Sitting of 2 December 1991

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

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total funding for each individual TEC in Wales for 1990–91; and what is the total individual funding for 1991–92.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): As the answer contains a lot of figures, I will, with permission Mr. Speaker, arrange for them to be printed in the Official Report. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there was a substantial increase in funding for each training and enterprise council this year on the year before.
    Mr. Powell: We usually get the figures in the replies to questions. It is difficult to question the Minister when we have not been given the figures. Most people in Wales are sick and tired of the glossy brochures that confuse the issue of training in Wales and TECs. Is the Minister aware that since CATO closed in my constituency, 230 training places remain to be filled and 35 trainers have yet to find jobs? That is the position with TECs in Mid Glamorgan. The whole of the Principality—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question please.
    Mr. Powell: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, but this question covers a wide subject.
    In March, an inquiry was called for into the case of manager Dereck Jones, who took away property belonging to Llynfi workshop. I demand a reply from the Minister about my request for an inquiry into the financial ramifications for Mid Glamorgan TECs.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I told the hon. Gentleman that each TEC had received an increase in funding. Mid Glamorgan received an increase from £14·9 million in 1990–91 to £21·1 million in 1991–92. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the strategy document and for giving it publicity in the Chamber. That document is important, as every hon. Member concerned with training in Wales is fully aware. I am sorry that CATO, of which the hon. Gentleman was chairman, failed to achieve approved training organisation status, but he must not keep on digging and hitting at the Mid Glamorgan TECs on that account. That is small-minded of him.
    Mr. Grist: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome the transfer next April to his Department of the responsibility for training and TECs, and I hope that that will mean a better-focused and relevant service for his and my constituents.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am absolutely certain that that is what it will mean. The transfer of responsibility for training to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, makes a great deal of sense. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will combine that responsibility with responsibility for education in schools and, we hope, in due course for further and higher education. He has set up a special unit to deal with the transfer.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Has not the right hon. Gentleman cut funding for training and cut training places for unemployed and young people? Has not he in effect created a hostile climate for companies such as Hoover and British Aerospace, which have had to slash their

    3
    apprenticeships? A modern, productive and competitive economy for Wales would be unattainable under the right hon. Gentleman's policies.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly have listened to the reply that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). The amount available to all the TECs in Wales increased from £49·1 million to £117·1 million this year. I dare say that there will be an increase next year. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an extra £11 million has been devoted to employment training this year. We are taking all possible steps to ensure that we have a well-trained and well-educated work force for the future.
    The total funding for each TEC in Wales is shown in the following table:

    TEC

    Operational Start Dates

    1990–91

    1991–92

    £ million

    £ million

    Mid Glamorgan

    23 July 1990

    14·9

    21·1

    West Wales

    23 July 1990

    20·4

    31·5

    North East Wales

    17 September 1990

    6·2

    13·6

    North West Wales

    4 February 1991

    1·8

    13·6

    South Glamorgan

    4 February 1991

    3·4

    14·1

    Gwent

    4 February 1991

    2·4

    18·4

    Powys

    2 April 1991

    Nil

    4·8

    Note: It should be borne in mind that the 1990–91 budgets are for the period of TEC operation only and vary in the periods they cover because TECs became operational at differing times.

