full pension on their own national insurance record, but receive a full pension based on their deceased spouses contribution record.

  State Retirement Pension
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people's national insurance contributions record leaves them without entitlement to any state retirement pension. [20735]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  The number of people over state pension age, 60 for women and 65 for men, in 1995 is projected to be 10.4 million1.

  At 31 March 1995 the number of people over state pension age who receive some contributory retirement pension was 9.6 million2.

  The table gives a detailed breakdown of this figure. In addition:
  533
  At September 1994 the number of people receiving widows benefit in place of retirement pension was 47,0003.

  At March 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of people receiving invalidity benefit over state pension age was 297,0004.

  Some people who are over state pension age and not in receipt of state pension may be deferring their pension in order to earn increments.

  Number of beneficiaries

  Category A basic pension—men

  3,322,150

  Category A basic pension—women

  2,421,010

  Category BL basic pension—women

  1,259,300

  Category ABL basic pension—women

  696,600

  Category B—widows

  1,751,190

  Category B—widowers

  540

  Category A or B additional pension only

  14,880

  Graduated Retirement Benefit without Category A or B

  125,910

  Total

  9,591,580

  Note:

  Key to table:

  Cat A—pension derived from own contributions.

  Cat BL—pension derived from spouse' contributions (figure includes a small proportion with underlying entitlement to Cat A pension where both husband and wife reached State Pension age before 6/4/79). Full rate is approximately 60 per cent. of Cat A rate. Cat ABL—pension derived from both own and spouse's contributions. Full rate is approximately 60 per cent. of Cat A rate. Cat B—pension derived from late spouse's contributions. Full rate same as Cat A.

  Source:

  1Government Actuary. Projection for 1995 based on 1994 population figures.

  210 per cent. sample of Pension Strategy Computer System.

  310 per cent. sample of Pension Strategy Computer System.

  41. A small proportion may have no underlying entitlement to State Retirement Pension.

  Source 1 per cent. sample of all claims to Invalidity Benefit in GB, rounded to nearest thousand.

  Child Support Disregard
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in the 1996–97 financial year of providing a child support disregard of(a) £5 per week, (b) £10 per week and (c) £15 per week; and what are the assumptions upon which these three costings are based. [23331]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  It is estimated that the cost of introducing a £5 maintenance disregard in 1996–97 would be around £50 million; the cost of a £10 disregard would be around £90 million; and the cost of a £15 disregard would be around £120 million. The annual cost of a disregard is likely to double over time as the Child Support Agency caseload increases.

  These estimates apply the disregard to child support maintenance and other forms of child maintenance, and assume that the disregard would apply to lone parents and parents with care who have entered into a new partnership. Other assumptions include the number of full child support assessments where the parent with care receives income support, and rates of compliance by absent parents.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what out-sourcing contracts his agencies have with the EDS software computer system; what is the current cost; when the contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement; [23733]

  (2) if he will set out the terms of the contract the Child Support Agency has with the EDS computer system; and if he will make a statement. [23539]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The contract to outsource the Department's data centre services was awarded to EDS Ltd. on 1 June 1995 and is for a period of 10 years. The contract is volume/output based with a value depending on future levels of business.

  Current estimates are that charges will be in the region of £600 million over the 10-year period.

  Other details relating to the terms and conditions of this contract, and the Child Support Agency's contract with EDS, are commercial in confidence.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long a claimant of attendance allowance going abroad outside the European Union(a) may receive attendance allowance payments and (b) is entitled to resume attendance allowance payments; and if these entitlements are available to disability living allowance recipients. [24062]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  A recipient of attendance allowance or disability living allowance going abroad, outside the European Union, may continue to receive that benefit provided that the conditions of entitlement continue to be met and their right to reside in Great Britain is not subject to any limitation or condition, for:(a) up to 26 weeks if the absence, when it began, is for a temporary purpose and does not last for a continuous period exceeding 26 weeks; or
  (b) as long as the absence is
  (i) temporary and
  (ii) for the specific purpose of being treated for incapacity, or a disabling condition, which begins before they leave Great Britain, and
  (iii) the Secretary of State certifies that it is consistent with the proper administration of the Act that he should be treated as though he were present in Great Britain.

  Special arrangements exist for people who are abroad as serving members of Her Majesty's forces and their families and for certain airmen, mariners and continental shelf workers.

  On return to this country, people who meet the above conditions while abroad will continue to receive attendance allowance or disability living allowance, providing they continue to satisfy the conditions of entitlement and have no limitation placed on their right to reside in Great Britain. People who do not satisfy the above conditions whilst abroad may reclaim attendance allowance or disability living allowance on return to this country and requalify in the normal way.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is issued to social fund adjudicating officers in cases where an application is made prior to establishing a fair rent on the applicant's tenancy. [24128]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Secretary of State's directions 12(o), 23(f) and 29(d) exclude a payment of a budgeting loan, crisis loan or community care grant respectively to meet housing costs, including rent. There is an exception to this rule for both budgeting loans and crisis loans for rent in advance where the landlord is not a local authority. Other exceptions which apply to these loans are charges for board and lodging accommodation and residential charges for hostels, other than for deposits. In the case of budgeting loans this is where such charges are payable in advance to secure accommodation. There is no guidance on the rent exclusion, since the directions are self explanatory. The Secretary of State's directions and guidance to social fund officers are contained in the social fund guide, a copy of which is held in the Library.

  With the exceptions referred to above, the reason for excluding help with rent from the social fund is to avoid duplication of help from the housing benefit scheme. There are procedures in place to ensure that both local authorities and rent officers make timeous determinations of claims and that payment on account is made where a delay is not due to the claimant failing to supply all the necessary information.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24861]

  Mr. Burt
  There are 20 live master files in this Department marked "Not to be seen by National Audit Office (NAO) without reference to the appropriate Head of Division", sometimes abbreviated to "Not for NAO eyes". Each file usually relates to a specific NAO study and may run into number of volumes, covering the course of the study from feasibility work to the production of a Treasury minute. Each study could involve a number of divisions in different locations, who may hold duplicates of all or part of the master file, as necessary.

  The marking "Not for NAO eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to receive the report from the Industrial Injuries advisory committee on chronic bronchitis and emphysema; and if he will make a statement. [25180]

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the main recommendations of the report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council review 536
  of the criterion used to diagnose chronic bronchitis and emphysema in coal mines; and when the report will be published. [24818]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have now received a copy of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council report and are considering it carefully. The report will be published within the next few weeks.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number of appeals against clawback decisions taken by the compensation recovery unit, (b) the number and percentage of which were successful and (c) the average amount repaid to successful appellants in each quarter of the last five years. [24002]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ursula Brennan to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 16 April 1996:
  As Peter Mathison is away from the office on annual leave at the moment, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list (a) the number of appeals against clawback decisions taken by the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU), (b) the number and percentage of which were successful and (c) the average amount repaid to successful appellants in each quarter of the last five years.
  Since the introduction of the scheme in 1990 to the 31 March 1996, 825 appeals against clawback decisions were received by the CRU. 682 have been processed so far, out of which 374 (54.8%) were successful. Of those which were successful, the CRU reviewed the decision without reference to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) in 318 cases and in the remainder of the cases the appeal was allowed/partially allowed by the ITS.
  The average amounts repaid to successful appellants in each quarter of the last five years are given in the annex attached.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Quarterly period

  Average amount repaid £

  1 April 1991 to 30 June 1991

  5.81

  1 July 1991 to 30 September 1991

  675.54

  1 October 1991 to 31 December 1991

  91.76

  1 January 1992 to 31 March 1992

  2,972.98

  1 April 1992 to 30 June 1992

  3,015.68

  1 July 1992 to 30 September 1992

  1,584.84

  1 October 1992 to 31 December 1992

  2,199.72

  1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993

  1,519,10

  1 April 1993 to 30 June 1993

  2,014,29

  1 July 1993 to 30 September 1993

  5,948,50

  1 October 1993 to 31 December 1993

  3,003.87

  1 January 1994 to 31 March 1994

  2,350.49

  1 April 1994 to 30 June 1994

  4,610.49

  1 July 1994 to 30 September 1994

  2,894.40

  1 October 1994 to 31 December 1994

  2,712,33

  1 January 1995 to 31 March 1995

  5,447.71

  1 April 1995 to 30 June 1995

  3,238.33

  1 July 1995 to 30 September 1995

  5,590.87

  1 October 1995 to 31 December 1995

  6,032.08

  1 January 1996 to 31 March 1996

  4,545.16

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many incoming telephone calls were made to the Child Support Agency client helpline; how many received ring tone no reply, number busy or number
  537
  unobtainable; how many were successfully answered; and what percentage of the total number of incoming calls were ineffective. [24645]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Miss Liz Lynne, dated 16 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about telephone calls made to the Child Support Agency.
  Information on incoming calls to the Child Support Agency Client Help Line (CHL) is available for the period from September 1994 to February 1996, and the details are as follows: incoming calls 7,022,325; answered by BT National Screening Centre 933,844; answered by CHL 2,523,082; call terminated before being answered, number busy or unobtainable 3,565,399. Of the total calls received, 50.77% received neither a personal nor a recorded answer.
  Like any other organisation where a great deal of contact with clients is by telephone, calls to the Agency that are initially unsuccessful for whatever reason (be it the client choosing to ring at another time or experiencing difficulty in connection) will almost certainly be repeated and the future contact will be successful.
  Up to February 1995 calls were diverted to the BT National Screening Centre when they were unable to reach the CHL queue, and a recorded message was delivered to the caller. However, this was costly both for the Agency and the callers, and since February 1995 the diversion of calls has only taken place outside office opening hours.
  I hope this is helpful.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Careers Service Companies
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the possible delays in the development and improvement in the services provided by the careers service companies from the competition process. [25173]

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is satisfied that careers service companies have continued to develop and improve the services they provide. Assessment of the service provided is in the chief inspector's annual report on the careers service, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what sums she will make available to fund the careers advice for adults to be provided by the new careers advice companies. [25169]

  Mr. Paice
  The primary role of the careers service is to provide careers guidance to its statutory client group, who are young people in education and those who have recently left. The Government are investing over £200 million this year to support the careers service in this role. Careers service companies attract funding from a wide range of sources to fund their adult guidance activities, including indirectly from the Department.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy to license careers companies which satisfactorily meet their contractual obligations with her Department. [25175]
  538
  Mr. Paice
  We have no plans to license careers service companies at this time.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects the reports of the joint study groups of Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, Treasury and her Department's officials on the scope for private finance initiative in higher education. [24987]

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects the joint working group to report to her in early summer.

  Careers Advice
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to provide careers advice for adults wishing to extend their education. [25171]

  Mr. Paice
  A consultation exercise has recently been undertaken to consider ways to take forward lifetime learning, including careers advice for adults. There was an excellent response from a wide range of interested parties, and this is now being analsyed. It would be premature to make any announcements at this stage. The Government will respond in due course.

  Contracting
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will postpone or abandon the contracting round due to take place this year. [25174]

  Mr. Paice
  No. The contracts for the first round Pathfinder careers services end in March 1997. To secure the provision of services from April 1997 onwards, a prospectus will be published next month.

  In-work Training
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 16 to 24-year-olds in the west midlands are in in-work training; and, of those, how many are employed in the manufacturing industry. [25167]

  Mr. Paice
  The number of employed status trainees on major schemes funded by the Government via training and enterprise councils in the west midlands as at 25 February 1996 is:

  Youth programmes = 13,728 (total in training 26,596)

  Training for work = 3411 (total in training 6,672)

  Total: 14,069 (total in training 33,269)

  1Includes 35 self employed.

  It is not possible to extract the numbers employed in manufacturing from the overall figures.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what sums have been provided in 1995–96 to fund the range of advice and information centres and other schemes run directly or indirectly by TECs; and what assessment she has made of the cost effectiveness of transferring these funds in future years to careers services. [25170]
  539
  Mr. Paice
  In 1995–96 training and enterprise councils were provided with £13.4 million to fund careers guidance for 13 and 14-year-old children and £1.5 million to fund careers libraries. From April 1996 the routing of all careers guidance and careers libraries funding will be through careers services. This simplifies the way the money is provided since careers services—as direct providers of services—are closer to schools and colleges and to young people.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to ensure increased liaison between the local community and training and enterprise councils. [24056]

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 27 March,Official Report, column 620.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the current procedures for investigating a complaint against the training and enterprise councils; and what plans there are to bring the complaints system under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. [24058]

  Mr. Paice
  As private companies, it is for training and enterprise councils to deal with any complaints made against them. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has no jurisdiction over private companies. I welcome the fact that the TEC National Council's framework for local accountability, which is endorsed by all TECs, emphasises the necessity for TECs to have robust and well-publicised complaints procedures.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what investigations she is undertaking into child care facilities provided by training and enterprise councils; what plans she has to promote a national uniformity of such facilities; and if she will make a statement. [24057]

  Mrs. Gillan
  All training and enterprise councils deliver the Department's out-of-school child care initiative, which gives grant support towards the start up costs of new out-of-school child care provision. In making grants to child care providers, TECs must have regard to four national criteria: quality, viability, labour market impact and extra child care places. Thereafter, the initiative is flexible and allows TECs to tailor the delivery to meet the needs of the local community. The initiative has been fully evaluated. A copy of the report, which was published on 23 January 1996, has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to include a commitment to equal opportunities as criteria for training and enterprise councils being issued with a three-year licence; and if she will make a statement. [24059]

  Mr. Paice
  Equal opportunities is already addressed in the licensing criteria. In addition, the licensing agreement requires licensed training and enterprise councils to implement their strategies for equal opportunities.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to introduce a stricter policy on the disclosure of contracts for the training and enterprise councils; and if she will make a statement. [24060]
  540
  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are private companies. It is for them to decide whether they should disclose details of contracts within the guidelines of the code of practice on open government.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research she has undertaken to review the boundaries of training and enterprise councils areas; and if she will make a statement. [24061]

  Mr. Paice
  The existing network of training and enterprise councils reflects the make-up of local labour markets and the views of local partners, including the private sector. I have no plans to review boundaries, but would consider any proposals by TECs on their merits.

  Left-handedness
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate she has made of the proportion of left-handed pupils in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools: [25368]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of left-handedness on educational attainment; and if she will make a statement. [25366]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Left-handedness is not recognised as a special educational need within the meaning of the Education Acts. The Department does not collect information on what proportion of pupils are left-handed, nor on whether being left-handed has an impact on likely educational achievement.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by her Department. [24851]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The ex-Department for Education has 104 files marked "Not for NAO Eyes" out of a total of over 700,000. The several million records created by the former department of Employment are handled at a number of locations across the country and although some will be similarly marked, the number could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The marking is used in accordance with the agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office under which documents relating to the handling of relations between departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they remain current.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General how many files marked "Not for NAO Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24855]

  The Attorney-General
  The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between
  541
  Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current. There are 13 such files held in the Departments for which I am responsible, two of which are divided into two parts.

PRIME MINISTER

  Interception of Communications Tribunal
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made following the expiry of the terms of appointment of the members of the interception of communications tribunal on 10 April; and if he will make a statement. [25619]

  The Prime Minister
  Sir David Calcutt QC has been appointed vice-president of the tribunal. He and Mr. Peter Scott QC have been re-appointed to the tribunal for a further period of five years. Two new members, Mr. Robert Seabrook QC and Mr. William Carmichael, have also been appointed for a term of five years.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister if he met(a) Li Ka Shing, (b) David Choy, (c) Rong Yien, (d) Stanley Ho, (e) T. T. Tsui and (f) C. H. Tung at events during his visit to Hong Kong. [24569]

  The Prime Minister
  I met a broad range of business men, politicians and other opinion formers during my recent visit. I understand that Mr. Li Ka Shing attended a dinner at which I was present and Mr. C. H. Tung was

  £million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Outturn

  Forecast

  Supply estimates

  Government figures from baselines, other income and agency income from plans

  FCO: grant in aid

  97.6

  1102.7

  398.3

  395.3

  395.5 See note 3

  ODA: grant in aid

  34.5

  234.3

  432.7

  429

  426

  Other income

  123.2

  138.2

  142.6

  147.6

  157.4

  Agency income

  171.6

  165.5

  156.8

  145.9

  147.2

  Total

  426.9

  440.7

  430.4

  417.8

  426.1

  1This figure includes £2.2 million overseas price mechanism and £2 million 1994–95 provision for capital expenditure rolled forward to 1995–96.

  2This figure includes £750,000 OPM.

  3These figures include estimates for OPM of £2.4 million.

  4These planning figures exclude OPM.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the effect of his proposed reductions in the British Council's budget over the next three years on the council's overseas operations. [24914]

  Mr. Hanley
  The reductions in the British Council's budget will require some adjustment to its overseas operations. The council has proposed a number of options which are still under consideration.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he proposes to fund future redundancies within the British Council. [24911]

  Mr. Hanley
  The question of the funding of future redundancies is under discussion.
  542
  Present at my meeting with the Executive Council, of which he is a member. I an not aware of any other occasion.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Council
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many posts he estimates will be lost in the British Council over the next three years; and at what United Kingdom locations; [24912]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of posts within the British Council which will be lost by redundancy over the next three years; and at what cost. [24913]

  Mr. Hanley
  Following the recent public expenditure survey settlement, the British Council is still discussing with us its proposal for future manpower levels and for the distribution of resources.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the British Council has to close United Kingdom offices within the next three years. [24898]

  Mr. Hanley
  The British Council is looking at options for further restructuring its UK network. This could involve the closure of some offices.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the annual budgets for the British Council for(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97; and what are the projected budgets for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99. [24910]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the current United Kingdom staffing levels within the British Council by location. [24915]

  Mr. Hanley
  The latest figures available for the British Council United Kingdom staffing levels, including the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges, are as follows:

  Area

  Number of staff

  London

  1700.00

  Manchester

  1498.00

  Belfast

  13.50

  Edinburgh

  19.00

  543

  Area

  Number of staff

  Glasgow

  6.50

  Aberdeen

  1.00

  Dundee

  2.00

  Cardiff

  6.00

  Aberystwyth

  0.25

  Bangor

  0.50

  Swansea

  0.25

  Cambridge

  2.50

  Colchester

  0.50

  Norwich

  0.50

  Nottingham

  2.00

  Loughborough

  2.00

  Birmingham

  2.50

  Southampton

  1.00

  Brighton

  1.00

  Guildford

  0.50

  Canterbury

  1.00

  Bristol

  3.00

  Plymouth

  1.00

  Oxford

  3.00

  Reading

  2.00

  Newcastle

  3.00

  Leeds

  2.00

  Hull

  0.50

  Huddersfield

  1.00

  Sheffield

  0.50

  Total

  1,277.50

  1These figures are full time staff equivalents paid through Chessington Computer Centre, February 1996.

  1. Numbers of posts in all the regions have been taken from the April 1996 UK regional directory.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Taiwan; and what plans he has to visit the country. [25158]

  Mr. Hanley
  Her Majesty's Government have no formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Informal links in trade, investment, tourism and educational exchanges have increased and improved in recent years.

  I also refer the hon. Member to my response during the Adjournment debate on our relations with Taiwan on 13 March, Official Report, columns 940–47.

  Neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary have plans to visit Taiwan.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many files marked "Not for NAO Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24849]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  This department currently holds 16 files marked "Not for NAO Eyes". This includes one file held at an overseas post.
  544
  The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

  Entry Clearance Staff
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to introduce charter standards for the work of entry clearance staff; and if he will make a statement. [25344]

  Mr. Hanley
  Entry clearance issuing posts conform with a set of standards laid down in "Best Practice", a copy of which will shortly be placed in the Library of the House. Those standards include the requirement that entry clearance sections operate within the spirit of the citizens charter.

  Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters from hon. Members were answered by the migration and visa correspondence unit in 1994; and how many were answered within 15 working days. [25345]

  Mr. Hanley
  The unit answered 6,137 letters. The number of letters to which the unit failed to reply within 15 working days in 1994 is not readily available, more than 93 per cent. of letters received in the first quarter of 1996 were replied to within 15 working days.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure that a reference number is given to visa applications which are withdrawn at the pre-sift stage; and if he will make a statement. [25346]

  Mr. Hanley
  Entry clearance officers are required—in accordance with "Diplomatic Service Procedure: Entry Clearance", volume 1, chapter 6.6, a copy of which is in the Library of the House—to maintain a record of applicants who withdraw their applications after pre-assessment.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that a decision by an entry clearance office to refuse a visa application is checked by an entry clearance manager; and if he will make a statement. [25347]

  Mr. Hanley
  Guidance on this to entry clearance officers is contained in "Diplomatic Service Procedure: Entry Clearance", volume 1, chapter 9.8, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Safety
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when recommendations from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, concerning meat safety at slaughterhouses, specifically dealing with the deboning of cattle over 30 months in age, were communicated to slaughterhouses; how this was undertaken; and what measures will be taken in order to ensure compliance. [23211]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: A consultation letter was sent out on the 28 and 29 March by my officials to all relevant organisations including those in the red meat industry, explaining the implications of SEAC's recommendations and the measures the Government are proposing to take to minimise the risk to the public from BSE, in the light of SEAC's advice. This includes detailed proposals for consultation on the deboning of cattle over 30 months in age, an indication of the immediate measures taking effect from 29 March relating to the banning from sale of meat over 30 months for human consumption, the banning of meat and bone meal from feedingstuffs and the new specified bovine material order and proposed amendments to the fresh meat regulations.

  Further consultations, where appropriate, will be held with the industry. My officials will, of course, take due account of comments received from the slaughterhouse sector on all these issues.

  The Meat Hygiene Service will be responsible for ensuring local compliance with these regulations. Fresh instructions have been issued to MHS, and resources are currently being deployed on a national basis, to ensure strict adherence to all of the measures necessary to restore public confidence in beef.

  Schedule A: Non-Research and Development

  Contractor

  Type

  1993–94£

  1994–95£

  1995–96£

  Natural History Museum

  Evaluation work

  14,285

  —

  —

  Company not disclosed

  Evaluation work

  4,313

  5,298

  —

  2,938

  —

  —

  2,938

  —

  —

  Til Occam

  Evaluation work

  4,113

  2,738

  —

  4,113

  —

  —

  2,991

  —

  —

  1,246

  —

  —

  Company not disclosed

  Evaluation work

  2,100

  1,575

  —

  2,168

  —

  —

  Campden Food and Drink

  Evaluation work

  2,165

  —

  —

  3,739

  —

  —

  590

  —

  —

  Hazleton

  Evaluation work

  3,123

  —

  —

  588

  —

  —

  940

  —

  —

  1,763

  —

  —

  CSL

  Evaluation work

  7,673

  10,171

  3,830

  —

  3,288

  3,227

  —

  2,563

  4,880

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded by his Department and its executive agencies on the basis of single negotiated contracts in each of the last three years; if he will list the companies involved and the value of the contract in each case; what percentage this represented of contracts awarded by his Department and its agencies after competitive tendering; and, in each case, why the contracts were awarded on the basis of a single negotiated tender. [22864]

  Mr. Boswell
  From records held centrally, over the last three financial years the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its executive agencies have let 383 contracts via the single negotiated process. These represent 19 per cent. of the total number reported in my recent reply.

  The additional information requested, where it is not confidential, has been listed in the schedules. However, it has not been possible with the resources available to list the reasons why individual decisions to use single negotiated tender were taken. The cost would have been entirely disproportionate. The criteria available to the Ministry for opting for single negotiated contracts are limited and encompass time constraints which do not permit competitive tendering; technical compatibility with existing equipment or systems; or numbers of suppliers restricted to non-competitive levels.

  Where research is concerned, much is done under long-standing commissions or "umbrella" contracts with research councils and other bodies. Apart from these, free-standing contracts are awarded, some of which are single tender negotiated contracts. The latter option is taken either when there is reasonable certainty that there is only one contractor with the knowledge to undertake the work, or when the idea for work comes through a concept note and it would clearly be an infringement of intellectual property rights and unfair on the contractor concerned to allow others access to the idea.
  547

  Schedule A: Non-Research and Development

  Contractor

  Type

  1993–94£

  1994–95£

  1995–96£

  ADAS

  Evaluation work

  7,638

  —

  —

  7,915

  —

  —

  British Library

  Evaluation work

  823

  —

  —

  411

  —

  —

  93

  —

  —

  Water Research Centre plc

  Evalution work

  2,816

  —

  —

  4,217

  —

  —

  10,358

  —

  —

  Soil Survey and Land Research centre (Silsoe) (aka Cranfield University)

  Evalution work

  6,247

  —

  4,465

  4,404,

  —

  4,465

  Inveresk Research

  Evaluation work

  1,469

  —

  —

  2,938

  —

  —

  1,469

  —

  —

  Company not disclosed

  Evaluation work

  5,346

  —

  —

  9,623

  —

  —

  823

  —

  —

  1,069

  —

  —

  Ecosurveys Ltd

  Evaluation work

  1,763

  —

  —

  3,922

  —

  —

  1,137

  —

  —

  758

  —

  —

  Imperial College Consultants Ltd.

  Evaluation work

  2,820

  —

  —

  Consultants in Environmental Services

  Evaluation work

  7,344

  —

  4,179

  2,535

  —

  —

  CITERA

  Evaluation work

  2,350

  —

  —

  1,083

  —

  —

  Natural Resources Institute (NRI)

  Evaluation work

  3,738

  —

  —

  Natural Environment

  Evaluation work

  9,750

  —

  —

  Company not disclosed

  Evaluation work

  354

  —

  —

  Company not disclosed

  Evaluation work

  —

  —

  500

  DBL Consultancy

  Consultancy

  1,375

  162

  —

  485

  —

  —

  646

  —

  —

  323

  —

  —

  646

  —

  —

  Touchstone

  Consultancy

  —

  1,049

  —

  Ingres Consultancy

  Consultancy

  —

  479

  —

  Triad

  30,848

  —

  —

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC)

  755,000

  7,11,000

  697,400

  Long Ashton Aquatic Weeds Research Centre

  —

  12,000

  —

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist(LGC)

  Advice, support and assessment

  30,000

  30,000

  30,000

  Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards (LACOTS)

  Sample collection in meat and animal products

  —

  32,900

  15,000

  BMRB International

  —

  50,760

  49,350

  Clifmar Associates

  Analysis of samples

  —

  —

  51,941

  Fray Design Ltd.

  Specialist Furniture

  1,903

  13,588

  —

  Frame Express

  Specialist Furniture

  1,537

  —

  —

  Arthur Brett

  Specialist Furniture

  8,646

  2,244

  —

  Storacell Voice System Ltd.

  Call sequence for hotline and upgrade of system

  9,943

  9,204

  —

  BT Sales

  Terminal for Hotline

  4,834

  18,919

  —

  Reprographic Services (UK) Ltd.

  Document Management Service

  160,000

  —

  —

  Taylor, Young and Partners

  Design study Northallerton

  10,000

  —

  —

  Design study Exeter

  9,000

  —

  —

  Additional work Northallerton

  4,500

  —

  —

  Benson Network Support Systems (BNSS)

  Part 1 project record system

  6,485

  —

  —

  MMU Reporting Database

  7,648

  —

  —

  Herring Baker Harris

  Valuation of ADAS centres

  —

  10,543

  —

  Peter Smith Associates

  Furniture move

  —

  —

  4,659

  Yates, Edge Greatorex

  Incinerator CSL York

  —

  —

  75,000

  Midlands Electricity plc

  Utility

  —

  161,843

  71,082

  Eastern Electricity plc

  Utility

  —

  89,647

  90,583

  British Gas plc

  Utility

  —

  61,915

  —

  Southern Electric

  Utility

  —

  55,739

  53,673

  East Midlands

  Utility

  —

  53,035

  —

  548 549

  Schedule A: Non-Research and Development

  Contractor

  Type

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  £

  £

  £

  South Western Electricity

  Utility

  —

  52,771

  —

  Norweb plc

  Utility

  —

  —

  79,519

  British Telecommunications plc

  Telecoms

  —

  632,078

  675,833

  The Quentin Bell Organisation plc

  Publicity

  —

  462,520

  202,703

  Postage by Phone Pitney Bowes plc

  Postage

  —

  127,300

  132,050

  Post Office Counters Ltd.

  Postage

  —

  100,360

  80,110

  Royal Mail

  Postage

  —

  74,627

  66,578

  The Meteorological Office

  Data

  —

  167,336

  103,044

  Ordnance Survey

  Data

  —

  —

  —

  Total of contracts

  1,210,814

  2,957,652

  2,504,072

  Number of contracts

  66

  41

  33

  Schedule B: Research and Development

  Contractor

  Total cost

  Contracts issued 1994–95

  Aberdeen University, Zoology

  19,085

  AEA Technology, Consultancy Services

  58,118

  Alan Martin Associates

  10,802

  Ashbourne Biosciences

  32,879

  Aston University, Department Pharmaceutical and Biological Studies

  58,950

  B and P Instrumentation Ltd.

  16,380

  BBSRC, Silsoe Research Institute

  114,373

  BBSRC, Silsoe Research Institute

  68,449

  Beta Technology Ltd.

  43,200

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Institutes1

  20,383,395

  Bristol University

  64,471

  Bristol University1

  105,974

  Bristol University, Department Agricultural Sciences

  32,540

  Bristol University, Food Refrigeration and Proc. Eng.

  8,419

  Bristol University, Veterinary Medicine

  113,127

  Cambac JMA Research Ltd.

  240,979

  Coventry University, Environmental Research + Consultancy

  177,409

  Cranfield University1

  1,456.500

  Department of Transport

  33,520

  East Anglia University, School of Biological Science

  106,510

  Elm Farm Research Centre

  92,000

  Environmental Research Technology Ltd.

  58,180

  Game Conservancy Trust

  97,155

  GENUS

  214,346

  Glasgow University

  91,162

  Glasgow University, Veterinary School

  40,974

  H. R. Wallingford Group Ltd.1

  673,200

  Harper Admas Agricultural College

  172,137

  Horticulture Research International1

  19,371,951

  IACR, Institute of Arabie Crops Research

  294,753

  IACR, Long Ashton Research Station

  29,896

  IACR, Rothamsted Experimental Station

  40,951

  IACR, Rothamsted Experimental Station

  52,640

  IGER, Aberystwyth Research Station

  143,149

  Institute of Oceanographic Sciences

  38,228

  Institute of Plant Science Research

  297,038

  Leicester University, Department of Botany

  159,957

  Leicester University, Department of Zoology

  126,566

  Leicester University, Mass Communication Research

  77,392

  Manchester University, Department of Pharmacy

  25,066

  Marine Resource Consultants Ltd.

  4,500

  Medical College, St. Batholomew's Hospital

  121,240

  National Institute of Agricultural Botany

  60,534

  National Institute of Agricultural Botany1

  313,876

  Natural Environment Research Council Institutes1

  2,944,177

  Natural Resources Institute

  58,413

  550

  Contractor

  Total cost

  NERC, Institute of Terrestial Ecology, Edinburgh

  470,353

  Nottingham University, Applied Biochemistry and Food Science

  28,558

  Nottingham University, Department Physiology and Environmental

  66,160

  Nottingham University, Department of Genetics

  51,305

  Contracts issued 1994–95

  Aberdeen University, Zoology

  19,085

  AEA Technology, Consultancy Services

  58,118

  Alan Martin Associates

  10,802

  Ashbourne Bilsciences

  32,879

  Aston University, Department Pharmaceutical and Biological studies

  58,950

  B and P Instrumentation Ltd.

  16,380

  BBSRC, Silsoe Research Institute

  114,373

  BBSRC, Silsoe Research Institute

  68,449

  Beta Technology Ltd.

  43,200

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Institutes1

  20,383,395

  Bristol University

  64,471

  Bristol University1

  105,974

  Bristol University, Department Agricultural Sciences

  32,540

  Bristol University, Food Refrigeration and Proc. Eng.

  8,419

  Bristol University, Veterinary Medicine

  113,127

  Cambac JMA Research Ltd.

  240,979

  Conventry University, Environmental Research+ Consultancy

  177,409

  Cranfield University1

  1,456,500

  Department of Transport

  33,520

  East Anglia University, School of Biological Science

  106,510

  Elm Farm Research Centre

  92,000

  Environmental Research Technology Ltd.

  58,180

  Game Conservancy Trust

  97,155

  GENUS

  214,346

  Glasgow university

  91,162

  Glasgow University, Veterinary School

  40,974

  H.R Wallingford Group Ltd.1

  673,200

  Harper Admas Agricultural College

  172,137

  Horticulture Research International1

  19,371,951

  IACR, Institute of Arabie Crops Research

  294,753

  IACR, Long Ashton Research Station

  29,896

  IACR, Rothamsted Experimental Station

  40,951

  IACR, Rothamsted Experimental Station

  52,640

  IGER, Aberystwyth Research Station

  143,149

  Institute of Oceanographic sciences

  38,228

  Institute of Plant Science Research

  297,038

  Leicester University, Departmental of Botany

  159,957

  Leicester University, Departmental of Zoology

  126,566

  Leicester University, Mass Communication Research

  77,392

  Manchester University, Department of Pharmacy

  25,006

  551

  Contractor

  Total cost

  Marine Resource Consultants Ltd.

  4,500

  Medical College, St. Batholomew's Hospital

  121,240

  National Institute of Agricultural Botany

  60,534

  National Institute of Agricultural Botany1

  313,876

  Natural Environment Research Council Institutes1

  2,944,177

  Natural Resources Institute

  58,413

  NERC, Institute of Terrestial Ecology, Edinburgh

  470,353

  Nottingham University, Applied Biochemistry and Food Science

  28,558

  Nottingham University, Department Physiology and Environmental

  66,160

  Nottingham University, Department of Genetics

  51,305

  Oxford University

  6,150

  Oxford University, Growth and Development

  26,655

  Oxford University, Zoology

  140,478

  Phoenix Research Laboratory

  66,165

  Portsmouth University, Economic Department

  8,885

  Reading University1

  113,648

  Roslin Institute, Edinburgh

  77,660

  Rowett Research Institute

  151,238

  Royal Veterinary College

  101,957

  Royal Veterinary College

  99,787

  Scottish Agricultural College, Ayr

  25,092

  Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh

  162,405

  Sea Fish Industry Authority1

  148,900

  Sea Mammal Research Unit

  88,853

  Silsoe College, Cranfield Institute of Technology

  180,095

  Southampton University

  10,000

  Southampton University, School of Biological Science

  319,392

  Stirling University, Institute of Agriculture

  158,152

  Stirling University, Institute of Agriculture

  28,329

  Surrey University, Biological Sciences

  18,650

  Surrey University, Biological Sciences

  9,325

  Surrey University, Biological Sciences

  255,129

  Surrey University, Management Studies for Tourism

  388,342

  TecnEcon Ltd.

  13,897

  UCNW, Marine Science

  113,522

  UCNW, Ocean Sciences

  77,925

  UCNW, Ocean Sciences

  80,925

  UL, Imperial College of Medicine and Science

  43,780

  UL, University College, Department of Geography

  162,059

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  400

  University of Hertfordshire

  197,772

  University Wales, Bangor

  122,566

  University Wales, Cardiff, School Pure + Applied Biology

  16,875

  Wales University, Swansea

  7,874

  Wisdom Agricultural Limited

  92,428

  95,549,295

  Contracts Issued during 1995–96

  ABP Research and Consultancy Ltd.

  23,500

  Alistair Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science

  492,868

  Aston University, Department Pharmaceutical and Biological Studies

  9,500

  Aston University, Department Pharmaceutical and Biological Studies

  48,625

  BBSRC, Silsoe Research Institute

  196,493

  Beta Technology Ltd.

  44,200

  Beta Technology Ltd.

  88,400

  Bradford University, Food Policy Research Unit

  67,781

  Bristol University

  57,137

  Bristol University1

  1,855,612

  Bristol University, Veterinary Medicine

  279,327

  Bristol University, Veterinary Medicine

  227,901

  British Trust For Ornithology

  1,277

  Cambac JMA Research Ltd.

  86,923

  Cambridge Laboratory

  279,908

  Cambridge University

  93,118

  552

  Contractor

  Total cost

  Central Science Laboratory

  399,598

  CSL, Harpenden

  146,911

  Dr. P. J. Dare

  11,100

  Forest Research Station (Alice Holt)

  81,000

  Forestry Authority

  20,000

  Glasgow University, Marine Biological Station

  196,850

  Gould Rural Environmental Ltd.

  22,916

  Horticulture Research International1

  9,517,820

  H. R. Wallingford Group Ltd.

  234,000

  HRI, Wellesbourne

  125,515

  HRI, Wellesbourne

  210,065

  Hydraulics Research Wallingford Group Ltd.

  225,000

  IACR, Broom's Barn Experimental Station

  72,632

  IACR1

  2,838,677

  IACR, Institute of Arable Crops Research

  60,045

  IGER, Inst. of Grasslands and Environment Research

  93,877

  IGER, Inst. of Grasslands and Environment Research

  490,000

  IGER1

  3,928,922

  IAH1

  5,547,933

  Institute of Occupational Medicine Limited

  217,278

  Institute of Zoology

  154,317

  IPS1

  415,000

  IPSR, John Innes Centre

  149,257

  John Spenser

  2,000

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  4,255

  Leatherhead Food Research Association

  10,703

  Levington Agriculture Ltd.

  136,545

  Liverpool University

  184,575

  Liverpool University

  140,751

  Lynch, Professor

  15,034

  Mylnefield Research Services Ltd.

  87,565

  National Trust

  2,000

  Natural Environment Research Council Institutes1

  2,021,210

  Nottingham University, Agriculture and Horticulture

  221,501

  Nottingham University, Faculty Agriculture and Food Science

  94,440

  Oxford University, Zoology

  162,144

  Plymouth University

  163,676

  Portsmouth University, Economic Department

  100,501

  Portsmouth University, Economic Department

  2,200

  Professor H. Kay

  5,000

  Reading University1

  23,156

  Richardson, Professor

  7,625

  Rodgers, Dr. Chris J

  21,000

  Roslin1

  1,116,794

  Roslin Institute, Edinburgh

  275,512

  Roslin Institute, Edinburgh

  106,843

  Royal Agricultural College

  75,364

  School of Ocean Sciences

  138,037

  Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh

  113,338

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  376,312

  Southampton University

  265,160

  Southampton University, Department Oceanography

  218,995

  SRI1

  1,665,489

  Strathclyde University, Bioscience and Biotechnology

  121,865

  Strathclyde University, Statistics and Modelling

  29,820

  Surrey University, Biological Sciences

  106,566

  Surrey University, Biological Sciences

  23,250

  UL Queen Mary and Westfield College Sch. of Biol Sci

  50,382

  UL, Wye College, Horticulture

  258,835

  Univ. Aberdeen, Arkleton Cent. Rural Development

  13,983

  University of East Anglia

  168,215

  University of Hull

  6,970

  University of York, Department of Biology

  119,143

  University Wales, Bangor, Biological Sciences

  202,864

  553

  Contractor

  Total cost

  University Wales, Cardiff, School Pure + Applied Biology

  10,325

  University Wales, Cardiff, School Pure + Applied Biology

  30,975

  University Wales, Cardiff, School Pure + Applied Biology

  174,241

  Williams, Dr.

  6,825

  61,562,485

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines are currently in force in his Department and its executive agencies relating to competitive tendering and the use of single negotiated tenders; on what grounds single negotiated tenders can be used; and what procedures are in place within his Department to ensure that the use of single negotiated tenders in competitive tendering processes is justified in all cases. [22850]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's public purchasing policy consolidated guidelines require goods and services to be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. In addition, the EC procurement directives and the World Trade Organisation government procurement agreement require most contracts above specified thresholds to be awarded following competition, subject to certain specified exceptions. The central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 40 provides an overview of best practice in the competitive tendering process.