    Ambulance Service
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to change the organisation of the ambulance service in Wales; and whether he will make it his policy that the service should continue to be organised on a county or health authority basis.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): We are considering whether reform of the ambulance and patient transport services in Wales may lead to a more cost-effective service, greater efficiency and, therefore, better patient care.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Minister end the secrecy surrounding that consideration and tell us his view of the Powys, Gwent and South Glamorgan combination, which is like a giant, inverted reverse question mark around the deprived county of Mid Glamorgan? Is he aware that the only reason for their proposals that has been given by the managers of those three ambulance services is that that combination would protect their market share? Will the Minister give up the nonsense about a market in care and a market in accidents? Does he accept that people in every part of Wales want an efficient local service and want to be treated as patients, not as pieces of a market share?
    Mr. Bennett: We have not yet received the application to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If it is received, we shall give it careful consideration and there will, of course, be wide public consultation on it. We shall not approve any applications for changes in the ambulance and patient transport services that are not in the best interests of patients throughout Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that rather than taking a dogmatic approach, and in the interests of improving the service, it would be better to
    4
    wait to see what proposals are produced by the professionals—those who run and really know about the ambulance service?
    Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is important that we wait to see the contents of any application and plan. I can assure the House that we shall not allow any application to go forward for consideration if it does not provide for real improvements in the way in which patients are treated in the ambulance and patient transport services. Any application that is allowed to go forward for public consideration will be subject to full consultation.
    Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister agree that, as presently constituted, Powys ambulance service gives a superb service in a very rural area? Is he aware that Powys health authority is opposed to the amalgamation of the Powys ambulance service with those of South Glamorgan and Gwent? Does he agree that that would be an unacceptable combination?
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on that—[HON. MEMBERS: "We do."]—because, as I have said, we must wait for the application to come forward.—[Interruption.] The problem with the Opposition is that they do not want proper consultation and consideration.
    Mr. Michael: The Minister is running away from the issue.
    Mr. Bennett: The application has not yet come forward —[Interruption.] I cannot be running away from something that has not yet happened. As I have said, the application has not yet come forward, but when it does, it will be carefully considered and if it seems to have—[Interruption.] I cannot have an opinion on something that I have not yet seen. The Opposition do not want to wait for careful, mature consideration. We shall await the proposals and, when they come forward, we shall consider whether they are in a form that enables them to be put forward for public consultation. Obviously, we shall carefully weigh the views of Powys health authority in any consideration.

    Women Patients
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost to the national health service in Wales of treating women suffering from strokes, osteoporosis and senility; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The treatments to which my hon. Friend refers are specialist treatments and information on them is not kept at Welsh Office level.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would he like me to give him the bad news first, which is that more women in Wales are killed or severely disabled by those complaints than by all other medical complaints put together? However, the good news is that those complaints are preventable by the use of hormone replacement therapy. That medical treatment is available in two hospitals in Wales, but they operate on only two days a week. Does my hon. Friend agree that the half a million or more women in Wales should be able to receive specialist menopause care in more hospitals? May I look

    5
    forward to my hon. Friend's Department investigating this matter with a view to improving the level of those facilities?
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Hormone replacement therapy is available on prescription on the clinical judgment of the general practitioner or consultant concerned. It must be for the patient and her GP or consultant to look at the advantages and disadvantages of HRT. It is not a matter on which Ministers should proclaim a view one way or the other. Nevertheless, HRT is available on prescription to women who require it.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Minister aware that two of the illnesses that are mentioned in the main question, strokes and senility, are part of the aging processes? However good the acute services and whatever the life expectancy, will not there always be a need for hospitals to deal with such illnesses among the chronically sick elderly? In those circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider East Dyfed health authority's proposals to close the Mynyddmawr hospital in my constituency, which provides proper care for women and men who suffer from such illnesses?
    Mr. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on a matter that is the subject of consultation—[Interruption.] I do not comment on matters that are out for public consultation because at the end of the day I shall have to take a decision, and there is no point in doing so before the public have been consulted. I am sorry that some Labour Members do not appreciate that. Under the community care arrangements that come into effect on 1 April 1993, we want more people to be treated in their own homes. We want to avoid, as far as possible, institutionalising people by sending them into hospital. We want them to be treated in a caring environment in their own home. However, there will always remain a need for hospitals and it is for the health authorities in each district to make sure that such accommodation is available.

    Housing
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give figures of housing starts in Clwyd and Wales by (a) councils, (b) housing associations and (c) private developers for 1978 and for 1990.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Daavid Hunt): In 1978 total housing starts in Wales amounted to 12,351. In 1990 there were 10,183. In Clwyd in 1978, total housing starts were 1,626. That figure rose to 2,078 in 1990. I shall arrange for the other figures to be printed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for those figures. Is he aware that there will be only 48 housing associations starts this year in the whole of Glyndwr, which, as he knows, is a rural area? Does he agree that that is a disgrace, bearing in mind that I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends receive regular visits from people who are desperate for housing in those areas?
    Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman framed his supplementary before he heard the figures that I gave, but they showed that total housing starts in Clwyd
    6
    rose between 1978 and 1990. The basic housing programme in 1979–80 amounted to some £30 million for housing association activity, whereas this year's programme is likely to be worth about £150 million. That is an enormous increase.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Secretary of State bear it in mind that for the homeless it is rented accommodation that counts? Homelessness had risen by 4,500 before a further 2,000 repossessions took place, yet at the same time there has been a decline of 2,300 in the number of houses being built for rent. Does not the Secretary of State realise that much of the problem and the desperation of the homeless in Wales is the direct result of the policies that he is pursuing?
    Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman will he aware of the extremely good document "Housing in Wales: An Agenda for Action", for which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was responsible. On the hon. Gentleman's particular point, he should have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), whom I met only this morning with a delegation from north Wales. I pointed out, for example, that the flats above shops initiative has been extremely successful. There are many other initiatives.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that alongside new housing, it is important to conserve the existing private sector housing stock? In that context, will he say something about the level of renovation grant currently available in Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: That is a particular success story. Total expenditure since 1979 on house renovation in Wales is about £2,000 million. Some 215,000 grants have been made for private sector renovation since 1979. That speaks for itself.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the first six months of this year alone, 1,923 repossession orders were made for homes in Wales? That was an increase of more than 70 per cent. on last year. What advice does the right hon. Gentleman give to the hundreds of families who have had their homes repossessed because of his economic policies? Does not he realise that his glossy brochures do not help to mend the marriages under stress or put right the budgets under stress? Is not it the case that the right hon. Gentleman has no strategy and no policy, but only complacency on housing?
    Mr. Hunt: It is always a matter of great sadness when anyone's home is repossessed, but the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw a veil over what happened in the 1970s, when there were considerable repossessions and when interest rates, if he recalls, reached a much higher level than they are at present. If the hon. Gentleman considers the number of housing starts instead of artificially creating anger, he will realise that the Opposition's record was not very good. Under the last Labour Government there were a number of cuts, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will begin to recognise the progress that has been made under this Government.
    Following is the information:

    7

    Housing starts—Wales

    Total Wales

    Private

    Housing associations

    Local authorities

    1978

    12,351

    7,165

    1,184

    4,002

    1990

    10,183

    7,632

    2,213

    338

    Housing starts—Clwyd

    Total Clwyd

    Private

    Housing associations

    Local authorities

    1978

    1,626

    1,371

    41

    214

    1990

    2,078

    1,597

    375

    106

    In each case housing association starts have increased and housing associations should be congratulated on their achievements.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of the farmers' unions in Wales to discuss reform of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. David Hunt: I last met leaders of the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union on 22 October.
    Mr. Jones: I congratulate the Secretary of State for taking our advice, and that of the farming unions in Wales, to go to Brussels to fight for the interests of Welsh farmers. During his talks with Commissioner Ray MacSharry, did he urge him to raise the limits on which sheep support is payable from 750 in the less-favoured areas and 350 elsewhere to 1,000 and 500 respectively? If he did, what was the Commissioner's reply?
    Mr. Hunt: I certainly made the point that those headage limits were unacceptable and virtually singled out Wales as a target for discrimination. I pointed out that the headage limits affect 15 per cent. of the flock in Wales, whereas they affect only 3 per cent. of the flock throughout the European Community. That sort of discrimination is unacceptable. I am afraid that we shall have to wait for the Commissioner's response, but I made him aware of the strong feelings that exist throughout Wales on that issue. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to air that important subject.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Did the Secretary of State discuss the possibility that something close to Commissioner MacSharry's original proposals are likely to be accepted in the near future by the Council of Ministers? Does he agree that if that is the case, there will be a real drop in the level of income received by Welsh farmers? While I welcome the announcement a couple of weeks ago about two new environmentally sensitive areas, is not it now the case that the only way to protect farm incomes in Wales is to adopt an environmental protection scheme covering the whole of Wales and to pay farmers to look after the countryside?
    Mr. Hunt: I believe that I speak for every hon. Member when I say that we want a reform of the common agricultural policy. However, that must be done in a way that is fair to farmers throughout the Community and does not single out farmers such as those in Wales for discrimination. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the recent announcement that we made. I am sure that some measures that will link the tremendous work that farmers are doing to conserve the countryside
    8
    with reward will come in the reform of the CAP. We must ensure that we reward farmers not only for efficiency, but for what they do in the countryside.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest totals of actual unemployment in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: Unemployment has dropped by more than 1,800 and is down to just over 117,000, if we take the unadjusted figures.
    Mr. Jones: Provided that we can convince them that we are not bent on the same course, are not there excellent prospects for persuading Scottish insurance companies to set up in Wales? Because of their real concerns about the consequences of a Scottish Assembly, they are being forced to consider establishing new bases south of the border. Perhaps he should suggest to the Welsh Development Agency that it sends a mission to Edinburgh.
    Mr. Hunt: I am a little loath to go down the same route with the same conclusion, but my hon. Friend has made an important point which has to be taken into account by all those who plead and argue that we should move towards setting up a Welsh Assembly, overturning the four to one majority against in the last referendum on the issue.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that all the economic forecasts point to an increase in unemployment in the period ahead? Has the Welsh Office made any assessment of what that will mean in terms of repossessions of homes, domestic discord, divorce and so on? Does he think that that should be given more serious consideration than the Welsh Office appears to be giving it?
    Mr. Hunt: I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. He appears to have made a swift recovery from his operation and we are delighted to see him here.
    The distress that the hon. Gentleman described is distress to everybody. However, Wales has a higher level of owner-occupation—about 72 per cent.—than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay tribute to the significant level of inward investment and new job announcements that have occurred in Wales in the recent past.
    Mr. Raffan: What plans is the Welsh Office making in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency and