  In carrying out its purchasing my Department follows these guidelines and has, where possible, incorporated them directly into its own internal guidance. It is intended to consolidate the available guidance as part of the review of the Ministry's purchasing procedures and guidance manual, which is currently under way.

  The criteria for opting for single negotiated contracts are limited and encompass time constraints which do not permit competitive tendering; technical compatibility with existing equipment or systems; or numbers of suppliers restricted to non-competitive levels. Formal arrangements for controlling the use of single negotiated contracts will also be incorporated in the revised purchasing procedures and guidelines manual.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is taken to ensure that blades used for dismembering potentially BSE infected material at slaughterhouse are disinfected. [23212]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The Meat Hygiene Service ensures that equipment which comes into contact with fresh meat is cleansed and disinfected frequently during the course of the working day, as required by the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 as amended. Sterilisers are sited close to work stations to enable this to be done.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24845]
  554
  Mr. Boswell
  The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which current documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO are not automatically available to the NAO. The use of the marking is strictly controlled and is removed from files as soon as the subject matter is no longer current.

  There are unlikely to be a great number of files with this marking but the Department does not have a centralised registry system and to collect this information from the large number of individuals registries would be disproportionately expensive.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the results of the research by Aberdeen university in 1995, commissioned by his Department, on the effect of dietary nitrate intake. [25030]

  Mrs. Browning
  This study at Aberdeen university on the metabolism of dietary nitrate in man is not due for completion until the spring of 1997. Preliminary results suggest that nitrate may play a significant role in protecting the body from bacterial infection, although a full assessment of this work cannot be made until its completion.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 180, on what occasions an environmental impact assessment is required for the intensification of uncultivated land. [25322]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: Environmental assessment will be required where the use of such land for intensive agricultural purposes is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 180, how many environmental statements his Department expects will be required as a result of the regulations on environmental assessments for the use of uncultivated land. [25323]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: The number of environmental statements will depend in part on the terms of the regulations to be introduced.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many compliance cost assessments were produced by his Department in 1995; and if he will place copies in the Library. [25324]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: Sixty-four compliance cost assessments were produced by the Ministry in 1995. In accordance with Government policy, all were placed in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the number of women employed in senior positions in public bodies in Wales; and if he will make a statement.[25007]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All public bodies in Wales are expected to have full regard to equal opportunities policies.

  A465
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the final cost of construction on the A465 from Aberdulais to Glyn Neath; and if he will make a statement.[24993]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The tender sum for the A465 Aberdulais to Glynneath contract is £45.7 million, excluding VAT. Construction work is ongoing and the final cost will not be known until the completion and final settlement of the contract.

  Gwynedd Economy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the proportion of the Gwynedd economy which is represented by(a) tourism, (b) slate quarrying, (c) farming and fishing and (d) the power industry; and if he will make a statement. [25032]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  An assessment by industry of the Gwynedd economy in terms of employment can be made using data from the 1993 census of employment. The available data are on the Nomis database, which can be accessed by the staff of the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the work force in each local authority area in Gwynedd are in part-time employment; and if he will make a statement.[25020]

  Mr. Jones
  Data on the number of full-time and part-time employees in each local authority area in Gwynedd are available from the 1993 census of employment. The information is on the Nomis database, which can be accessed by the staff of the Library of the House.

  Severn Bridge (Toll Charges)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the effect of current Severn bridge tolling charges and practices on tourism in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [25018]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No recent representations have been received regarding the effect of current Severn bridge tolling charges and practices on tourism in Wales.

  A470 Extension
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the final cost of the A470 extension of the Cardiff to Merthyr trunk road to the A465 heads of the valleys road to Cefn Coed; and if he will make a statement. [24994]
  556
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Pentrebach to Cefn Coed scheme, which extends the A470 trunk road to the A465 and Cefn Coed, comprises three separate contracts with a total tender value of £34.3 million excluding VAT.

  Construction work is ongoing and the final cost will not be known until the completion and final settlement of the contracts.

  Community Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to collect statistics on the numbers of(a) elderly persons and (b) others in receipt of community care assistance via local authority social services expenditure who have had to sell their house to comply with means testing of assets. [25394]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no such plans.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the levels of inward investment in each county in Wales in each year since 1990. [25334]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The statistics, on a financial year basis, are contained in the following tables:

  Year

  Projects

  New jobs

  Safe jobs

  Spend (£ million)

  Clwyd

  1990–91

  43

  3,244

  264

  179.671

  1991–92

  47

  1,477

  874

  87.517

  1992–93

  40

  1,579

  835

  332.399

  1993–94

  37

  1,927

  1,145

  345.612

  1994–95

  23

  647

  609

  81.812

  1995–96

  22

  519

  233

  93.094

  Dyfed

  1990–91

  6

  65

  948

  24.284

  1991–92

  11

  331

  960

  56.034

  1992–93

  13

  132

  875

  106.527

  1993–94

  9

  278

  493

  24.469

  1994–95

  11

  381

  140

  11.294

  1995–96

  12

  279

  176

  12.448

  Gwynedd

  1990–91

  5

  380

  —

  6.440

  1991–92

  24

  478

  1,243

  73.634

  1992–93

  22

  618

  391

  25.482

  1993–94

  9

  234

  651

  13.619

  1994–95

  12

  449

  205

  32.629

  1995–96

  6

  89

  —

  3.205

  Gwent

  1990–91

  31

  1,349

  242

  112.818

  1991–92

  35

  1,811

  1,801

  121.565

  1992–93

  42

  1,396

  2,080

  133.639

  1993–94

  27

  3,074

  1,292

  204,775

  1994–95

  20

  1,393

  198

  80.802

  1995–96

  25

  2,073

  985

  359.733

  Powys

  1990–91

  3

  57

  —

  0.655

  1991–92

  24

  648

  —

  68.544

  1992–93

  22

  653

  95

  6.677

  1993–94

  17

  403

  58

  17.043

  1994–95

  24

  453

  245

  214.447

  1995–96

  15

  263

  10

  9.560

  557

  Year

  Projects

  New jobs

  Safe jobs

  Spend (£ million)

  Mid Glamorgan

  1990–91

  28

  1,109

  2,343

  89.986

  1991–92

  30

  2,907

  1,370

  482.625

  1992–93

  29

  1,181

  1,672

  125.431

  1993–94

  38

  1,020

  487

  82.450

  1994–95

  25

  723

  1,103

  66.433

  1995–96

  26

  1,794

  2,739

  128.015

  South Glamorgan

  1990–91

  18

  1,740

  442

  121.450

  1991–92

  21

  632

  651

  206.985

  1992–93

  22

  810

  959

  182.317

  1993–94

  16

  776

  217

  27.908

  1994–95

  7

  1,140

  808

  400.775

  1995–96

  7

  1,004

  1,327

  339,575

  West Glamorgan

  1990–91

  13

  963

  1,825

  49.835

  1991–92

  16

  849

  747

  58.320

  1992–93

  11

  258

  324

  36.990

  1993–94

  15

  299

  1,513

  49.167

  1994–95

  9

  417

  255

  32.550

  1995–96

  9

  779

  378

  30.544

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many files marked "Not for NAO Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24857]

  Mr. Hague
  There are 106 files or parts of files in my Department—out of an estimated total of over 1,000,000—marked "Not for NAO Eyes".

  Road Congestion
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish maps showing forecasts of future road congestion in Wales on the same basis as those published for England.[25494]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have no proposals at the present time to publish similar maps for Wales.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Agriculture and Rural Development Scheme
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to restore the suspended special programme for the agriculture and rural development scheme. [21745]

  Mr. Ancram
  A decision about re-opening the capital grant elements of the sub-programme for agriculture and rural development can be made only when we have 558
  assessed the finances needed to honour the current commitments on farmers' applications, but we are not in a position to do this as yet.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by his Department. [24846]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The responsibility of the National Audit Office does not extend to the six Northern Ireland Departments, which have their own similarly appointed body: the Northern Ireland Audit Office.

  There are 13 files in Northern Ireland Departments marked "Not for Northern Ireland Audit Office Eyes".

  The marking "Not For NIAO Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Northern Ireland Audit Office under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NIAO are not automatically available to the NIAO while they are current.

  The information in respect of the Northern Ireland Office could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dedicated Memorials (Service Personnel)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 439, what is his policy in respect of the names of service personnel killed in Northern Ireland being inscribed on dedicated memorials; and what are the reasons for that policy. [25194]

  Mr. Moss
  The policy in respect of existing war memorials is that only the names of those killed in a war may be inscribed on them. The civil disturbances in Northern Ireland have not been considered as a war situation. Policy in Northern Ireland, as outlined in existing legislation, is in line with that in Great Britain.

  Gas Interconnector
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the EU support grant for the gas interconnector with Scotland and the conversion of Ballylumford power station indicating which geographic areas, communities and sectors in Northern Ireland were specified in the application to the European Commission as the intended beneficiaries. [24868]

  Mr. Ancram
  EU grant for the gas interconnector with Scotland and the conversion of Ballylumford power station is being provided under the natural gas measure contained in the Northern Ireland single programming document 1994–99. The objectives of the measure include diversification of Northern Ireland's energy sources and the introduction of further competition into the energy system. Specific geographic areas, communities and sectors are not listed as beneficiaries.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITIEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Westminster City Council: Auditor's Report
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the report by the district auditor on Westminster City Council will be published.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the timing of this report is a matter for the auditor. However, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on his prescience as the auditor has today announced that he intends to publish his findings on 9th May.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful Answer. Does the Minister agree that this long-standing saga of allegations of sleaze and corruption against the Conservative Westminster City Council should be cleared up as quickly as possible? Is he aware that many people will say that the delays have been deliberately orchestrated to buy time until after the local elections on 2nd May, as confirmed by the Minister? Will he also give an assurance that there will be a quick resolution of the problem? Does the Minister agree that local government throughout the country is tainted by these allegations and it is important that the whole matter should be cleared up as quickly as possible?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the entire procedure is a matter for the district auditor and has nothing whatever to do with the Government.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House when the auditor will look at Lambeth?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have no information, except to say that Lambeth has improved remarkably since the change of party in power.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister has said that it has nothing to do with the Government. I rather feel that it has. Will the noble Lord explain to the House exactly what the procedures are once the report is published, whether there are any remedies available to those who are alleged to have been guilty of misdemeanours, whether they are entitled to appeal and whether, if certain persons who have taken up residence outside United Kingdom jurisdiction are found to be culpable, the Government propose any remedy to make sure that they pay their money?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Williams, into the further realms of
658
his speculation. However, I can tell him that the district auditor has said that he intends to make public his report as well as his reasons. Following that, as I understand it, any party to the report has six weeks in which to appeal to the courts against the findings of the district auditor. If that takes place, the matter will follow its ordinary procedure through the courts.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as a resident of Lambeth I am grateful for the noble Lord's comment about improvements in that area. I would be even more grateful if he would agree that this has resulted from a dramatic increase in the Liberal Democrat vote which now greatly exceeds the Tory vote.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, almost anything is better than the Labour Party.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, now that the two Front Benches have entered into this Question, does my noble friend share my regret that this House, of all places, should descend to this kind of sleazy innuendo which is out of keeping with our responsibilities?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would prefer that such questions were not asked, but I shall answer them to the best of my ability if they are.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not conservatism that corrupts but power, and that if misdemeanours of the type alleged are committed it is incumbent on all of us to see that they are treated in such a way that they do not happen again?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we unreservedly condemn improper conduct in all spheres of public life, but I have no comment whatsoever on this particular case.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that power does not corrupt; power tends to corrupt?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have it from the horse's mouth!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the correct quotation from Lord Acton is that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as to the quotation from Lord Acton, I prefer the version of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, to that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.

Orimulsion: Pembroke Power Station
2.41 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the "Sea Empress" disaster, what additional safeguards to the Milford Haven waterway will be put in place before they give their consent to the application by National Power to burn orimulsion at the Pembroke power station.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the final decision whether to allow the power station to burn orimulsion is for the President of the Board of Trade. Permission will not be given unless all the other regulators are satisfied. The jetty alongside the power station requires planning permission, which is subject to environmental assessment. The Secretary of State for Transport must consent to the jetty proposals to safeguard navigation in the Haven. A licence is also required from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to protect the marine environment.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that, although my countrymen welcome the increase in economic activity that the use of orimulsion will bring, they are apprehensive about the plans of the Milford Haven Port Authority whereby it will carry out its statutory duties while also owning and operating the planned orimulsion jetty? I know that this is the common practice of many ports up and down the country but it is new to Milford Haven. Will my noble friend please review the management structure of the Milford Haven Port Authority to ensure that it is capable of what is an apparently conflicting duality of purpose?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as my noble friend says, the common position is that the statutory harbour authority is also the port authority. I am confident that that arrangement works well in municipal ports, trust ports and privately owned ports. The other point to remember is that Milford Haven is not the statutory planning authority in this case.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister realises that this is an extremely important matter and that given what the people of Milford Haven and that part of Wales generally have been through recently we have to be particularly careful. I understand that orimulsion is considered a dirty fuel. Will the Minister take note of that fact, particularly following earlier debates on this and the statements made in another place by the Secretary of State for Transport? Will the Minister lay down certain conditions, such as that the fuel should be transported only in a ship with at least a double hull? Does he agree that a tug should be on duty at all times in the Milford Haven area instead of having to come from Cornwall or somewhere else? The people of that area deserve extra reassurance.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that all care should be taken, especially when reviewing the case for possible planning permission for the power station to burn orimulsion. Clearly, all precautions must be taken. I am confident that the planning process and all the different planning hoops that have to be gone through, including that of environmental assessment, will take full consideration of the nature of the orimulsion fuel. Another point is that for technical
660
reasons orimulsion is generally carried in double-hulled tankers so that its temperature can be kept above that of seawater.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is not this particular area under discussion for designation as a special conservation area? If that is so—I am sure that the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—should not a special approach be required from somebody other than the port authority? Can the Minister say why it appears that someone has been dragging their feet on the question of this designation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not think that there has been any dragging of feet. It is true that the question of whether Milford Haven should be designated under the Habitats Directive is currently under consideration, but I hope that I explained in my Answer that, because of all the planning controls that have to be gone through, I do not believe that there is a difficulty in Milford Haven Port Authority being both the operator and the statutory authority. Furthermore, that is the normal situation with port authorities.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I know that the Minister is aware, following a meeting that we had earlier this year after the "Sea Empress" disaster, of the environmental sensitivity of the planning application, but will he now consider whether it is appropriate for the whole area of Milford Haven to be designated as a demonstration area for integrated coastal zone management? Will the Minister comment on the successful efforts of the statutory and voluntary bodies in the area in reducing the impact of the appalling pollution?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the work that has been done. I believe that the clean-up operation has been extremely successful. Huge amounts of resources, equipment and personnel have been involved in making sure that the beaches are as clean as possible. A concentrated effort was made before Easter which I believe has been effective, although some residual work remains to be done. Generally, there has been a huge improvement in the quality of the beaches and most of the pollution has been dealt with. I shall investigate the noble Lord's first point and write to him about it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that too frequently our coastline suffers from a major oil tanker disaster; that the present penalties are not enough of a deterrent to prevent such disasters from happening; that prevention is much better than cure; and that perhaps the time has now come for science and technology to be enlisted to prevent ships which might do damage from going anywhere near our coast?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that prevention is much better than cure. A huge amount of effort has gone into just that. The comprehensive report produced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, raised 103 recommendations on how we could improve maritime safety and anti-pollution measures. We have

661
accepted the vast bulk of those recommendations—over 91 measures. My noble friend wants to ensure that such vessels do not come near the shore. The fact is that there is an oil terminal at Milford Haven. Vessels therefore have to come into shore to deliver fuel. What we have to ensure is that all the necessary safeguards are there to prevent accidents.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a sad commentary upon our times that we should be importing that filthy fuel at the same time as closing coalmines in South Wales and elsewhere?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as the noble Lord well knows, economic decisions have to be taken on such industries. We want our industries to be as fit and competitive as possible. Part of that is making sure that power is available at the cheapest possible price.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that orimulsion comes from Venezuela; that Venezuela's coastline is incredibly clean; and that orimulsion is far cheaper than other fuels?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out the cost benefits of orimulsion. Indeed, no doubt those are the same considerations as National Power has gone through in deciding to apply for permission to burn it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, have any of the tanker accidents which have caused pollution around our shores involved ships flying the British flag?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord offhand how many accidents there have been involving ships flying the British flag. The vessel which I am sure that the noble Lord has under consideration was flying the Liberian flag. No doubt there have been a number of problems with substandard ships. However, the initial reports suggest that in this case the quality of the vessel was not the issue. I am sure that the investigation that is currently under way will throw more light on that.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Lloyd's open form salvage conditions take sufficient account of the need for looking after the environment as opposed to merely salvaging the vessel?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, clearly, salvaging the vessel is of major importance, as is salvaging the cargo and preventing its loss into the environment, thereby causing pollution damage. The issue of salvage procedures and the way in which we carry them out will be examined by the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch and will be carefully considered in any recommendations that it might make.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House the difference between Britain not using its own indigenous energy resources and buying in fuel from Venezuela and Britain buying beef from Argentina and closing down our beef industry? I should
662
not like to see that occur but I shall be interested to hear the Government's explanation of the difference in treatment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the rest of the House takes maritime safety extremely seriously and the noble Lord's question has nothing whatever to do with that.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the promise given by the Government in the recent Welsh rural White Paper that they will listen and respond to people at grass roots, because in the case of the "Sea Empress" and orimulsion it would appear that that promise has already been broken?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not accept that. We stand by the statement made in the White Paper; and the public have been able to make representations on the planning application and to the Department of Transport in connection with its consent on the jetty and the navigational circumstances concerned.

Recurring Unemployment
2.52 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What policy proposals they have to reduce recurring unemployment, and with whom they are discussing their initiatives to that end.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, government policies work to secure lower unemployment and a sustained improvement in labour market efficiency, so that unemployed people can compete effectively for jobs and unemployment will be for shorter periods. Policies to help unemployed people return to work are the subject of continuing debate both at home and abroad, and the Government play their full part.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and I welcome the decrease in unemployment. Nevertheless, widespread unemployment among young people usually contributes to a feeling of insecurity and often they turn to crime. Can that be taken into consideration and appropriate action taken to ensure that there is no increase, because the more young people who are unemployed, the higher the crime rate among young people? I am sure that the Government will take note of that and will act to alleviate the problem.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing the attention of the House to the further fall in unemployment, which was announced by my department today. There has been a fall of some 25,700 on the month and a fall of 165,200 over the year. That brings down unemployment to some 7.6 per cent.
The noble Lord rightly referred to the problems relating to youth unemployment and he is right to draw attention to the dangers of that. However, I would not necessarily accept his link between youth

663
unemployment and crime. Perhaps I may remind him that while youth unemployment in this country is high at some 15 per cent., in countries such as France and Spain, which have signed up to the Social Chapter and have a minimum wage, the figures are higher. In France it is some 25 per cent. and in Spain some 40 per cent. I recommend that the noble Lord does what he can to persuade the party opposite to drop all its suggestions that we should sign up to the Social Chapter and introduce a minimum wage.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I right in believing that there has been published today a new set of unemployment figures showing that they have reached a five-year low, or very nearly?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right; the latest figures are the lowest since April 1991. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, we have seen a further fall of 25,700 this month, making a fall of 165,200 over the year. It is a fall of some 7 per cent. and brings the figure to some 7.6 per cent.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that he has not answered my noble friend's Question? He asked about recurring unemployment; in other words, the way in which unemployment varies. When this Government came to office our figures were the third lowest in Europe and the fourth lowest in the OECD. By 1982 they had doubled and we were the ninth lowest in Europe and the twelfth lowest in the OECD. Now we have returned to a figure half way between the two. The fact is that under this Government unemployment has gone up and down and up and down and now it is hardly moving. During the past four months it has gone up, down, up, down and at the present annual rate it will be about 50,000 a year. That is what my noble friend Lord Molloy is saying and the Minister has no answer.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question refers to recurring unemployment, which is what I addressed in my original Answer. Obviously, we recognise that there are problems for people who experience recurring spells of unemployment, but we pursue policies which ensure that there is a flexible labour market which will allow people to find jobs. Whereas some 300,000 people—there or thereabouts—lose their jobs every month, some 300,000 people—there or thereabouts but on this occasion 300,000 plus 25,000—find new jobs. The noble Lord will be pleased to hear that of those who become unemployed some 50 per cent. find a new job within three months and a further two-thirds find a job within six months. The way in which to address the problems of recurring unemployment is to ensure that there is a flexible labour market.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Government's rejection of the Social Chapter is a fine example of their determination to tackle recurring unemployment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why I am trying to persuade the
664
party opposite of the folly of continuing to pursue its policy of signing up to the Social Chapter and, even worse, signing up to a minimum wage, which, as I am sure many members of the party opposite recognise, would lead to a loss of jobs.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister will recollect a report from the CBI, which is now a number of years old, which puts the cost to business of transport congestion in London at £15 billion a year. Do the Government yet have any concrete measures in prospect to reduce those costs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not recall that report and I fail to see what it has to do with the problems of recurring unemployment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches warmly welcome the reduction in the number of unemployed, which was announced today? Is he further aware that, if he had announced that the figure had been reduced to the level that was in existence at the time the Government came to power 17 years ago, we would have been standing up and cheering? As the Government frequently comment on their success of conquering unemployment, and the Minister has done so today, what does he have to say about the better records of our two large trading countries, America and Japan, and three European Union countries?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord looks at what our competitors in Europe are doing and looks at their folly in pursuing the Social Chapter and minimum wages, which are leading to a decline in the number of jobs as against the trend in this country. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the success of the American economy in creating jobs. We must and are trying to emulate that but the party opposite is not trying to do so with its adoration and devotion to introducing a minimum wage. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of what was said by the deputy leader of his party some years ago when speaking of the minimum wage. He said:
"I knew the consequences were that there would be some shakeout. Any silly fool knew that".
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the rate of unemployment in Japan is 3.4 per cent.? Should not that be the goal of this country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that unemployment rose considerably after we joined the ERM and has come down consistently since we left it? Can I have an assurance that under no circumstances will the Chancellor or the Government be bullied into rejoining a revamped ERM or any ERM at all?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord points to the changes which have taken place since we left the ERM. The noble Lord should recognise also that the

665
Government have pursued other policies which have led to the fall in unemployment; for example, low inflation, low interest rates and a continuing programme of labour market reforms. If the noble Lord could persuade his party of the wisdom of pursuing those policies, I should be most grateful.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the Minister referred to a five-year low. Will he go further and tell the House the figure for unemployment when this Government took office in 1979?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will be very interested to know that unemployment did rise in the early years of this Government but then fell. It then rose again. However, it is interesting to note that the second peak was lower than the earlier peak. That is the first time that we have seen a fall from one cycle to the next since the early 1960s.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, could I have an answer to my question? What was the unemployment figure when this Government took office?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not have that precise figure. The point which I was trying to make—and it is a very valid point—is that for the first time since the 1960s, unemployment peaked at a lower figure.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the noble Lord take it from me that it was 1.3 million?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, are there not two sides to this Question? Should we not explain unemployment in terms of the number of people to be employed? Will my noble friend give those figures in relation to the past few years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to draw the attention of the House to levels of employment. I assure him that the United Kingdom has some 68 per cent. of its working-age population in employment compared with a European Union average of 59 per cent., while the average for Germany is 65 per cent., for France 59 per cent. and for Italy, 51 per cent. I assure my noble friend that not only is unemployment falling but employment is rising.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Mignister bear in mind that when those unemployed people eventually find jobs, they make a contribution to the economy and the fact that they do not have to be paid unemployment benefit must help the Treasury? Will all those points please be considered by the Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes those matters into account. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that it is simplistic to think that one can merely spends one's way through those problems and by merely spending more money, create more jobs. Jobs will be created by the right sort of economy.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister give the House the figures for
666
unemployment in percentage terms and in actual terms were the Government still to use the same scale for assessing those matters as was used when they came into office in 1979?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is alleging that in some way we have fiddled the figures, I totally reject that allegation. As the noble Baroness will know, there are two counts for the unemployment figures. There is the straightforward count of those out of work and in receipt of benefit; and there is the ILO recognised count, the labour force survey, which comes out quarterly. The noble Baroness will know that those two figures broadly follow each other and provide broadly the same figures. Can we have an assurance from the party opposite as to whether it will be reverting to a different method for counting those figures?

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Other than the mover, Front Bench spokesmen and the Minister replying, speakers will be limited to seven minutes. I should remind your Lordships that if any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate. I might also remind your Lordships that, when the digital clock shows seven minutes, the full seven minutes have elapsed and the speaker is already trespassing on the time of others.

The Beef Industry
3.4 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard rose to call attention to the need for consistent and coherent policies to deal with the crisis in the beef industry to ensure food safety and to protect the interests of consumers; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the exodus of noble Lords from the Chamber is almost as bad as that from beef in recent weeks. The House clearly feels that this is a timely debate in view of the fact that there are no fewer than 43 speakers. It is not only timely, it is also extremely important. My noble friend Lord Carter will deal with the technical aspects of the matter in his winding up speech at the end of the debate. I wish to try to take an overview of the general situation as it has arisen.
It seems to me that there are three issues in this matter which the House and the country should consider: first, the state of the medical evidence; secondly, the Government's handling of the situation; and thirdly, what on earth we should do now.
In relation to the medical evidence, having read many of the papers which have been submitted to me on this matter and doing my best as a non-scientist, it seems to me that the position is fairly clear.
When the matter first broke on 20th March Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Secretary of State for Health, put the issue as follows:
"There remains no scientific proof that bovine spongiform encephalopathy can be transmitted to man by beef, but the committee has concluded that the most likely explanation at present is that those cases are linked to exposure to BSE before the introduction of the specified bovine offal ban in 1989".
That was the considered view of the Secretary of State for Health.
Replying to that my honourable friend Ms. Harriet Harman said:
"We must all be concerned, must we not, that 10 cases of a new strain of CJD have appeared. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what is worrying about this new cluster is that it has occurred in people under the age of 42, and that all the cases have occurred in the past two years and only in the United Kingdom? The conclusion that stares the British public in the face is that there may well be a link between BSE and CJD".
Responding to that, in turn, Mr. Dorrell said:
"I believe that the hon. Lady's description of the cases that have led to the advisory committee's further revision of its advice is broadly correct".—(0fficial Report, Commons, 20/3/96; cols. 375–7.]
I do not think that that opinion has been changed since then. I do not wish to weary the House with quotations but, on scientific matters, the words of the Royal Society carry more weight than mine. Indeed in a paper I received yesterday from the Royal Society the issue is put as follows:
"BSE has been found to infect other species fed on infected material, despite the barriers against prions from one species infecting another. It must therefore be possible that BSE could infect humans. Ten cases of an unusual form of CJD in subjects of no known risk factor have recently been confirmed in the UK, and have rightly given rise to concern that they could be attributed to BSE that has crossed the species barrier".
As I understand it, that is the state of the scientific evidence.
I think it is worth while for a moment to look at the facts about BSE in cattle as we know them. It was first identified in UK cattle by the Central Veterinary Laboratory of MAFF in November 1986. Epidemiological investigations indicated that BSE was caused by the consumption of infected feed, probably due to the inclusion in cattle feed of protein derived from scrapie infected sheep. A ban on the use of ruminant derived protein in cattle feed was introduced in July 1988 to prevent further transmission of the infected agent. Since August 1988 all suspect cases of BSE have been compulsorily slaughtered by Ministry veterinary staff and their carcasses destroyed. At the same time the UK also banned the use of brain, spinal cord, tonsil, larynx, spleen and intestine—known as specified bovine offal (SBO) in food for human consumption. Those are the facts up to that date.
The facts on the handling of BSE are, however, somewhat daunting. The appearance of BSE in cattle appears to stem from changes during the early to mid 1980s in the preparation of protein supplements for cattle feed from rendered sheep and cattle carcasses, including sheep with scrapie, and in the practice of rendering.
If the House will forgive me, I should like to say a few words about the practice of rendering. Previously the carcasses had been processed to produce tallow, bone meal and animal feed, by the use of solvents to remove the tallow and high temperatures to remove the organic solvents. It appears now that this destroyed the infectious agent (the prion) from scrapie. However, driven by economic factors (a fall in the price of tallow, an increase in solvent and energy costs) and by safety factors (the exposure of workers to solvents) the process was changed to avoid solvents and to avoid the necessity for the high temperatures. The result was that the scrapie prion survived the new process and subsequently infected cattle, creating an apparently new cattle disease, BSE. As I said, I speak as a non-scientist, but I speak with the authority of many scientists and, indeed, of the Royal Society in putting it thus.
Had those high temperatures been maintained, it seems very likely that the infectious agent from scrapie would have been destroyed. Unfortunately, they were not maintained and the infectious agent was not destroyed. What was the result? The result was that the number of cases of BSE in cattle in the United Kingdom rose to no less that 160,000, a figure which is 422 times the number of cases in the whole of the rest of the world. The country with the nearest figure to that of the UK is Switzerland, where there have been just over 200 and in respect of which the infection can be traced to imports of UK cattle feed. Finally, there was the discovery recently of this new cluster of cases of CJD.
On the figures of BSE, I must say that to contend that somehow or other there are masses of concealed cases of BSE in other countries of the world seems to me to be totally fanciful. It would imply—would it not?—that there was a virtual worldwide conspiracy among vets and among public officials to conceal the true nature of the animal diseases which were appearing and to falsify the official record. I find that impossible to accept.
In those circumstances, and against that background, it seems to me to be impossible to contend with certainty that there is no risk. At best the verdict would have to be one of "not proven", and either way the issue resolves itself into the questions of whether that risk is an acceptable one and whether it could have been avoided.
So far as concerns food, there are no objective standards of acceptability. For unacceptability one can have objective standards; indeed, one can ban things that objectively and clearly do people harm. But people cannot be forced to buy one food in preference to another; not even the market—with respect to the other side of the House—can do that. Any question of accepting a risk in food must be a subjective and not an objective one, based as it is on matters of taste, the importance that one attaches to the risk, one's own views as to healthy food and a whole host of other concerns, all of which are essentially personal. The Government's major problem, and the start of the whole crisis, lies in their assessment of the way in which the public and Europe would react to the scientific evidence of that risk. They made a major miscalculation.
On the same day, March 20th, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr. Douglas Hogg, also made a Statement. Rather touchingly, in retrospect, he said:
"The market will fall only if there is a serious lace of confidence in beef. That depends upon the judgment that the public make about the quality and safety of British beef and beef products. That is why my right hon. Friend and I have come promptly to the House to make the two statements that we have made and to tell the House that the best opinion that we have is that beef and beef products can be eaten with confidence".
He then went on to say:
"If the public accept that advice, there will be no damage to the market, but, as I made plain in my statement, there are mechanisms within the common agricultural policy that can be brought into play if there is damage".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/96; col. 389.]
Mr. Hogg repeated the essence of that Statement on a number of subsequent occasions. Unfortunately, the public did not accept that advice and the market is in ruins as a result.
Clearly the Government expected plaudits for their frankness, openness and concern for the nation's health. They believed that things would then settle down and we could all go on much as before. That must have been the equation as the Government saw it, and they were clearly wrong. There were no contingency plans; indeed, there was not even a contingency approach, let alone detailed plans to deal with the matter—else why not lay the foundation for those announcements? Why wait until yesterday to announce plans for compensation? Why wait so long to settle the details of a slaughter policy which, up until today, still remains unclear? Why not consult more closely with Brussels in advance? The storm that took place clearly took the Government totally by surprise and, in a manner not totally unknown to this Government, they sought to blame anyone else but themselves. They blamed Europe, they blamed vegetarians and, of course, they blamed the Labour Party. May I say that I am sick and tired of the canard that, somehow or other, the loss of confidence in beef is due to the Labour Party. Responsibility without power is even worse than the other way around and, frankly, I refuse to accept it. The initial reaction of my honourable friend Ms. Harman was characterised by Mr. Dorrell as broadly correct and Mr. Strang's approach, as Mr. Hogg confirmed yesterday in another place, has been consistently helpful.
The fact is that the Government's assessment of public and European reaction was totally and massively wrong. That is where the responsibility for this crisis must lie. There is no way that they can avoid responsibility for their 17 years in office. One can argue—and it is a forceful argument—that the Government should have pursued a slaughter policy earlier on when the disease first appeared. A similar problem faced the Irish. They took slaughter measures and seem to have eradicated the disease. We did not. In retrospect that would have been the sensible policy to have taken here. But even without that, there is, as the House knows, grave disquiet about the extent to which existing regulations have been applied, particularly in the slaughterhouses. Tightening them up now is a bit like shutting the cow-shed door after the cattle have
670
gone to market. One thing that the Government should certainly have done was to have paid compensation at the full rate after 1988 and not merely at 50 per cent.
Following those Statements of 20th March, confusion has reigned both here and in Europe. Mr. Hogg assured us that British beef was safe, though how he could give that blanket and certain assurance in the face of those figures and the scientific evidence I frankly do not know. Later he went on television and talked about the slaughter of a large number of cows. The day after he again assured the country that beef was safe and said nothing about slaughter. That was, apparently, after the intervention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, not unnaturally, was concerned with the financial implications of a large-scale slaughter policy and, indeed, after the weekend meeting of the scientific advisory group which repeated its earlier opinions and advice.
In the face of all this confusion it is hardly surprising that there was a large-scale exodus from beef eating. The European Union imposed a ban. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington for drawing my attention to the precise wording of the directives under which the worldwide ban was apparently imposed. Having read them, I am bound to say that there does seem to be considerable doubt as to the legal basis for the world ban which the Council of Ministers saw fit to impose. I am not sure whether the Government's reaction to that was as vigorous or as sensible as, perhaps, it should have been.
However, Mr. Hogg then went back to Brussels to try to persuade them to lift the ban. He failed and we end up with the worst of all possible worlds: a continuation of the ban and a commitment to slaughter a large number of cattle which the Government still assure us are perfectly safe. That is not exactly a triumph for British diplomacy. But what should they have done? The initial announcements were clearly made under the misapprehension that the scientific assessment of risks would be ignored as so minimal as to be meaningless. They were wrong. Why on earth was the matter not discussed with the Commission in advance of the announcements being made? As I understand it, the Commission was given precisely half an hour's notice. It surely should have been obvious that Brussels was bound to be heavily involved in any consideration of the issue and it would have been far better to have discussed it with Brussels in advance.
Thirdly, the Government should have determined a line on the assessment of risk and on a policy of slaughter and stuck to it. That is where we are now—confusion, and worse, confounded. It raises the inevitable question as to where on earth we go from here. There are three points which I think are crucial.
First, the Government have to take such steps as will lead to the restoration of public confidence. We really should not wrap cows up in the Union Jack as if eating beef was now somehow a patriotic duty. Nor, indeed, is it sufficient for the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, to suggest, as he did yesterday, that the saga started off on the basis of science but was blown off course by some rather idle comment. As regards idle comment and being blown off

671
course, it was a hurricane that hit the Government, not a zephyr. If restoring public confidence involves a selective slaughter policy, I think that most people would accept that. But why a herd of cows bred for beef which has been fed exclusively non-animal feed and which matures in 36 rather than 30 months should be sacrificed to get the Government out of this difficulty is frankly beyond me.
Secondly, whatever the Government do now has to be done in close consultation with Brussels and the member states. Brussels and the member states are not stupid, nor are they particularly malicious but, understandably perhaps, they see that a problem exists. To pretend that it does not in my view worsens, not cures, an already difficult situation.
Thirdly, they must recognise that this self-generated crisis has caused, and is causing, grave financial hardship to thousands of people in our agricultural and associated sectors. Yesterday's announcement—which was welcomed by us—goes some way towards meeting this problem.
Finally, the Government must at last be frank with the British people. The British people are not stupid either but they are confused. The lead given by the Government has been flabby and uncertain and still is. I give one example. How many cows are likely to be slaughtered this year under existing policy? I do not know, nor do I know what government policy on slaughter is. Nor do I have any confidence that it will remain what it is supposed to be after the next meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels. The industry clearly does not yet know what it will have to face. This is, I am afraid, a sorry tale of miscalculation and incompetence. I only wish I could see an end to it. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition can hardly accuse the Government of failing to be frank with the British people or indeed of being flabby and uncertain after four agriculture Statements to both Houses and after two health Statements. Across those Statements we introduced some 28 measures. We have secured a commitment of rescue funding to the tune of around £1 billion. If the noble Lord opposite fails to understand what some of the measures mean and what the current practices are on culling, I think that is because he has failed to read the Hansard extracts or to listen to the Statements which have been made fully and honestly by Ministers in both Houses.
We understand the anxiety and the frustration that the BSE scare has caused to many people. We understand the irrationality that is driving people mad with concern. They do not understand why hysteria has entered into a subject which should best be left on the scientific basis from where it started. We acknowledge the extreme anxiety that has been caused by hysteria and irrationality. We also acknowledge that no one single measure could possibly provide a complete answer to
672
this problem. That is why over the 28 days we have brought forward a large series of targeted and effective measures. If there are other noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who do not understand all these measures, I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas, who will have much more time to explain some of the measures, will cover those points where explanation is needed.
Suffice it for me to say that the 28 initiatives which we have brought forward over 28 days are designed to cover public and animal health. Vitally, they are aimed at consumer confidence and at market activity. They provide emergency support for those parts of the beef trade where viability is vital. We want to secure as much of the beef industry as we can and we want to provide as much help to as many parts of that complex and long chain as we can. We know that jobs are at stake and we want to secure those jobs.
Are these measures effective? Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who described the market as being in ruins, I believe that the measures are effective. The market is picking up strongly now. The domestic market at the consumption end is up to a figure of about 80 per cent., and in some cases is much higher. At the abattoir and processing end, activity is up to a level of about 60 per cent. By the end of this month when the various measures that we have announced are fully implemented—I refer to intervention, to the calf scheme and to the cull cow programme or the residual beef programme—that market activity will increase significantly beyond the current figure of 60 per cent.
There are some slaughterhouses in Scotland where I know for a fact almost the same number of cattle are being slaughtered now as were being slaughtered exactly 12 months ago. Confidence is returning strongly. To hear scaremongering speeches from anyone does not help the restoration of confidence. We have worked throughout this crisis with everyone who is most affected by it. We have worked with farmers and with those in different parts of the slaughter, cutting plant and processing industry. We have spoken to the banks about the measures that they can bring forward to help. We have worked with retailers, wholesalers and consumer organisations. We have also worked hard with Brussels and with our European partners despite what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, implied. We have listened and we have acted. We have a comprehensive commitment to the future of the beef industry.
One of the messages which has come back from the people we have consulted who are most affected by the crisis—beyond the shopping list that they delivered to us and on which we have delivered action—is that they are annoyed at the party politicking that this issue has attracted.
Noble Lords: Oh—
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lords opposite that if they talk to the farmers and those in the industry in rural areas, as I and other Ministers responsible for agriculture have done, they will find that those people are annoyed at the bickering