    9
    British Coal Enterprise, to minimise the impact on. Delyn of the 200 redundancies at Point of Ayr scheduled for the end of 1993?
    Mr. Hunt: I have been concerned about that announcement, and I want further announcements to be made about new projects in and around the area. I have been underground at the Point of Ayr colliery, as my hon. Friend is aware. I believe it to be a remarkably good colliery, and I opened the coal liquefaction plant alongside it. I am pleased to say today that a range of projects has been announced. They are new industrial projects involving investment of more than £25 million, creating more than 500 new jobs and safeguarding about 300 others. Some of those projects are in north Wales, but I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to hear more such announcements.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet Welsh local government leaders to discuss local government finance.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend will meet the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance after he has received the submissions and consultations on the settlement proposals for 1992–93, which are due in by 24 December.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that the council tax, which he is pushing through the House now, will be seen as just as unfair and unrelated to the ability of people to pay as the poll tax? Does he accept that it is so unfair that with all the discounts and bandings, the Government will have to squander another £100 million in precisely the way that they had to squander money to dump the poll tax?
    Mr. Bennett: The last thing that the people of Wales want is to return to the discredited and out-dated rating system, which the hon. Gentleman said some years ago was not supported. Labour now wishes to go back to it. The council tax proposals are eminently fair. There is a special banding for Wales, with special reductions. More than 90 per cent. of all local government expenditure in Wales is provided by central Government or business finance, not by the chargepayer. The Labour party's proposals would mean 14 bands, but we were not told the ratios between the different bands. In other words. Labour Members did not have the guts to tell the people of Wales just what their proposals were.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that local authorities in Wales will need much more capital finance if they are to make inroads into the massive housing shortage for people on the waiting lists in Wales? Is he aware of the representations from a number of Welsh local authorities about the need for a review of housing and planning legislation to make sure that the housing problem is cracked? Will the Government call a conference in Wales to consider those serious issues?
    Mr. Bennett: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of dealing with housing in Wales. My right hon. Friend will shortly be making a statement about capital allocations for local authorities. It must be remembered that the role of local authorities has changed
    10
    from their being the providers to being the enablers. We have put considerable sums of money into Housing for Wales. This year, a record 3,500 properties are under construction. I take seriously and personally the need to tackle the housing problem in Wales, which is why we recently issued "Housing in Wales: An Agenda for Action", the first-ever agenda on housing issued by a Government Department.
    Mr. Edwards: The Minister states that Tai Cymru is building 3,500 homes in Wales next year. However, there are 3,500 people on the waiting list in my constituency alone. Is he aware that those people will never be able to buy, that they cannot afford to rent, and that for them very little is being developed in the council housing sector—indeed, nothing at all—which means that they have little chance of getting into a property developed by Tai Cymru? Does he appreciate that there is a massive housing crisis in Wales, and especially in my constituency?
    Mr. Bennett: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that not enough is being done. We are working hard on the housing problems of Wales. Housing waiting lists are not a good indication of need because they have not been validated. When local authorities have examined their waiting lists, they have found that a large number of people on them have moved or no longer need to be rehoused. That is why housing lists are not an especially good indicator. We are increasing the number of properties available for rent through the housing associations, but we must also consider the total number of properties being built in Wales. Private builders are doing a good job in building new properties for sale and that creates a knock-on effect on rented accommodation.
    Through our policies, for instance those on rented accommodation, we now provide a special allocation for the flats above shops initiative. If the hon. Gentleman takes a walk down any high street he will see how that policy is working through into the provision of new housing.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning his inward investment mission to Japan, Australia and the United States of America.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend has frequent meetings with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss a range of matters, including inward investment.
    Mr. Morgan: I thank the Minister of State for his somewhat opaque reply. Will he be a little more precise? Has he discussed the value for money which the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency thinks he got out of the £28,000 worth of taxpayers' money that was spent on the recent mission, which finished on 17 November? That mission involved two executives of the agency travelling around the world, including the chairman, and Mr. Shimon Cohen from Lowe Bell—the most expensive bag carrier in history, whose participation in the trip cost £7,500 and who has no specialised knowledge of industrial development. What proposals does the Minister have to

    11
    obtain greater value for money from such round-the-world missions, particularly as the second half of this one was cancelled?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am surprised to hear such talk from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. He should realise that one cannot judge the value of an inward investment mission immediately afterwards. It often takes years before the results can be fully quantified. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman speak on this subject and he has made many mistakes in his statements and allegations of impropriety. He gives me the impression of being like Dennis the Menace's dog, Gnasher, who goes for anyone's ankles. My more refined hon. Friends may wish to compare him with Bildad the Shuhite, who was one of Job's most cruel comforters.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The purpose of the mission's visit abroad was obviously to obtain more jobs in Wales. Does the Minister realise that, although my constituency is one of the wealthier Welsh constituencies, 17 people are looking for jobs for each vacancy listed in unemployment centres there? Does the Minister expect that in the next six months there will be fewer or even more people looking for jobs?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman represents Bridgend which, with Sony, has one of the most attractive inward investments in Wales. He will know that we have had a record number of inward investment projects. There were 142 last year and 165 up to October this year. There were 69 overseas projects in 1990–91 and this year there have already been 59. Those 69 overseas projects were secured with the promise of 8,500 jobs and the 59 projects promised 9,000 jobs. As the hon. Gentleman heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, unemployment fell last month, so on unemployment, we look forward optimistically to the future.

    Rail-Bus Services
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the improvement of co-ordination with bus services in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: I understand that British Rail is discussing with county councils better ways of coordinating bus services.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that because of a dispute between British Rail and the Crosville bus company, for months there has been no shelter from the weather for bus passengers waiting at Rhyl station? Does he agree that this long-running and silly dispute reflects extremely badly on the Crosville bus company, which seems to think that it has no responsibility whatever for the well-being of its passengers, but, above all, reflects badly on Sir Bob Reid, who, as chairman of a great nationalised corporation, seems quite content to sit back, let matters take their course and let passengers go to hell?
    Mr. Hunt: Thanks to my hon. Friend, I am aware of the position at Rhyl and am very concerned about it. I shall certainly bring what he has said directly to the attention of Sir Robert Reid.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Secretary of State worried about the number of mergers and amalgamations affecting bus
    12
    services in Wales and about the reduction in service in the evenings and on Sundays? Now that we have had sufficient experience of the workings of deregulation, is not it time for the Government to have an inquiry into how some claims are not being met?
    Mr. Hunt: The statistics show that the whole privatisation move has been a remarkable success. Between 1985–86 and 1990–91, local bus mileage rose by 29 per cent. in Wales, compared with the Great Britain average increase of 18 per cent. We have done remarkably well.

    Employment, Cardiganshire
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to visit Aberporth, Cardiganshire during the next few months to discuss employment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend currently has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Howells: The Minister will be well aware that west Wales will have an unemployment black spot in the next four to five years due to the possible closure of Brawdy in his constituency and Trecwn in mine and the problems facing Aberporth. Does he have a glimmer of hope for people who are worried about their jobs?
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is right. As a Minister and as a Member of Parliament for west Wales, I am concerned about the future of defence-related industries. I can give the hon. Gentleman a glimmer of hope about the defence research agency at Aberporth. I understand from the Ministry of Defence that there is no intention to close it and my right hon. Friend and I shall continue to make every representation that we can to enourage others to move into west Wales and create more opportunities for employment.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made with regard to responding to the Welsh Language Board's proposal for a new Welsh Language Act; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Consultations are continuing within Government on the Welsh Language Board's proposals. The proposals are wide ranging and have implications for all branches of the public sector in Wales. My right hon. Friend is anxious that these consultations should be completed as soon as possible so that he can announce a decision. Whatever is decided in relation to legislation will not lessen the need to pursue a wide range of policies in support of the language. I am happy to announce that direct grant support for the language next year will be £7·6 million, a 12 per cent. increase on provision in the current year.
    Mr. Wigley: Does not the Minister realise that consultation on a new Welsh Language Act started five years ago last month and that for over five years we have been waiting for some sign of life from the Welsh Office? Is that an indication of the speed at which the Welsh Office usually moves? Is that the dynamic David and the

    13
    wonderful Wyn making progress on an issue, or is it another example of the Government's dithering on an important issue for Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is misleading himself as well as the House and the country. We have had these proposals in our hands only from the beginning of this year. The Welsh Language Board took a considerable time to work out its proposals and gave them to us at the beginning of the year. Consultations are continuing in government and within the past fortnight there has been an important meeting involving a member of the board, Mr. Winston Roddick, and representatives of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

    "This Common Inheritance"
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been achieved in implementing the White Paper on environmental policy "This Common Inheritance"; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The Government reported on the progress of their environment initiative on 25 September with the publication of "This Common Inheritance: the First Year Report", Cm. 1655. In addition, my right hon. Friend published on that day a report, "The Environment in Wales", on progress in the Principality.
    Dr. Thomas: Does the Minister believe that progress on environmental policy has been made when his Department and the Department of Energy decide to give the go-ahead to an incinerator project which will produce low-level radioactive waste, adding to the already radioactive environment of Trawsfynnydd, without ensuring adequate environmental assessment of that project? The inspector appointed by the Minister's Department to make a recommendation on the project decided that he could not do so because not enough information was available to him.
    Mr. Bennett: All nuclear installations are inspected regularly by the nuclear installations inspectorate and other responsible agencies and our emergency plans are kept under continual review to ensure that they are responsive to changing circumstances. Before the power station can reopen, Nuclear Electric will have to satisfy the safety requirements. That should be a reassurance to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.