673
that has gone on while their livelihoods are at stake. They are surprised that the party opposite has become so interested in this matter when the extent of the commitment to UK agriculture in the 1992 manifesto of the party opposite amounted to two sentences. One could write what that party stated about UK agriculture in that manifesto on the back of a bus ticket.
It surprises farmers and others in the agricultural community when suddenly the party opposite decides this is a party political issue in which it wishes to become involved. Our commitment to that industry and to rural areas where the beef industry is so vital is complete. We want to maintain the viability of that industry and the jobs that it supports. We want the quality and the safety of the product to be paramount. We want the support that the beef industry gives to jobs and to livelihoods to be secure.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, made a useful contribution when he set out the scientific background to the current BSE scare. As I think he implicitly acknowledged, this is an area of complex science and of as yet unanswered questions, even as regards those who know more about this than the rest of their scientific colleagues. The noble Lord stressed that we should be pursuing a slaughter policy. However, the scientists have never suggested that. We know that the science that we have promptly taken on board is working in that the number of cases of BSE in this country has fallen considerably and quickly. The most surprising thing was that the noble Lord opposite failed to condemn the EU ban. It is disproportionate, illogical and irrational. It is based on not one shred of scientific evidence. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will find it in himself to condemn that ban.
We shall not be bullied by Europe on this matter. In particular, we shall not be bullied into carrying out a mass cull which would devastate our national herd for years to come and place us at a grave disadvantage in the market, if there are no scientific grounds to support it. We shall not burn the sacrificial calf to placate European competitors who have ruthlessly manipulated health concerns to distort the market in their favour. If there is a scientific basis for such action, we shall of course do so. But if it is based on malevolence or on ignorance, it would be crazy to do so.
The beef industry is a great industry. It is almost part of our national identity. We know that the people involved in it are worried about their future. But we have brought forward the actions. We are determined to deliver to that industry the secure future that it deserves. It produces a great product and it deserves a great future.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has been wise to put down this Motion today because it is a timely occasion for it. We are concerned to have an effective and sensible way of dealing with the consequences of panic. There is no doubt that that is the right way of putting it. I do not wish to go over the inept way—even the most partisan supporter of the Government cannot congratulate the Government Ministers—in which they dealt with the problem
674
initially. One cannot go publicly on television and talk about the slaughter of 10 million animals without any kind of reference to time and not expect public panic; and that is what happened. That panic extended to Europe and there has been a great deal of politicising about the issue since. Eurosceptics felt that they could climb on a bandwagon to blame Europe for a panic that was really started in this country.
All that is now water under the bridge. We are now concerned with the effective means of dealing with the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was right to call for consistent and coherent policies to deal with the situation that now faces us.
I deal first with the question of public confidence. Although no direct evidence of a link between BSE and the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease exists, there is serious circumstantial evidence to suggest a possible link with the new strain of human disease which has taken the lives of 11 young people. Therefore, it is quite right that we should take a very serious view and that the public should be safeguarded as reasonably as possible. But the whole issue must be kept in perspective.
On 3rd April, when commenting on the previous and much less constructive Statement made on that day compared with the Statement made yesterday, I quoted the letter from the distinguished Fellow of the Royal Society, Sir Christopher Cockerell, in The Times. It states:
"This means that on present data the odds against dying by eating beef are at least half a million to one against. Crossing a road is many times more dangerous".
It is right that on the information that we have, the best scientific analysis that we have, it is much more dangerous to smoke, drink or to cross a road than to eat beef in any form. That is not to wish the problem away; but it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, indicated, to have a pooling of information of the research done not only in this country but also on the Continent and in the United States. I hope that that will be done.
I believe that the measures taken yesterday are nearly all to be commended with certain reservations. The Minister of Agriculture announced yesterday that,
"So far as manufacturers are concerned, on 12th April I amended the Emergency Control Order to allow imports of beef from animals over 30 months of age produced in certain third countries traditionally supplying the UK in which there is no history of BSE".—[Official Report, Commons 16/4/96; col. 599.]
From countries where there is no history of BSE, mature beef is being imported into this country for manufacturing purposes. I do not disagree with that. However, I wish to raise the policy of selective slaughtering. I raised the issue previously and I cited my own herd—it is in no way exceptional—where there has not been a single incidence of BSE during its 30 year existence. There are many such herds in this country. Some are extremely valuable. If we can import beef from other countries which supplied us which are not affected by BSE, why can we not use the same beef from safe herds in our own country?
The Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asks for consistent and coherent policies. How can that particular policy of the Secretary of State

675
be described as consistent and coherent? Slaughtering millions of animals unnecessarily will cost a fantastic amount of money whether we or the Common Market find the money. If it is unnecessary, then we should be much more circumspect about that policy.
As I gathered, there has been a debate within the Common Market as to whether a selective policy of slaughtering was to be preferred. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture is still looking into the matter. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, referred to the 20 per cent. drop in consumption; it is back to 80 per cent. If there were a 20 per cent. drop in the Stock Exchange there would be total panic. Weeks have gone by, and slaughtering now in certain areas is back to 80 per cent. of what it used to be; that still indicates a tremendous crisis. Therefore the Government owe it to the country and to the consumer to take a more measured approach to the problem. The consumers need reassuring; they need reassuring on scientific evidence; and the farming community, which has suffered the effects of the panic caused by the ineptitude of the Government, need more efficient and fairer proposals for compensation than they have been provided with at present.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to make my first speech in this House, on a subject which is of vital importance to the well-being of the nation and is even more crucial for the future of the beef industry. It is also of direct relevance to me personally and, accordingly, I would like to declare an interest.
I am a dairy farmer in Cheshire, where I milk 300 head of cattle on 400 acres. I was lucky enough to be awarded the Premier Breeders award at the Royal Agricultural Show every year from 1989 to 1994.
However, like every other cattle farmer, the future of my business has been placed in jeopardy by the Government's handling of the scares about BSE. I have had BSE in my herd—not when the disease was at its most prevalent from cattle born in the 1980s but, rather disturbingly, in 1995 from cattle born in 1991.
Farmers and consumers have, quite rightly, looked to the Government to offer advice and to set out clear policies to tackle the problem. Instead, the ministerial Statements made on 20th March and subsequently have caused complete turmoil.
The Government are supposedly making policy on the basis of scientific facts but this whole furore has been caused by a speculative and uncorroborated statement that CJD may—I stress, may—be linked to exposure to BSE prior to the SBO ban in 1989. Yet all the UK control measures have up to now been based on the assumption that BSE may be transmissible to man.
Since then, we have heard of cases of CJD in Europe, which shows that it is not just a British problem. And now we hear from Dr. Gareth Roberts of the London Medical College that it is likely that there has been quite
676
a lot of misdiagnoses of death occurring prior to the discovery of BSE in cattle that can now be attributable to CJD.
But Ministers made their Statements without consulting the farming industry, the scientific community or our partners in Europe.
The scientific community has consistently differed in its views on the disease. And it is still a matter for academic debate whether or not scrapie has in fact made the "species jump" from sheep to cattle.
The constant drip of further measures to be introduced has reinforced the perception that the Government are doing too little, too late. The end result of the Government's dithering and indecision has been to tear public confidence to shreds. The same applies in the farming industry.
There is also a widespread suspicion that financial criteria are more important to the Government than the nation's health. This was reinforced when the implications of the Government's proposals became apparent. Prior to the recent scare, it took 18 months to persuade the Government to raise the compensation paid to farmers from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. of slaughter value, but even that is often below market value. How small is the £4 million saving during these 18 months against the cost of measures announced yesterday!
Nor can public confidence have been helped by revelations that sections of the industry have been less than scrupulous in adhering to the regulations. Let me mention just a couple of examples: the inclusion of potential contaminants in cattle feed; the hazardous handling of SBOs by abattoirs. A recent sample found that 48 per cent. of slaughterhouses were found to be failing in their handling of SBOs, and that as late as the end of last year.
There has been a lack of monitoring of feed mills. Feed merchants still do not openly declare the list of ingredients to farmers. Can the Government bring forward legislation on this as a matter of urgency? There has also been a lack of monitoring of the rendering process and of abattoirs. The staining of prohibited offals and the establishment of the Meat Hygiene Service only occurred in April 1995. There is also the possibility that waste products may have been included in mechanically recovered meat. Bonemeal was still included in feed for pigs and poultry right up to three weeks ago.
All these practices have, of course, been taking place even though so little knowledge is available of the disease. We know that just one gramme of BSE-infected material fed by mouth to a calf will produce BSE in that calf. But what do we know about the dosage, incubation periods and susceptibility in humans, and at the different stages in the process of changes in practices in slaughterhouses? Are scientists now convinced that every avenue of possible infection has been closed? Are Ministers convinced? The answers to those questions are crucial to restoring the public's confidence. But the public are still waiting and meanwhile dairy farmers cannot sell their cattle.

677
A lot of British beef has been replaced by imports as a means of allaying public concerns. But I wonder what thought has been given to the likely explosive reaction when imported beef is found to be potentially more dangerous than the British beef we now propose to destroy. Millions of tonnes of feed containing bonemeal were exported and used on the Continent while it was still being used in the United Kingdom in the 1980s. At the same time, vast numbers of breeding stock were exported. It would be logical to assume that there have been far more cases of BSE than have been declared. Thus, there is every possibility that BSE could he reimported. It is well understood by farmers that the authorities in Europe are not averse to making use of Lord Nelson's eye.
To restore confidence in British beef and the farming industry, the Government must insist that the European Commission publish the facts on the measures taken in Europe to safeguard public health. How well observed are the regulations governing abattoirs and the slaughtering process? How do our measures to safeguard the consumer compare with those in other European countries? We must stop being defensive and highlight the safety measures taken uniquely in this country.
It is a fact that the number of confirmed BSE cases in the UK fell from 36,000 in 1992 to 14,000 last year. That amounts to just 0.4 per cent. of the cattle population. Here in Britain we are at the leading edge of expertise on this disease. That expertise must lead the way and not be sidelined by Europe's Standing Veterinary Committee. The first priority must be public health. We need to restore the public's confidence. The survival of the meat industry depends on it.
What is needed is a major publicity campaign highlighting all the facts and focusing on the measures being taken to tackle the BSE problem. We must not pander to hysteria and I welcome the British Veterinary Association's call to halt mass slaughtering and mass rejection of all carcasses over 30 months of age. The problem is not about infectious diseases in cattle. It is about excluding risks from the food chain.
The public know that clinical cases are incinerated. But they need to know about the measures being taken to stop sub-clinical cases reaching their dinner plates. By this I mean the measures taken since 1988 to deal with the rejection of the host site for the ineffective agent. Now the European Union demands rejection from the food chain of all cattle over 30 months, supposedly to reduce further the potential risk of sub-clinical cases entering the food chain. But the meat will be clear of the infectious agent in any event, due to the safety measures already implemented. A mass slaughter would mean the rejection and quite immoral waste of millions of tonnes of healthy food. Surely we can be more intelligent than that?
Remember, my Lords, only 0.4 per cent. of cattle have been diagnosed as having BSE. The number of sub-clinical cases is estimated at perhaps twice the clinical number. Trying to find each one would be like looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack. Only last week a breakthrough, as reported in the New Scientist, was achieved in the United States at the California Institute of Technology to diagnose sub-clinical CJD in humans with more than 98 per cent. accuracy. Can the
678
Government invite these scientists, with funding and facilities, to develop their tests for identifying sub-clinical cases of BSE? I fear the case to reject meat for sub-clinical cases only has been already lost, following the ill-advised statement of 20th March. Perhaps this can be achieved over time, should development of this test successfully identify sub-clinical BSE.
What the Government must do is to adopt and promote a set of consistent and coherent policies with the following objectives: regaining scientific justification for the measures needed to deal with the problem; restraining scientists from making ill-advised suppositions (the media are quite capable of that); ending the cost-cutting features of policies which override and devalue everything done to protect animal and public health; ensuring adequate research into BSE, covering such facets as I have mentioned, plus research into genetic links and research into vertical transmission; and undertaking regular monitoring and inspection of abattoirs and rendering plants to ensure maximum adherence.
From this it follows that the Government must address a number of issues: how they consider the results and implications of research before publication; how they announce findings; the public response to announcements; their proposals for action, including legislation; their implementation and enforcement of orders; and their monitoring of the impact of changes, especially including financial assistance so structured as to avoid the encouragement of deceit and fraud.
Most immediately, the industry demands an immediate end to the crippling uncertainty. The announcements yesterday go a long way towards stabilising the beef industry, but do not address those issues of public confidence. Administrative details still need to be announced. Agriculture is a long-term business that needs confidence in its future to undertake the necessary investment for returns that are often not immediate but materialise years later. If, or rather when, I hope, the ban on British beef is lifted, there must also be a lifting of restrictions on British genetic material, by which I mean stock and embryos which are also banned. What is the justification for leaving that ban in force? In the dairy industry, British genetics—by which I mean dairy cattle and embryos—have been banned from export for many years already due to the scourge of BSE. A prosperous industry demands unfettered access to the world market.
BSE is undermining the prosperity and recognition of a great British industry. I despair at the Government's handling of the situation. If they do not take measures to restore public confidence, the industry could be fatally undermined. It will take a long time to recover from this debacle in any case, but if the Government do not get it right and get it right quickly, it will not happen in my lifetime.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, it is a delight to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on a most thoughtful maiden speech. As a livestock farmer, he has brought to the House very personal and pertinent observations on how the BSE

679
crisis evolved. He also posed some critical questions of which I hope the House will take note. They certainly require answers.
The crisis that we face has its origin in what one might call media hyperbole, a total disregard of scientific facts on the part of the European Union and the imposition of controls mediated by political imperatives—as indeed was fully admitted by Franz Fischler, the European Union Commissioner. Some noble Lords may have seen a leader article in the Telegraph this morning stating:
"They will eat our beef, but refuse to eat their words".
That is a very pertinent comment.
The present ban on British beef, Decision 96/239/EC, was imposed contrary to the advice of several committees. I shall not bore the House by listing them. It is of great regret to me as a veterinarian to note that the Standing Veterinary Committee of the EC voted 14 to 1 (the one vote against was that of our own Chief Veterinary Officer) despite the advice from the expert Veterinary Committee, which is slightly different from the standing committee, that spongiform encephalopathy is not derived from BSE cattle under the present regulations on dealing with cattle in our slaughterhouses.
It might be of interest to noble Lords to glance briefly at the evidence that was ignored, since it is pertinent to comments that may be made later in the debate. First, it is possible that BSE has been with us much longer than we think. Many veterinarians who are a bit longer in the tooth than the present number can recall cases which, in this modern day, would be described as BSE but in those days were not recognised as such.
Despite that, over the past 10 years there has been a massive increase in spongiform encephalopathy in cattle (BSE): 154,000 cases have been diagnosed and slaughtered. But in that time there has been no relationship of the human disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, to that massive increase in BSE. Indeed, there are more CJD cases per million of population in countries where there is no BSE or where BSE is present to a very minor degree.
Similarly, in a study of the occupation of CJD patients over the past 10 years, there has been no case of CJD in abattoir workers, in knackering workers, veterinarians or butchers. One might have expected such people, at high risk from contact with cattle and their various products, to have shown some indication of a susceptibility. Indeed, professional drivers are one of the groups at highest risk from CJD in this country, while vicars are the highest risk group of all—one is not too certain why that should be so!
Despite all the evidence, of which there is a great deal, public confidence is to be placated by what can only be described as a slaughter of innocents. Tens of thousands of British calves are to be slaughtered in Holland and France; in the United States all imported British livestock is to be slaughtered; and in this country 15,000 cull animals are to be disposed of every week. Admittedly, they would have gone into the food chain,
680
but they will be discarded. My profession feels that that is a waste of good beef. Among those 15,000, some 200 probably might suffer from BSE.
The Government's approach, as stated yesterday, is welcome in that it is a return to the scientific basis of BSE and CJD. However, much still needs to be done to ensure the return of public confidence with respect to British beef. While financial aid is welcome in the various sectors of the industry, very rigorous application of the existing regulations must be a coherent approach to the control of the disease and its eventual eradication. There must be very rigorous supervision by the Meat Hygiene Service and by veterinarians. And it is to be hoped that the manpower situation that has been threatening the State Veterinary Service, which is crucial in relation to this matter, will not be applied as rigorously as was indicated.
As the Royal Society stated, there is a need for more research on BSE and CJD, both at a basic level as to the infectious agent, about which still not a great deal is known, and also at the very practical level of the development of a diagnostic test. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about a test being put forward as a viable means of diagnosing BSE in cattle, both in the living animal and in the carcass. Obviously, that must be undertaken and evaluated. Finally, as was mentioned by other speakers, positive steps must be taken to generate confidence by means of a much more aggressive and measured information service to the public based on the science of the situation. The British public will believe the science if it is put to them in an effective way.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, time is short and I shall try to be as brief as possible. First, it might be helpful if I, as a medical person, try to give some background to the nature of the human disease. It is highly relevant to how we examine this issue. As noble Lords will understand, I know nothing about farm animals. The only animals I have kept have been rabbits—mostly for my children, and also, I must say, for certain breeding experiments of a very benign kind. So far as I know, rabbits do not appear to suffer from BSE, although many other animals, such as pigs, do.
The curious thing about this disease is that it is an entirely new phenomenon. It is caused effectively by a prion protein that is present in the brains of all of us; it is a normal protein. It is not the usual kind of infective agent, microvirus or bacterium. That is why, when the prion protein was first proposed—"prion" stands for "proteinaceous infective material"; it is a kind of portmanteau word—many people did not believe that it could exist because nobody could understand how a protein of this sort could exist without a previous genetic structure to cause it. However, it seems that that is so. What happens is that the protein in some way changes its shape. It expands, combines with other prion proteins in the brain and forms large cysts, and hence the spongy nature of the degenerative disease that has been so well described.

681
The human variation of this disease can be manifest in many different ways. It is very important for the House to understand that at least 25 per cent. of CJD is genetic in origin. It is related to a particular mutation on chromosome No. 20, and is quite unrelated to any infectious agent. It is also very clear from the medical literature that there are very strong possibilities that particular individuals, in both the animal and the human world, may have a genetic predisposition to forming this protein. That is very important; apart from anything else, it may actually be why by its nature this disease has been peculiarly strange and sporadic.
Clearly we must have more research into prion disease. That is taking place and it is important that it should do so. I would say cautiously to the House that we must be careful when we assess the latest reports of tests. We have just heard about a test being developed in California in conjunction with NIH. But there is no clear evidence at this stage that that test has been sufficiently developed and, indeed, it has not been published and subject to peer review. It is important, when we consider any scientific development, that there should be proper peer review.
One of the problems about the whole issue is that there has not always been adequate peer review. That has only come out afterwards and, consequently, there has been much more alarm than there genuinely needs to be. It is important not to knock the scientists, but to obtain collaborative ideas from other scientists as to just how important those observations are. There is some anxiety that the test in California may not be viable. I understand that one of the reasons it is being held up is because the scientists concerned want to draw out the patent before they publish.
It is clear also that we need to look at research as to how the disease is conveyed to humans, particularly whether oral ingestion is important, whether there is a predisposition in the gut—for example, if one smokes or drinks—which may change the mucus membrane. There is a range of conditions that we must consider as to what triggers the onset. There is a great deal to be done. Above all, there is a great need to look at the epidemiology. One of the problems is that no good epidemiological studies have been published.
Good medical opinion says that the hypothesis linking the human prion disease is by no means compatible with what we know in animals. If there is a clear link, one would have to say that the incidence of sporadic CJD and the incidence of BSE (the animal form) or scrapie, should be constant in the various countries. I have just taken one report from the Lancet which shows that in Iceland, where there is a high incidence of scrapie, the CJD incidence is only 0.27 in humans. In Britain, where there is an endemic situation, the scrapie incidence is 0.93, some three or four fold; in New Zealand where there are far more sheep than anywhere else in the world per head of population, the scrapie incidence is virtually nil but the CJD incidence is almost as high as it is in Britain. That is important because it argues that the link has yet to be clearly established.
I do not want to go on for too long, but I want to draw one important comment made recently in the British Medical Journal by Paul Brown. Paul Brown is
682
an important individual because he is the medical director of the United States Public Health Service. He comes from NIH, which is a respected body. In a leader in the British Medical Journal he says,
"1 am still astonished, in view of all of the earlier negative epidemiological and laboratory evidence concerning the risk of human infection from scrapie … and from the failure to detect infectivity in the muscle of cattle … that human infection might be occurring from the ingestion of beef (or, even more improbably, from milk). Especially distressing is the fact that no unusual dietary history characterises these cases…for example, the regular ingestion of calf brain, black puddings, sausage, tripe",
or indeed of offal. He goes on to point out that it would be an ironic event if 11 million head of beef were slaughtered in a pre-emptive strike to eliminate the risk of zoonotic Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, only to find belatedly that the true villains were pigs or chickens which had been fed meal at a young age and the disease had not yet become manifest in those species. It is important that we recognise that.
I should like to conclude by making a few brief suggestions. First, if we slaughter herds we must monitor the situation carefully by random testing of the animals. We must avoid playing Russian roulette with those cattle; we need to develop in vivo and in vitro tests for looking at the disease and there must be European co-operation. It is not fair to point to the Labour Party and say that this is party political. It is confusing to the public when very little information is given out. Frankly, we were disturbed on this side of the House by the paucity of the information in the original Statement from the Government and we said so.
Above all, there needs to be better promulgation of scientific evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, made an important point yesterday when he pointed out that much of the problem related to the lack of information. We have to recognise that these expert committees meet in private; the evidence is kept under wraps and their conclusions are published in short, bald statements. It is only subsequently that we obtain the peer review information. Perhaps we should look at a way of promulgating the information so that we do not experience more medical scares of this kind in the future.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, first, I apologise that, owing to a long-standing engagement for this evening, I am unable to stay until the end of this important debate. I very much regret that.
Many people, rightly, looked to the scientific community for guidance in relation to BSE and its possible connection with CJD—the form found in humans. The Government acknowledged that guidance, though other less reasonable factors—political or emotive and far from scientific—unfortunately often take charge.
The Royal Society, to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, kindly referred, has been concerned with this subject for some years. Indeed, it held authoritative briefings for science journalists as well as international conferences of the leading experts three or four years ago. The facts to date were

683
summarised on the 2nd of this month by the president, Sir Aaron Klug. It is worth referring to what he said, though it has already been referred to in part. Sir Aaron Klug said that, while it is well established that, although the sheep form of the disease known as scrapie is known not to affect humans, it is entirely possible that BSE could affect humans. That is as far as he would go and as far as it would be wise to go. Unfortunately, I fear, it is not far enough for the general public to be reassured.
BSE is particularly difficult to study. However, scientific experiments currently under way are due to be completed within the next year and should help to establish whether or not there is a connection. That is the good news from the Royal Society; we may only have to wait until next year. In the meantime, rigorous implementation to remove infectious material from the human and animal food chains should lead to a considerable lowering of the risk of exposure of humans to BSE.
Several possible approaches to inhibiting or treating BSE are being actively investigated. Further approaches could emerge from continuing basic research in the general area of prion diseases. The message from all that is loud and clear: basic research in this area, as in all areas, should be supported fully so that, when problems of this kind arise, the basic information is available when we need it. What we know today has come from research undertaken on the initiative of individual scientists and the institute of animal health supported by the biological and medical research councils over the past 20 years. Without that research today's debate would be taking place in total darkness. The obscurity that remains—and it is great—can only be removed by further research aimed at understanding rather than by a short-term fix.
It is doubtful whether that kind of research would ever be undertaken by the private sector, whose priorities are naturally based on wealth creation, as are those of government exercises like technology foresight. I have been unable to find, after a rather cursory examination of the reports, any reference to the importance of extending research on CJD, presumably because it was not perceived to be wealth creating. That is surely a very big mistake. A better understanding could perhaps have saved the billions of pounds that our ignorance is likely to cost us.
In conclusion, perhaps I may quote from a speech given some time ago on the importance of supporting fundamental research:
"If we disregard the need to carry on fundamental science and continued research, we shall deny ourselves the solutions to many problems which will arise years hence. We do not know what the application will be. We only know that unless we continue this kind of research and put a good deal of money into it we shall lack the capacity, in years to come, to make the maximum contribution to the future".
Those are the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, spoken 20 years ago, and they still need to be heeded today.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Biddulph: My Lords, we have all been following the BSE crisis with considerable concern. As news came in of the reports by government scientists on the possible link between CJD in humans and BSE in cattle, followed by the Government's Statement and then swiftly the EU ban on all beef products to Europe and the world, I was not surprised that the British public were confused by what the media had to tell them. I wholeheartedly support the measures which the Government will be taking and which were given to us in yesterday's Statement and feel sure that they will help to reassure the farming industry and the general public, thus averting the collapse of the entire beef industry and its satellite industries on which the countryside depends for employment and a way of life.
Though I must confess I feel as nervous as a bull contemplating whether or not it might have BSE, I stand up and speak in defence of an industry which I know represents Britain at its best. British beef is the finest in the world, and I congratulate the Government on their determination to regain swiftly the public's confidence. We are told that already consumption of beef is at roughly 85 per cent. of pre-crisis levels and that cattle throughput in the markets is nearing 60 per cent. of previous levels. The goal must be to work towards the total eradication of BSE in British cattle and I hope that other European countries will follow the British lead and implement such policies.
Since the ban on feeding meat and bone meal to cattle in 1988, incidents of BSE have been dropping in the UK, from a high in 1992 of 36,681 cases to a figure of about 609 cases this year. Last year in Scotland there were 664 suspected cases, 0.03 per cent. of Scotland's 2.1 million herd. This year only 41 cases have been reported. It has been mentioned that incidents of BSE were fewer in Scotland than in Belgium this year. I am greatly relieved to hear that there is not going to be a mass slaughter, rather a selective cull in tens of thousands instead of millions. That would have been devastating to the industry and needless destruction, distressing to both farmers and animal lovers. I welcome the aid package of £1 billion to assist the whole industry to get back on its feet and that it will be coming into operation this month. The whole industry will feel ready to recover with this support.
I feel sure that the £500 million scheme to destroy cattle over 30 months old is the key element in reducing the risk of BSE entering the food chain. I particularly like the idea that animals could have passports within quality assurance schemes. One third of Scotland's 18,000 beef farmers are already part of a quality assurance scheme run by the Scottish Beef and Lamb Association, quality certificates being awarded to those farms which can prove that there have been no cases of BSE in their herds in the past six years. I also hope that government scientists are working on a live test for BSE in cattle. This could be usefully added to such a passport scheme. Perhaps we could be updated on that as it has already been mentioned today but was not in yesterday's Statement.

685
In the light of the events of the past few days, especially the comments made by the EU farms commissioner, Franz Fischler, that British beef was safe to eat and that the ban on beef products was imposed to ring-fence Britain to protect European markets from collapsing and not on scientific but economic grounds, I feel sure that with the measures the Government are now taking this should be sufficient to convince the EU agriculture ministers totally to lift all restrictions on British beef.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Biddulph, on his maiden speech and in particular on bringing to the House an analysis of the economic importance of the beef industry to the countryside. I certainly look forward to hearing from him again on this subject and on related country interests which I know are at the heart of his own interests. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Grantchester on his maiden speech. He brought an agricultural expertise to the debate. I certainly look forward to hearing him as an agricultural spokesperson for the Cross-Benches in future debates.
The trouble with this issue is that because of its complexity we are in danger of failing to realise that it is in a sense no different from any other issue of public policy in that there is an issue of science and information; there is an issue of public health; there is an issue of communication on the part of government and through the media; there is an issue of the consumer market; and of course there is the economic issue for the producers and distributors within the trade. All those issues come together. However, we should realise that within the context of the agricultural industry we are dealing with an industry that has been inherently European at least since the beginning of the CAP in the 1960s.
The last thing we want to have in this debate is an argument between the Eurosceptics and the Europhiles in this House or anywhere else or to see the debate about the future of the beef industry degenerate into the running of a pre-referendum on a common currency or on relations between the UK and the rest of Europe. We should not be surprised that the European Commission should take a lead role in what is, after all, a major industry within a single market. We have already heard of the extent of the transfer of cattle throughout Europe and throughout the world. Therefore, we should not be surprised that there should be serious political and scientific discussions taking place in tandem. We cannot say that all market decisions should be based on scientific evidence; neither can we say that scientific evidence should have no place in market decisions. Those matters have to be taken together.
Some noble Lords have referred to European Commissioners making statements on the basis of trying to safeguard the market. I say to the House that it is part of the responsibility of the European Commission to safeguard the beef market throughout Europe—and that includes the United Kingdom. It should come as no surprise that the European Commission's position
686
should be an attempt to balance the interests of consumers and producers with that clear determinant of public health.
What concerns me about the history of this issue is how and why there does not appear to have been much closer collaboration between the UK and the other member states of the European Union in advance of the Statements in this House and in another place on 20th March. After all, there was a meeting of agriculture ministers on 18th and 19th March. Surely technical experts in the veterinary field as in all other scientific fields are continually discussing among each other within the European Union. Had it been possible for the scientific evidence, which appeared to be fresh evidence, to be shared at a much earlier stage, it is not impossible that much of the negative impact on the consumer market might have been avoided, in particular the income crisis hitting beef producers both in the agricultural community, where I have been privileged to live throughout my life, and in other parts of the UK. It is important for us now to ensure that the position taken by the next scientific veterinary committee, by the next veterinary standing committee and by the next meeting of EU agricultural ministers is a positive one.
In that sense much of the quality of the debate in the British media, including the Daily Telegraph this morning, is not helpful in trying to develop a concerted European position on this issue. We have to understand that we are dealing not just with the domestic consumer in the UK, but that we should also be looking at the interests of Irish, French and German farmers who have pursued a policy of eradication. We have to take cognizance of the fact that they are suffering from the reduction in the level of the beef market from having to implement intervention policies at a high scale as a result of the BSE scare, which seems to have emerged mainly from the UK. So there is a common interest here that we need to safeguard.
Finally, I say to the Government that it is extremely important that the economic position of the areas producing hill and store cattle, and those areas which are dependent on the early part of the beef production chain, should be safeguarded. I am well aware that both the NFU of England and Wales and the Farmers' Union of Wales have had discussions with ministerial colleagues in the Welsh Office about the early payment of the relevant premiums to ensure that any cash flow problems caused by the present crisis are ameliorated. The Minister's colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, speaks for the Welsh Office as well as for the Ministry of Agriculture in this House on these matters. I hope that he shall be able to respond positively on that issue.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as usual, I have to declare an interest in that I normally summer-fatten cattle, but have been unable to do so this Spring because of the BSE crisis. If we have to apportion blame—I suppose that on occasions I have criticised my Front Bench—my view is that, even with hindsight, this disaster was one of those things that I would call an act of God or maybe an act of the Devil. Whether the Government should have had a contingency

687
plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested, I know not. But I believe that the noble Lord was wrong in saying that this new strain was confined to the United Kingdom: in fact, I believe I am right in saying that there has been a case in France as well.
Make no mistake: I, and my fellow farmers, are angry about the handling of the BSE crisis. But the main finger of guilt points to our totally irresponsible media—I go further that. the noble Lord—and the European Commission for banning British beef for public relations and market supply reasons rather than health ones, so bringing the CAP into further disrepute.
I would have preferred to stick with the Government's original policy of excluding the most suspect parts of the carcass but, like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I have to visit slaughterhouses and most of them find this procedure physically and technically extremely difficult. So, if only to be doubly sure that such situations do not occur—and we are all human—I am prepared to accept that there is a case for excluding those animals most at risk, which includes all those which might—I am using a great many "mights"—conceivably be developing BSE which, again I understand, are those over 30 months' old.
I understand that the Government are being forced to do more than this by instituting a selective cull. I do not know and I cannot envisage such a cull being in any way related to preventing any possible BSE cross-infection. I sincerely hope that the Government will resist it. I realise that if they do not come up with such a scheme, the EC may refuse to lift the ban on British beef. I hope that the EC will come to its senses when it considers the possible cost of banning British beef based on PR reasons rather than health reasons, as stated in an incredible statement, so far as I am concerned, by Herr Fischler the other day. I welcome the Government's decision, therefore, to take the matter to court.
The beef industry has been—and probably still is—in chaos. The EU intervention proposals are useless; so I, like my noble friend Lord Biddulph, welcome the measures taken by the Government yesterday that should bring—indeed, I believe that they have already brought—some stability to the market. It is now up to the whole of the industry, including farmers, to do their part in ensuring a return to normality. In a small way, and to practise what I preach, I shall enter the market next week.
To conclude, I hope that the BSE crisis has taught us the following lessons; first, the vital role, both economic and social, that the production of food still plays in our national life. I hope that we shall remember this when our extreme environmentalists tell us that we should look after the birds and the bees and our stonewalls before we look after our food production. Secondly, the silence of the animal rights activists appals me at the impending slaughter of vast numbers of cattle in sharp contrast, I am glad to say, to the BBA which appreciates not only the dreadful animal slaughter that may occur, but also the position of the farmer who has had to contemplate the needless slaughter of his animals which may possibly have been his life's work.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, in company with many other Members of your Lordships' House, I have received briefing from the Country Landowners' Association, the CLA, and from the United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association (UKASTA). Reading the briefing, a small contradiction occurs between them which I hope the Minister will be able to clear up for me when he responds.
The CLA reminds us that the use of animal protein, as we have all heard ad nauseam in the past few weeks, was banned in cattle feed at the end of 1988, which took effect in 1989. The Government have reminded us of this many times. But UKASTA says that until 20th March 1996, which has just passed, MAFF continued to assure the industry that the use of animal protein in its feed was safe. As a result, UKASTA is so concerned about this, among other things, that there should be compensation for the now unusable stocks of feed which it has on its hands. I hope that the Minister can explain that.
If we have continued to feed animal protein to other species (which is probably the likely explanation) can we be satisfied that none of this feed has found its way to cattle? I understand, for example, that the feed bags do not have a list of ingredients on them. In some cases the feed looks quite similar. We need to be reassured that this aspect has been taken care of or that it is safe to give it to any other species. My noble friend Lord Winston referred to the possibility of pigs having BSE. I do not know whether that is a possibility or not; but if they are being fed on this protein, it seems to me that there is at least a risk. Not so long ago we were assured that it was perfectly safe to feed this protein to cattle, and now we are having to withdraw from that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Granchester, indicated, we must be satisfied that regulation and inspection of the rendering industry is complete. Is it not time that we applied the precautionary principle in this case as we do in so many other matters? So many of the practices which have been uncovered in the past few years are unnatural and distasteful to most people. There is something peculiarly unpleasant in discovering that cattle—undeniably herbivores—have not only been fed on animal protein, but have been induced to devour each other. It is just as revolting to me to discover that until 1988, as my noble friend Lord Richard listed for us, products sold for human consumption contained parts of the animal which most of us would reject, such as the tonsils, the larynx, the spinal chord and goodness knows what else. If those are offered for sale, we can buy them or refuse them. But if they are minced up and sold to us in processed food, we have no choice. That should not have happened in the first place and we must certainly ensure that it does not happen again. Are slaughterhouses well enough policed to make sure that those pieces are not used?
I understand that the Health and Safety Executive and, indeed for that matter, the environmental health officers at this moment are seriously under-resourced and under-staffed. It is extremely important that those regulatory authorities should have the resources to do

689
their job properly. We are not learning from our mistakes. We heard in the debate only yesterday in this House that the use of organophosphates in fish fanning is causing concern in some circles; and only a week or two ago, speaking to Members of Parliament and Peers at a meeting in this House, an eminent gastrologist mentioned—just in passing, as a kind of throw away line—that high fibre diets might have to be considered with caution because of the agrochemical residues in grain husks. So far as I know, that has not been picked up by the press. But if the medical profession thinks that, surely it is time that we thought about it, too.
We must develop a more sensible and sustainable approach to food production. The Soil Association can show the way to at least part of the solution. The association banned the feeding of animal protein to cattle as long ago as 1983 because it felt that it was an unnatural practice which could only have undesirable results. That was five years before the Ministry took any action and three years before it even suspected that action was necessary. Recent surveys of organic farms have shown very promising results on the incidence of BSE. Perhaps I may quote from the Soil Association's text, which states that:
"there has been no recorded case of BSE in any herd which has been managed organically since before 1985 and where no animals have been brought in from outside sources subsequently".
There have been cases in herds which have recently converted to an organic system, but the animals had probably been contaminated before they came in. But it does at least point in a hopeful direction.
There is a demand for organic produce of all kinds which, I understand, has to be met from substantial imports. We do not supply enough in this country now. Moreover, the quality of what comes in from abroad is often very suspect. Surely it is time for the Government to consider giving better economic encouragement to organic farming in this country. Our system of support is well below that of other major European countries. I know that organic systems alone could not at present meet our needs. But surely the whole farming industry must be encouraged to adopt a more sensible and sustainable approach to food production, so that the lessons of this disaster are not lost.
It is a disaster. It is a disaster in which I am completely sympathetic to the loss of income to the farmers, to the loss of jobs and indeed, although I am not an animal rights activist, to the healthy animals which must be slaughtered to no purpose.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, spoke strongly of the innocence of Opposition spokesmen of any contribution to this crisis. But I put my name on the list of speakers because of my anger at the conduct of Mr. Blair who seems to me to have breached the convention that Leaders of the Opposition choose their words with great care when faced with grave emergencies. That anger has been reinforced by the ignorant antics of the Consumers' Association and by those sections of the media which so enthusiastically fuelled the panic. Careless talk can have devastating consequences. We have to find a better
690
way of dealing with legitimate public concern about health before we are overwhelmed by the next event in a cycle of scares of which this one will not be the last. The facts got lost beneath the screaming headlines.
CJD occurs worldwide at a rate of between 0.5 and 1 per million per annum. The UK's annual rate has remained within those limits. It was 0.92 per million in 1994, and the provisional figure for 1995 is 0.64 per million. Mike Painter, consultant in communicable disease control at Manchester and a member of SEAC, commented:
"It is fair to say that the risk of eating beef in 1996 has to be many orders of magnitude less than it was pre–1989 … whether that now equates to zero risk is impossible to say but it is enough for me not to stop eating beef.
The World Health Organisation confirmed the judgment of our own experts, saying that,
"there is little risk of human contamination from BSE".
And Franz Fischler, the EU Commissioner, has belatedly acknowledged that there is no medical reason not to eat beef.
The epidemic peaked in Britain in January 1993 at about 1,000 cases per week. The numbers fell 30 per cent. from 1993 to 1994; 40 per cent. from 1994 to 1995; and 27.5 per cent. so far this year, to about 300 cases per week. The evidence indicates that the disease is spread through feedstuffs and not animal contact and that the numbers will continue to decline sharply.
The British Parliament will need very convincing evidence before it agrees even to a limited and selective cull, tightly targeted on animals most likely to be incubating BSE, as my noble friend Lord Lindsay said yesterday. That evidence will need to show that such a cull would significantly speed up the already sharp decline in the number of infected cattle and, crucially, trigger a lifting of the European ban.
There has been much criticism of the Ministry of Agriculture. It has been faced with issues of great technical complexity, as the Statement yesterday so clearly revealed. In such circumstances it is far better to consult and get things right rather than be pushed by those who shout loudest into taking measures that are flawed. I believe that the Government have their package about right, but they now have to persuade the rest of the world.
It is easier to fight a war than a food scare. The rules of war are known; experience and expertise are almost unlimited. Science is different. It provides few absolute certainties. As A.H. Byatt has observed, it is like a story. It changes and develops as new facts are proved and old facts found to be false. The trouble is that with BSE and CJD we are not dealing with a story so much as with a myth of Wagnerian proportions.
Mr. Hogg has been criticised for not satisfying our European partners. He deserves our congratulations for standing firm against their unreasonable demands and challenging the intolerable ban on British beef. But the Europeans are angry and frightened too. The presentation of our measures will now need to he most skilfully handled, which, I suppose, is where a limited cull may play a part. Our European partners need to be reminded that, far from ending the crisis, they risk