    Mortgage Repossessions
    Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next hopes to meet representatives of building societies and banks on the level of mortgage repossessions in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, Mid Glamorgan and Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I met the building societies liaison committee for Wales recently. We maintain regular contact with mortgage lenders in Wales about repossessions and other matters of common interest.
    Mr. Rowlands: Does the Minister realise that in the first nine months of this year, there was an increase of 25 per cent. in repossession orders in Merthyr and Rhymney? Many of the householders affected are not in receipt of income support or any other benefit. Did the Minister put to the building societies any Government proposals to
    14
    safeguard those communities, householders and homes? After all, his policy is partly responsible for the repossession orders.
    Mr. Bennett: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, any repossession is a matter of great tragedy to the family and to society. We can offer those people the hope that, with the reductions in interest rates and in the rate of inflation and with the welcome reduction in unemployment in Wales last month, the economic situation is improving. The way forward is for everybody to work together, including the mortgage lenders and the rest of the people involved in housing in Wales, including Housing for Wales, on finding ways to help people who have lost their homes.

    THE ARTS

      Arts Council
      Mr. Burt: To ask the Minister for the Arts what increases in funding he proposes for the Arts Council in the current financial year.
      The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): As I announced on 7 November, the Arts Council's grant in aid for 1992–93 will rise by 13·9 per cent. to £221·2 million. This is a marvellous settlement, the third record increase in a row. Once again, the Government have demonstrated their firm commitment to the arts.
      Mr. Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread welcome in the north-west for the substantial increase that he has achieved and in particular the increase for the Hallé orchestra, Britain's premier regional orchestra? Can he confirm that that increase in funding to the north-west in general further establishes the reputation of the north-west as the leading centre for arts under this Government?
      Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm support for the settlement and I am delighted to confirm what he said. I have managed to visit the new North West Arts board already and I realise how committed it is to development of the arts in the north-west. I am particularly pleased to learn that the Hallé orchestra will receive an 18 per cent. increase in funding next year. With the appointment to that orchestra of Kent Nagano, one of the most exciting new conductors, it has a great future.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: I congratulate the Minister on providing a substantial increase in funding for the arts. However, will he get the Arts Council to explain more clearly the somewhat arbitrary decisions that it makes? For example, the Royal Philharmonic orchestra has been told that it will not get as much money as it needs because it is not adventurous enough. Could not it get the money first and then, if it was not adventurous enough, the Arts Council could postpone any subsequent increase? It needs to explain its policies rather more clearly to some of us who take these matters seriously.
      Mr. Renton: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman says and I am sure that he takes these matters seriously. So do I and so does the Arts Council. He will appreciate that I do not interfere in individual decisions about the levels of funding to arts organisations, but I understand that the RPO has written to the Arts Council

      15
      about the level of its 1992–93 grant. The Arts Council will respond to all the points that have been made as quickly as it can and will take into account the concern that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed.
      Sir Richard Luce: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend most warmly on the substantial extra resources that he has raised for the arts which will provide a foundation for expansion for the arts in the years ahead? Does he agree, however, that if we look ahead we see several arts requirements in areas in which it is not possible to derive all funding from the taxpayer—for example, the fabric of theatres? Does he agree that the best answer to the problem is to introduce a national lottery?
      Mr. Renton: I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support because it was he, during his long and noteworthy tenure as Minister for the Arts, who introduced two years ago the first of the three major increases—that of 11 per cent. It set us on course for the substantial increase in funding for the Arts Council that we now see. I was delighted to read, in the Financial Times on Saturday, Anthony Thorncroft talking about levels of grant to arts organisations that go well beyond the munificence of the days of Jennie Lee and Lord Goodman. After allowing for inflation, grants are now nearly three times the level of Jennie Lee's. I fully understand my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for a lottery and have some of the same enthusiasm myself. I understand that it is possible that we shall see a private Member's Bill on the subject.
      Mr. Fisher: I welcome the Arts Council settlement and congratulate the Minister. Does he recognise that while he and the Treasury are helping the Arts Council and regional arts boards to give increased grants to arts bodies, the Secretary of State for the Environment has set poll tax levels that will force local authorities to cut their grants to many of precisely the same arts bodies? Does he understand that the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other? Does he support the Secretary of State for the Environment in the policies that will force cuts to be made in local authority grants to arts companies throughout the country?
      Mr. Renton: The shadow Minister for the Arts really should stop using Cassandra as his role model. Cassandra's gloomy prophecies came true while, thankfully, the hon. Gentleman's do not. Local authorities throughout the country—the hon. Gentleman and I have both visited many of them—are determined to continue their arts spending. It is not a large part of their budgets and they realise how successful it is, especially in the context of plural funding. Many other sources help the funding. If local authorities removed their support, the other sources might disappear. I do not believe that many local authorities will follow that course.