691
making it worse across Europe as a whole. If they persist in demanding large-scale slaughter, what happens when it becomes clear that there are a larger number of cases of BSE on the Continent than have yet been detected or reported and that the recently reported death of a Frenchman from a strain of CJD similar to the British version is not an isolated incident.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, pooh-poohed the idea that there may be a significant number of cases outside the UK. But already the disease has been identified in cattle in almost a dozen countries and the evidence is that in only some of them did it originate with British exports. Without a tight control on the trade in feedstuffs, which I do not believe exists, it would be surprising if cases did not continue to appear outside Britain. To begin a policy here that may lead Europe inexorably down the road to the slaughter of millions of cattle across the Continent for no good scientific reason would be madness. That is a point which perhaps we should put to our European partners in the coming days.
Against that background of hysteria, I take comfort from the good sense of a large section of the British public. When offered beef at below the normal price, people rushed to buy so that sales are now recovering. I suspect that the Financial Times is right in suggesting today that it will not be long before we have a beef shortage and prices higher than people like. I do not believe that panic is removed by taking panic measures. For goodness sake, let us stick to those necessary steps demanded by fact and not by myth, or by selfish economic interests.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in that my wife has a small herd of Welsh black cattle, which is happily free of BSE. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said yesterday about the notably helpful replies given by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, to our questions throughout the whole of this crisis. It is a relief to learn from the last Statement that beef consumption in this country has recovered to the extent that it has, but we still have the problem of the monstrous EU ban. The prospects for its early removal appear to be dim. Our partners continue to insist on a mass slaughter of cattle in this country. The Minister made clear yesterday that that was an option which he absolutely dismissed. We learn that the United Kingdom proposes to go to the European Court. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that it takes a very long time for a decision to be reached. In addition, will it not be argued by the Commission that we have long since handed over responsibility for trade to the Community and therefore it can do what it likes, whether or not that is reasonable?
In view of the devastating nature of the EU ban, is it not essential to do something now to prevent further damage? Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested that retaliation ought to be considered. If we did that, I believe that we would be justified in stopping imports of agricultural products from the EU, including perhaps wine, until the ban was lifted. In the light of the enormous damage that has been done to our interests by this ban and the CAP and CFP
692
generally, should we not begin to take notice of those of our partners who appear to be convinced that we have no place in a fully integrated Europe and begin to consider a purely economic association with the Union?
Perhaps the noble Lord will deal with one or two matters when he winds up. First, what will happen to BSE-free herds? When will the restrictions be lifted from them? Will there be a register of such herds? What is to happen to rare breeds and pedigree herds? Will consideration be given to separating the beef sector from the dairy sector to a greater extent than at present? Above all, there is a question about labelling. Both consumers and farmers are entitled to know what is in what they buy. I have seen feedbags on farms which simply refer to 17 per cent. protein. That does not seem to me to be adequate or good enough. In an editorial in the New Scientist on 30th March 1996 it was said:
"If Science Week means anything, it is that people have a right to the facts, and should develop a critical understanding of the world they live in. More open debate on how our food is produced and processed is much needed … Another spin-off might be a move to eliminate the worst excesses of intensive farming".
I believe that is right. In due course we need to be told more about the true origins of this disease. A lot has been said about whether it is related to animal feed or a rise in temperatures. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, described what was known at present. There still seem to me to be uncertainties. As with any other disaster, we ought to have an authoritative, independent and expert inquiry to establish the facts beyond any doubt.
Lastly, the other day there was talk of the Government getting rid of the Department of Transport. I believe that when all of this is over they should take a careful look at the responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is a widespread perception that the Ministry has been too cosy with big feed and chemical firms and that its responsibilities for food have not been given a high enough priority. I believe that a close look should also be taken at the Ministry's involvement in other high-tech experiments with animals which, in the light of this disaster, should be looked at with a very leery eye indeed.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I too must declare a close interest in the outcome of the crisis in the beef industry, in that I am a director of a farming company with a dairy herd, a commercial beef breeding herd and a Charolais pedigree herd.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, called for coherence and consistency. I believe that his criticisms of the Government have been well answered by my noble friend Lord Lindsay. What has not been coherent or consistent with the best available scientific advice is the behaviour of the European Commission, in particular the Agriculture Commissioner and the Agriculture Ministers in Council. These Ministers represent member states which are in direct competition with the United Kingdom in satisfying an already shrinking European market in beef and veal.
Our home-produced beef has recently achieved notable penetration of this market across the Channel. Anything which damaged Great Britain's ability to

693
export live animals and beef could only be of benefit to our European competitors. What could be more damaging to the UK's export drive than a ban on our exports and a demand that our Ministers crawl back to Brussels with plans for what is called a targeted slaughter of productive animals from our national herd?
Together with my noble friend Lord Lindsay, I believe that these demands have little to do with public health and much to do with commerce. The demands of the Agricultural Council have also much to do with politics. There are some Ministers of member states who would link any financial contribution from Brussels to compensate a proposed hecatomb of British cattle with greater compliance by the United Kingdom in the wider field of policies put forward at the IGC.
I have two questions to put to the Minister following yesterday's Statement in both Houses. The first deals with scientific research, which has been referred to this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and other noble Lords. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are aware of the recent work carried out by the California Institute of Technology which claims that CJD can be diagnosed with more than 98 per cent. accuracy? The scientists involved claim that the technique adopted could work equally well with BSE-infected cattle. If they are right, would it not be desirable that the claim be tested by inviting Mr. Harrington and his colleagues to this country to extend their work to BSE? It is vital to narrow down the policy of overkill which is so repugnant, not least to the veterinary profession.
If there is any inconsistency in the performance of the Government in an extremely difficult situation, it is the limited slaughter policy, coupled with the disposal of carcasses, to which the United Kingdom is already committed. It is inconsistent with scientific advice, which merely recommends removal of certain parts of the carcasses of older cattle. Yet it is an inconsistency that is fully supported by the beef industry as a measure which goes well beyond what is probably necessary to ensure food safety but which is an attempt to restore consumer confidence in beef.
On the question of confidence, an additional selective culling policy might well have the opposite effect. The public might assume that there really was a greater risk to health from our cattle than ministerial assurances have indicated and that those assurances are not to be trusted.
I turn therefore to the question of selective culling—that is, the slaughter of breeding animals in addition to those which have reached the end of their productive life. To agree to carry out, at the behest of our European competitors, a selective slaughter policy that would decimate our British herd and reduce our capacity to produce meat and milk without scientific evidence to justify it, would be looked on by our farmers as a disgraceful act of appeasement. I was therefore glad to hear in yesterday's Statement that the Government were not contemplating the slaughter of the whole herd. However, I must ask why additional selective culling is being contemplated at all. What scientific evidence do the Government possess to justify such a policy?
694
Listening to the Statement and reading the text, it might be inferred that the idea of an additional cull is being used as some kind of bargaining counter. In paragraph 22, the Minister said:
"I refer to the EC ban on UK exports and the possibility of selective culling".
Referring to implementation of the additional selective cull, the Minister said in paragraph 25,
"So far as implementation is concerned, we would only go ahead … if there was a direct understanding about the lifting of the EC ban".—[Official Report, 16/4/96; col. 601.]
That is like saying, "You lift the ban and we will shoot another few tens of thousands of cows". Is that what the Government are saying? I do not believe that that would be acceptable to the industry or to this House. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that point.
The ban on our exports is wrong, wrong, wrong. It should be resisted. Its lifting must not be part of a deal. We must stand absolutely firm in demanding its unconditional withdrawal.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, my intervention in this debate is directed towards the Northern Ireland aspects of the United Kingdom beef crisis. Like other noble Lords, I find that the time limit prevents me developing reasoned and constructive arguments in support of the brief points that I wish to make, points which I believe are consistent with the challenging and reasoned terms of the speech from my noble friend Lord Richard, the Leader of the Opposition.
I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply to the matters that I raised yesterday. It indicated that he is well apprised of the Northern Ireland aspects of the present problems of the United Kingdom beef industry. I was pleased to hear the tributes paid yesterday both in this House and in another place to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, who is the Minister in charge of this issue in Northern Ireland. She is worthy of all the tributes that have been paid to her in that respect.
Whatever may be the relevant situation in this crisis for the United Kingdom as an entity, what has happened is indeed a disaster of increasing dimensions for the whole of the Northern Ireland economy unless widespread effective measures are immediately adopted and action taken. I am reliably informed that the beef industry in the United Kingdom accounts for 0.2 per cent. of the UK's gross domestic product. In Northern Ireland the proportion stands at 4 per cent. of the Province's GDP. It therefore appears to me that the Northern Ireland problem is 20 times greater than the United Kingdom figure indicates. That shows the serious consequences for employment in the Province and for the Northern Ireland economy. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate will comment on that.
It was claimed in the Statement yesterday that consumer confidence is returning. Mention has already been made of that aspect, but I think that it bears looking at again in the Northern Ireland context. Yesterday it was claimed that the UK consumption of beef stood at

695
85 per cent.—it is 80 per cent. today—of pre-crisis levels. The cattle throughput at abattoirs is now nearly 60 per cent. of its previous level. Although there has been some improvement in the retail sales of beef in Northern Ireland, it is far from the 85 per cent. figure that has been mentioned. Before the parliamentary Statement on BSE in March, the weekly throughput at Northern Ireland's abattoirs was 10,000 beef cattle. That was for the Northern Ireland, Great Britain and European beef markets. Today, instead of 10,000 cattle being slaughtered, a mere 700 cattle are being slaughtered per week. Therefore, the claimed consumption level of 85 per cent. does not in any conceivable way reflect the true situation in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will reconsider the position taken in the Statement in terms of the effect on Northern Ireland.
A few weeks ago, after the first impact of the Government's announcement on the BSE-related risk of eating beef and beef products, there was an immediate outcry of public concern with consequential consumer resistance to beef in the Province. I am pleased to say that positive steps were taken by Province-wide organisations in Northern Ireland, representative of farmers, food producers, food processors, retailers, employers, consumer organisations, public health bodies and the trade unions. Joint consultations were arranged and constructive public statements were issued by the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland and by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and particularly by Northern Ireland government departments. They have helped to bring the crisis under some overall control in terms of remedial action in the Province.
Four weeks ago the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development formed a food processing industry emergency task force, under the chairmanship of the Permanent Secretary, Mr. Gerry Loughran. The importance of that organisation continuing its work should be fully explored. Perhaps it could enlarge the areas from which it draws its representatives. However, there is a need for a particular body to be established in Northern Ireland, especially in the light of the mention of the Intervention Board in yesterday's Statement. That is borne out by the 1995 report of the National Audit Office on the Intervention Board and preventing, detecting and acting on irregularities in agricultural produce. That should be magnified greatly in terms of the new work that has to be done.
5 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I too must declare an interest as a farmer and director of a trading company which handles a great deal of beef around the world. I am conscious of the fact that in 1967 I lost two herds as a result of foot and mouth disease and that in 1923 my grandfather lost his herd, which would have been the first pedigree herd of Friesian cattle in the country had they not been slaughtered because of the same disease.
696
My experience of those two incidents makes me aware of the devastating impact of having one's herd destroyed. I am delighted that the Government have decided not to implement a slaughter policy but to take out of the food chain the animals which would have gone to slaughter in any event. I hope that they will never be persuaded to introduce a slaughter policy in respect of a matter which in no way makes that necessary.
I recently received information from Professor Phillip Thomas who, when I first met him, was a professor with the Atomic Energy Authority at Risley near Warrington. He is now a visiting professor at the City University in London. Among other things, he is a statistician. He sent me a detailed analysis of what one could expect as regards the number of cases of CJD in humans on the basis of available evidence. It accords closely with the comments made by noble Lords. Assuming an incubation period of 10 years there would be a peak rate of four cases per year. If the incubation period were 15 years there would be peak rate of 12 cases per year. If it were a 20-year incubation period the number of cases would be 40. That is in line with the existing number of cases of CJD. It amounts to a maximum risk of one in a million, which is exactly the same as driving a motor car for 50 miles. I appreciate the argument that any risk is a serious matter but it is important that we put the possibility of contracting CJD into balance. I believe that when the Government announced the risk they should have given a clearer analysis of it.
As I said, I am associated with a company involved in meat exports, and it is on that matter I wish to speak and ask my noble friend some questions. What is not yet clear is the position of the large amount of meat which was in the chain, on the high seas, or delivered to countries but which will not now be used. The licensing and export refund position is unclear. My noble friend Lord Lindsay will be well aware of the implications of the export refunds which could have been paid on the meat. Will that be returned? If not, can we have clarification of the matter? We have heard the Government's view but we have not heard whether it coincides with the Commission's view. Unless there is unanimity nothing will happen because the instructions to IBAP come from the Commission, not from our Government.
South Africa is the largest importer of British meat and has been for the past 12 months. Seventy per cent. of the meat now in "limboland" had been ordered by South Africa. It seems to me that it is not beyond the wit of man to have a discussion with the South African authorities who desperately need the meat. We can see that by reducing the price people in Britain, Denmark and Germany have been enticed to eat British meat after all the false condemnations and therefore perhaps investigating the export refunds on meat to South Africa would be a good way of dealing quickly with a serious situation. Although my noble friend may not be able to comment at the end of today's debate, I should like him to inform me of the steps which the Government might take to clear much of the meat that is now in the pipeline. It is frozen meat and, by the very nature of things, likely to be cow meat and therefore more than

697
30 months of age. There is a desperate need within the industry for action. Large companies whose livelihoods depend on the export of meat are receiving no money for it; as a consequence they are not paying bills further down the chain. My noble friend will be aware that the meat represents 30 per cent. of the total meat production of the UK; it is therefore an important aspect.
I am delighted that all noble Lords agree that the issue is most serious. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was critical of the Government's handling of it. When one sees a crisis of such proportion there is a natural instinct to blame someone for not having handled it properly. Perhaps looking back the Government believe that they could have handled it differently. However, in order to put the noble Lord's thoughts into perspective it would have been helpful to understand exactly what noble Lords opposite would have done in such circumstances. Would they have taken a view different from that of the Government in trying to remove the ban? Or would they have accepted the ban? Would they have adopted a different approach to dealing with the problems relating to the meat and the farmers? Would there have been a positive policy on creating a marketing campaign as regards British beef in order to inform people of the product and its quality? It would be helpful if, when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, winds up, we can understand what practical steps the Opposition would take to deal with the situation.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, since he has referred to me, I will tell him one thing that I would not have done. I would not have telephoned the Commission half an hour before I made the Statement. I would have been very sure that Brussels knew exactly what was going on before I stood up in the other place.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the events which trigger this debate are tragic and the effects on the farmers of this country are not to be underestimated. But we may pluck good out of evil and I, for one, see two possible healthy outcomes.
The less important is on the purely political scene. The people of this country are aware that an important event has happened, which may or may not be the major catastrophe it is intermittently being called but which in any case is certain to bring ruin to many, and that, as far as they can see, the reactions of their Government have been muddled, ill thought through and incompetent. It cannot be said that the impression on those of us nearer the centre of the political machine are very different.
The much more important effect is the exposure to the public gaze of the effects of letting a country's agriculture be dominated purely by economic factors. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, we do not like the thought of turning animals into cannibals and as we realise that this is what we have been doing we may be emboldened to look again at some of our other practices such as the factory production of eggs and chickens, the overuse of artificial fertilisers and the misuse of harmful pesticides.
698
It is time we called a halt to many of these practices, if necessary withdrew from the CAP and started to put together a sane and humane policy for the land. I do not propose that we should revert to the cry of the last Liberal Prime Minister of "three acres and a cow", but I do suggest that we need to move in the direction of more organic farming, more mixed farming and less specialisation, more small farms and therefore, as a result of all these things, more humane treatment of animals.
I am well aware that in order that these things should happen and that farmers should at the same time have an adequate as well as a satisfying living it will cost money in the short term. And when I am asked where that money should come from I, this time, have no hesitation in going back to Lloyd George and saying that it should come from the pockets of the rich, who exist in large numbers in this otherwise very modestly wealthy country.
But this, though satisfying and worthwhile in its own right, is merely a short-term solution to a short-term problem. During the next 20 or 30 years world prices of food will undoubtedly be soaring as China comes on stream as a market and what we have now is a desperately small window in time before agriculture is seen as a milch-cow of money (if one will forgive the expression) in which to insert a regime of humanity.
There are more things in life than money and most of them are a great deal more important, as everyone of us who counts our blessings knows. Our blessings are usually our families, our jobs and the country in which we live. These are usually more important than money, important though that is.
If there should be any civilisation in 500 years' time, which is becoming more and more doubtful as we let loose more and more pestilential viruses on the world, it will be better that it is said, "This was a humane country which knew how to farm its land for the benefit of all, which looked after its livestock and conserved its soil", rather than, "This was the farming factory of the world which turned its animals into grotesque single-purpose machines; which in an over-populated country denuded its countryside and which in the process benefited only a rich, largely urban elite".
5.10 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I fear that there is little on which I can agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken except the need for consideration of what we do in farming with the need for a proper degree of humanity.
Before continuing, I must declare an interest in that I am a farmer and a landowner. However, I have no direct involvement with cattle and have not had any for some years.
The BSE affair is an enormous disaster and I agree with an earlier speaker who said that it is perhaps the greatest disaster which has occurred in the farming experience of anybody here today. I fully agree with that. My experience is perhaps not as long as others, although I think that I now face my 47th harvest.

699
Over the years my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior has been kind enough to keep me informed about the development, advancement and retreat of BSE in accordance with calculations and forecasts made within the circle of great knowledge and distinction of the veterinary profession. Over the years, he has correctly predicted to me what was going to happen before it did. I wish that he were also a racing tipster.
We have heard about high risk occupational groups and how at present, ministers of religion seem particularly prone to this extraordinary disease, although probably just one extra person would be needed to tip the balance into another group. As noble Lords have said, the probability still remains at about one in a million.
Perhaps I may draw attention to a case about which my noble friend Lord Soulsby has told me recently. He was sent to a practice where there was a cattle beast in a dire state and none of the vets could think what was the matter. As a man of great experience, he walked in, looked at it, I dare say he pinched its ribs and said, "Rampant TB". The other vets did not know what the problem was because rampant TB has gone out of the general cattle stock in this country; although when I was a young boy, I can remember why tuberculin-tested milk was introduced.
That brings me to another point. Tuberculin-tested milk became possible only when a quick test of reasonable reliability for the existence of tuberculosis in cattle became available. As has been said, the need now, almost no matter what the cost, is to develop a tolerably reliable and quick test for the existence of BSE in cattle.
Perhaps I may now quote briefly from The Lancet of 6th April. Referring to new cases of CJD, it states:
"These cases appear to represent a new variant of CJD, which may be unique to the UK".
We now know that it is not. The article continues,
"This raises the possibility that they are causally linked to BSE. Although this may be the most plausible explanation for this cluster of cases, a link with BSE cannot be confirmed on the basis of this evidence alone".
We must go along with that as we must not build great programmes and edifices of destruction on conjectural evidence.
It is very tempting to indulge in an orgy of hindsight and say, "Of course, we could have dealt with this better; we could have dealt with it differently". It is my opinion that throughout this slowly growing and emerging disaster, which was not seen as a major problem initially because there was no reason to do so, the Government have acted with exemplary activity. They have taken sound advice and when suddenly overwhelmed by the media, they have, albeit that it has taken a month, produced a reasonably definitive answer. That has answered many of the points that have been made, although there are still a number of loose ends. However, that is an enormous step forward.
As I said, there is a mass of uncertainty in relation to this matter. Consumers are extraordinarily irrational sometimes. The behaviour of the European Community
700
defies reasonable description in your Lordships' House. The behaviour of the public is at best unpredictable and people act in their own interests.
Many years ago, at the time of the three-day week, it was rumoured that there was to be a salt shortage because sugar had become scarce. I cannot imagine how the two became linked but that rumour went about. The then Minister of Food made a Statement in Parliament saying that there was no shortage of salt. That resulted contrarily in panic buying and excellent sales of salt. After some time, the market collapsed. The Salt Manufacturers Federation tells me that even now there are 4 billion tonnes of unexploited salt under Cheshire. Therefore, we must not be surprised by the behaviour of consumers. We must do our best to make sure that information portrayed by all sectors of public information services is accurate and responsible. We shall then begin to see a way out of this fearful disaster.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, one of the intriguing facts or pieces of information to emerge this afternoon is that vicars seem to be more susceptible to CJD than other members of the community. There is a great temptation to suggest that this whole business is some act of God sent to punish the horrible farmers and our whole community for rearing animals in an unnatural way. I would argue that that is a rather nonsensical way to treat a very serious subject. It reminds me of the attitude that some people had when the scourge of AIDS started to appear on the scene.
One of the factors we need to consider when we think of vicars is that they are not well-paid. The risk is that they and their families will buy the cheaper cuts, the cheaper types of mince and so on. That may be a clue to their susceptibility.
It is all very well for large numbers of well-heeled government supporters to say, "Yes, we shall carry on eating beef." The chances are that the beef they will eat comes from pure beef herds bred for the production of nice succulent joints of beef. But that is not the reality for the vast majority of British citizens, or citizens of the European Union or the world.
I was absolutely appalled to hear on the radio this morning a report that British beef was offered to Danish consumers at vastly reduced prices and they actually bought it. That is likely to lead to fairly horrific results. If the worst fears of some of us are realised, effectively it will become a plague of poor people. It will barely touch rich people. We need to think very seriously about our response to that situation.
One of the difficulties we face is that the Government are almost institutionally antagonistic to regulations except, unfortunately, regulations as they apply to the payment of income support and housing benefit to poor people, which are very heavily regulated. When it comes to the regulations which provide for consumer safety in a whole range of spheres, the Government .are almost institutionally antagonistic.
In 1988 the Government told us, yes, there seemed to be a problem in relation to the feeding of animal protein-enhanced feedstuffs to cattle. It was not proved

701
but there seemed to be a causal link and therefore they were going to stop it. It was not exactly promised but it was implied that that would eradicate BSE from the British cattle herd. However, we heard this afternoon that BSE has not been eradicated. Eight years have passed since 1988, but I believe that we still had 14,000 cases last year. That is very frightening.
We heard the very able and expert information given by the noble Lord, Lord Granchester, in his maiden speech. He told us that he had a herd of 300 dairy cattle and that he recently had a case of BSE in an animal which was born in 1991. Given what the Government have said previously, that should lead us to have great cause for concern. It is probably true to say that the pure beef herds—if I may so describe them—which have no experience of BSE may be completely free and perfectly good to eat. However, I hope that the Government will accept, even at this late stage, that any herd which has any experience of BSE ought to be destroyed.
That would create grave problems for farmers like the noble Lord, Lord Granchester. But one way of alleviating the risk is for large herds, developed as the economic pressures of the common agricultural policy have come to bear, to be broken up so that no individual herd consists of large numbers of cattle. That would provide some means of protection initially to the Exchequer, but also to the farming community in that large numbers of stock would not be decimated.
We should heed carefully the words of my noble friend Lord Winston who, with the scientific authority he brings to the Chamber, said that we do not yet know the linkage between BSE and CJD. We do not know how BSE is, if you like, caught by one animal from another or, indeed, what is causing it. We must recognise that until we develop more scientific information we need to take action that will not just give confidence to the consumer in the British beef market but which will also ensure the safety of people, especially those poorer members of our community who may be very susceptible to purchasing cheaper cuts of meat and cheaper beef products which may, in the end, cause them to have a higher risk of developing CJD.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for initiating today's debate. I may not agree with everything that he said, but, nevertheless, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak. I have to declare an interest in dairy farming, and I duly do so. I should also say at once that, as things are, I am sorrier for the beef farmers than I am for myself as a dairy farmer. For that reason, there is one question that I should like to put to my noble friend the Minister. Will the Government monitor very carefully their package in connection with beef steers and heifers under 30 months, by which I mean will they watch what
702
they fetch in the market? Those prices could, possibly, go so low that to hold on to animals and not market them in order to draw the new allowance would become too attractive. That would be an undesirable situation and I hope that we may be able to avoid it.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, mentioned the 1980 decision about rendering plants. In that respect, I should like to say that I would not like to apportion blame over the matter. It was indeed a disaster, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley in his attitude to it. There is one comment that I should like to make which arises from that issue. I am sure that one should commend the achievement of the central veterinary laboratory in identifying BSE in November 1986 and also commend it for the work that it carried out thereafter which led to the 1988 and 1989 regulations regarding taking blood and bonemeal out of cattle feed and taking offal out of cattle in the slaughterhouses. That was the linchpin that we got in place. It was most important for it to be done and I believe that it was done with great promptitude and ability.
I do not want to say very much in today's long debate, but I should like to draw attention to my interest in what is happening elsewhere in Europe. I suffer from somewhat of a dearth of information on the subject; and, therefore, I make various suppositions in certain areas. I am really anxious to know whether or not I am right. First, I am well aware that if you make a disease notifiable, introduce a slaughter policy and do not compensate, the disease goes underground. That is something that has happened a number of times in agricultural policies in our own country and, indeed, in others. I feel rather concerned and wonder very much about it when I gather that France has only reported 13 cases of BSE.
The second point that I should like to make about Europe is that we introduced slaughterhouse controls in 1989, but Europe introduced them last week. After all, it is known that Europe has the disease, although perhaps in smaller quantities than we have. When they find this disease in France they rush off and kill everything in sight around the reported case. That is really to go berserk and to take action beyond the needs of science. That is not a desperately intelligent policy. It is right to compare that situation—if it is not totally unfair, which I do not believe it is—with our actions here that I have already described.
I prefer British beef because I believe it is safer. I very much hope that one of these days McDonald's will take the advice that the Government no doubt originally gave. That might have a considerable impact on the public's view. I am glad that Commissioner Franz Fischler said what he did. It will help the beef industry and it will give us a case. We are right to take that case up. I am glad that the Government will do that. However slowly the wheels of justice grind, that will nevertheless put pressure on Brussels to do something about this ban. I am not anti-European; I am fully aware of the benefits that the European Community offers us all. However, I warn that the European Union's handling of the beef problem could

703
do the cause of Europe great harm with the British public if Brussels is not careful. That point must be made.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Poole: My Lords, I fear I must start with an apology because a longstanding engagement makes it impossible for me to remain for the whole of the debate. I apologise to the House and to the Minister.
If there is one truth that has come out of this episode, it is the fickleness of the consumer. Your Lordships will recall that four weeks ago Stephen Dorrell announced that there was an extremely small risk of contracting a rare brain disease from eating BSE infected meat. Since then, and on the back of that announcement, and reassurances from leading scientists that British beef was in the normal sense of the word safe, the beef market—as we have been hearing—has collapsed. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been put at risk and thousands of jobs have already been lost. A multi-billion pound industry has been brought to its knees.
There are signs that confidence is returning, as my noble friend Lord Lindsay said earlier. That is encouraging. Without a return of consumer confidence there can be no prospect of any sustained recovery at all in the beef industry. However, I fear that long-term damage has been inflicted on Britain's agricultural industry and it could take many years before rural economies fully recover.
There are of course implications for public expenditure in all of this. The very substantial package of support for the beef industry announced by Douglas Hogg yesterday is extremely welcome. Without it farmers, slaughtermen, renderers and others would have faced certain bankruptcy. I believe it is a well thought out and impressive policy and that we should commend Mr. Hogg for it. However, one cannot help but feel that hundreds of millions of pounds are to be spent because of a totally irrational spasm of public hysteria.
I do not blame the Government for that hysteria. In my view, Ministers had a duty to put any new scientific advice that they received from their experts into the public domain, and to do so immediately. Any cover up would have been a disaster. I am glad that Messrs. Dorrell and Hogg refused to countenance one. Having made the new information public, the Government have done everything possible to try to reassure the public that British beef is safe. I do not believe that any government of whatever complexion could—despite some of the remarks from across this Chamber—have handled the crisis better. But who is to blame for it, or should we be apportioning blame at all? There is no doubt that in this country public health scares can be sparked off by the slightest rumour or the remotest risk: witness recent scares over salmonella and the contraceptive pill.
However, I also believe that the media and some politicians have acted with what can only be called gross irresponsibility during this whole crisis. I remind the House of the front page headline in the
704
Daily Mail two days after the original Government announcement. It stated,
"It could be worse than AIDS".
Other newspapers have behaved little better. There is some irony in the fact that it is only the Sun which has consistently urged its readers to act with a little common sense. The sad fact is that these days scaremongering sells newspapers. Gone, apparently, are the days when editors and journalists felt that they had a duty to report the truth as well as a duty to their shareholders.
However, it is not the media alone which has acted in this way. I believe that some politicians have behaved in an equally cavalier and irresponsible manner. The deliberate scaremongering by the Shadow Health Secretary and others was, frankly, a disgrace. The job of opposition is of course to scrutinise and criticise the Government. I have no problem with that; indeed, it is certainly an essential and good thing. But politicians who whip up public fears to serve narrow party political aims, and put thousands of jobs at risk in the process, are, frankly, the worst sort of demagogues. I hope that rural Britain will not forgive them.
Then there was the behaviour of the European Community. I fully understand the desire of other member states to shore up confidence in their domestic beef markets which have also suffered a crisis of confidence. However, the worldwide ban imposed by Europe on all British beef products has, I believe, done more than anything to bring about the collapse in consumer confidence in beef across the Union. It is wholly unjustified, either on scientific grounds—as indeed Commissioner Fischler and President Santer admitted over the weekend—or, I believe, on economic or commercial grounds. The European Union should lift that ban forthwith. I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday that the Government are to challenge the ban in the European Court of Justice. On the face of it, they must have a good case. The ban certainly goes against every principle inherent in the single market.
In conclusion, I hope the collective hysteria that has brought about the present crisis, and which is doing so much damage to our economy and our farming industries, will come to a speedy end. I commend my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture for the way in which he has tried to keep a calm head during all of this, and also for the comprehensive measures that he has taken to prop up the beef industry during these most difficult times. I call on all those who, through scaremongering and over-reaction, have done so much to damage British beef, to stop doing so immediately and to work with Mr. Hogg for a restoration of confidence.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Minister of Agriculture saying on television that he would kill every cow in Britain added to hysteria?
Lord Poole: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will have his own view on that.
5.40 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I contribute to this debate, not as a farmer or scientist, but as someone

705
with a particular concern for health and the environment and with an interest in the way in which these issues are decided. Others of your Lordships have dealt with the twists and turns of policy and scientific advice, and I shall not take time in revisiting those.
In assessing what went wrong over BSE, and therefore what policies are needed in the future to protect consumers better, one can look, I think, at more than one level. I am concerned with the deeper level which so often gets overlooked, or if not overlooked, remains unstated for fear of being thought unfashionable or—horror of horrors in this modern age—unscientific. A columnist in The Times put it well the other day when he spoke of the importance
"of working with the principles of nature and not against them".
Now this is a difficult concept to pin down, I admit. But like many other principles in human life it is no less important for being hard to quantify. When the Soil Association, for example, took the decision in the early 1980s on no account to feed animal remains to organically reared herds, there was little science to support it. Indeed it could have been a classic case for that official, overworked and dangerous phrase, "There is no evidence to show"—in this case that cattle or humans would come to any harm. Rather, it was a decision based on common sense, on a feel for what was right and fitting in the natural order of things. This is the kind of approach that is all too often missing in our national policy-making, under the pressures of the market-place and a certain type of science. It is significant that the Soil Association reports no case of BSE among cattle born and reared organically—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, with whose arguments I felt myself very much in tune.
Let me give an example from quite another field, but one which I think has relevance. As a reader of the medical press, I have followed some of the recent debate about enabling women to conceive at the age of 60, or even older. Two things struck me. One was the contempt shown by some of the proponents for the reasoning of those who doubted the appropriateness of this. The other was that the argument that this might be against the principles of nature was nowhere to be seen. Whatever you may think of the argument, it was clearly too disreputable to be printed in a scientific journal. And so it risks going by default.
BST is another example: the hormone given to dairy cattle, for no therapeutic reason, to increase yet further their milk. I do not mind how many scientists assure us that "there is no evidence of harm to humans"—although, in fact, they do not all agree on this. It involves to my mind a degree of exploitation of long-suffering animals which goes beyond the bounds of acceptability, and should be resisted if need be on that account alone.
In farming, as in some areas of medicine, have we lost the wisdom in our pursuit of cleverness and profits? If, as I think, we have, then we need to get it back into our policy making pretty quickly, and this will involve a reappraisal of how much scientific evidence can be expected to achieve in an uncertain world.
706
I ought to add that I am no enemy of science, properly conducted, and that I see no conflict between it and common sense, intuition and morality. As joint chairman of the Parliamentary Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, I sometimes find myself begging practitioners to conduct their practice and research in a rational, scientific way. The two approaches should surely complement each other, and we disregard either at our peril.
I believe that the neglect of those basic principles is partly responsible for the distrust which the public feels towards both science and Government. Official assurances, as we know, are no longer believed. There are other strands, of course. One is the manifest conflict of interest in a Ministry with a duty towards both farmers and public. It is hard to see how any advice from MAFF on a subject such as BSE could be seen by a nervous public as other than tainted, especially in view of the secrecy—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston—that shrouds most official deliberations. While out of deference to time constraints I shall say no more on this, I would add my voice to those who call for an independent food agency as well as stronger consumer representation on committees such as SEAC.
This situation will not improve until the problem is tackled on a deeper level. We need wisdom as well as cleverness, sense as well as science. Only in this way will we get policies which have a real chance of ensuring food safety and protecting the interests of consumers. And in the long run, it will be best for the farming community too.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest. If anyone wants to know my interest, I can tell them later, but it might take my full seven minutes.
My noble friend the Minister probably knows more about the subject than I do; he has worked untiringly on BSE over recent weeks. It gives me great pleasure to tell him how much his efforts, and the support he has had from the Secretary of State for Scotland, are appreciated. On behalf of many people, I should like to offer him sincere thanks.
I can only say that I am sorry that the Ministry of Agriculture has not shared in this appreciation. I have heard the Ministry described as being like a big ship without a rudder which has been fortunate to have had various NFUs working together like tugs to keep the ship straight; and the NFUs also deserve great credit for their efforts.
I am sure that more could have been done to enlighten the British public on the real state of affairs. To enlighten the European Union Ministers, who do not want to know, might have been harder. I have spoken with an eminent vet who has been at the heart of things in Brussels. His committee has consistently told its Ministers that there is little risk, little to worry about. I know that one vet from a country which I shall not name here has had a real up and downer with his Minister.
But only last Sunday lunchtime in the BBC programme "Country File", a retired neuropathologist—I think that was the description—told us that a calf could

707
be infected with BSE from its mother. I made a point of checking several eminent quarters and there seems to be absolutely no evidence for making that statement. It is totally irresponsible of the BBC to mislead the British public in that way.
It seems virtually certain that BSE is not transmitted by contact with infected animals. It is not transmitted genetically; indeed, it is caused only by eating infected food. Yet such information is, it seems, widely publicised. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will take note. That is perhaps an example of how the public is not informed.
Surely it has now been found that animals which have developed the disease are mostly those known to have eaten infected food. One exception was a 27 month-old animal which developed the disease in 1993. But there seems to have been some chance that it ate pig food.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in an excellent speech, told us that some of his cattle born in 1991 developed BSE. I wonder whether there was any possibility of access to poisoned food or even cross-contamination. If the disease comes from eating infected food only, why were feed pellets other than for cattle not banned until 4th April this year? Recently I bought pheasant feed and fortunately inquired as to what the protein consisted of. I had been supplied with pellets containing some of the meat and bonemeal which has caused so much trouble. Why was I not informed—along, I am sure, with many other buyers—of what was being sold? What would have happened if our cattle had got out and eaten some of the pellets or if we had possibly used the bags when we thought they were empty for transporting other animal feeds, as we did the previous year? We could quite easily have had BSE cross-infection. What the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said was timely.
What steps have been taken to ensure that manufacturers cleaned out their machinery before changing from one type of food to another? The proteins are sticky. Why were the first major outbreaks in 1988? Had it anything to do with the change in processing the feed following the explosion of a boiler in the premises of one manufacturer?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that food manufacturers have much to answer for. As further evidence of the trouble caused by cattle cake, there was an incident where a farmer changed from meat and bonemeal to fish meal with the result that only those of his cattle which had eaten the meat and bonemeal developed BSE. Those which had eaten fish meal showed no symptoms of mad cow disease.
Another example comes from Cumbria where a farmer died and left his herd to his two sons. The herd was divided, using alternative herd numbers. One half of the herd went to new premises. The brothers used different food mills. One brother's herd developed a bad case of BSE infection while the other had none. If one plays safe and uses 1989 as the cut-off date when meat and bonemeal were banned, then the only dangerous animals should be those of seven years and older which ate the contaminated food at some time during their
708
lives. A hundred and sixty thousand of those have already been removed from the food chain and old age is rapidly reducing the remainder.
Another limitation is that 80 to 90 per cent. of all cases have been dairy animals. If we are to have a cull policy, we will have to be careful that we do not upset the milk supply. Since the ban of 1988 there has been a 70 per cent. reduction in the annual numbers of cases of BSE in the UK. In Scotland, the situation is improving by leaps and bounds, with a steady decline from 2,200 cases in 1993 to only 48 cases in the first three months of this year. There are hopes that by next year Scotland will be almost clear of the scourge. All the affected animals have been taken out of the food chain and many Scottish beef herds have never had BSE. If one has a closed herd where one's animals are all bred on the farm and the poisonous feed has not been used, there is no risk of contamination. One such large herd of Highland cattle is now in trouble as all the cold storage the farmer uses for his animals is full and he cannot move his top class beef.
What can the Government do? They can urge clearing down the intervention and allowing more meat in. They can certify meat from Scottish farm assured livestock farms where there has never been and is never likely to be BSE, such as Orkney, or other closed herds and get meat from those farms moving. Since my time is up, I had better close.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, although I have no direct involvement in the cattle industry, my brother is president-elect of the British Holstein Friesian Society, so I am glad that we are having this debate. However, I feel it is right to point out that the debate was introduced with the benefit of a great deal of hindsight, one of the few commodities that is cheaper than beef at the present time.
My brother returned on Sunday from the Epinal Agricultural Show, a major agricultural exposition which takes place near Strasbourg. There he met French, German and Dutch colleagues and, of course, he has other contacts across the world. It is quite clear that we are not discussing an exclusively British problem. BSE is international.
At Epinal, my brother's contacts were really angry at the way the subject has been handled in this country and they therefore supported the European Commission's action to ban all exports of British beef in the misguided view that that would help to protect the wider continental beef trade. Unfortunately, the Commission's action has given added credence to the possibility of a linkage between BSE and CJD, a linkage which, if there is one, is exclusively based on circumstantial evidence.
Consumer confidence has collapsed across Europe. Indeed, I saw evidence of that myself in France over Easter. Confidence will not be easy to rebuild, but removal of the export ban would certainly make a wide impression and would go some way to restoring the position. Both the Government and the NFU should have our fullest support in their work to that end—a task that ought to have been made marginally easier by the statement of Mr. Franz Fischler.

709
There is not time to discuss today the mechanics of BSE and CJD. Let us remind ourselves that CJD was first identified early in this century. It was not until 1980 that a Dr. Prusiner in the University of California postulated that CJD developed because of a presence of prions—a sub-viral protein, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, explained. That was regarded as heresy at the time. One point that we all need to think about is this. Science is developing all the time and as our knowledge increases so does our capacity to analyse and diagnose. There are likely to be other similar linkage cases of that type in the future. If they are all to be presented to the public in the hysterical way in which the media have presented this case, I fear for the future of science.
To return to BSE, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, said, BSE has probably been around for a long time. With hindsight, older cattlemen whom I know admit that they probably had BSE cases many years ago. The disease was covered by a diagnosis of "grassland staggers" and specific identification and diagnosis was only made in the last decade. Before that, diagnosis was beyond veterinary knowledge and practice. The proper diagnosis happened at about the same time as the consequences of low temperature rendering of carcasses were becoming apparent. Much of the machinery for low temperature rendering, which was in part developed in response to the energy crisis of the 1970s, was not of British manufacture. It was exported world-wide. That is not to try to apportion blame elsewhere because clearly other factors come into play. But I make the point to emphasise the international nature of the wider agricultural business.
In his announcement yesterday, the Minister went a long way towards reassuring farmers that their proper concerns will be met. But there remains the wider issue of public confidence in beef. Here, curiously, we probably have an advantage over the rest of Europe. Our veterinary services are sophisticated and knowledgeable and they understand what they are looking for. The reputation of those enforcing the regulations governing procedures in abattoirs is high. I have heard complaints in the past that the reputation stands too high, but we should be grateful for that. The fact is that British beef is today probably safer than beef from any other country in the European Community, where veterinary services are less developed, supervision of abattoirs is less high and reporting by farmers is perhaps less scrupulous. Indeed, in one country BSE is referred to as the "JCB" disease, after the well-known company manufacturing hydraulic diggers.
I must be careful not to minimise our problems which are clearly more severe than those in many other countries. However, they are on the way to being properly controlled and, we hope, finally eliminated. We are in an improving situation. The passage of time is permitting saner counsels to return to this field. I am glad that there is to be no ritual slaughter to appease the wilder flights of fancy that appeared early in the crisis. A controlled slaughter policy, however, might be valid if—and only if—it can be clearly demonstrated that such a policy would reduce dramatically the number of
710
infected cattle in the future. I support the Government in their consistent attempts to bring sanity to a ridiculous situation.
6 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the House might expect me, as a doctor, also to concentrate on the scientific aspects of BSE. While medical training is based on the scientific method, in fact a doctor (or a vet) follows a vocation that is as much an art or craft as it is a science. Decisions often have to be made when the evidence is incomplete, when a pure scientist, or perhaps a lawyer, would say: "Case not proven". That is certainly true of public health or preventive medicine. BSE is a prime example. (I hope noble Lords will excuse the use of that expression; it fell from my lips before I realised.)
There are some certainties in the scientific knowledge of this disease, and a number of uncertainties; that is, hypotheses with some evidence to back them but which are as yet unproven. Some of them are very likely to be correct and some very unlikely. For example, it is very. likely that the 10 cases of atypical CJD—I stress the point that they are atypical both in their age distribution and their histopathology—which sparked off the present crisis were due to the consumption of infected meat products. Noble Lords will please note that I did not say "beef".
However, it is highly unlikely that the disease can be transmitted by eating red muscle, which is what we usually understand as beef, although a hypothesis is held by a minority of microbiologists that it is possible, since muscle has peripheral nerves running through it which might conceivably carry the infective agent. So far as I am aware, no experimental animal has been infected by oral feeding of muscle extract from a BSE-affected animal.
I turn to some of the certainties which many noble Lords have already put forward. The infective agent is not destroyed by normal cooking temperatures and it does not provoke the production of antibodies. It proliferates in the brain and spinal cord of affected animals. Brain, spinal cord and a number of other tissues can carry the infection. It is transmissible to a long list of other mammals, both herbivores and carnivores, including a primate, the squirrel monkey.
The importance of that ability to cross the species barrier has been under-emphasised. Yesterday, for instance, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who, judging by his remarks, is a cattle owner, did not seem to think that the ability of the disease to cross species was important. But there is the example of at least 70 cats that have developed a spongiform encephalopathy, which they never used to. Presumably, they picked it up from proprietary cat food, which is made from the recovered meat that is under such suspicion.
The disease has a long and variable incubation period: from two to eight years in cattle, probably longer in humans. So far, there is no test that can identify carriers of the disease in the asymptomatic period such as can be found in people who test positive for HIV but have not yet developed AIDS.

711
It is of critical importance that such a test be developed and followed up as soon as possible if we want to clear British beef stocks of BSE. Without it, there may have to be unnecessary culling of many thousands of healthy animals which may be part of a herd that has a higher than average incidence of BSE. As several noble Lords pointed out, it is good to read that a possible test is now being developed in California.
In this connection, I raise once again the question of Dr. Harash Narang, the very able Indian microbiologist who was working in Newcastle to develop just such a test, having previously worked on a similar test for scrapie with distinguished American scientists. Since being dropped by the Public Health Laboratory service and MAFF, he has published a valuable review article on the origin and implications of BSE. I received it only this afternoon, so have not been able to assess it fully. Is there any chance that this very able man will be able to pick up his work again for MAFF? It could be extremely important in controlling the epidemic.
There are two further hypotheses in relation to BSE which government advisers seem to have regarded, possibly unwisely, as likely and which may have led to a degree of complacency that was not justified. The first is that BSE came from the rendered offal of scrapie-infected sheep only, and that therefore its infectivity would follow the same pattern as that of scrapie. As no case of CJD in humans arising from scrapie has ever been described, as my noble friend Lord Winston pointed out, despite the fact that sheep's head or brain has been an article of human diet for many years, it may have seemed unlikely that cattle scrapie (if that is what BSE was) would prove any different. However, there is now some evidence from the United States that the disease which cattle develop when infected with scrapie is not the same as BSE; and others, including today the noble Lords, Lord Soulsby and Lord Dixon-Smith, have suggested that BSE has been present for many years in cattle at a low prevalence and was greatly augmented when bovine carcasses were recycled and fed to cattle.
Another hypothesis that may have delayed useful government action is the complete belief that vertical transmission from cow to calf was rare or never happened. The scientific answer to that is sitting under our noses at the Central Veterinary Laboratory field station at Mailing, where the carefully controlled "blind" experiment awaits unravelling.
I see that I have come to the end of my time. This epidemic has been an expensive disaster and was due to government complacency and poor housekeeping over the whole period following the initial ideology-driven mistake that my noble friend Lord Richard described so well; namely, allowing the tight controls on the rendering of animal protein for cattle feedstuffs which existed until 1980 to lapse.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I declare my interest as a producer of beef. There is no doubt that beef farmers have taken a severe knock from the
712
appearance of BSE, as indeed have all the industries associated with stock rearing. In the West Midlands, where I farm, we have preserved the tradition of mixed farming. I am enormously grateful that I have done so. It has been much more fashionable to concentrate on single production. There will be an element of swings and roundabouts in what occurs as a result of this outbreak.
The Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, calls for,
"consistent and coherent policies to deal with the crisis".
It has been noted during the course of this debate, particularly in the speech of my noble friend Lord Soulsby—and I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, did not also bear out the fact—that the removal in the slaughterhouse of an animal's nervous system and offal, the parts attacked by the disease, is just such a policy. It is both consistent and coherent. It is the only policy backed by any sort of scientific evidence, and was in place before the recent scare started.
I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Poole. The announcement that a new form of CJD had been discovered in younger people was bound to cause alarm. I cannot imagine what the reaction of the public would have been if that news had been broken through the press, without a ministerial announcement having been made. That rules out any prospect that a deal could have been patched up in Europe before breaking the news and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is wrong to suggest that it could have been.
It came as a shock to me, and I suspect to other noble Lords as well as Members of another place, to find that the European Union had the authority to ban the export of British beef. I believe that move encouraged the panic to spread in other countries of the European Union and was therefore totally unproductive and damaging.
The Financial Times reported on 6th April that in Greece sales of beef have fallen by 60 per cent. since the Greek market inspectors seized at least 60 tonnes of British beef during raids on cold storage facilities around Athens. Greece imports only small quantities of beef from Britain but seizures of undeclared beef fuelled concerns about BSE. That has had a profound effect on the Greek economy and put its cost of living up by 0.5 per cent. from 8.3 per cent to 8.9 per cent. Sheep are being smuggled over the frontiers from Albania and Bulgaria in order to make up for the colossal rise in the price of lamb for the Easter celebrations.
It is easy to spread panic about food. We are constantly lectured by doctors, experts and, regrettably, even politicians on what we should and should not eat. We have become a nation prone to hypochondria. One could perhaps describe all the citizens of the European Union, after 50 years of peace, in the same terms as Walpole did the British nation during the long peace over which he presided; that is, as having its soul extinct but stomach well alive. It is a symptom of abundance and overabundance for which the malfunctioning of the CAP must be held responsible.
The CAP has been described as inefficient, extravagant and corrupt. The assumption persists that it can be reformed—indeed, that it must be reformed.

713
However, reform has two fundamental problems. The first is that the CAP is the cornerstone—or should I say the feet of clay?—of a single market based on the principle of the level playing field. That makes it politically difficult to change. At the same time it suffers from an inherent defect of which it can never be cured, except perhaps by a slaughter policy.
The CAP is based on the principle that, by a process of providing subsidies coupled with price controls and regulations such as quotas and set-aside, the balance of supply and demand can be controlled by government. The effect is to give European agriculture the nature of a quasi-nationalised industry. No government have ever proved themselves capable of successfully controlling the balance of supply and demand by overruling the market. I hardly need to persuade those on this side of your Lordships' House of that, given the Government's record based on that philosophy over the past 17 years.
We are currently in a phase when agricultural policy is aimed at lowering production to tackle the surpluses created in the past. We afford ourselves the luxury of thinking that the countryside, riddled as it is with experts, self-styled experts and interested bodies, is a potential theme park and the practices of farmers to be generally not in the public interest. Those people have not prevented the outbreak of BSE. It is only in that context that we can contemplate with equanimity the destruction of enormous quantities of food in Europe which scientific opinion declares to be wholesome.
Meanwhile, out of the corner of one's eye, one cannot help noticing that the world price of grain is above the European price and the mountains have all disappeared. The surpluses of yesteryear were not premeditated. Are we about to see another misjudgment? What are our responsibilities to the rest of the world, which does not enjoy the abundances of Europe?
My right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture fought hard for a settlement of this dispute among his European colleagues, and I commend him for that. But I can feel a change coming in the direction of the political wind blowing over this affair—the hurricane of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The Minister is being forced against his will into compromises by our partners in the European Union. When the dust of battle has cleared, what will be the verdict of the press and public opinion on the Government's reaction to the outcome of a situation of such national importance over which they have had few options and virtually no control?
6.14 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I speak tonight on behalf of the consumers that I have represented for the past six years. We are all consumers; we all have a part to play in the long food chain between grower and eater.
Most of us in Britain lead urban lives and are generations away from having grown anything to eat. Most consumers have visited the country and had a picnic in a field, but have never patiently watched a crop grow or seen it fail; we have never seen a crop decimated by disease; we have not struggled through an icy night lambing; we have not seen a fox take a chicken
714
nor have we seen a battery farm; nor, thank God, have we faced starvation. Instead, consumers ask and trust others to grow their food for them; to bring that harvest, good or bad, to the city gates to its market—be it super or stall. Some would say that consumers are spoilt for choice. Since the repeal of the Corn Laws we, the children of the Industrial Revolution, have enjoyed and come to expect cheap and plentiful food, at least until the system goes suddenly wrong.
To feed daily our nation—now at 58 million people—is and will continue to be a risky business; it always has been. There have been famines and plagues, infections and diseases, genetic manipulation, abuse, misuse, manipulation, carelessness, vandalism and now BSE. They have all seized us by the throat in their time. So in that long, complicated food chain, with so many interventions, where do consumers look for reassurance and comfort the next time and the next time, accepting that they too have responsibility to show care, to follow instructions and to accept that life will never be risk-free?
Consumers should be able confidently to look to firm enforcement and monitoring of measures introduced for their protection. I know that their representatives will be seeking to make sure that the enforcement authorities have adequate resources to monitor and enforce both the existing and new regulations. Consumers need information, and not just from the media. The further away consumers move from the growing and preparation of food, the more nervous and panic stricken they will be in delivery of their duty of care in feeding their children and the frail and elderly, let alone themselves.
In 1989, when I was chairman of the NCC, I expressed concern to MAFF that its responsibility for production/industry interests and the balancing of consumer interests was causing anxiety. I am delighted to tell your Lordships of the response I received from the Minister of the time and his team. They have continued to work closely with the consumer, setting up liaison groups and regular meetings, and making sure that Ministers and officials, wherever possible, led the consumer movement to believe that they were sharing as much as they possibly could with them.
It is a difficult area in which to share information, and that we have heard and understand today. But better understanding and earlier consultation may be less sensational and produce less panic. This food show will run and run; we will all continue to eat. With so many organisations involved in the fragile food chain, with their own goals and pressures, I suspect that new initiatives that refocus and bring confidence to the industry and to the consumer will be a good thing to come out of this troubled time. We will then be able to say again with confidence that buying British means buying best.
6.18 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for enabling us to debate this important issue today. I declare an interest as a partner in a farm which has a small fold of pedigree Highland cattle.

715
I should like to concentrate on where we might go from here in respect of food safety and protecting the interests of consumers. I shall illustrate that by discussing how we rear our pedigree Highland cattle. We operate a closed herd, cow replacements being of our own breeding. We have to buy in our bull, either privately or at one of the society's specialist sales. The transfer of the bull will have to be reported to the Highland Cattle Society, and will be recorded in the herd book, as will any females born each year from which we will subsequently breed. Male calves are usually not recorded in the herd book unless they are of bull quality but are reported to the society at the end of the year and go on a computer record.
We feed our Highlanders on grass, and silage and straw in winter, and have never had a case of BSE. But if we did have one, we could, with the aid of the herd book and the society's computer, trace any animals and take whatever steps were necessary to eradicate a possible source of infection. I wish I could report that there had been no case of BSE in pedigree Highland cattle, but it is thought that there have been 15 cases in pure-bred and three cases in cross-bred cattle, which represents in the total herd one-tenth of 1 per cent. or 0.01 per cent. Some of the BSE infections are thought to have occurred following the feeding of infected feed to orphan calves. Highland beef is being marketed under a "guaranteed pure" label. I am sure that other pure beef breed societies will have similar schemes. The consumers of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, have only to look at the label.
Highland cattle are slow maturing. A recent Scottish Office approved marketing development scheme produced data to indicate that of a sample of 425 pure Highland steers the average slaughter age was 36¼ months. Pure Highland cattle will therefore need exemption from the 30-month rule as, without it, the taxpayers' money will be unnecessarily spent, producers will lose about 50 per cent. of their output and the consumer will be deprived of totally wholesome beef produced specifically off grass by very high standards of husbandry. No exemption will mean a waste of money and a waste of food which I find totally abhorrent. I beg the Government to obtain exemptions.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for putting down this subject for debate. I declare an interest. I am an ex-dairy farmer. I sold my dairy herd a year-and-a-half ago. It was BSE free. I retained my quota, which is now untradable, so that was a very neat double and I shall not be applying for Successful Investor of 1996. I am slightly better off than many other farmers because at least I have some arable crops to grow and, I hope, live off. However, the wreckage from the BSE débâcle is spread over a wide area, beyond simply the farmers themselves. There are the transport drivers, machinery dealers, vets, meat packers and feed merchants and there is also the trickle-down effect into rural communities which is quite serious.
716
I warmly welcome the measures announced yesterday by my noble friend Lord Lindsay. They will be equally warmly welcomed by everyone in farming and allied trades and will go a long way to reduce the difficulties of everyone who has been sucked into this rather ghastly and damaging crisis. But the fact remains that due to the so far unspecified requirements of our "partners" in Europe—here I part company from my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith—there is an element of ritual sacrifice because hundreds of thousands of tonnes of perfectly edible meat will be destroyed (in a world which still is hungry) and millions and millions of pounds of compensation will be paid by the taxpayer, by someone. It is waste piled upon waste. We still do not know whether what we are doing will be enough to satisfy our European partners. We are acting irrationally to appease irrationality without any idea of how much more irrationality will be required. Those are not my words but those of Simon Jenkins in The Times today.
The Council of Ministers has made much of the fact that the European Union will contribute 70 per cent. of the cost of the slaughter programme. When he replies, can my noble friend Lord Lucas confirm that after deducting our rebate, which is what we are told will happen, and our regular contribution to the EU budget, it is the UK which will pick up 80 per cent. of the cost of slaughter and that the 70 per cent. figure peddled by Brussels is just propaganda?
The President of the Commission and the Commissioner for Agriculture have both admitted that the ban on British beef was imposed for reasons other than that of public health and safety. The ban on our beef exports is unjustified and probably illegal, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was good enough to point out. I strongly support the Government's and the NFU's challenge in the courts to get the ban lifted as soon as possible.
It gives me no pleasure to put inverted commas around our "partners" in Europe. I was at school in Switzerland for many years. I studied in France and in Spain. It is not the people of Europe who are causing such resentment in this country; it is the policies. It is the policies that are being forced on us, the drive from the top to a central, monolithic Europe, which are so damaging. Many of us want something very different—a Europe which is peaceful and prosperous and has a relationship between nation states.
6.28 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have an interest to declare and I declared it yesterday. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for giving us the opportunity for the debate today. It is not surprising, after what I can only regard as the irresponsible opening remarks made by him, that we have got ourselves into a fine old pickle over what can only be described as a potential hazard which is unquantifiable and is therefore, by definition, no risk to human health.
As my noble friend Lord Lucas is aware, I sent to him a letter, which I hope he has received, containing questions of which he had prior and detailed knowledge. They were prepared by Dr. Richard North,

717
and checked and agreed as sensible and pertinent by Dr. Jane Mellanby, vice principal of St. Hilda's College, Oxford. I should be most grateful if he would answer them in detail and send replies and the questions to anyone who is interested.
There is a growing belief that the epidemic of BSE—which has inexplicably struck British cattle but curiously not continental cattle, even though BSE has long been endemic in both places, and all have been fed on the same cake, with similar bonemeal—has been around for much longer than was originally assumed. Mr. Eddy, a vet from Wiltshire, drew attention to this in a letter to the Veterinary Record in 1990 and again in December of last year. Of the 13 replies he had from fellow clinicians to his original letter, 11 claimed to have recognised BSE before 1985.
As I have said, BSE, or bovine staggers, as it sometimes used to be called, has been endemic in this country for several hundred years. It jumped from endemic to epidemic in 1985, or, according to Eddy—and I believe MAFF is now sympathetic to this view—substantially earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, tells me that in his youth he would refer to cattle which could be classed as having resistant manganese deficiency. But he would now recognise that as probably being BSE. Dr. North received reports of a BSE-like disease in Cumbria in the late 1970s. He has interviewed 100 vets, knackermen, farmers and similar people all over the United Kingdom, all of whom report BSE-like symptoms before 1982.
If that hypothesis is right—and it bears the hallmark of common sense—we should have seen a visible CJD epidemic by now if there had been any connection between BSE and CJD. Even if the epidemic started in 1985, and if the incubation periods are accurate—the Lancet suggests that the incubation period for the new form of CJD (if it is CJD) is five to 10 years, and that for kuru is four to five years—and there had been a spongiform encephalopathy transmittability to man, we should now be at the height of an epidemic. Even if there had not been a pre-1985 epidemic, there would still be a visible CJD epidemic now: after all, 1985 was 11 years ago. In the past six years, during which 3 million people have died, only about 300 have been CJD victims—hardly an incidence of Black Death!
Coopers & Lybrand, the Government's own accountants, has estimated that there will be 28,000 redundancies as a result of this scare. According to American research, for every 27 redundancies there will be one premature death, so by my reckoning this scare will have killed 1,000 people, more than 20 years'-worth of CJD victims.
Among the causes of the BSE epidemic seems to be cow cake residues, not necessarily sheep to cow residues, as cows provide much the greater proportion of bonemeal additive to cow cake. Incidentally, bonemeal is also present in fishmeal. But why, when the continentals fed the cow cake to their cattle has there not been a similar epidemic there; and why, if the US fed scrapie-based sheep bonemeal to their cattle, do they have no BSE? Does this not, as postulated by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, indicate a genetic predisposition of some of our cattle to BSE or some other factors?
718
These facts show that there may be a minute theoretical and unquantifiable hazard and thus no risk. From no risk we have seen cynical Common Market Ministers banning with protectionist zeal our meat from their tables, while at the same time subsidising poisonous tobacco exports to Albania. Her Majesty's Government's response should have been much more robust. They should have been prepared, if the EEC came up with extra legal methods of protectionism, to respond in kind. The economic consequences for great swathes of business, be they small butchers, farmers, hauliers, banks, slaughtermen and a myriad of others, has been catastrophic, this catastrophe being the consequence of behaviour reminiscent of nothing short of medieval religious hysteria. Only with a robust, commonsense rebuttal of the rubbish now being promulgated will the spectre of the hecatomb be removed and the prospect of the smoke of sacrifice rising from the Pantheon be dissipated.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Richard for tabling this Motion at this time and for his excellent speech. Over the past four years this Government have alienated most of their natural supporters. But, generally speaking, the farming community has stayed pretty loyal. I doubt that any longer. Anyone meeting some of the farmers who were here today will know how disappointed they are. That is understandable: the Government's behaviour over beef has undoubtedly undermined the confidence not only of farmers but of the people in the associated trades and professions. Can one wonder at it?
From the most tenuous of propositions, hedged around by a host of qualifications, the Government raised fears about the safety of British beef which were totally unreal and in contradiction of epidemiological evidence which apparently showed the number of cases of CJD declining when it should be rising if its cause was related to BSE. To pile disaster on calamity, we had the spectacle of Mr. Stephen Dorrell, the Secretary of State for Health, the weekend following the original statement, informing the nation and the farming industry that if his scientific experts recommended that all 11 million—11 million, mind you—of our cattle should be destroyed, then the Government would do it.
When I heard that, I, like many other people, was aghast. My heart went out to the farmers, their families, and all those other people who would be affected in their pockets, their businesses and their jobs. No wonder there was hysteria and panic. Such a step would not only destroy the beef industry, but the dairy industry as well and all the other industries associated with beef and milk. Ministers must learn that their job is not to be slaves to their experts but to evaluate the advice and to act for the good of the nation, taking all considerations into account. I hope that in future, bearing in mind the enormous damage that has been done on this occasion, they will resist snap answers to catch questions. Ministers should be capable of far better than that.
Perhaps I may ask about Professor Pattison whose references to half a million possible cases of CJD helped to cause the panic but who now, apparently, takes the

719
view that beef is safer than it has ever been. He said that it is safer than it has ever been. That was the statement made to the House on 3rd April. Does that mean that Professor Pattison has now changed his previous position of a possible 500,000 cases of CJD? We are entitled to have an answer to that question. The Minister did not give it on the "World at One" programme today. I believe that we should have it this afternoon.
The measures announced yesterday were certainly useful as far as they go. The assurance that there will be no mass slaughter must be welcome. I wish to ask one or two questions about the role of the European Community. Some have been asked already and I want to elaborate on them. My noble friend Lord Richard, after some consultation with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned directives 1989/662 and 1990/925, which deal with intra-Community trade. It seems that the Commission has gone beyond its powers. If it has, then the ban on beef should be lifted immediately. I hope that the Government will see that it is.
As regards the advice given to the Commission, was it on the lines spelled out by the agriculture Commissioner, Franz Fischler, that British beef was safe but that it must be banned to protect the Continental beef trade? Was that the advice given to the Commission before it made its decision? If so, would the Minister care to comment on why the two British Commissioners voted for the ban, which was not necessary on any medical, health or safety grounds, but which was likely to devastate the British beef industry and associated industries? We expect better than that from the British-nominated Commissioners. Will the Minister also confirm—this matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke—that the agreement by the EC to pay 70 per cent. of the compensation cost is chimerical since 75 per cent. of that sum will be deducted from the British rebate, with the other 25 per cent. coming from the remaining EU budget to which Britain contributes a net £3.5 billion a year? Will he also confirm that that means that it is the British taxpayers who will pay 85 per cent. of the total bill, not just the 30 per cent. which Ministers would have us believe?
Finally, as a result of this catastrophe, will the Government now make an urgent evaluation of the huge powers that have been handed over to the European Union and which, as we have seen, can cause such havoc to our great industries? The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in an opening speech which he made in a very spirited manner, said that the Government would not be bullied. Let him match his words by deeds.
6.40 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, several noble Lords this afternoon, not least my noble friend Lord Onslow, have commented with varying degrees of force on the way in which this matter has been handled by the Government. Indeed, it must be said that it has been handled very badly indeed. But recrimination for the
720
past gets us nowhere. We must be positive and think forward. We can only hope that the lessons of the past will be borne very much in mind for the future.
We have witnessed a rather unedifying state of affairs since my right honourable friend Stephen Dorrell uttered those magical 24 words a fortnight ago, before we all went on holiday, which caused utter panic and despair not only throughout this country but also in the European Union. We saw politicians from all sides running around like headless chickens issuing one edict after another. Every little puff fanned the flames of panic. The press has been blamed for hyping up the whole matter. To some extent—I hear the words "hear, hear"—it has to be said that the manner in which the press was fed gave it plenty of ammunition. If the whole matter had been approached in a more pragmatic and rational way, the press would not have been given the opportunity to hype it all up.
Moreover, it had to be obvious that, whatever the outcome of the discovery, it would create a national crisis which would be most important to this country, apart from any other countries. Therefore, the right approach may well have been for the Government to have invited the other parties to come together in the first instance, so that a joint approach might have been made in the interests of all—in the same way as happens in war-time, when there is a joint approach. We could have stood four square to—I do not know what to call them—the people across the Channel. That may have been done. If it was not done, then it should have been done. If it was done, then the Opposition parties are not in a very good position to criticise the Government. However, I suspect that it was not done.
One welcomes many of the aspects of the measures which were announced yesterday. But I have some concern about the payment of compensation. It must be acknowledged, whether it is fair or unfair, that many taxpayers will feel that the farming industry is already extremely well looked after. The fact that I say that does not mean that I subscribe to that view the whole way. But that will be said; make no mistake about it. We must be prepared to answer that point. Therefore, I question whether the amount of compensation being offered or that will be paid should fall entirely upon the taxpayers—the Government—before an inquiry is conducted perhaps into the errors that may have been made, not least in the feed industry itself. I do not know whether or not errors have been made. I just ask whether that point ought to be looked at, so that we can satisfy the taxpayers that we are being fair to them as well as to the farmers.
Yesterday, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to the ban on the export of beef from this country and said, quite rightly, that it was a most intolerable situation for this country to agree to be dictated to and told to whom we should sell our beef. If other countries do not want to accept our beef, that is their right and prerogative. But why should any other country who chooses to buy our beef—if I may say so, if they so choose, they would be wise—be prevented from having it by people in Brussels, who say to us, "You cannot export it"? That seems to me to be a travesty of justice.

721
I should like, with permission, to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who yesterday pointed out that we are investigating—and, I hope, will carry out—an application to the appropriate courts challenging the legality of the ban. He very rightly—I trust that he will forgive me for cribbing his remarks—pointed out that such an application would take months to be heard, adjudicated upon, appealed and anything else that goes with the legal network. He suggested, and I repeat it, that serious consideration should be given to applying for an injunction against the Common Market imposing such a ban and that the matter should be held in limbo until such time as the case is properly heard.
My noble friends Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Willoughby de Broke questioned the level of slaughter. This is a cosmetic approach—cosmetic because there is no scientific evidence—in order to boost the confidence not of ourselves but of those over the Channel. We should be very careful about the indiscriminate slaughter of clean and healthy animals. The farmers will not stand for it. The vets will not stand for it. We must make sure that the slaughter is confined to herds that have cases of BSE. I hope that that will be done.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, coming so late in the batting order, I should like to associate myself with some remarks made and questions raised by several other noble Lords and particularly the speech made by my noble friend Lord Middleton.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, in an elegant and farsighted speech, asked whether we were sure of the causes of BSE. In that respect I should like to draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to an article in the Scottish Farmer on 30th March, which suggested that pour-on might be the cause of BSE rather than the result of cattle having eaten scrapie infested food. It seems that the pour-on treatment containing organophosphates was poured on to the backs of cattle to kill warble fly and other problems. I understand that a number of cattle farmers believe that the pattern of BSE in their herds has a correlation with their earlier organophosphate pour-ons.
I particularly associate myself with the question raised by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke as to how much the European Community will contribute to whatever compensation has to be paid. The media seem to have it written into their computers that it is at least 70 per cent. I understand that the figure is rather nearer 15 per cent.
It will come as no surprise to your Lordships if I am among those who see the behaviour of our European competitors as the most significant element of our present misfortune in this as in other matters. Indeed, even the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who is among the staunchest allies of those European competitors, was forced to wonder about the legality of what he called "the directive", which ordered the infamous ban on our beef products worldwide. The legality of this disgraceful move by the Commission must in any case be doubtful when set against the GATT, especially when we now know that Herr Fischler and co. never thought that our
722
beef was dangerous in the first place. I thought that the remark of his side-kick the day before yesterday really took the biscuit. He said that if the European Commission had thought that there was anything dangerous about eating our beef, it would have banned it in Britain as well.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene since the noble Lord has referred to me. I object slightly to the use of the word "even". I have an opinion as to the possible legality or otherwise of this regulation. It seems to me that in those circumstances I am fully entitled to express it. With great respect to the noble Lord, I am not forced to express it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was attempting to pay the noble Lord a compliment on this occasion.
Lord Richard: Try harder!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord does not read it that way because he may not agree with the rest of what I have to say.
My understanding of the legal base for the ban appeared to be confirmed by my noble friend the Minister yesterday in our debate when he said:
"The legislation that introduces this scheme is principally based on the Commission regulation which was adopted on 12th April by the Beef Management Committee".[Official Report, 16/4/96 co1.605.]
In other words, this duplicitous act by our European competitors was authorised by a Commission regulation. I remind your Lordships that regulations are supposed to be purely administrative little devices issued under the delegated authority of the Council to tidy up the odd lack of clarity here and there in the vast mountain of Euro-legislation from which we suffer. They are not even deposited in Parliament for debate; they are immediately binding in all member states. But it is a regulation fixing nitrate levels which has compromised our lettuce-growing industry; it is a regulation banning Emtryl which threatens our gamebird rearers. Can my noble friend confirm my understanding that it is a regulation that has landed us in this predicament?
One thing that is clear is that this monstrous ban was imposed legally according to the terms of the Treaty of Rome, to which we have so foolishly committed ourselves. I commend my noble friend the Minister for his robust reply to the opening comments of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I commend him doubly when he says that Great Britain will not be bullied by a malevolent and ignorant Europe into the slaughter of productive cattle. Those are brave words bravely spoken. My noble friend is nothing if not courageous. But I remind him that the terms of the Treaty of Rome cannot be avoided by lengthy appeals to the Court of (so-called) Justice in Luxembourg. As we know, that Court is nothing more than the engine of the Treaty.
I wish him well in his future negotiations in Brussels. But I imagine—I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—that he will find himself up against our old friend the qualified majority vote before the ban can be lifted. If that is so, I remind your Lordships that

723
countries with only 26 out of a total of 87 votes can block the lifting of the ban. We will have to get 62 votes on our side to carry the day. This is certainly the voting system which makes our lives so impossible whenever the Government want to defend our interests against our European competitors in areas such as agriculture, the single market, transport, external trade relationships and the environment.
I suggest to my noble friend that he tells his European counterparts that their behaviour so far in this matter has converted thousands of British farmers and millions of British people to the Eurosceptic cause. Any refusal to lift their ban will convert literally millions more.
Even if they do lift the ban, the whole story so far confirms that the only way to get out of the awful mess we have got into with Europe is to tear up the Treaty of Rome. We could easily retain our access to the single market for reasons I have given your Lordships on several occasions, with which I will not weary your Lordships again now. If we were to do that we could make our own agricultural policy and repair the damage done to one of our best and finest industries.
6.55 p.m.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, I declare an interest simply by saying that I have been in and around farming all my life. I start with one or two horror stories from the past and the present which, as a result of all this, I hope to see the back of. Back in the 1960s and 1970s we imported American salivary glands for inclusion in cheap sausages and burgers. Where did they go? At least one firm had contracts with schools and hospitals. It was a cheap food policy, but it was not very nice food. Belgian beef glands have been imported for exactly the same reason, except that in addition we do not extract those beef glands; we just throw them away. They have also gone into cheap food. If we as a country were not so insistent on eating cheap food, perhaps we would not be in this mess. In addition, cull beef livers face a 25 per cent. rejection rate and go into the pet food chain. Some slaughterhouses chuck the lot. It is just not worth their while to go through veterinary inspections. Others think it is. The purchase price paid by at least one—and probably rather more—major baby food manufacturer is exactly the same, give or take a penny, as that paid by a pet food manufacturer. We can all work out that those livers go into baby foods. That may be stopped. At least the French are feeding chicken byproducts back to chickens, including pellets. We are probably doing it as well.
I turn to mechanically recovered meat, in this case chicken. When the panic started one local authority rang up its supplier and asked whether there was beef in the sausages. The reply was no but that it contained fat from mechanically recovered chicken and a bit of pork. The response was, "Thank God". One thinks of barbecues etc., in which food may not be cooked properly. I refer to sausages and burgers. I found out only yesterday that mechanically recovered chicken was put into sausages and burgers. It would be a good idea to stop that
724
practice. Chicken is a salmonella risk. If we can get rid of that, it will be a step in the right direction to produce food properly.
I turn to one or two steps that could have been taken last month when this sorry mess started to come to light, with the press getting hold of one or two "facts". First, it should have been said that there would be no government Statement until there had been discussion with their advisers and the facts could be put together. I should have thought that anybody would have come to that view without thinking twice about it once a microphone was placed in front of him. The resulting consultations could have taken place fairly rapidly. The advisers would have been assembled. What kind of Statement should have been issued? In principle, we have heard the Statement from a large number of speeches here today. We have heard some science from the noble Lord, Lord Winston; we have heard commonsense from my noble friend Lord Granchester. Other contributions have come from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith and so on. It is quite clear from what we have heard that had all of that come out loud and clear on the day, there is a very good chance that we would not be in this particular mess now.
In addition, one or two items have come to light only in Hansard following the Statement on 25th March. First, it has come to light that the medical advisers have said, for example, that there is no human activity without risk. Secondly, it is important to be aware that many foods are associated with health risks and that changing from beef to non-beef products is not necessarily without risk. It is fairly clear that those statements were made only to put into context their opinion of the potential risk involved in eating beef. Unfortunately, no scientific information came with it. If that scientific information had come out on the day, we would have been in a very good position to deal with the Common Market and Brussels when they began to make suggestions that there should be a ban on the export of our beef.
Looking at the other side of the coin and at what was actually fed to people, it is not altogether surprising that people panicked. Many people cannot read behind certain things that are pretty obvious to me. However, I do not think that it helped—not that anybody outside this Chamber would have seen it—when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in commenting on the statement from the Chief Medical Officer that the term "safe" is not the same as "zero-risk", said:
"That will do for a degree in philosophy but how will that run in McDonalds and Burger King?"—[Official Report, 25/3/96; col. 1495.]
In view of what was not said, the noble Lord has a point, although it would have been better if he had gone on to say that that would not have mattered at all, provided that the information was put before the public. However, as that statement reads, it can also be said that when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, gets up to speak, he is not going to have a heart attack, but all the same it is not zero-risk—
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the noble Earl mentioned my name, perhaps I should point out that I was simply

725
saying that that is the sort of phrase that can be used, but it does not help when one is trying to explain to consumers exactly what has happened.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, as I said, if more had been explained to the consumer about what had actually been happening, that would have been fine. It is a great pity that the noble Lord did not say all that at the same time. Indeed, it is a great pity that it was not said the week before by the government spokesman. As far as I can see, Her Majesty's Opposition had the information. They could have come out with it and got one over on the Government with such a statement.
I turn now to the problems that we have at the moment. In a sense, with continental friends like ours, who needs enemies? We have Fischler with his comment that beef is safe. A lot of this seems to run to political cowardice and appeasement. Appeasement is not a very good idea. It never was and it did not do one of my uncles any great good. We have to get stuck in and fight this one. We really have to fight this one.
We had a demonstration of guts earlier on today when we heard from my noble friend Lord Grantchester. Yes, he went on well over his time, but he said what was needed to be said and what is needed to be in Hansard so that everyone can read it. There was an awful lot of common sense in his speech. I accept that some of it was controversial, but I really do not see how he could have made a speech here today without being controversial. I entirely agree with every word that he said and I entirely agree that it all needed saying.
So, we get stuck in and we fight. It is no good just standing there and saying that we disapprove of the ban. We have got to apply some sanctions. They will come round the table to negotiate when they realise that we mean it and that we know that we are right, but they do not believe us because we fall down under everybody all the time. There should be no co-operation. We can leave that in the hands of Sir Humphrey. There should be no imports of continental veal. That is reared in circumstances that are unacceptable to us. If that is a level playing field for our farmers, presumably our Prime Minister learnt his football down at Yeovil Town. We can have the Spanish out of the Irish Box for the time being—they should not be there anyway but, to be fair, neither should we be netting tuna fish down in the Bay of Biscay.
What about other things? I imagine that certain things are imported which do not conform to British standards. We can boot them out of the window rather fast, no matter what. If we all come round a table, they will start negotiating, but they will lift that export ban first because life will get somewhat painful if they do not. Let us have some sensible compensation arrangements. We do not appear to have them at the moment. Such arrangements must include our farming, haulage, slaughtering, cutting and rendering industries, our beef wholesalers, exporters and all the others. Let
726
us face it: up to now we have had politicians who are fiddling while the British beef industry and the British fishing industry burn.
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, in his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Richard, divided his speech into three parts, the first and the last of which dealt with what we should do now. I should like to take that as my brief, so let us forgo recriminations on all sides about what has gone on in the past.
First, we were treated early in the debate to the expert advice of my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior who proclaimed that British beef was safe. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, did likewise. The noble Lord referred to chickens, as did the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield. The battery chicken is probably the greatest marketing deception of the century, certainly in terms of protein content. The protein has been reduced by 50 per cent. and transferred from the fat to the meat. It is probably the most unhealthy food that is marketed in the country. However, British beef is safe. We are all agreed on that. Eating British beef is safer than crossing the road, and it is safer than eating unpasteurised Camembert.
As to a coherent policy for the future, it is plain to see where that lies. There has been a disproportionate effort towards intensive farming policies, generated by huge subvention payments made under the CAP rules and the dash for growth in agriculture at the end of the war. That is self-evident.
However, there has since been a litany of disastrous drugs and pesticides which have been withdrawn. The words DDT, Aldrin and Deldrin, not to mention the most recent recommendations to reduce the level of OP concentrates, have cast a shadow over the scene. In the absence of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, perhaps I may make a point about the elimination of organophosphates, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will write to me to tell me how the epidemiological study which is being conducted in Edinburgh into the use of organophosphates on cattle is proceeding. I understand that it has only just started and has three years to run. I think that it should be hastened in the light of this evidence.
It is perhaps predictable that, having promoted the case of organic farmers so often in the past, I should say now that less intensive farming should be applied generally in this country. It has never been proposed by those who support organic farming that there should be a wholesale turn over to it. But a change in single figure percentage terms in the available arable acreage would provide the vital and critical mass of distribution that would make the produce viable and able to compete in the market place. Organic beef has benefited remarkably and, indeed, regrettably, for all the wrong reasons, from recent events. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can tell me whether the organic aid scheme will he reviewed to bring the support that it offers to UK farmers up

727
to the level of support given to the Danes by their government and to some of the Länder in Germany who combine to supply some 60 per cent. of the total UK organic market. I support the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in that respect.
The most immediate issue is that British beef is safe. I suggest to my noble friend that under no circumstances should the Government submit to any pressure—I am glad to have that assurance—to enact any plans that would materially damage the industry through unnecessary culling. Above all, we should not be impressed by the motives of our so-called colleagues in Europe or the Brussels Commission. We may be accused of being the only people in step but when the herd is stampeding whether or not one is in step is hardly important. We must pursue our own self-interest exclusively in this extraordinary crisis for our farmers and, indeed, for the entire nation.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in that I have lived in the great county of Angus, where we produce prime beef, for 56 years. I am delighted that my noble neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is looking at me, perhaps as a massive beef consumer.
Secondly, I declare an interest in that I have a suckler herd which might meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, since it runs into three figures and more.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for giving us the opportunity today to discuss all that has happened in the past three weeks. However, I should like in anticipation of his speech to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for all the help that he has given on a bipartisan basis throughout the past three weeks across the Floor of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships have been well served by the enormous scientific knowledge available in this House, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, brings to our debates also a sense of realism, professionalism and a great deal of competence.
I congratulate the maiden speakers. I congratulate first my noble friend Lord Biddulph, but, above all, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, whose notable maiden speech would have made his late father immensely proud. The noble Lord has certainly lived up to the great motto "Nil satis nisi optimum", which I translate for your Lordships as "Only the best will do". That refers to the noble Lord's Holsteins as well as to his other team. The figures 87 and three will be burned into his mind, but never mind.
I turn to the lessons that can be learnt from the whole affair. The first and most important lesson is that honesty pays. Whatever else has occurred, the opening comments made on 20th March by my right honourable colleagues the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were right. If the fact that there have been 10 cases of a hitherto
728
unknown or different strain of CJD had been concealed that would have been particularly ugly and reflected badly not only on this Government but on the SEAC—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I agree that the information should not have been concealed but does the noble Lord agree that it might have been better delayed?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, certainly not. My neighbour has a great deal more professional experience than I. I hope that when he makes his speech he will be able to correct me. However, I believe that honesty pays. All of us are grateful for the comments of the SEAC and the expertise shown not least in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and others.
Secondly, I believe that professionalism pays, in particular as regards communications. Some of your Lordships may remember that in December 1988 a remark was made by one of my honourable colleagues about eggs. I remember receiving many deputations from the Northern Ireland fowl industry. There was a great deal of similar hysteria and we received many comments. For two weeks not one member of the Government took a grip except, eventually, my noble friend Lady Trumpington. She happened to be a junior Minister in MAFF and thank goodness someone of her stature began to take a grip. That indicated that when a story such as this breaks professionalism is required. That is why we look to the Department of Health and to MAFF for calm, authoritative "debunkers" of the remarks.
It is notable that during the past three weeks some of the more zealous pundits have been mysteriously absent from the airwaves and television screens. Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to go to Europe; not to a European Union country but to Switzerland. There I found hysteria over CJD. A marvellous newspaper called Blick, which one does not read but assimilates, had a headline stating, "My wife is dying from CJD". What did my Swiss colleagues give us? Lovely Swiss beef, two or three helpings of which were devoured by my excellent German colleagues. I was then given a huge dose of anglophobia—it is nice to be a Scotsman—by the wife of a member of the Bundesrat who said, "The whole of the BSE problem that you have in England is your fault. It's the fault of John Major. He deserves it all". I waited for the strains of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, the European song of unity from Strasbourg. Alas, she could not wait to take her third portion of Swiss beef.
What is the case in Germany? A lady from Munich is being treated in Frankfurt for exactly the same strain of CJD. There are several cases in Lyon. We have mass hysteria but what is happening there? They are attacking the very industry that we are trying to support today. Yesterday the Meat and Livestock Committee gave figures for the sales of beef, which are higher than those in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and France. I wonder why. Perhaps there is a message: think before you speak. In other words, engage brain. Only last night I heard a Member of the European Parliament from Brandenburg telling us that all the farmers in Brandenburg are furious. I wonder why. I refer to their

729
own newspaper. Each week when I fly home to Edinburgh I buy my local newspaper from the bookstall. Every week for the past year it has been telling us about CJD and rinderwahnsinn—the German name for cattle disease. The newspaper has been hysterical about the matter and then wonders why its readers are turned off beef. I believe that we could do with a healthy dose of normal, excellent, professional diplomacy and thought.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay has raised his profile in Angus. I can hardly pick up the Courier, that notable paper which circulates in the area, without seeing the headline, "Earl visits". The noble Earl has received some excellent comments from the Angus farmers and I am delighted that he is here. We are delighted for what he has done and for the points that he made yesterday and for everything that has been done by the Government to try to alleviate the problem. I believe that professionalism and, above all, engaging brain before speaking, will produce the required benefits. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will give us some encouraging news in winding up.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the crisis is not caused by confusion and party bickering, as was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. It is a matter of inconsistent and incoherent government policies. The whole sorry episode is riddled with inconsistencies. First, we had the loosening of the rendering laws in 1983. Then tighter regulations were introduced in 1989 regarding the use of offal in order to check the spread of possible infection. In 1993 the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food again introduced looser regulations designed to make meat hygiene enforcement less prescriptive.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, told us of the result of the loosening of regulations. In 1995 unannounced inspection by the state veterinary service showed that 48 per cent. of slaughterhouses failed to meet the bovine offal regulations. Obviously, inconsistent regulation has failed. Even the Government's assurances were inconsistent. For years we were given assurances that there was no scientific evidence that BSE could affect humans. When further scientific evidence cast doubt on those assurances the Government switched from "no scientific evidence" to "acting on the best scientific advice". Were the Government not acting on the best scientific advice all the time? I believe that we should have been told. No wonder consumer confidence collapsed.
With that collapse have come yet more inconsistencies. On the one hand, the Government speak of rebuilding consumer confidence. By that they mean the beef industry recovering to the same level of sales of British beef as existed before the crisis. On the other hand, consumers are concerned about safety and the spread of BSE to their children, born and unborn. That is hardly a meeting of minds. After such a series of inconsistencies, did the Government really believe that their assurances would be believed? Obviously they did because, as my noble friend Lord Richard told us, they totally failed to anticipate the public reaction to the Minister's announcement that BSE might be transmitted to humans. The Government had no comprehensive
730
contingency plan ready to be put into operation. Other noble Lords have pointed out that they had not even prepared a plan for the meat and the meat products in the pipeline. As a result, the Government were forced to react to events instead of being in control of events.
My noble friend Lord Richard rightly calls for coherence. I presume he is referring to the incoherent way in which the Government, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Poole, and other noble Lords, blame everyone except themselves for this disaster to the beef industry. First, it was the fault of the scientists because their work did not produce precise answers. However, when it was pointed out that that is usually the case in ongoing research the Government decided to blame the scaremongering on the Labour Party. When the Government realised that the Labour Party was only expressing the fears of ordinary consumers, they decided to blame the press for the scaremongering and the consumers for listening to them. Now, of course, it is the European Union's fault because it is not allowing us to put our national interest above public health. What a shambles.
What lessons can be learnt from this? First, like the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, I believe that we must separate the interests of the consumer from MAFF. For years we have heard from many sources that MAFF is on the side of the farm and food manufacturing lobby and is less concerned about the consumer. The co-operation about which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, spoke is obviously insufficient. There must be complete separation.
Secondly, I had hoped that that experience would encourage the Government to work with the European Union and the Commission and that we should have a joint approach, as the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, suggested. Much of this crisis is due to the Government keeping the Commission at arm's length. Sadly, it now appears that the beef industry is one more victim of the split in the Government over Europe.
Thirdly, the Government must question whether it is sustainable to produce cheap food using intensive farming methods. Part of the cost of that cheap food must now be recognised as a risk to humans because of the chemicals and other products used.
Next, I hope that the Government will become more respectful and careful of markets. It is no good blaming consumers' ease of choice, as the noble Lord, Lord Poole, did. Nowadays it is very easy for consumers to switch from one product to another. That is what the market is all about.
Finally, I agree with my noble friends Lord Winston and Lord Monkswell that we desperately need to understand more about prion-related diseases. Until fairly recently, the study of prions had little practical application. I echo the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Porter. Is our lack of knowledge due to encouraging near-market research instead of basic research? Is that ignorance the result of a short-term science policy? Also, is vertical transmission being researched properly? The noble Lord, Lord Burton, says that it is not a problem. Is he right?

731
At the end of the day, we shall have to get rid of BSE, as many noble Lords have said. Unless we do so, the dispute over its danger to human health will never end.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Harlech: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for bringing an extremely important debate to the House. There is an obvious and enormous interest in this and many other issues. They do not emanate merely from the UK but also from our European neighbours, who I fear are somewhat hiding their own light under a bushel. Indeed, the rest of the world has important lessons to learn in this respect and may possibly be pro-active. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, seemed to imply that it is possible to foresee everything which may happen. I do not believe that that situation exists in any element of human life.
I congratulate our two maiden speakers from whom I trust that we shall hear more.
This issue is not just about the UK farming community. It is extremely important to those who supply it and who consume the products from it. As we have heard from all quarters, for those people, this is a very serious problem indeed. It involves the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people and is not just about the rearing and husbandry of all livestock. It concerns also dairy products; confectionery products; industry and synthesised products from industry; steel; engineering; and research and development. In all those spheres, and many more, there arise issues in relation to health and disease. Thousands of lives are involved.
We must be extremely careful not to lay blame in any one area of either the manufacturing or administration side of the beef industry. I strongly support the Minister when he says that this must not be a party political issue. We must ensure that all shoulders are put to the plough in relation to this issue to make sure that we get it right.
During the 1984 miners' strike things were kept going in a small area of Nottinghamshire because stocks had been procured in advance. It took a responsible government to carry out those measures. In referring to the energy crisis of the 1970s, my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said that heat treatment levels were altered or lowered in the rendering industry. However, the evidence is scientifically very flimsy. But that was an active measure. It could not possibly have been pro-active.
Society must take its share of the blame in the way that it demands food—its type, quantity and price. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, should look to Europe, Russia and even China because in those regions, large quantities of food are eaten entirely as sausages. There are very few cases of BSE there or the human-related CID, or JCB as we heard it has been called in France.
It cannot be that society should take no blame in the way that it demands food and its type and quantity. Even scientific evidence cannot guarantee that all food is always safe. Whether another mutation, another virus, creature or process may be around the corner, I do not think that mankind can stop its agricultural husbandry, just in case.
7.27 p.m.
Viscount Gage: My Lords, I declare an interest as a shareholder in a dairy unit. I ask the Government whether it is felt that the introduction of still more surveillance of the content of animal feedstuffs would be a means by which to reinforce confidence in the meat industry.
Last year legislation provided for the listing of ingredients used on packaging by compounders. Could that welcome decision, which did at last allow the farmer a personal choice in his selection of feedstuffs, be improved upon? For example, some compounders give more information than others. Moreover, the National Farmers Union argues that farmers do not have the technical equipment to test those raw materials for their contractual quality and that a statutory declaration of those characteristics would be helpful. Will the Minister give guidance on that matter?
Although the additional knowledge now available is encouraging, one is still left with the impression that more might be done in monitoring the safety of animal feedstuffs. In contrast to the one committee, SCAN—the Scientific Committee of Animal Nutrition—which, among its other duties, has that of testing ingredients in animal feedstuffs, there are 14 different committees existing solely for the safety of food for human consumption. I mention a few. There are the committees of the Department of Health on toxicity, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity; the committee of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on novel food processes; and, additionally, there is a consumer panel. We know to our bitter cost that sources of protein once considered completely safe have had subsequently to be withdrawn from animal feedstuffs. For example, bonemeal was withdrawn only last month. It is entirely possible to imagine that other ingredients presently approved in the feeding stuff regulations might eventually be found to be unsafe and similarly withdrawn.
I conclude by asking my noble friend the Minister: whether he considers that bodies of experts, parallel to those which examine the safety of food for human consumption, should be convened to monitor that of animal consumption, in the expectation that such a move might do much to restore faith in the minds of national and international consumers.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to speak fortieth in this galaxy of talent. I must say that, if I say anything new, it will be a blasted miracle. However, I greatly enjoyed today's debate. A little touch of party acrimony does no harm at all, although I did not believe that even this Government were as bad as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, painted them. Nevertheless, it does them a little good I dare say.
We have heard admirable speeches from people who know about such matters; for example, the noble Lords, Lord Soulsby and Lord Winston, and indeed other noble Lords with learning that I cannot emulate. Those speeches have been both useful and enjoyable. I also greatly enjoyed the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord

733
Lindsay, who has been through a very trying time, I appreciated his burst into a spot of political acrimony. It was very good. It proves that he is not just a nice chap. I greatly enjoyed his 28 measures in 28 days. Indeed, I thought he should have put it to music; for example:
"28 measures, 28 days, hurrah, hurrah!"
It was really good stuff and it all added to the gaiety of the occasion.
Everyone who has spoken has pushed his own particular line. Of course the anti-Europeans have had a field day and blown up the reasonable pursuit of their own interests into too great a state, although I must say that the way that some of our scientists picture the possible effects was enough to throw panic into many people. The organic farmers and the environmentalists have also had a field day and have done very well. I agree with much of what they said. There is no questioning the fact that there are features in our modern farming which need control and which need thinking about. That is perfectly true. I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, put it better than most people when he said that science cannot be rejected but that it must be used sensibly. That is also true; indeed, we need it if we are to feed the growing number of people in the world.
As I said yesterday—and as we all agreed—whether or not we believe that they could have been done better or earlier, the Government's measures are good and will do much to restore confidence. However, I believe that the great British public are the real people to be congratulated. I say that because: give them beef cut down to half price, and they will buy it. That is the sort of thing that does more good than any amount of talking in scientific terms. But although the beef market is recovering a little, we should remember, for example, the salmonella scare of lamented memory which resulted in a 50 per cent. drop or thereabouts in the total consumption of eggs.
Therefore, we must work very hard on the promotion of beef and in pushing its excellence, not the freedom from BSE. We should push the fact that, if you have an Aberdeen Angus steak which is well marbled with fat, it does you a power of good, especially if it is done to pink perfection. Indeed, it restores your faith in human nature. That is one of the lessons that we should learn; namely, that we can promote for excellence.
Of course, it is true that proper fears are aroused in the minds of scientists by new forms of CJD, and so on. However, as many people have said, there is no real absolute evidence that there is any link, although the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, seemed to produce a lot of evidence in that respect. I must say that I do not know why the noble Earl is sitting in the far corner rather than the corner at this end of the Chamber. I know that he is a "corner boy", but perhaps he is sitting there in order to conceal his shirt!
I should like to endorse the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, about the long breed of cattle—the hill cattle—Galloways, Welsh Blacks, Highlanders, and so on. I believe that the Government should think again on the matter. I say that because such measures take
734
three years. Of course, you can speed up the process, but, if you do, you must then put the cattle on a totally different diet; for example, you must feed them cake before you can get them away in that amount of time. I hope that the Government will pursue the common-sense approach which I see signs of emerging in their policy—I cannot be nicer than that—and that, in the assessing of age, we will not take the two-teeth test as absolutely essential. Noble Lords will all know that the way to tell the age of a beast is to open its mouth and look at its teeth. I say that because there is many a beast with four teeth which is well within the age limit. I hope that such practical measures will attract the attention of the Government.
There is no doubt that a policy of slaughter, especially to take suspect animals out of a range when they have finished their working life, is sensible. It may well come about without a great deal of extra expense if they are rendered into bonemeal which can be used for fertiliser; indeed, there is no better fertiliser on the market.
One of the essential requirements is to pursue a test which many noble Lords have mentioned. We know that the Americans are working on such a test. If they have something good to sell and are waiting for a patent, for goodness sake let us get over there and offer them money. Such a test would be the ultimate and sensible measure to have. It could be used in the same way as the test for TB many years ago which cleared up the herds.
I believe that the whole situation is moving towards a decent, common-sense resolution. As the noble Earl knows—and I cannot help mentioning Scotland—the cattle industry is worth well over £500 million to Scotland. However, the vital point is that the export market is much more important in Scotland than anywhere else. That is because £180 million of that figure goes for export. Therefore, we should try to make it appear to our continental allies that the attitude they are taking is ludicrous. We should go to law, try every other method of flattery or ridicule, if so wished, scientific arguments; but we must get this ludicrous ban lifted. We should also assure them that our measures are real; that our slaughterhouses are up to the mark; and that no infected beef or offal is getting into the market. I think that we can make progress. We need to do so because a great many people not only in Scotland but in the west country and everywhere else depend on beef, have produced good beef, and deserve to go on doing so.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as always I declare an interest as someone who is involved in dairy farming. We have had an important debate on an important subject. The word "crisis" is somewhat overworked but if we do not agree about anything else I think we can all agree that the beef farming industry is in crisis, the worst any of us have known in our farming lifetimes.
We have heard many excellent speeches in the debate but none better than the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Biddulph. I have the pleasure of serving on the council of the Royal Agricultural Society with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. When he declared an interest he was much

735
too modest to point out that the Grantchester prefix is famous. Indeed one of his cattle holds the European record for milk yield.
The intention when we tabled the Motion was to enable the House to analyse the BSE crisis; to learn some lessons for food safety generally; and to pay particular attention to the all important aspect of consumer safety. As I never tire of telling the farming audiences I address, the consumer is not just our best customer. The consumer is our only customer. What we know as a result of salmonella, listeria, and, now, as a result of BSE, is that the concern about food—or, more pejoratively, food scares—can decimate whole sectors of the livestock industry overnight.
We have had six ministerial Statements in four weeks. There has been an adjournment debate in the other place and the debate here today. There has been endless coverage of the matter in the broadcast and print media. However, never once has there been the merest suggestion from the Government that they might just bear some responsibility for the present crisis. As other speakers have said, it has been the Opposition, the media, rogue scientists, the mad consumer, but never, ever, the Government. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in a contribution I thought well below his usual standard, was at it again. We heard about the irrationality and hysteria of the consumer. He mentioned the 60 per cent. throughput in the market. I do not know whether your Lordships heard the Farming Today programme this morning. An old friend of mine, Brian Pack, the chief executive of Aberdeen and Northern Marts, pointed out that his market is one of the largest in the country but now has a throughput of only 30 per cent.
If we believe the figures, 85 per cent. of consumer demand has been restored. However, exports, which account for 20 per cent. of the total market, are non-existent. Therefore it is likely that the whole market is only 65 per cent. of its former level. It is unfair to accuse us on this side of playing party politics on the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Lye11, was kind enough to say that I have tried to follow a responsible and bipartisan line. The noble Earl said that my noble friend Lord Richard did not condemn the EU ban. He did not, but he said that it was probably illegal. I think that is a much more productive approach than just condemning it outright, as so many noble Lords did.
Yesterday, the noble Earl was kind enough to give me the references from the relevant directives that I asked for. It looks as if the ban on intra-Community trade which the directives allow has been extended and that trade is probably illegal to third countries. The noble Earl referred to the malevolence and the ignorance of our European partners. That is not the way to get the Commission and the Council of Ministers on our side. I suggest that bluster is not a recommended form of diplomacy.
If the recent scientific evidence regarding the 10 new cases of CJD is correct, we shall not know whether there is a link between BSE and CJD for probably another three to five years because of the incubation period of the disease. It is possible that we were all eating
736
potentially infected beef in the mid to late 1980s and only time will tell if we were eating ourselves into serious trouble.
The Opposition have the right and the duty to point out to the Government where they think the Government have gone badly wrong. I entered this House nine years ago. As your Lordships will know, in all that time I have sat on the Front Bench and held the agricultural brief. I have dealt with BSE from the outset of the crisis; that is, from 1987 to date. The philosophers among your Lordships will know that a connection is not a cause. I wish to make a few brief remarks to show how we in the Opposition and others have expressed our concerns in the past. That gives us every right to criticise the Government now.
On 27th February 1989 my honourable friend Dr. David Clark—I was in his team—expressed the views of the Labour Party which called upon the Government to pay 100 per cent. compensation to farmers in order to ensure that there was no temptation for them to send suspected cattle to slaughter. A senior NFU official had been quoted as saying, "It is common knowledge in the industry that infected animals have gone into the food chain." Before the Minister replies to that point, I should say that I have mentioned before the 50 per cent. compensation which was paid for three years. At the time—this is not hindsight—we said that was wrong. The response from the Government is that when they paid 100 per cent. compensation the number of reported cases did not go up. But of course they would not because the compensation was only paid on the infected animals. To save £4 million the Government were prepared to run the risk of infected animals entering the food chain. That is the point. On 27th February 1989 we said that we wished to ban the sale of brains from cattle and sheep to the general public; investigate the whole question of feeding animal protein to animals; and increase the research and development into the effects of the disease.
On 12th July 1990 we produced a six-item package. The first item concerned the culling of calves from BSE-infected cows or restricting breeding. That was backed by the BVA, the Consumers' Association, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, the National Consumer Council, the National Farmers' Union and the Women's Farming Union. The Government refused to implement the measure and the policy has remained unchanged. That left the farmers and their vets to decide whether they should breed from BSE-infected cows.
On 12th July 1990 we suggested the introduction of a tagging and recording system to enable cattle to be traced. The Government announced that measure yesterday. We also said that offal should be banned from pet food. That measure was introduced about four months later. We called for the banning of cattle and sheep protein in pig and poultry feed. That was in 1990. The measure was announced on 20th March this year. We asked for the random sampling of cattle heads. I shall return to that matter. We asked then, in 1990—we first asked for it in 1988 at the time of the salmonella crisis—for the establishment of an independent food standards agency in the following words,

737
"Recent opinion polls have shown that public confidence over the Ministry of Agriculture … handling of BSE has reached a rock bottom low. Organisations supporting the establishment of an independent Food Standards Agency include: the Consumers' Association the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, the National Farmers' Union".
In June 1988 an article in the British Medical Journal stated,
"ft has generally been accepted that the slaughter of animals showing characteristic signs of infection—such as behaviour changes—as well as the usual processes of sterilisation and pasteurisation, are enough to remove any risk to the consumer. Unfortunately, this is a view that is naive, uninformed, and potentially disastrous".
This was at the time when only 50 per cent. compensation was payable. The article continued,
"It is the farmers who own the cattle who are responsible for bringing cases to attention, and they have a financial incentive to defer the diagnosis".
With the slaughter policy of all animals over 30 months we now have the chance to obtain a statistically valid sample of cattle brains—as recommended by the Tyrell Committee in 1989 and by others since—to see whether we can find the true incidence of BSE in our national herds.
The noble Earl was kind enough to pass me a letter a few moments ago from Mr. Hogg to Dr. Gavin Strang, our spokesman, in which he deals with the point about random sampling. I have had to read it extremely quickly. I believe the reason that the Government are against it is that from the onset of symptoms and death there is only a three-month time window in which one can detect BSE in the brain. I have only just received that information. If that is the case, I find it worrying. I have a letter from Mrs. Angela Browning to Mr. Ancram, my local MP. It was sent on to a local farmer. It states:
"Of 843 animals born in 1990 which were slaughtered as BSE suspects and for which diagnoses are now available, 46.6 per cent. were confirmed positive and 53.4 per cent. were found to be negative on post-mortem examination of brain tissue".
If there is only the three month window, how do we know that the 53.4 per cent. were negative?
We also have the problem of the 25,000 cases of cattle which were born after the feed ban. A recent article in the Farmers Weekly quoted a speech from Mr. Kevin Taylor, the Ministry's assistant chief vet. He told the Veterinary Public Health association conference that in 1994 MAFF worked out how much SBO (specified bovine offals) there should be based on the number of cattle slaughtered. When officials checked the volumes, they found only 50 per cent. of the expected SBOs. We must ask ourselves where the other 50 per cent. ended up. The article stated:
"Though there was no chance of all the missing SBO having ended up in the human food chain"—
that is good news—
"it could certainly have gone into animal feed, Mr. Taylor admitted".
Later there is a quote from the operations director of the Meat Hygiene Service who denied that the MHS was to blame. The article states:
738
"He said that although there was an MHS inspector in every abattoir, 'they have a number of jobs to do and cannot spend all their time making sure the plant is complying with SBO rules'".
Only two weeks ago, the "Food Programme" replayed some interviews from 1988. It cited Dr. Hugh Fraser, the great expert on scrapie, of the neuropathogenesis unit at Edinburgh. He said at that time that remote does not mean negative. He said that we must not be too complacent as regards the link between CJD and BSE. It was stated on the programme that after that interview it was never allowed to speak to Dr. Fraser again.
We also have a change in the rendering process. It has been referred to. In the debate in another place in July 1992 the chairman of the United Kingdom renderers was quoted as saying:
"The original proposals"—
those proposed in 1979 when we left office—
"were very expensive, but there was a distinct change of heart when the Conservatives came into office. They were happy to drop the idea of a code and settle for random testing".
Mr. Field, an executive member, was said in that debate to have gone a stage further. Referring to the different technology permitted by the weakened regulations, he said:
"This was partly as a result of changes in animal feed technique, but the basic motive was profit".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/92; col. 79.]
Those quotations from the past show that we in the Labour Party and many others have been expressing our fears for a long time. We are entitled to point that out. It is not party politics.
What can be learned about food safety generally? First, there must be an independent assessment of the safety of the whole food chain. We must separate the protection of the consumer from the protection of the producer. At the time of the salmonella scare in 1988 we produced our proposals for an independent food standards agency. For many years I have been saying on public platforms, to fanning audiences and to this House, that the Ministry of Agriculture has lost the confidence of the consumer.
I have spent all my professional life working with that department. Some of my best friends are officials there. We all know that every department of Government has a doctrine, a culture, a mindset. I would say that we have now seen the results of that in the recent past. If farmers do not believe that they would be better off with an independent FSA, let them reflect on what has happened to them in the past four weeks when they have been in the tender care of the Ministry of Agriculture.
I give some brief examples away from BSE where I think that the attitude of the Government is made clear. I refer to the importation of meat with growth hormones. We are the only member state—it is one against 14—which would be prepared to allow the importation of hormone-implanted meat. The Government's answer is that we rely on science—until it comes to BSE when they ignore the science and introduce a slaughter policy even though the scientists tell them that it is not required. As I pointed out in a Starred Question, if we ban athletes who use a growth promoter, why are the

739
Government prepared to feed such products to the rest of the population? We have been managing perfectly well without them for many years.
The same applies to BST. Again it is one against 14: we would allow the use of BST.
I feel at times that our negotiating stance in Europe can be summed up as everyone out of step except us. We must find a live test for BSE. I warned the Minister of this question. I refer to the test involving the use of cerebral spinal fluid in America. I believe that we have sent infected material to America. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister will tell us the state of play as regards that test.
We have heard already of the random testing of cattle brains at slaughter. We must have a quality assurance programme. That was suggested first by the Labour Party. We must have a system of traceability. We were asking for that in 1990. There must be adequate resources for the veterinary services. We all know the reduction in the numbers of vets in the state veterinary services. In December 1995, only four months ago, 112 out of 424 slaughterhouses were found to be failing to comply with the EC fresh meat directive.
As regards maternal transmission, what has happened to the test of New Zealand heifers which were imported for testing and the 600 calves that were taken at random to test for maternal transmission? It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could bring us up to date.
We heard yesterday that the Government are relying on the Food Safety Act as the power to introduce the over-30 month ban. I have had a quick look at that Act. It would be helpful to know which part of the Act gives the Government that power. There is not a public health risk because the Government have said that beef is safe. There is not an animal health risk because we all know that the disease cannot be transmitted horizontally.
To conclude, this is a sorry story. It is extraordinary that after salmonella and listeria there is no contingency planning in the department to deal with a food scare of this nature. It was a grave error of judgment to say that the Government would rely on the scientific advice, and within two days to ignore it and introduce a slaughter policy.
We have been accused of scaremongering. It has been referred to already, but I say it again. On Sunday 24th March Mr. Hogg's speculation on television about the mass slaughter of all the cattle in the country did more damage and caused more alarm than any other single statement. There was a failure to inform the Commission. We learned today that there will be a loss of 28,000 jobs. The cost of compensation this year is £550 million; plus the cost of unemployment for the 28,000 who will lose their jobs.
Arthur Young, the agricultural historian, wrote 200 years ago. He asked a farmer whether there had been an agricultural revolution. The farmer replied, "I don't know about that, but I know that last year I had a herd and a farm and this year I have none".
The ritual slaughter of three quarters of a million cattle and the destruction of thousands of tonnes of beef now in store is a sad commentary on a gross failure of
740
policy and administration. On this side of the House we certainly do not apologise for drawing attention to it and for making constructive proposals in the past and now to ensure that such a crisis never happens again. We are entitled to do that because as a Government we shall have to deal with the results of this crisis which will resound for many years yet.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, let me first thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for giving us the chance to debate this extremely important subject. It was noble of him to choose one of the rare Labour days in this House to devote to a subject which was of interest to so few of his Back-Benchers although to many others in the House. It was perhaps appropriate that the Labour Party should have chosen as the person to present this debate the old bull of their Front Bench.
Next I must compliment our two maiden speakers who entertained us extremely well. If they follow the examples they have given us today in their future speeches we shall be happy and delighted, our whole proceedings will be enlivened by them. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is clearly as well bred as his dairy cows and my noble friend Lord Biddulph gave us a speech which was both short and sweet. I see that he shares with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, being an old Cheltonian, the origin of their mutual oratorical skills.
There were many other excellent speeches to which I shall be able to do scant justice. At the end of my list of compliments perhaps I had better hope for a few myself. There was a complimentary article in the Yorkshire Post headed "Lord Lucas and the Cattle Scourge". That was on 4th July 1912 and I hope to be able to follow the example of my noble forebear.
There has been much discussion on the nature of food scares. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, got it right when he said that our policy had been one of frankness, openness and concern for the nation's health. He got it wrong when he said that we had acted under a misapprehension on what the consequences of the announcement would be. I believe that we have seen enough of these scares in our time to know very well what they would be. We were under no misapprehension as to how the media would react. We were pleasantly surprised by the reaction of the Sun but I cannot say that the rest of the newspapers surprised us by their reaction. We were generally pleasantly surprised by the actions of the Opposition, particularly in this House, who have acted totally responsibly throughout. Unfortunately, some senior members of the Opposition seemed to put party ahead of country at a time when the opposite order of priorities would have been welcome. But that is no less than we expect.
When this kind of information comes to our notice, there is always the danger of it leaking. Leaking has become a feature of our national life. Data becomes public before it has been properly considered because when you reach the stage where you need a wide discussion, it is no longer possible to hold that discussion in private. If you mention something to

741
someone in Brussels, you might as well print it in the News of the World; it is out there, in public. We have to deal with that problem.
Our policy is to be open and honest, to provide as much information as we can to the people who need it in order to make their own decisions about what food they should eat. The information originates with a small group of scientists. Generally, that is pretty confidential. They then talk among themselves in the appropriate group, in this case SEAC. That course proceeded without there being widespread leaks. They then came to talk to Ministers, who were able to discuss the matter in detail. But beyond that there is no confidentiality. Beyond that our reaction was to bring the matter before Parliament and the public. I am astonished that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, should think that we should put Brussels before Westminster in our order of priorities. Of course we have been talking to Brussels all the way through the crisis and we have been keeping Brussels informed, but when something as dramatic and difficult as this announcement comes before us we wish to put it to Parliament rather than having it leak out from Brussels into the media.
As regards individuals, we feel that the great British public have acted entirely sensibly. I join the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in congratulating them on their reaction. Of course they need time to assimilate the information. Of course they need to give proper consideration to the many and various arguments. They need time to recover from the scare stories in the media. We have done our best to provide them with information. I join my noble friend Lady Wilcox in championing the cause of the consumers. It is their views and reactions and not some diktat from the Government which bring about the consequences for the beef market that we must deal with. That is what we have been doing, dealing with it. It is our responsibility to deal with the crisis that has arisen, it is our responsibility not to fight panic with panic, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said in his excellent speech. We have acted carefully and competently and produced the right measures as soon as it was possible to do so.
What would the Labour Party have done differently? Would they have concealed information, dissimulated, presented disinformation? My noble friend Lord Wade asked that question and received no answer from the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I am not surprised.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister give way, since we have plenty of time? I expressed extremely clearly the Labour Party's policy. We believe in clear information but we do not believe in releasing information without thinking first about contingency planning on what is likely to happen and the panic that is likely to result from an ill-considered ministerial announcement.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as I put clearly, we knew exactly what the results of releasing the information would be. We released it at the point when we had held as much internal discussion as we could without the information leaking.
742
The difficult problems surrounding BSE have required positive and effective government action on a number of fronts. First, and most important, is the protection of public health from any risk from BSE. The measures we have in place are endorsed fully by our own scientific advisers on the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and by the World Health Organisation.
I consider the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to be extraordinary. The idea that if we were told by our scientific advisers that we should destroy the entire cattle and dairy business in this country we would not do so, that we would risk consumers catching a dreadful disease in large numbers merely for the commercial interests of our farming community, is extraordinary. How could a government put forward that order of priority? It gives the lie to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, in a frankly ridiculous speech.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. However, the Minister gave that answer to a question put to him by a television interviewer, without any thought or consultation with the industry, the Treasury, the Cabinet or anyone else. It was an extraordinary gaffe to make.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it was not. It was a basic, obvious policy for an honest and straightforward government to have. It was one which puts the interests of the consumer first. Does the noble Lord suggest that a Labour government should deliberately poison thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of consumers?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstands what I said. I said that the Minister gave that reply to a question on a television programme. I contend that when one decides to destroy the whole of one's cattle herd one does not just say: "If our advisers tell us to do so then we will do it", without having properly considered the matter with one's colleagues, the industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Cabinet and anyone else who has an interest.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, some principles are so obvious that they do not need restating. Our second priority is the need to put an end to the BSE epidemic and we have taken steps to protect animal health and eliminate BSE completely. Our third priority is the restoration of consumer confidence in British beef and we have gone even beyond the scientific advice in introducing new measures further to reassure consumers of the safety of British beef. Finally, the Government fully recognise the major economic impact that this crisis has had on many in the beef industry. We have put in place a number of measures to help the industry get back on its feet again. I should emphasise that this support is to preserve the industry and not to compensate for individual losses.
I turn first to the protection of public health. The event which precipitated the crisis was the discovery of a distinct new variant of the human disease CJD, found in 10 people. It was not the old form of CJD which is

743
clearly not related to BSE, if that gives any comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The SEAC concluded that the most likely explanation of the new variant was exposure of the sufferers to BSE before the controls on specified bovine offals were introduced in 1989.
That is an important point. Before 1989 it was possible that those tissues we now know are able to carry BSE infectivity—the brain and spinal cord—might well have gone into some meat products. These high-risk tissues are the most likely source of any new infection from BSE.
The evolution of our policy has always been based on the assumption that BSE was a danger to humans. In the face of scientific evidence we have always gone further than we needed to. And when there is a step change, as there has recently been, in the scientific evidence, we have gone further again. We have made sure that all the tissues that might be infected are now to be excluded completely from any human or animal food chain. We have made sure that all animals that might be infected at the end of their lives are kept out of the human food chain. We are instituting separate lines in slaughterhouses so that there can be no mixing up of animals that might be infected with those that we are sure are not. We have imposed a complete ban on meat and bonemeal use, so that there can be no further cases of cross-contamination, which I quite agree have occurred in the past, as my noble friend Lord Burton said. We have acted on the precautionary principle advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and we are policing properly the controls that we are putting in place.
The SEAC statement is careful not to refer to eating beef. Beef is meat from the muscles of cattle. No BSE infectivity has ever been found in such tissue, even from animals clinically suffering from the disease. Samples of meat—that is, muscle tissue—tested for that infectivity included peripheral nervous tissue and blood vessels. It is not possible to exclude them. I hope that that gives some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Rea.
It is not yet proven that there is any link between BSE and CJD. We shall, I suspect, have that evidence one way or the other in due course, perhaps through mouse tests and in a year or two. We have no quicker way of obtaining that. The SEAC conclusion was that it was the most likely explanation—not "a" likely explanation, but "the most" likely explanation.
There is much evidence against BSE being infectious to humans, as my noble friend Lord Soulsby reminded us. One can say that there is perhaps a bushelful of evidence that it cannot and a grain or to, now, that it can. My noble friend Lord Onslow pointed out the various points made by Dr. Richard North. Indeed, I shall be replying to him on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, pointed out that the science is still in a very early stage and that there is a great deal that we do not know about this disease. It appears that a prion certainly has something to do with it; but the prion hypothesis does not in itself explain how different types can occur in the same animal. The chromosome which the PRP protein is on is not the same as that which causes the genetic predisposition.
744
We are, I think, looking at a deeper, more fundamental level of the operation of cells and the brain to discover what is going on. There, the importance of basic research, emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, is something with which we completely agree. We have been putting a lot of money into that. When we look at the state of research now, I do not believe that we could have arrived earlier at where we are now. We are right at the fringes of the understanding of cell biology. We very much hope that we shall be able to make progress, but we are not looking at a narrow field of endeavour; we are relying on advances made in the whole field of cell biology to be able to understand this disease.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, also asked about epidemiology. It is extremely difficult to run statistically valid epidemiology on a disease with an incidence of one in a million. That has been the problem to date.
The total eradication of BSE is the Government's aim. It is not a simple task. It is made more difficult by the fact that the incubation period of BSE, from infection to the appearance of clinical signs, is between four and five years on average. A slaughter policy, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would not be useful. We cannot tell which animals have the disease. We have no diagnosis. A general slaughter policy would kill many, many more animals without the disease than have it.
BSE is a notifiable disease. Farmers must report all animals they suspect to be suffering from it. Diagnosis is difficult, even for experienced veterinary surgeons, so they must always err on the side of caution. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about random sampling. As he said, that is effective only a few weeks before death. Once a vet suspects an animal of having the disease, then it is present in the brain, if in fact it has BSE. The symptoms are obvious only a short while before death. In the earlier period, when the disease is asymptomatic, it is likely to be asymptomatic in the brain also. So sampling would tell us very little extra.
What we need is a live test. There are encouraging signs that a practical test for BSE in the live animal is possible, but it is unlikely to be available for widescale use for some time, and probably not for years. There have been recent media reports of work by an American group on a live test that may be promising. We welcome that, and we are in contact with those workers. We have provided them with material on which to develop their tests. I hope that that gives some comfort to my noble friends Lord Middleton and Lord Cochrane of Cults. If we were able to find a test like that, we should be dancing in the streets. It would solve so many problems that we face with this epidemic. We should be able to kill the animals that have the disease; we should know the animals that did not have it; and the whole matter would be much easier. We have been putting a lot of effort into this. We have the smell of it in our nostrils. We think we shall get there. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and others know, science is an uncertain business. There is nothing yet that we can promise.

745
We have even been in correspondence with Dr. Narang, a gentleman who has been characterised, as least so far as the Ministry of Agriculture is concerned, if not the media, by silence and refusal to communicate. He has now asked us to supply him with samples under an experimental protocol, and we are doing so. If his test turns out to be the one that works, we shall be delighted.
We know from our extensive studies that the cause of BSE was cattle eating contaminated feed. Other potential causes, such as OPs, have been investigated in depth, and just do not stack up. My noble friend Lord Gage said that we now list the ingredients in feed. Indeed, we do. It is an improvement, and perhaps it will help us avoid similar problems in the future.
We are comforted, in that all the current evidence is that there is no horizontal or vertical transmission within cattle. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, there is an experiment going on, a "blind" study in 600 cattle, to test the maternal transmission hypothesis. We have a broad view from our studies in cattle as a whole that there is very little evidence of maternal transmission. The importance of that particular study is that it will provide us with a finer degree of resolution. We do not want to break it now, just a year before it finishes and when it will provide us with very little more evidence than we have at the moment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, there was also the test on the heifers imported from New Zealand, where there is no BSE. I believe some were implanted with infected embryos, etc. We heard no more about that test. Does the noble Lord know the result?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if I am not giving the noble Lord a complete answer, I shall certainly write to him.
The introduction of BSE-infected material into cattlefeed resulted from changes to the rendering process in the late 1970s—when, indeed, the party opposite was in power—and early in the 1980s, which allowed infectious material into the feed. Some have claimed that those changes to the rendering process were the result of the Government's relaxation of controls on the industry and that they were due to deregulation. That is simply not true. The changes to the rendering process were introduced solely for commercial reasons. The regulation of the industry at that time was focused on the prevention of bacteriological contamination, notably with salmonella. At the time no one could reasonably have foreseen that what seemed to be minor technical changes could have had the consequences that they did have. Changes in regulations that were being considered by the outgoing Labour Government would not have prevented the BSE epidemic. They, too, were concerned with salmonella.
Several noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley and the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, advocated a "back to basics" policy of farming without all the modern technological improvements. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who said that that would result
746
in our being more humane to livestock. That is not my experience of some overseas countries with smallscale agriculture.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to remember the days when we had humane agriculture in this country. If he was old enough, he would know that there is a great difference and it is not the same as that which happens abroad. It worked in this country in those days.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I was brought up on a farm, but I suspect not as long ago as the noble Lord. I certainly remember working horses and the pleasure of being with animals.
We are conscious of the need to be humane to animals. As noble Lords will be aware, that is a provision we are trying to attach to the Treaty of Rome. We also feel the need to be humble in the face of what nature can throw at us, as was King Canute, and to understand that the changes we make in agricultural practice will have risks that we cannot determine. Some noble Lords may wish to avoid those risks by not improving agriculture and the availability of cheap, good food for our people; others accept that the risks exist and the question is how we will deal with them.
BSE is not a uniquely British phenomenon. Switzerland, France, Portugal and the Republic of Ireland all have home-bred cases. Many other European countries have little or no controls over specified bovine offals. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, there is no certainty that continental beef is not rather more dangerous to humans than ours.
Much has been said about the possibility of selective culling of certain animals at high risk from BSE. If that is to be undertaken, it will have to be carefully targeted at those animals at highest risk of infection with BSE if it is to produce a genuine reduction in the number of BSE cases over the next few years. We have no intention of indiscriminately culling entire herds. That would be extremely wasteful.
The only effect of a largescale cull would be to speed up the decline in symptomatic BSE. It would not affect public safety, given the other measures that we have in place. We are prepared to contemplate it as part of a deal with Europe. The deal would be worth doing if we could do it, but it is proving extremely difficult at the moment. The European Union ban on the export of British beef and products containing bovine material is unjustified and totally disproportionate. It flies in the face of unequivocal scientific advice from the EC Scientific Veterinary Committee. As my noble friend Lord Lyell pointed out, it is damaging the Europeans as much as ourselves.
The Government are pressing hard for the ban to be lifted. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, even the Commission President and the Agriculture Commissioner now admit that British beef is safe. It is absolutely clear, as we have always said, that the ban is motivated more by the interests of other countries' beef markets than by public health. We intend to challenge the totally unjustified ban in the European Court of Justice. We will draw on the helpful recent

747
remarks of President Santer and Commissioner Fischler in so doing. Substantive action may take some time so we shall also be seeking interim relief.
The ban is based on health grounds and, given what has been said in the scientific evidence, we clearly feel that we have an excellent case. I am extremely sorry that the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Hooson, felt unable to join us in condemning the ban. They did not say that it was undesirable.
This morning I had the pleasure of listening to the Breakfast News on BBC1, when I was entertained by Mrs. Dagmar Roth-Behrenbt, a lady who is the Social Democrat environment spokesman in the European Parliament. She claimed to have been briefed on BSE by the Labour Party in this country. Perhaps I can read a little of what she said. She began,
"[Mr. Fischler] would be happy to eat young British beef. This means beef which is younger than 30 months, he obviously thought. But nevertheless, what Mr. Fischler said is not backed by any kind of scientific research. At the moment, most of the scientists say there is a link between Creutzfeld-Jacob disease and BSE, and at the moment consumers in the European Union … are very concerned, very suspicious and they are not willing at the moment to buy beef, either if it is coming from Britain or beef of their own country".
She added:
"[The ban on British beef] doesn't surprise me really, because [the British] haven't done anything in the past … My colleagues in Westminster from the Labour Party, and as well here, always asked the British Government to pay all farmers the real market value for every case of BSE".
I believe her to be a little out of date in that regard. She continued:
"Then farmers will have been willing in the past, and able in the past, just to show and to kill those animals and then we would have avoided this case we have now".
That is obviously not true, given our inability to detect BSE. She went on:
"what I expect the British Government to do is just to make clear scientific research, to support scientific research, to make sure that they are willing to accept that all cattle older than 30 months might have to be slaughtered".
If she does not know that, then she is somewhat out of date and the Labour Party has not been doing its job in informing their European partners of what is going on in this country.
Mrs. Roth-Behrenbt said that Britain should be willing to do that because most of the funds for the farmers are coming from the European Union anyway. As my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke said, 80 per cent. of the funds are in fact coming from us. That degree of misinformation and misunderstanding in someone who claims to have been briefed by the Labour Party is shameful and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his colleagues will do something to put it right fast.
We have put in place many measures to help industry. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked on what they were based. The parts of the Food Safety Act at which he should look are Sections 6(4), 13(1) and 48(1). I hope that he will find what he needs there.
748
I am conscious that I have not replied in detail to the questions raised by many noble Lords. However, I wish to trespass on your Lordships' time to respond to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and others; that is, late maturing cattle and cattle which have not been exposed to BSE and which are brought up in what might be called an environmentally friendly way. We are aware of the need to have special exemptions for those cases. We are urgently working on the technical elements of the scheme which will allow clearly defined exemptions to be made. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, said, BSE does occur in such cattle and our first priority must be that of public health.
The BSE issue raises many difficult questions. Most important is to ensure the protection of public health. That the Government have done throughout the BSE epidemic. We have to eradicate BSE. Again, measures taken since 1988 are ensuring that we can do that. We need to establish a healthy beef industry. The return of consumer confidence in beef will help achieve that, and we are working hard to see that that happens. In the meantime, help has been made available at critical points through the industry to farmers, abattoirs and to the renderers to ensure that that great industry can remain viable and effective.
I want to close by returning to the key point; that is, the safety of British beef. We have stringent control measures in place and they are enforced most rigorously. I can only commend to the House the comments of the chairman of the SEAC, Professor Pattison, who said,
"In any common usage of the word, British beef is safe".
That message is clear. I commend British beef to your Lordships as a great, thoroughly enjoyable and safe product.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I believe that I have 36 minutes to respond to all those who have taken part in the debate. I merely wish to make one or two comments. Primarily I want to say something in regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said.
The debate exhibited a number of different strands. One thing is perfectly clear. Apart from the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, everyone who spoke from the other side of the Chamber blamed somebody other than the Government—Europe, the broadcasting media, the press, and particularly the Labour Party. Now we are accused of falsely briefing a lady whose name I did not catch who gave an interview to a body in terms which the noble Lord admits must have been false. It seems to me to be stretching responsibility just a little far to ascribe to the Labour Party the views that that good lady—and I am sure she is—is supposed to have given.
The noble Lord said that the Government wanted to be as humble as King Canute. My recollection of King Canute is that his humility got him very wet feet. It seems to me that the Government have not only wet feet; they are soaked, sodden, and up to their eyebrows in a mess of their own making. But the really staggering thing that emerged, clearly set out by the Minister in his

749
brief, is that the reaction to their Statements of 20th March is what the Government expected. Ponder that just for one moment. my Lords. I am a naive, good natured soul. I give people credit for good intentions and have done since I became involved in politics 35 years ago. At least I thought they had got it wrong. Now the Minister tells us that they got it right and that what happened is exactly what they had anticipated and expected. That cannot be right. I cannot believe that even this Government expected and anticipated a crisis which would end up with 28,000 people being laid off, with £500 million having to be paid in compensation, with the meat market in ruin and with a ban imposed by the European Union on the export of British beef not only to European Union countries but to third countries as well.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope that what I said was that we anticipated the media reaction. If I failed to say that, I misread what I had written in front of me, which was in my own words and was not my brief.
Lord Richard: My Lords, that does not get the noble Lord off the hook. If the Government anticipated the reaction they were going to get from the media, why on earth are they complaining about it with such bitterness now? They should have done something about it at the time. If they knew they were going to be pilloried in the press, then a little modest preparation in advance of the Statements would have been quite desirable—but not a bit of it. If the reaction was what the Government expected, then frankly it passes belief.
We have had a longish debate and an interesting day. The Government's position has been totally exposed, which in a sense was one of the things the debate was about. I am delighted that it has had that exposure. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Non-Domestic Rating (Information) Bill
8.32 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have pleasure in introducing the Bill for Second Reading.
This is a short Bill, which extends throughout Great Britain and will enable assessors in Scotland and valuation officers in England and Wales to exchange information which they have obtained for statutory rating purposes. This will enable them to develop and defend, on appeal, the harmonised GB schemes of valuation which were introduced with effect from 1st April 1995 or are developed at subsequent revaluations.
The Bill will benefit the business community by helping to ensure that rating harmonisation is effectively maintained. The main purpose of the Bill, in helping to maintain the British harmonised rating system, is to close a loophole in the existing provisions by facilitating the free exchange of relevant information between assessors and valuation officers. While there is, at present no statutory prohibition to the free exchange of
750
such information, much of the information is obtained from ratepayers under information-gathering powers which are supported by criminal penalties for failure to comply. In these circumstances, it is considered that there could be considerable doubt as to the legality of an assessor or valuation officer passing information of this kind to each other than as expressly authorised by statute. Particular difficulties could arise where, for example, a Scottish assessor needs to produce, at an appeal hearing, the English rental evidence to support a Great Britain valuation scheme developed by assessors and valuation officers together. This Bill will provide the statutory authority to overcome those difficulties.
I am confident that the Bill will attract full support, as it did at all stages in another place. It has no direct financial effects and will not result in any additional burdens on business. Indeed, business will benefit from the greater assurance of rateable values being harmonised throughout Great Britain which the Bill will bring. I therefore hope that your Lordships will support the Bill. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, for introducing the Bill. It will be very helpful. I checked the record of another place and found that the Bill went through very speedily on 9th March. 1 was particularly pleased that the noble Lord emphasised the importance of confidentiality and the penalties involved in any breaching of that confidentiality. This will be a helpful Bill. I commend it to the House.
8.36 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his presentation of the Bill and extend my wholehearted support for the measure. It is a highly desirable Bill and, I hope noble Lords will agree, totally uncontroversial.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have given a high priority during the period since 1990 to achieving parity for business rates north and south of the Border. The considerable investment made in bringing Scottish rate levels down to the English level and the fact that valuation practitioners north and south of the Border now work to the same techniques and overall guidelines has at last achieved this. From 1st April 1995 the unified business rate in Scotland has been the same as in England and this has been backed by the implementation of the revaluation north and south of the Border which was the first to be conducted with fully harmonised valuation schemes for all classes of subject.
The Scottish assessors worked closely with the Valuation Office Agency in England and Wales to achieve this result and they assure us that there is now harmonisation in the outcome of their valuations. In teaching this position, they have of course each had to take into account the level of values that could he set and defended on either side of the Border.
It is an important feature of the rating system that all ratepayers must have the opportunity to challenge their valuation and have it considered. if necessary, by an

751
independent valuation appeal committee or, in England or Wales, a valuation tribunal. In order, however, to explain valuation schemes that depend on evidence gathered on both sides of the Border an assessor or valuation officer defending an appeal would need to be able to present that evidence before the appeal committee or tribunal. In order to do that he or she must, of course, have access to the original evidence. Much of this evidenct, is gathered under specific statutory powers and—I emphasise this to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—subject to proper safeguards to protect commercial confidentiality. It follows that the officer gathering the information should not divulge it except in an authorised manner. The Bill, if enacted, will allow valuation officers and assessors to share information from each other's areas of operation. It would not allow them to divulge information collected in another area which they could not divulge if it had been collected from their own area. They could not therefore do anything which they cannot already do. It follows that there is no breach of commercial confidentiality since no information will be divulged in relation to another part of the country which could not be divulged locally.
This will, however, ensure that where rental information or other evidence as to value is only available on a scattered basis throughout the country the same evidence can be led before all appeal committees or tribunals so that all valuations can be judged on a similar basis. This should help to reinforce the equality for business rates while not, in any way, hampering anyone's appeal rights.
Noble Lords will see that this is a very short and simple measure. It has the support of the Federation of Small Businesses. I hope noble Lords will support it, in the light of the explanation that I have given as to how it will enable valuation officers and assessors to operate for the eventual benefit of the business community. We support the Bill. I commend it to the House.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for the support which he has pledged from the Labour Party. I would also like to thank other parties who may not have participated in the debate tonight, for the goodwill which they have shown towards the Bill in the other place and, I hope, here, also. I commend the measure to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Disabled Persons and Carers (Short-term Breaks) Bill [H.L.]
8.40 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am grateful to those who have stayed to this late hour to lend their support. In saying that, I am conscious of those carers who are now at home looking forward
752
not to a good night's sleep, but to the night shift, because they care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In thanking your Lordships, may I say how grateful I am to the Officers of your Lordships' House for their very valuable technical advice on this Bill; planting my feet, as it were, in the paths of righteousness.
The Bill is about people who need help and people who give help. It has two elements: the first is to ensure that when an assessment is made under any of the nine pieces of legislation listed, that assessment will specify any need for short-term breaks. The second is to ensure that, in consultation with the disabled person and any carer, those recognised needs will be met. That is simple and powerful.
The difference from the current situation is striking. Existing legislation, including the new Carers Act, does not guarantee either assessment of the need or the provision of short-term breaks. This is an essential right if community care is to continue to function and to mean—primarily—family care.
I want to share the story of Gillian and her family with noble Lords because it underlines why this Bill is needed, and as Chairman of MENCAP, I can vouch for the story. In 1995, Jack and Ellen, Gillian's parents, had their first holiday in 40 years. It was made possible by Gillian's first short-term break at a small residential home. Gillian has Down's Syndrome and communication difficulties. Her mother says,
"In the early years no one even came to visit, let alone offer a break. We love Gill enormously and in fact we missed her last year when we went on holiday, but we had to look beyond that and say to ourselves, 'What about when we are gone?' … The longer you go without a break from each other, the harder it becomes to let go and the more protective you get. That's not to say that it will ever be easy, just that with a bit more practice it wouldn't leave you feeling so bad. We just hope that parents today don't have to feel as helpless as we sometimes did."
I am afraid that all the evidence, regrettably, shows that they often do feel helpless. How would this Bill help Gillian and others? It would recognise the need; it would assess the need; it would meet the need where there were gaps. These would have to be recorded and tackled, and as a result the lives of people with learning disability and their families would be brought nearer to what most people take for granted.
Today, there was a lobby of Parliament asking the question, "Community care—is it working?". This Bill addresses one of the key reasons why it is not working as well as it should. The pressure on families continues to increase, with more dependent people being looked after by families at a considerable saving to the public purse.
As a crude measure, residential care for a person with severe disability will cost £500 or more a week, while a short break may cost £50 a week. Until we start assessing individual need, and recording the gaps, we shall never know the global cost of filling the gaps. However, if I take an arbitrary £50 for one short break for some 20,000 adults without even a day service. we are talking about a bill of £1 million. The better the services, the higher the costs.

753
Before this Bill is dismissed as too costly—and how can £1 million in this context be too costly?—let us balance it with the savings currently made by leaving families to cope, plus the cost of crisis care when families stop supporting each other or when a carer dies.
In the Government's own White Paper back in 1989, community care was defined as,
"providing the right level of intervention and support to enable people to achieve maximum independence and control over their own lives".
Access to appropriate short-term breaks is key to that. Indeed, the practice guidance of those early days bolstered hopes that short-term breaks would become a normal way of giving severely disabled people and their families something closer to a normal life. Experience has been otherwise. There is more variety, certainly; but I know that there is, in many places, less opportunity for short-term breaks.
The Bill uses the definition of carer from the recently implemented Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, and the definition of disabled person is that used in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. I note in passing that attempts are being made in another place today to secure the implementation of the advocacy provisions of what we have come to know as the "DP Act"—now 10 years old and still only partially implemented.
Short-term break may be a less familiar term than respite care. Respite has come to mean the carer saying, "I need a rest". Short-term break has come to mean a shared desire for change. MENCAP is anxious the Bill should emphasise the need for short-term breaks or respite to be focused on the needs of the disabled person as well as those of the carer. The two things go together. In the words of one parent of a young child we need,
"somewhere where she is really wanted—no half-suppressed sighs on the end of the phone when I ring, somewhere which is fun for her too".
I should like to quote one young woman with Down's syndrome:
"1 know about respite, because I have what I call my two-in-one mother … We support each other … I really look forward to seeing her as we have some really good times together … We go to the cinema … Respite is all about making friends and having fun".
A short-term break can mean a break in the person's own home. For example, the MENCAP sitting services in Leicester, which specifically cater for ethnic minority communities; or the break might mean time with another family; for example, Enable's "Lend a Hand Scheme" in Fife, while Family-Based Breaks, with support from the Norah Fry Research Unit in Bristol, have achieved great things in recent years; or there are breaks based on doing things with friends. Liverpool Short-Term Breaks have become nationally known as an example of time away from the home with ordinary people, doing ordinary things in ordinary places.
Then there are residential breaks, usually now in a residential home catering for respite only; or holidays in holiday settings, of which MENCAP's own holiday service is one example. Often a holiday is the only time a person with learning disability can break with
754
day-to-day routine, and branch out with new friends and activities. The benefits are enormous. These are the possibilities.
Now, just a few examples of the problems which those possibilities address. The main problem is of course that only a minority get anything and few of those get very much. Example No. 1: a young man with severe learning disabilities, who can be violent and has severe epileptic fits, was offered a social services place in a home with pre-war glass in the windows and a fire door which led straight out into the main road.
Let me give a second example: a large town, which is now a unitary authority, has no respite available if one is over 17. That is a town which has 90 families needing short-term breaks. In those families were people with learning disabilities. As a third example, quite commonly breaks have to be hooked a year in advance with no emergency back-up.
I am grateful to Contact-a-Family—an organisation of which I am patron—for sharing the problems of two year-old Louise, whose mother was so desperate for a break that she refused to take Louise out of hospital until short-term breaks were offered. It took six months to gain three short breaks. I could continue, but I feel that the point has been made.
Perhaps I may say a word about scale. I deal only with the area of concern that I know best. Up to 100,000 adults with severe learning disabilities—I repeat, 100,000—live with their families. Only around one in five of them receive a short-term break or a holiday. Almost all children with learning disabilities live with their families of course—around 30,000 of them with severe learning disabilities, including children with high medical needs such as nasal feeding tubes who once would have been kept only in hospital.
In a recent study of 1,100 families with severely disabled young children, over two-thirds said that they did not get enough breaks, and about a quarter did not know anything about short-term breaks. That is one of the fundamental problems of the current system. All good practice suggests that disabled people will be fully consulted in their assessment, family carers will be involved and options discussed in full. However, MENCAP evidence from the report published last year entitled Britain's other Lottery shows that people lack information about services, that few disabled people play an active part in their own assessment and that the whole procedure is dominated by the availability of services in an area rather than the needs of the individual.
I am grateful to the many organisations which have given their support to the Bill, including the Carers' National Association, SENSE, Action for Dysphasic Adults, Age Concern, Marie Curie Cancer Care, the MS Society, the BMA and many more. Although I have concentrated on the need for short-term breaks for people with learning disabilities, the support of those organisations shows the very wide application of the Bill

755
and the need which exists. Let me quote the Alzheimer's Disease Society, which also welcomes the Bill:
"Recognition of need must be backed by firmer statutory rights to services and proper financing of services if the carer and the person with dementia they care for are to receive meaningful community care in the future".
The Bill is about people with disabilities having an ordinary life. There is nothing odd or unusual about people wishing to have a break from their parents or their parents wanting a break from them. We ask for a right to have what other people take for granted. The Bill is an essential tool which people with disabilities and their families need, and they need it now.
Your Lordships will be aware of the proverb about lighting the candle being preferable to cursing the dark. There are too many families at present left cursing the dark. I hope that this Bill will light a few candles for those very families. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rix.)
8.53 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am delighted to support the Second Reading of the Bill, which is a very necessary Bill, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
The Bill is a natural extension of previous enactments, notably the Disabled Persons Act 1986 and the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995. Those acts entitle both disabled people and carers to have an assessment by social services of their needs and ability to provide care. However, neither Act entitles disabled people or carers to receive services such as short-term breaks. Provision of short-term breaks may only be made at the discretion of the local authority. Consequently, many carers do not receive respite care and short-term breaks, even though a clear need may have'been established.
In 1992, the Carers National Association carried out a postal survey, which revealed that 20 per cent. of carers never had a break. Of those who did have a break, 73 per cent. had regular or occasional breaks; 62 per cent. of regular breaks were for less than half a day; and that 36 per cent. of occasional breaks were taken just once or twice a year and 59 per cent. for a period of less than a week. How many noble Lords would want to work continuously without that kind of break? In follow-up research in 1994, the Carers National Association found that even when carers had received an assessment under the community care scheme, one in five carers ended up without a break.
It is clear that carers need a break for two main reasons. First, there are the physical strains connected with the responsibility for providing personal care and helping with the activities of daily living. The second reason involves carers' perceptions and interpretations of their experience as tiring, difficult or upsetting, which can be influenced by feelings of low self-esteem and strain.
756
As many noble Lords will know, I work for the John Groom Association for Disabled People. That organisation, for a number of years, had available respite care. Unfortunately we had to close it for the simple reason that local authorities were not prepared to pay and it was a wasted asset. We subsequently put it to much better use.
Although carers need a break from caring in order for them to be able to continue caring in the longer term, each carer's situation is different and each carer may need a different sort or length of break. For some carers, a sitting service would be the answer; for others, family-based respite may be more appropriate; still others may need the guarantee of a good night's sleep once a week; and others may need a two-week break once a year.
Carers save the community vast sums every year. There are over 6 million carers providing, for nothing, an estimated £39 billion-worth of care annually. Quite a number of those carers are children, caring for parents. They need time off for homework and revision for examinations and time for school projects, apart from the opportunity to be just children. Others are working full or part-time to keep their family as well as caring for one of the family members.
The average cost of a residential place in a home for a young physically disabled adult is some £530 a week, which approximates to £27,500 a year. For a frail elderly person, the cost is £250 a week or £13,000 a year. Often, an elderly parent is the carer for a young adult with a disability. If the elderly parent's health breaks down and he (or she) and therefore the young person have to go into a home, the combined cost would average out at £40,000 a year. The cost is a great deal more if one considers that the carer or indeed the disabled person might have to be hospitalised instead of going into a residential home.
Yet the cost of providing from a care agency a carer—not very highly skilled—averages out at only £6 an hour where the carer is used in the family home. I should have thought that £6 an hour was a worthwhile investment against a possible £40,000 a year. The Family Policy Studies Centre has concluded that if one out of 10 carers were to give up the cost to the public purse would be £2 billion a year.
We have an ageing population and improving medical services that enable people who are disabled by accident or illness to recover sufficiently to live at home. This means that the need for carers will continue to grow. The Government and the nation must take the matter seriously and make provision to support carers properly. That must include proper provision for breaks. I am delighted to support this Bill.
9 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I too am delighted to support this long-awaited Bill. I am surprised that it has not been before the House before, perhaps in 1985 or last year when the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill was enacted.
I declare an interest as president of the Fylde Coast branch of the National Carers' Association. This Bill is welcomed by many of the members of that association

757
to whom I have spoken. One cannot draw in one's mind a profile of a typical carer. There is no such person as a typical carer. The person does not fall into a particular category. It is true that 3.9 of the 6 million carers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, are women but 2.9 million are men. In Britain 8 per cent. of carers are aged between 16 and 29. Young people, who never anticipated that they would be carers, find themselves caring for members of their family. Across the board carers are often just thrown into that situation. They never expect that that is waiting for them in life, but they are willing to take on the responsibility because they love those for whom they care. I believe that it is at that point that society takes advantage of the situation. These people are willing to look after members of their family who are disabled.
I have heard it asked, "Why this Bill? In some areas there are plenty of models of respite care". We can all write lengthy lists of people to whom we have spoken who do not even know that this kind of care is available. They just do not know that it exists. Even when they do know it exists, they feel that they are asking for charity. They believe that it is not a right and they are a burden on the state if they try to get respite care. If the Government support this Bill, as I dearly hope they will, I believe that hand in hand with that there should be a major communication exercise to ensure that people know about it.
Another problem is that, because this is not a right or a requirement, when social service budgets are cut or expenditure exceeds what is available, the first areas to be cut are those that are not mandatory. That is another reason that it is absolutely essential that this Bill reaches the statute book.
The two contributors to the debate who have spoken so far have said that the Bill is for carers, as it is. It is said that it is for people who are cared for, as it is. But there are two other groups who will also benefit vastly from the Bill. I suggest that the third group is the family. Stress and pressure is put on a family where one member has the burden of caring for another member who is disabled. In many cases that brings relationships within the family to breaking point. If a child is being cared for, other children in the family may be neglected and do not receive attention from their parents. That may cause problems in the family. Parents who are entitled to have time with their children do not get it. They do not have the joy that they should have from bringing up the able-bodied members of the family. I believe that the family will benefit as a result of the Bill.
I believe that our health bill will also benefit. It is often said that one real example is worth a thousand words. For a while, my father was a carer. From her mid-40s, my mother had bad health because of rheumatoid arthritis. My father was a shift worker. He cared for my mother with family support. I also saw the deterioration in his health. As a result, he lost time from work. Not only did that mean an on-cost to the state but, because he was on a final salary pension scheme, he paid through his pension at the end of his working life. That is always the case when people stop work to be carers. They lose on pension at the end of their working
758
lives. People may not give up work but their health may he affected at the end of a long period of work, quite apart from withdrawal from normal social life in the community and the family. I believe that all of us will benefit from the Bill both directly and indirectly.
The two noble Lords who have already spoken have said that there is no one model of care that is required. It has to meet a variety of circumstances and arrangements which suit the carer and the cared for, as well as the family environment. In its implementation, the Bill calls for variety and discussion on the basis that it is not charity but something to which the carer is entitled and the cared for requires. The cared for needs a change of atmosphere and a break just like the carer. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I hope that she will be able to say that the Government support the Bill.
9.7 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support this short, simple but very important Bill with enthusiasm. The case for short-term breaks to be given higher priority has been well argued by my noble friend Lord Rix. I was interested in what he said about the wide variety of short-term breaks. My noble friend is a particularly appropriate person to introduce the Bill, which can be pivotal to the smooth running of community care.
Short-term breaks are essential for carers if they are to carry on being able to cope. They are important for disabled persons, enabling them to live longer in the community, perhaps to get out into the community at an earlier stage and to have a better quality of life along with their carers while living in the community.
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, many people do not know that their local authorities can help to finance respite care, so they do not ask for help. The Bill will ensure that opportunities for short-term breaks are considered as an option and are not missed through ignorance of their existence. That will bring important spin-off benefits because MENCAP research issued last year, entitled Community Care: Britain's Other Lottery, to which my noble friend Lord Rix referred, showed that local authorities were reluctant to record the unmet needs of disabled people. As a result, the future planning of services is based on the present provision, which is already an underestimate of need.
The Bill could be instrumental in breaking the vicious circle of unmet needs, which are unrecorded, leading to more under-provision, leaving more people in ignorance and not being offered nor asking for help, ending with more unmet needs. The Bill will ensure that people know that local authorities can help to finance respite care. If the local authority refuses, people can ask the reason why and discuss what is the most appropriate provision, which may well be looking after the disabled person in their own home rather than removing them to another environment.
I should like briefly to quote an example given by MENCAP which illustrates both the short-term and the long-term value of such breaks and how they arc in ever shorter supply, along the lines of what my noble friend Lord Rix said with a great deal more authority. Arthur

759
is 82 and his daughter Susan is 42 and has Down's syndrome. In 1983 when Arthur and his wife moved to Exeter with their only daughter, there was no respite care. Within a year he and others had secured some short-term respite beds in a local long-stay residential home for people with multiple disabilities. By 1985 MENCAP had helped to secure a respite care home especially for people with learning disabilities. Arthur and his wife really value the time that Susan gets to spend at the facility, learning to adapt to life without them, as there will come a time when Susan will have to go into long-term care. Her breaks prepare her for that eventuality, teaching her the skills that she will need to cope with a more independent life. However, after a period of gradually reducing the number of beds from 16 to nine, the council finally announced last month that the respite facility was to close. Users will have to make the longer journey to proposed new sites which may have fewer beds. As Arthur says,
"We are nearly back to square one … Close those places down, you could be damaging a lot of people's chances of a more independent life".
I gather that that pattern is being repeated around the country as pressure on resources and funding increase. Breaks both for those with severe physical disabilities and their carers play an important part throughout their lives. Some of your Lordships probably knew that extraordinary man, Robin Cavendish, who for 35 years enjoyed, contributed to and lived life to the full on a respirator, able to move only his head. Robin had the idea of starting a holiday home for "responauts"—that is, severely disabled people dependent on respirators—and with the backing of the charity Refresh, Netley Waterside House was opened in 1977. Netley provides responauts with care that is specialised enough to enable those who look after them to have an essential break. It probably caters for people more severely disabled than are accepted by any other establishment in the country.
I understand that the most difficult time to secure residents is at the end of the financial year, January to March. It is possible that if assessment for respite care becomes mandatory, it could help to spread the demand throughout the year. It could ensure that all local authorities are supplying clients, not just those which already make use of the establishment, but with budgets which are obviously limited.
There is a lot to be said for encouraging the use of respite care as a half-way house. It is a useful means of helping newly disabled people out of hospital before they transfer to their homes. It is a means of getting them and those who will be looking after them used to their newly acquired disabilities. They may well find that they can do much more than anticipated. It could free expensive hospital beds earlier and could be jointly funded by health trusts and local social services departments. I understand that Netley is also thinking of writing direct to fund-holding GPs who could send clients there directly. Furthermore, the wider use of respite care facilities by local authorities could save money by putting off the day when a severely disabled person can no longer be looked after in his or her own home and has to be put into residential accommodation.
760
We all want community care to be a great success. This small Bill will help to get people into the community, enhance their lives in the community and enable them to remain longer in the community. It will be of real value to those with learning disabilities, mental illness, severe physical or sensory disabilities, to those who are very old or frail, and to all those who care for them, and to their families, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said. I hope that the Government will respond positively to the Bill and that your Lordships will give it a safe and speedy passage.
9.14 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I too am delighted to support the Bill which we are pleased the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has brought forward. He introduced it clearly and so much has already been said that there is not a great deal to be added. Of all the points that he made, I was struck most by the reluctance of carers to leave the people for whom they care. That is true. They become so attached to the person, no matter how severe the burden, that they are concerned whether he or she will be in safe hands without them and whether or not they will feel a sense of guilt if they leave the person even for a short time. It is important that there should be respite care breaks during which the carer can be assured that the person will be thoroughly and carefully looked after. Carers will know that during a break they need have no sense of guilt or worry that they have neglected the person for whom they are caring.
A number of councils already do a great deal as regards caring but others do very little. Recently I met a friend who lives in the area covered by the Kingston-upon-Thames council. It is not an area about which I know a great deal, but I was most impressed to hear that her elderly mother is given respite care and is taken in for a day, or even for a few hours, if the family wish to go away. That has made such a great difference to the family that they can continue to have her living with them rather than moving her into a home.
Care in the community has been a victim of its own success. So many people have heard about what they can have and what they might like to have that the demands are almost insatiable. Not all stories about care in the community are good but a great deal is being done. Where it is being done well, it is working well.
When I was vice chairman of a regional health authority I visited a small health authority area in Essex. I was pleased to see that what had been a small cottage hospital, which had 'been closed down because more expert services were provided by a nearby hospital, had been turned into a respite care centre. All the people in the village were able to send their elderly relatives, or those needing any type of special care, for a holiday or break, enabling the carers themselves to have a break. It was used by a consortium of all the GPs in the village. When I visited, a new section was being opened and it was hoped to extend the services to other people nearby.
We all know the marvellous voluntary organisation, Crossroads, which gives people breaks for perhaps an hour or half a day. It illustrates clearly how valuable are

761
even the shortest breaks. It makes us realise of how much greater value would be a respite break longer than just a few hours. However, even a break of a few hours means that many people can survive.
Many years ago I canvassed as a council candidate and I remember meeting a lovely woman who had developed a heart condition. She was completely worn out because she had spent her whole life caring for her mother. Her mother had been well cared for and was still doing well, but the daughter had become almost an invalid due to the burden that she had undertaken. We must be sure that we prevent such incidents.
Another aspect that has not yet been mentioned are the number of children who are carers. When their parents are disabled, or are invalids, or have had an accident or an illness, a great burden falls upon the children. That is aggravated when there is a major language problem and the child is the only person who can act as interpreter for the family or parents. Usually the first person to notice the need for action is the schoolteacher who sees that the child is not progressing and is permanently tired. The alert schoolteacher will look around to see why that is happening because so many children take on a great burden at home. That applies even more today when so many families are one-parent families.
I was interested to receive a document produced by Carers Network Westminster in the Westminster council area. It estimates that there are 22,000 carers in Westminster. They say that surprisingly little is known about them because people do not call themselves carers; they say that they are a partner, a wife or a daughter. Often people do not know that services exist which can help them and they come forward only when they reach desperation point. The Bill will enable people to be discovered and to know about such facilities at an early stage. Many carers find themselves alone, unsupported and isolated.
Of course, all cases are not the same. Some people are born with a disability which requires care for a lifetime. Others may suffer from the consequences of a sudden road accident or a stroke which changes their lives overnight. We never know what will happen in those cases.
The leaflet from the Carers Network Westminster has an extremely interesting page which deals with ways and times to have a break from caring. It says:
"You might want to go away somewhere on your own or you might want to go away with the person you are looking after".
When it refers to times, it says that thought should be given as to whether what is needed is a week or two occasionally but regularly or a holiday every year. I was very impressed by that.
There is a page on going away on your own or with the person you are looking after. It gives a list of places and mentions arthritis care holidays, the Carers National Association, the Holiday Care Service, the Winged Fellowship Trust and so on. I was surprised that such a document could be produced by a local carer's association. I am sure that similar texts must exist in other council areas.
762
But the merit of the Bill is that it relies not on a piecemeal effort whereby some provision may be excellent while other provision is hopeless. It provides a uniformity and creates an awareness of what exists and the fact that short breaks are available. That is extremely important and I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the case for providing respite care and particularly short breaks has been well made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, to whom we are deeply indebted for this initiative. But the noble Lord is not alone in his advocacy. The case for respite care has been made regularly by the Government in the form of ministerial Statements, speeches, White Papers, Acts of Parliament and Department of Health circulars. I am sure that the point will be made again by the Minister when she winds up the debate this evening.
Even more relevantly, many noble Lords can speak from their own direct experience of caring or from that of their wives, as I can. They know about the strains which have been described so eloquently this evening which are imposed on carers and, as my noble friend Lady Dean reminded us, also on the families of carers.
The need for this Bill is great and nobody knows exactly how great. The General Household Survey suggested that about 1.5 million people are heavily involved in caring in the sense of providing more than 20 hours per week of unpaid care. But nobody knows the full extent of the unmet need because it is concealed by a veil of putting up with things and suffering. Carers just put up with the situation night after day and year after year.
As has been said, short-term care comes in a variety of forms ranging from care at home by paid or voluntary helpers to proper holidays. It includes staying with befrienders, residential care and proper holidays for carers and those for whom they care.
Some local authorities have set a marvellous example by providing their own facilities or buying them in from health authorities, from voluntary organisations or private agencies. There is a wide range of voluntary provision, some of which is good and some of which is tatty. I echo strongly what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said about the need for quality if those who care are to entrust their loved ones to care for a night or a week without being ridden with guilt and worry the whole time that they are supposed to be enjoying a respite.
Perhaps I may mention two examples of quality care. The first is the service provided by the Winged Fellowship Trust for severely physically disabled people. That is provided through purpose-built holiday homes and provides 6,000 weeks of holiday per year for disabled people and their carers if they wish to accompany them or to release their carers to have a completely separate holiday.
Another example is that provided by NCH Action for Children through its 28 schemes for children with disabilities. As has been said, that may include care for a few hours per week, for a weekend each month or for

763
a week's annual holiday in small residential projects. That is offered in ordinary homes, often in ordinary houses and in ordinary streets.
Therefore the provision of respite care is, and should be, varied and flexible: but the provision is, and should not be, very patchy. Some areas provide excellent services while others provide hardly any. It is interesting that the need for the provision of respite care services is well enough established to be accepted by the Audit Commission as a performance indicator for the effectiveness of local authorities. The 1994–95 figures for the number of nights of adult respite care provided show huge variations and have attracted the observation by the commission that:
"There are examples of Councils which provided ten times as much respite care as others. The public"—
and this is the important comment from the Audit Commission—
"may question why there are such big differences".
For example, in the London boroughs provision ranged from 120 nights per 1,000 adults in Brent to 17 in Hackney. Moreover, in the English counties, the figure varied from 167 nights in Lancashire to only 11 in Warwickshire.
In recent years there has been an overall, if patchy, expansion. But recently there have been two very worrying trends. First, there is some evidence of absolute reductions in the amount of respite care provided. Winged Fellowship, to give one example, logged a 3 a.m. call from a disabled lady in deep distress cancelling her booking and saying that her social services were unable to pay towards a respite break for her as had been done every year for a long while. The reason, of course, was continued pressure on local authority finances. The report from Scope last year on the disabled in Britain entitled, Counting on Community Care, gives further evidence in that respect.
The second related trend is the evidence given by Scope in the same report on the spread of and increases in charges for respite care. The report records the deep appreciation felt by disabled people for the provision of respite care, emphasising how that reduces their feelings of being a burden on their carer; and, indeed, a burden on their family.
However, the Scope report also comments that charging for respite care services can put them right out of the reach of many disabled people. The provision of such services should, in principle, be regarded as normal and should be free. Not only do disabled people and their carers typically have very low disposable incomes; but, also, we should not send out the message that the person being cared for is, or should be regarded as, a financial burden on his or her family.
Therefore, while we welcome the extension of respite care in recent years, we must recognise that the rate of progress and the patterns of provision and of charging vary very widely from one area to another. As I see it, one of the central purposes of the Bill is to establish that such provision is a normal part of a local authority's services and to ensure that the standard of provision is brought up to that of the best authorities.
764
Many local authorities deserve high praise for the positive attitude that they have taken in the face of all the financial difficulties confronting them. The Scope report that I mentioned showed that two-thirds of disabled people and their carers were satisfied with their respite care, and that most complaints were about the inadequacy of provision rather than about unsatisfactory experiences of services where they were provided.
However, it is becoming more and more difficult for local authorities to adopt pro-active policies and too easy for them to avoid having to meet the assessed needs of clients. Indeed, it is widely believed that some councils are keeping quiet about the availability of assessments, or they are delaying making appointments. It is claimed that some local authorities which provide short-term breaks do not publicise them properly, as has been said already.
It is right to give credit for the progress that has been made in this field. It is right to give credit to the legislation which has contributed to that progress. However, the provision is still patchy in relation to the extent and type of assessments, the provision of services by different local authorities, and the form and extent of their support. Assessments must be more than a process to allocate inadequate resources. It is now time to put flesh on the bones of this critical aspect of community care and, to use a figure of speech, to "beef up" the effects of the legislation, to generalise good practice, to bring backward local authorities up to the standard of the best or, at the very least, in the first place, to that of the average performers. This Bill is not about giving disabled people and their families something extra; it is a way of ensuring that they get the quite simple things which—as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others have said—the rest of us, individuals and families, take for granted: an occasional break.
9.31 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, it has been a hard day in your Lordships' House with a six hour debate on the worrying situation of BSE, and then two Second Readings. However, every day can be a hard day for a severely disabled person and his carer. If there is no gleam at the end of the tunnel by giving the people concerned short breaks, there will no doubt be serious problems. This Bill could illustrate that a stitch in time saves nine. The demands on each other can become a burden and the carer can lose patience and say things to the disabled person for which he feels guilty and reproaches himself for so doing afterwards. Without a much needed break relationships, apart from health, can break down.
I thank my noble friend Lord Rix for the work he and MENCAP have done on this Bill, and I thank my noble friend for bringing it to your Lordships' House and explaining it so clearly and with such humanity.
The British Medical Association and, I am sure, your Lordships who are supporting this Bill tonight are committed to the community care philosophy of enabling all people who have a disability to live as independently as possible in the community whilst maximising individual choice in the care received.

765
I think we would all agree that good quality day and respite care is of paramount importance. A full range of facilities should be available to facilitate choice and to cater for the varying needs of the people with disabilities and their carers who use the services.
I hope that the Government will support the Bill. However, I shall not be surprised if they say that it is not necessary. They may well say that these needs are already covered, but I shall try to explain how patchy services can be throughout the country, and the attitudes of professional people who assess an individual's needs, and provide the services which can differ considerably.
Last night I heard from a couple I was with that a relation of theirs who lived in the Cambridge area and had a chronic disability received respite care when it was needed. They were grateful but they added that the disabled person had worked all his working life paying taxes and national insurance and they felt that the care provided was due to him and his family. The disabled person happened to be a doctor. Further up the country where I live in north Yorkshire, a paraplegic lady who became ill and weak with ongoing diarrhoea was assessed by a community nurse who said that she could have a bath only once every two weeks. This lady lived with an alcoholic brother and her friend and neighbour had a bad back and could not lift her. When her GP returned from holiday, she was admitted to hospital where she died the next day from an undiagnosed perforated ulcer.
Assessments by professionals who are trying to save money and place their own jobs as a priority by not speaking out for the needs of patients are of great concern to provision of services in the community. What guidance and training is given on assessments? Should there not be a national standard?
Disability is so varied. There are so many complicated disabilities. If one looks at only one section of, say, neurological patients one will find a very long list. There are all the other disabilities such as the mentally ill, mentally handicapped, frail elderly with arthritic conditions, people with AIDS, and numerous other conditions. The subject of disability can merge into grey areas of who does what. Is it a health or social services responsibility?
The language of social services and health differs. In fact, some people find the modern day jargon difficult to understand. For example, with health an ill or disabled person is a patient; with social services they are clients; so perhaps they should be called "clipats". They are individual people with differing needs, but they can easily fall through the care net.
Recently I was told that there was a situation when a clipat needed washing. The social services came in to do the top half, and because the individual was incontinent the health service came in to wash the bottom half. What a ridiculous situation. But if rigid rules are adhered to, one can understand how that sort of thing can happen.
There is a need for flexibility. Different users have different needs. But a user may also wish to vary the type of help received from time to time.
766
"Many carers find themselves locked into a deal which provides services in a rigid way and is almost impossible to adjust"—
so says the BMA.
If the person receiving care resents the request for respite services, it becomes very difficult for the carer to force the issue. Many carers seem to be in a catch-22 situation: either upsetting the person needing care or exhausting themselves, which sometimes ends up with hospitalisation for both parties.
Yesterday I was an invited guest to a lunch given by the Cheshire Foundation. When discussing the needs of disabled people, the guests were unanimous in telling the Cheshire Foundation to keep its flexibility and independence. With the contracting culture with which many voluntary organisations are now faced, they could be at risk of losing this independence if they are not careful. That could stifle some ingenious initiatives which derive from voluntary organisations.
Some years ago, the Spinal Injuries Association set up an emergency care agency where trained helpers in the needs of paralysed people with bladder and bowel problems can provide two-week help by coming into the person's home or going on holiday with them. Those are the kind of initiatives which grow out of the need seen by organisations with specialised membership.
I feel that the Bill is necessary to make providers look at the needs of the people for whom they are responsible. It would also make hospital trusts work more closely with the community. Some years ago many hospitals had young disabled units attached which were useful for short-term respite breaks, because they kept some beds for that purpose. Also, cottage community hospitals could be used for that purpose. But so many of those facilities have closed down as hospitals thought social services should be the providers. Now many of the hospitals such as the London Hospital have about 5 per cent. of their beds blocked by patients who cannot be discharged into the community because there is nowhere for them to go.
This is a need which the Government and hospital trusts should be looking at urgently. A country like Norway provides short yearly respite rehabilitation for their paralysed patients, to give them refresher courses in rehabilitation and to check that all is well. Our rehabilitation could be greatly improved with projects like that.
This short Bill could give the impetus needed to make service providers work more closely together to look at the needs of disabled people and their carers. I hope that it has a safe passage through your Lordships' House and that time is found for it in another place. The people who need respite care are the most disabled in our community, the ones we do not see out and about doing the London Marathon or competing in sport. They are often tucked away out of sight, out of mind. We must not forget them and their helpers.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of MENCAP in Kent as well as being the father of a child with learning difficulties. I can thus see the benefits of the Bill and the practical help it would

767
provide for carers of disabled people. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, it complements the provisions in the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995.
It must be sensible to ensure that, when a disabled person is assessed, the need for short-term breaks—one of the basic components of community care—will be specified and, where possible, those needs will be met. However, I very much hope that putting one particular service compulsorily into the assessment would not stop another service being given.
Short-term breaks are the one service which most disabled people and their carers identify as being needed but which they cannot receive unless assessed and unless the local authority is able to meet that need. The breaks offer a number of advantages. The disabled person has a chance to build on everyday living skills such as handling money and cooking and the carer gets a welcome respite.
More and more people with learning disabilities are living in the community rather than in hospitals. Many people live in supported accommodation, but up to 100,000 adults with severe learning disabilities live with their families. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, almost all children with learning difficulties in the United Kingdom live with their parents. That includes children who would have been kept in hospital some years ago.
I give as an example a neighbour of mine, a teenager who has cerebral palsy but is very, very mobile. That makes life very challenging for his parents who have not had a break together for 15 years. The availability of a short-term break would mean that they had a brief respite from the very demanding role they play, both physically and mentally, in their son's life—particularly as the needs of a young brother and sister also have to be considered.
For many disabled children there will obviously come a time when the parents, either because of age or illness, are unable to care for their child. The ongoing provision of short-term breaks allows a disabled person to experience life with a new carer. Such breaks could be of an enormous help to a disabled person. They could open many doors that are not otherwise available, such as sports and leisure activities. They would also provide a disabled person with the opportunity to meet people in the same situation and help him or her gain independence. I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister's reply.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, it is inconceivable that the Government should oppose this Bill. They should have introduced their own Bill long ago. It is a dereliction of duty that they failed to do so. The Minister ought to have responded immediately this Bill was published. He ought to have said that, in principle, they accepted a very modest and necessary proposal. Therefore this evening, after this rather truncated debate, I expect a very positive, affirmative response from the noble Baroness.
Many Members of this House have received some splendid briefing material from the various organisations: from MENCAP, the Alzheimer's Disease
768
Society, SENSE, and many others; and we have heard the wisdom enunciated by Members giving their own opinions and extracts from those various briefs. It was embellished by the very moving experience of the noble Baronesses, Lady Dean, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor. That personal experience cannot be contradicted in any way. It is the basic proof of the need for this Bill. I do not propose to repeat the kind of material that we have received in the briefs. It has been explained so eloquently by so many noble Lords.
It may be helpful to try to anticipate what the Government will say and how they might respond. What sort of briefing have the Government received from their civil servants? It is so easy to take it for granted that the response will be intelligent. But it would be an awful mistake. Not the noble Baroness herself but the Government have given some very bizarre responses to some very good Bills.
Let us take, for example, the Disability Discrimination Bill. When that was first mooted, all of 12 and 13 years ago, Ministers in this Government said that there was no evidence of discrimination. Then, when the evidence was produced, they changed their tune. Then they said that all that was required was education and persuasion. When that was proved to be absolute nonsense, they said they would bring in their own Bill. They put forward an inadequate Bill. So we had bizarre responses to an excellent Bill brought forward in another place by individual Members. The Government's own Bill was unsatisfactory. Therefore we cannot be complacent and sanguine that there will be a good response tonight, although I am still hopeful.
Putting ourselves in the mind of those who advise Ministers, and whose advice will possibly be accepted, let us run through a list of possible excuses that could be advanced. First, they could say that the Bill is unnecessary. They have said that so often about various splendid Bills that have been introduced. All the evidence has been put forward by speakers on both sides of the House, and of course we all know that there is no legal right to respite care so it is obviously necessary.
Secondly, the Government could say that it is bureaucratic—that is their usual excuse for savaging constructive Bills. In fact, this Bill will reduce bureaucracy; it will enable disabled people to help themselves. Another spurious and feeble excuse to oppose good Bills is that they are badly drafted. This Bill is very well drafted, even if the Government can find one or two piffling holes in it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who made such an excellent speech in introducing the Bill, will willingly consider constructive and positive, but not destructive, amendments. I must be careful what I say in this regard; I do not want to invite too many amendments from the Government. In another place, with the excellent anti-discrimination Bill, they brought forward a couple of hundred wrecking amendments. We do not want wrecking amendments; we want constructive amendments. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will accept them if they are offered. Please, therefore, no objection to the drafting.

769
The other excuse often brought forward is that the Bill would be costly. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, explained, along with other noble Lords, this Bill will actually save the Government money. The noble Lord is doing the Government a great favour by saving them money. They should thank him for bringing forward something which is helping this Government.
By a process of elimination I have worked out, in the best Sherlock Holmes tradition, that the Minister will accept and endorse the Bill. She should then award the noble Lord, Lord Rix, a medal to pin on his ermine. The Government could then perhaps offer him a little holiday. It could be called the "Rix short-term break", and they could thank him.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will give a helpful reply. The All-Party Disablement Group has long campaigned for this specific issue. It is therefore a matter, in this House and in another place, which genuinely has all-party support. Millions of disabled people will be watching the debate because they are extremely concerned to know what the Government decide. It is therefore a matter of public relations as well as humanity.
We know that carers are victims of their own dedication and they are the people who need help. But, as my noble friend Lady Dean said, it is not only disabled people and carers; it is also the families involved. I therefore wish to close on this note. I will not give more case histories because we have heard some marvellous examples and the last thing I want to do is to be repetitive. However, I am sure that this illustration will be appreciated by the Minister.
The Alzheimer's Disease Society sent me a copy of a letter sent to Age Concern by an old man. He wrote,
"I would very much like to know your feelings towards the Government's policy of 'Care in the Community'. My wife is a Parkinson and Alzheimer's sufferer and I am her sole carer. In the same street I have a friend, Albert"—
and he gives his full name—
"who is in exactly the same situation. We often meet in the street and discuss our problems and how to go about tackling them, we are both the same age, 74"—
just a little older than me, but only a little—
"and can therefore reminisce about the good old days when our dear wives would have been nursed by a band of devoted nurses with only a Matron in charge who never ever mentioned shortages of funds but just got on with the job of nursing the sick and elderly.
However, a few days ago we were both going through a particularly difficult period and in our endeavour to find a solution we came up with the theory that the present situation was a ploy by the government to reduce the present population of OAPs by giving them the responsibility and therefore the worry of being carers. Having made this deliberation Albert said 'I must go the wife will be waiting for me' and with that he went indoors and dropped dead from a heart attack—how right he was. So I wonder if the carers have to look after the patients, who looks after the carers, nobody in Government seems to care a damn.
Well I don't suppose it will be long before I see my old pal again, and no doubt we will take up the discussion where we left off but I don't suppose we will have any more influence than we have had already".
That depends on whether he goes upstairs or downstairs. When he kicks the bucket, if he goes upstairs, he will have a great deal of influence with the Angel Gabriel—he can possibly intercede with the Government and try to persuade them to accept this kind of Bill.
770
I do not suppose the Minister will agree with this man and his friend Albert that the Government are trying to indulge in genocide. Possibly he gilded the lily a little. But I suspect that the dim view of the Government held by this man and his friend Albert will be lightened just a little if the Minister finds it possible to accept the Bill.
9.56 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rix on his introduction of this Bill and I am very pleased to support him. There are many people who support the need for respite care. There are Members of your Lordships' House as well as organisations for disability. SENSE, the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association, has just celebrated its 40th birthday. It has grown from the work of two mothers who had children born both deaf and blind who established a support group to help each other and to press for support from the Government for research and services. SENSE is to be congratulated on the many projects it has developed over the years.
Clause 2 of the Bill states that "carer" has the same meaning as in the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, which came into force on 1st April 1996. A short-term break for family carers and the disabled person they care for is essential if the carer is to be able to care effectively and not collapse through exhaustion when an emergency could be created.
One of the most significant achievements of recent years has been the long overdue recognition of the work of carers. Carers in many cases provide the heart and soul of community care.
Clause 4 of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 states the financial provision for the Act. The Government recognised the absolute necessity for legislation to require local authorities to assess and meet the needs of carers. Can the noble Baroness the Minister say whether extra financial help will be given to local authorities to meet these needs, as many local authorities find that financial pressure already forces them to restrict some services? As the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, said, the physical, emotional and financial stress which results from caring for someone who is deaf-blind or has any other disability is profound and cannot be underestimated. Would the noble Baroness the Minister not agree that it is the carers themselves who often underestimate their own needs?
Carers often feel guilty about needing a break away from their disabled son or daughter. They feel guilty about the burden and stresses which are placed on their other non-disabled children. They feel that the effect of caring for a disabled young person on siblings goes largely unrecognised. Often siblings perform a great deal of the caring functions in a family providing in their own way short-term breaks for their parents.
One source of enjoyment to all the family—carers and the cared for—is a holiday. MENCAP finds the attraction of a holiday is that it can often make use of ordinary resources, although there is need for special support and careful planning. The needs of other children in the family must not he overlooked. They

771
need a break from the obvious pressures that they will suffer, no matter how much everyone tries to minimise them.
SENSE also arranges holidays. In both cases volunteers, who are well prepared, are happy and willing to give their time to help with the holidays. We should all be truly grateful to these caring and kindly volunteers who give their time so willingly. I am sure that we all recognise the reluctance of many carers to agree that short-term respite care is advisable. There is also the question of the person being cared for not wanting their carer to leave them and showing reluctance to agree to go away even for short periods. This does in some cases create quite a problem and makes the carer feel even more guilty. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness the Minister has to say. Meanwhile, I wish the Bill every success.
10 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I must first apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place at the start of the Second Reading of the Bill. The hour is late and I will not detain your Lordships. My noble kinswoman Lady Darcy (de Knayth) has given an excellent and eloquent account of REFRESH. There is, for example, a particularly disadvantaged section of disability: the quadraplegic responauts, by the very nature of their equipment, immobility and high technology, have a very limited number of places where they can be; very often, it cannot even be at home.
Among this section I know of several distressing cases where the spouse has been unable to take respite so the sufferer not only has his or her disability but also the breakdown of the family. For such people somewhere like Netley is absolutely indispensable. Here is a place which is fully equipped. It has all the breathing apparatus and technology to take the sufferer. It is not alone in having the flexibility to have the carer cared for and friends and relatives as well. As regards Netley, it is happy coincidence that it shares its premises with Winged Fellowship, which is a centre of excellence if ever there was one.
This is an example of the voluntary sector marrying up with the public sector. We need more of these centres for this class of disability. I very much support this Bill. I hope that it will have the effect of bringing into line less conscientious authorities, to which reference has been made by several noble Lords. The Bill will have the effect of enhancing what can only be described as a partnership between carer and cared for, and improving the standard for which we all look. I very much hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when winding up there are two things which one begins to dread. In conversation with a friend I predicted that both would happen as regards this Bill. The first is that one would have absolutely nothing original to add to the debate and the second is that any anecdote that one intended to use had already been used or had been made totally superfluous by earlier speakers.
772
Both those things have happened today. For once, I do not mind very much for the very simple reason that it all had to be said, and said often. We are dealing with something which goes to the basis of economic and human dignity. Economically, the carer, the family, the family support unit, the partner, the child and the parent are vitally important to ensure that people get the correct, loving care they deserve if they have a disability.
The second factor is that these people save us vast amounts of money. In purely economic terms, it would be insanity for the Government not to support this very well drafted Bill. When one can read through a Bill and know exactly what it means and the terms it is using, that is a very well drafted Bill. Legal experts may disagree with me on that but I suggest that we should disagree with the legal experts in that case.
We need this Bill. It gives us exactly what we want. It provides us with the opportunity to keep a caring efficient system in operation, a system which the Government do not have to invent or create. They merely give maintenance to a system. In terms of looking after the public purse, it provides for exactly what we have heard for years from the Government Benches; namely, that we must not waste public money. I shall not repeat the figures but it costs very much less to provide the appropriate breaks and respite, and to make sure that we have sufficient units to provide the care, if nothing else, than it does to place people in institutions. I am sure no one can argue with that.
We know through experience in other fields—for example, the field of educational needs—that unless one says, "You shall do this", it will not happen across the board. Even when one does say that, it takes a long time before anything like an appropriate system is in place. I am afraid that that is a sad fact. Such measures have to be pushed through. Decisions might be made which give a low priority to such matters or take into account prior commitments. Unless a legal requirement is made to drive through this kind of measure, it is not realised. So we have a situation in which there is an economic imperative to give that type of support and it will not take place unless someone drives it forward.
There is a more appropriate subject and another way of looking at the matter; namely, the human level. On that level such support and care is absolutely essential, for the simple reason that a quality of life is given to the carers and in many cases to those they care for. If one person is utterly dependent on another, and that other person is locked into a situation where he (or she) cannot get away, it results in very unhealthy interaction between them. When all is said and done, man is a social animal. We need other people around us to function properly, if nothing else. Surely it is not healthy at any level for two people to be so close and dependent on each other.
There is a depressing number of cases in which people who find themselves in positions of care end up, through frustration, as abusers. That might be an extreme form of reaction but certainly it can arise in a situation where conversation becomes utterly monosyllabic, is not designed to meet a need and there

773
is no interaction. When one person cannot go out, the carer and the person for whom they are caring are tied in together. Surely the Government should do their best to address such a situation. Allowing people to have an occasional weekend for themselves, or even an afternoon or an occasional two week holiday, is vitally important for the health and well being of both carer and cared for.
Stress and overwork are regarded as damaging to health, and are probably just as deadly as cigarettes. Stress probably kills as many people and puts as great a stress on the heart as the demon weed. We must allow a break from such stresses. We must stop people being pushed into a very bad environment. Surely we can give our wholehearted support to the Bill.
Every speaker so far in the debate has supported the Bill. I support it and my party supports it. Indeed in Section 6.2.4 of one of our policy documents entitled A Caring Society there are headings: "Access to information", "Support and respite care" and "Partnership". We support those measures. I very much hope and expect that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, will say that her party gives a similar commitment. I invite the Government—though I should be even more grateful to hear something more tangible tonight—to join in and do something about the situation. I hope that the Government will say that this is a measure that they must support. It is necessary because, with the best will in the world and all the legal support at present available, such provision is not guaranteed and is not a right.
As many noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have said, unless one has a right and people are told that it is something to which one is entitled, it will not be obtained. Indeed, unfortunately, there will still be people, I suspect, who think that they can carry on by themselves and stoically drive themselves into the ground. I invite the Government to support this measure not only because it is just but because it will save them money. What more could anybody conceivably want?
10.10 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for introducing this short but significant Bill. I apologise profusely to him—and indeed to other Members of your Lordships' House—for not being in my place when he began his remarks. I am afraid that I underestimated the time when what might be called the third House would begin tonight. I am also sorry that the noble Lord has drawn the short straw on timing. I am sure that had we been considering this Bill earlier in the day he would have been supported, not only by the authoritative and interesting speeches that have been made from every corner of your Lordships' House, but by a large number of people. After all, this is a central issue for anyone who is involved in any type of care for another person. Many of your Lordships' debates on issues as diverse as mental health, childcare, the young disabled and frail elderly people often include discussion of the need for respite care, or short-term breaks as they are now called.
774
As is customary with a Private Members' Bill, this evening I speak from the Front Bench in a personal capacity. However, we on these Benches very much welcome the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. We believe that the Bill usefully complements and extends the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 which was introduced in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Carter and in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Wicks.
With hindsight, I agree with my noble friend Baroness Dean that perhaps the provision for short-term breaks should have been explicitly included in that earlier Act. Neither the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 nor the earlier disabled persons Act includes entitlement to receive particular services. Needs must now be statutorily assessed, but services to meet those needs are provided only at the discretion of each local authority. Importantly, as has been pointed out by many noble Lords who have spoken tonight, sometimes services that are available are not adequately publicised. However, under the new proposal the assessor must ask whether short-terms breaks are needed, required or wished for by the carer or the cared for.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and many other noble Lords who have spoken tonight have painted a graphic and moving picture of why the need for this particular service is so great and well established. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to the survey of the Carers National Association. Although I recognise the concern of the .noble Lord, Lord Addington, about repeating points made earlier in the evening, I believe that the points revealed by that survey bear repetition. The survey showed that although 73 per cent. of carers had occasional breaks 62 per cent. of those regular breaks lasted for only half a day or less, and 20 per cent. of those who were caring never had a break at all.
My noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest pointed out the ways in which patchy provision in different parts of the country made carers' lives very difficult, depending on where they lived. That point was also drawn out by the examples provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The situation may often be worse where people live in rural areas and local help may be difficult to find and families and friends may be separated by long distances. I, and I am sure other Members of your Lordships' House, well remember the disturbing survey by the National Federation of Women's Institutes that we debated about two years ago. It revealed that among their members living in the countryside fewer than half the carers had even an occasional one week break from their caring roles.
The Kent Association for Respite Care has identified the main reasons why people need short-term breaks. They include such obvious factors as needing a break from each other for both the carer and the cared-for; getting out of the house; having a holiday; having an opportunity to try something new or to meet new people and having an opportunity to unwind and to pursue new interests. Each of those needs could be fulfilled in the different ways mentioned by noble Lords. Noble Lords have referred to traditional residential respite care. Sitting services at home have also been discussed, as

775
has the provision of overnight care one night a week for a disabled child or an elderly person. There is also the much longed for two week annual holiday. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, all of those can work towards a more ordinary life for both the carer and the cared-for.
I look forward to hearing how the Government will respond to the calculation of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that the Bill will save public money. We usually assume that there are bound to be resource constraints on any new services. Noble Lords who took part in our deliberations on the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill will remember that those who spoke from these Benches were concerned throughout that the assessments offered would not become empty promises because local authorities could not afford to fund the provision properly. It was generally agreed that in those circumstances there would be the worst of all situations because false expectations would be raised, which would be a cruel irony for the vulnerable people concerned. The same problems concern us with this Bill. It is a particular problem today when local authority budgets are under such unprecedented stress.
My noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest referred to the important and useful survey last year by the Scope organisation. One of its more significant findings was that it recorded that where hard-pressed local social services departments found that conscientious informal carers were in place, they were inclined to withdraw statutory services—and certainly not to extend them. It seems that however optimistic the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is being in his financial calculations, additional burdens might be placed on local authorities if the Bill becomes law as it stands. It seems to me that without additional central funding local authorities might well seek to marginalise their commitment to carers and those for whom they care, thus making the provision somewhat inadequate in their recognition of the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.
However, I do not believe that we should accept that all of the suggestions that have been made tonight about the ways in which people could be helped to achieve short-term breaks would incur vast financial implications. It is also true that many of the simple measures that have been proposed this evening could be achieved as easily by good management and good administration as by large sums of money.
Having raised perhaps somewhat pessimistically the resources caveat, I should nonetheless like to conclude by re-emphasising the crucial importance of these proposals and our welcome for them. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, in his introduction, my noble friend Lady Dean, and others have recounted the enthusiasm among many of the voluntary organisations working in this area for these measures. I echo that from my personal experience. My most recent example was attending the annual general meeting of the Parkinsons Disease Society earlier this week where senior officials said that their highest priority for their members and for the organisation was to achieve better short-term breaks.
The Bill could add significantly to the existing legislation in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, every speaker this evening has
776
supported the Bill. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will follow suit. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Ashley trenchantly dismissed the possibility of opposition from the Government Front Bench. After all, the aim of the Bill is to achieve the extraordinary in making the lives of carers, their cared-for and their families more ordinary. That is a very important goal. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer the noble Lord, Lord Rix, government help and assistance in ensuring that his Bill rapidly reaches the statute book.
10.20 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on his industry in introducing the Bill. That is entirely consistent with the concern that he has always shown for the interests of the disabled. I thank all noble Lords for their excellent and thoughtful contributions to tonight's debate.
I am pleased that there is support for the principle of community care and recognition of the successes which have been achieved. That has been shown by our monitoring and has been confirmed by the independent Audit Commission. I am grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for acknowledging some of our successes. During the past few years, local authorities have made great strides, as my noble friend Lady Gardner said, but we know that more needs to be done. Our community care development programme, "Building Partnerships for Success", addresses that. Its primary theme is improving outcomes for users and carers. That means improving assessments, services and provisions. Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that is apparently necessary in many areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, bringing standards up to those of the best is essential everywhere.
None of us here today can doubt the value of short-term breaks for the carers of disabled people and the parents of disabled children. Many of us here either are or have been carers or know someone who has caring responsibilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said, caring for a disabled person can have an impact on the whole family. I know that only too well because for the last 10 years of my father's life he suffered from Alzheimer's disease. He moved in to live with my husband and myself, as did my mother. The strain upon my mother, my sister and myself cannot be measured, in particular as we saw someone whom we loved dearly suffering in such a way.
Often those responsibilities are taken on willingly; but, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen reminded us, they can create stress and tension, especially when the need continues over a long period, often for many years. It is vital that both the disabled person and the carer receive the type of support that they need. I agree with the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, that often carers themselves undervalue the work that they do.
It is also vital that carers and parents are reassured that the short-term break provides care of a high standard and promotes the wellbeing of the people for whom they care. They need to be certain that the person not only enjoys the break and returns happy but perhaps

777
also benefits from experiencing the stimulation of a different environment. That reflects a most important principle that a short-term break must be of value both to the disabled person and to the carer.
As far back as 1987 the Social Services Inspectorate reported in Care for a Change? on an inspection of short-term care and emphasised the potential of providing a more effective service for the disabled person. That was later enshrined in guidance on standards for short-term breaks issued by the Social Services Inspectorate in 1993. The guidance underlines the importance of making sure that the short-term break is part of a total plan of care to help the individual and that in particular the change of carer is handled sensitively.
The Scottish Office has recently issued guidance which seeks to assist in the planning and provision of respite care services and to encourage local agencies to work together with other providers to develop new and flexible models of care which meet the needs of both users and carers. A local authority circular in 1992 on social care for adults with learning disabilities refers specifically to short-term care.
Local authorities have responded positively to the need to develop good quality respite care. Sunderland Council, for example, has replaced a large hostel with two new facilities to provide active, holiday breaks for adults with learning disabilities. One is a seafront hotel which has been refurbished with ensuite facilities. Guests enjoy an active week based on their individual needs which might include day trips and social events. Some more active weeks are specifically provided for 18–26 year olds. There is also a country bungalow which is run on the same basis for people with more complex, multiple disabilities.
The voluntary sector has contributed many valuable initiatives. Penumbra Respite Care provides guest house accommodation with appropriate support for people with mental health problems.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen has drawn our attention to an important fact: where carers receive the support that they need, they are better able to continue caring. Support for carers is a key aim of our community care reforms. Local authorities are aware that a failure to support carers often results in a breakdown of the caring relationship, resulting in a disabled person having to move to expensive residential accommodation.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, suggested that respite care services should be available free of charge. The legislation requires that the charges levied must be reasonable. The person concerned can make representations if he finds the costs difficult to meet.
The Government have recognised, through additional funds, the importance of respite care. An extra £20 million in 1994–95, rising to £30 million in 1995–96, has been made available for respite and day care as part of community care funding, and 97 per cent. of authorities have reported to us that they are able to offer better support for carers.
778
We have also funded a range of initiatives which are of value to those working in the field. This includes the funding of a research study into respite care services for confused, elderly people which was published in 1994 as Better for the Break.
En November 1995 my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health opened a conference at which the Council for Disabled Children launched a report called Positive Choices. This document, funded by the Social Services Inspectorate, is a summary of what service providers need to know in order to improve respite care services for children.
We have supported the development of family-based short-term care through funding to Shared Care UK, and most recently funded it to produce Stronger Links—A guide to good practice for children's family based short-term care services.
Therefore, the Government have paid particular attention to the need to develop opportunities for short-term breaks. For what can be more valuable to carers than to know that while they are getting a much needed break, the people for whom they care are being properly cared for and happy? No one can answer this question better of course than carers themselves. There have been many examples of how much the carers have benefited from the relief of having time exclusively for themselves, knowing that all is well with those they normally care for.
There are cases when some domestic emergency occurs such as when a pipe bursts followed by a period when emergency care is needed. There are some schemes where a carer can ring direct for a stay of one to four days—and for longer stays something can be arranged by a social worker.
People need to know that help is available when they need it and how to get hold of it. I so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who all raised that point in their speeches. They also like to have some control. One authority which I heard about had allocated a respite care bed to a local carers group. They then arranged between themselves who should use it and when. Planning is also important. Some disabled people find it very helpful to be able to book breaks throughout the year and then reserve a place in a residential care home for a fixed period of time on a regular basis. For older people coping on their own with, for example, the effects of severe arthritis, a regular break where they are looked after and can rest or relax can be of enormous value.
Of course, needs vary and, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen pointed out—as indeed did the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde—what suits one person will not necessarily suit another. Short-term breaks have to be provided in a variety of ways. I have been struck by the variety already available, the imagination with which some services have been developed and the way in which disabled people and their carers have been involved in planning. I thank my noble friend Lord Bridgeman for drawing my attention to such an innovative scheme. I fully agree that the

779
voluntary sector, in co-operation with health and local authorities, has an important role in providing short-term breaks.
Short-term care in families is tremendously valued. The idea is that the family with a disabled adult or child is linked to a family which has been assessed as appropriate to provide short-term "foster type" care and is paid by the local authority do so. Time spent matching families with people using the service, and careful preparation of both, seems to pay off. Carers praise this sort of care. Such schemes tend to be those most favoured by parents of disabled children. An example of this can be found in Tower Hamlets where Barnardos runs a "Families Together" project which offers family-based respite care. It is widely used by all the different ethnic and cultural groups in Tower Hamlets and is seen as accessible, culturally acceptable and consumer friendly.
Sitting services provided in the home can also be of enormous assistance. Crossroads Caring for Carers provides valuable sitting services in many areas of the country. It is also encouraging to see the development in some places of night sitting services which can enable carers to go to the cinema, visit friends, go out for a meal or just get a good night's sleep. A mobile respite care service run by the paediatric community nursing service in Nottingham provides a 24-hour bookable and emergency respite care service in their own homes for families who have a child with a life-threatening or life-limiting disease.
I have mentioned a few examples of good services. However, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, when he says that local authorities will not provide respite services unless they have a mandatory obligation to do so. Of course we know that the right kinds of services are not available everywhere which is why we have taken, and will continue to take, steps to encourage the development of good quality, flexible short-term breaks. However, this is a matter of practice, service development and provision. For, worthy though the intention of the Bill certainly is, the Government do not believe that it is the right way to improve the provision.
In the case of both community care and children's services, access to those services is through assessment. That is underpinned by a complex framework of legislation which includes the Children Act 1989 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. The question of assessment for carers is covered in the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, which came into operation less than three weeks ago on 1st April 1996.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about guidance on assessment. The Department of Health issued a policy and practice guidance on assessment in preparation for the community care reforms. This makes absolutely clear that assessment must be needs-led, involve both the user and the carer, and promote individual choice and self-determination. It emphasises the need for flexibility and for sensitivity.
780
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about resources for the carers' Act. The Carers (Recognition and Services) Act enshrines in legislation what is already existing good practice. As good practice there should be no significant cost to an authority which has been following this good practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, asked why the carers' Act does not give a right to services. This Act has placed on the statute book what is already good practice which the authorities should be following. It reflects the fact that carers are best supported by the provision of services to the person they care for. It would be confusing and indeed wasteful to create a raft of new services for carers which essentially duplicate the services already there for the users. The challenge to authorities in implementing the Act is to listen to what carers have to say about assessment and improve practice without increasing bureaucracy.
My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever said that he was attracted to the idea of mandatory respite care. However, authorities already have comprehensive powers to arrange for short-term breaks under existing legislation. Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 imposes a duty in certain circumstances to arrange services, including the provision of practical assistance in the home and arrangements to help the disabled person take holidays.
Powers to provide breaks in a residential setting are to be found in the National Assistance Act 1948 in respect of adults, and in the Children Act 1989 in respect of children. A disabled child is a child in need for the purposes of the Children Act, triggering a duty on the part of the local authority to provide services for the child and his or her family. A specific power is given to authorities to meet this duty by means of assisting the child and their family to have a holiday.
We believe that this Bill would be contrary to the ethos of both community care and children's legislation. This seeks to encourage a holistic and comprehensive approach to assessment which is needs driven not services-led. By identifying a particular service and requiring assessment to identify the need for the service the assessment process is likely to become service driven again, undermining important principles in the community care reforms and the Children Act. Those principles are of flexibility, tailoring the services to individual needs and not to a rigid pre-set menu. And why an assessment for just this service? Why not for other services? Obviously an assessment which fully considers a person's problems and circumstances will take account of the need for a short-term break.
Furthermore the Bill is confusing. It is not clear who is doing the assessment. Phrases such as "health and social needs" have no meaning in terms of the cited legislation. There are also problems with the Scottish legislation cited and the attempt to apply the Bill to Northern Ireland. To introduce yet another assessment is an overly bureaucratic and expensive response to what is essentially a question of good practice. The Bill is therefore likely to he confusing to practitioners and so will not improve the services provided.

781
The Government have shown their commitment to carers by their support of the carers Act and their responsiveness to service users to have greater control over their lives by the introduction of the direct payment Bill. After only 17 days in force we have yet to see the impact of the 1995 carers Act or the implementation of continuing care guidance which addresses the question of health service responsibilities for respite care.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, raised the question of non-implementation of the 1986 Act. Most of the major provisions of the Act have now been implemented bringing substantial benefits to disabled people and their carers. The requirements of the non-implemented sections of the Act are now to a large extent reflected in the new arrangements.
At times of change and development we do not wish to place additional administrative burdens on local authorities which, frankly, will not have the effect of improving services. The Government know how important respite is. We know that it can really enhance the life of the disabled person and their carer. The Department of Health through guidance and development work recognises this. Legislation already exists for assessment and service provision. The Bill, as I have said, runs contrary to the philosophy of community care and children's legislation.
We do not believe that this legislation is necessary to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is asking for, and, having listened to all noble Lords, what we all hope and believe will come. We believe that the existing framework will undoubtedly work.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, introducing a new Bill into this House reminds me of presenting the first night of a new play at the other end of Whitehall—which certainly achieved more laughs than this evening. It reminds me of theatrical terms in other ways. I am now in what is known as my fifth side-splitting year in your Lordships' House. I have attended many debates, in particular on disability; and in that time I have never heard such unanimity expressed from all sides of the House on a simple Bill. We have had 12 star performances, if I may so say, excluding my own, from all sides of the House. The 13th performance, regrettably that of the Minister, began like a star performance. Indeed, when she told the story of her own parents, one began to hope that this reflected the Government's response to the Bill: that the obvious need for carers to have short-term breaks be written into legislation.
782
However, regrettably the script was written otherwise, and composed by people who have been taking lessons from the great comic performance of the evening—that of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. He listed exactly the contra-indications given by the Minister as to why the Bill should not be accepted. Possible excuses he gave were these: it was unnecessary; it was bureaucratic; it was badly drafted; it was too costly; there was no need; guidance, and so on, had already been given to all local authorities through various Acts; it was contrary to the ethos of community care and it would become service-driven as opposed to needs-driven, etc. All that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, earlier in the evening. Word for word, those excuses came from the Minister at the end of the debate.
I find it extraordinary and unacceptable that that should be put forward by the Government as a reasoned excuse. I can only hope that the Bill will now be read a second time and that the Government will have the good grace to go away, read Hansard and look at the many varied reasons given as to why the Bill is necessary and the many opportunities which it would make available to people. We know that there are many schemes around the country; we have all said so. We want to ensure that the schemes are made obligatory for carers and people who are disabled and cared for.
I trust that the Government will have a change of heart before the Committee stage, if the Bill succeeds in obtaining a Second Reading, and will come forward with amendments to the bad drafting that they indicate, or something similar, but otherwise accept the Bill. Without further ado, I repeat the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. She said that the Bill seeks to give ordinary people with special needs and special responsibilities more ordinary lives. I should have thought that that was a perfectly reasonable demand or request to the Government. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and ask that the House give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ADAS: Future Structure
  ADAS: Future Structure
  Debates: Ministerial Replies
  Debates: Ministerial Replies
  Negelle Borana: Visit by EC Food Aid Monitor
  Negelle Borana: Visit by EC Food Aid Monitor
  International Criminal Court: Draft Statute
  International Criminal Court: Draft Statute
  European Court of Human Rights: Powers
  European Court of Human Rights: Powers
  Brazil and Indian Land Protection
  Brazil and Indian Land Protection
  OSCE-US: Military Information
  OSCE-US: Military Information
  Juveniles in Secure Units
  Juveniles in Secure Units
  Outer Space: Control of Weaponry
  Outer Space: Control of Weaponry
  The Army: Apprentice Training
  The Army: Apprentice Training
  'Sea Empress' Grounding: Inquiry
  'Sea Empress' Grounding: Inquiry
  Colchester Young Offender Institution
  Colchester Young Offender Institution
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Paymaster Agency: Review
  Paymaster Agency: Review
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Lloyd's Underwriters: Tax Payments and Refunds
  Lloyd's Underwriters: Tax Payments and Refunds