      Welsh Arts Council
      Mr. Wigley: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many meetings he has had during the past 12 months with local government representatives from Wales regarding the activities of the Welsh Arts Council.
      Mr. Renton: I visited Wales in May and again in October, when I met a great many people from the arts,
      16
      including representatives of Welsh local authorities. I was warmly welcomed and found the visits stimulating and informative.
      Mr. Wigley: I hope that the visit was productive as well. What progress has been made, in association with local authorities and the Welsh Arts Council, on the provision of the multi-purpose concert hall and opera house in Llandudno, to enable the Welsh National Opera to give performances in that town as it used to do? There are signs that things are moving in the right direction. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this valuable project is going ahead and that there is a date by which it will be open?
      Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I think was his support. I was delighted that on 16 November the Western Mail quoted Tom Owen, the director of the Welsh Arts Council, as follows:
      "The Welsh arts world is in its best conditions for years."
      I know that north Wales lacks a theatre large enough to stage full-scale opera. Work on proposals for a new building involving both public and private sectors is well advanced and I understand that a firm decision is likely to be taken by the end of the month. I very much hope that there will be a successful outcome.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a splendid new theatre in Rhyl, in which the Hallé orchestra gave an outstanding performance last week? Is he aware also that that is the result of sensible co-operation between the local authority, the Welsh Office, the Welsh Arts Council and the European reconstruction and development fund?
      Mr. Renton: I support what my hon. Friend has just said. Successful arts funding—this is where the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was so wrong—depends now on many different sources of funding. That is being shown in the instance to which my hon. Friend referred and it is being demonstrated in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the inconsistency between the increased funding of visual arts in Wales and elsewhere which he has achieved and the deliberate reduction by the Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office of places in higher education for the study of fine art? Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage his colleagues in those two Departments to ensure that fine art places are not cut further?
      Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office—who is sitting beside me—is dedicated to, and very knowledgeable about, the arts and I am sure that he listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments with great care.

      Scottish Arts Council
      Dr. Godman: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council to discuss the provision of financial assistance to theatres and art galleries in the 1990s; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Renton: I met the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council on Thursday last week. We discussed a range of

      17
      issues and he told me how pleased he was about the allocation of £22·1 million in total for the council next year. That is an increase of 13·8 per cent. on last year.
      Dr. Godman: May I, too, express my pleasure at that increase? However, can the Minister explain the contradiction between his introduction to a manual on percentage schemes for the arts published by the Scottish Arts Council last Friday, in which he encouraged public agency support for the arts, and his Department's decision to cancel such a percentage scheme for the new British Library? Will the Minister look again at that decision, because it could have important and disturbing implications for crafts in Scotland? I urge the right hon. Gentleman to change that decision.
      Mr. Renton: I have seen, for example, public art on display in Dundee and I share the hon. Gentleman's view of how important it is in the regeneration of some parts of inner cities. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the British Library, I said that, at this stage in the library's long building programme. I was unable to commit part of the funds that are available to it for the purchase of new works of art. However, I have encouraged the library to go out and seek, for example, sponsorship for new works of art. Alternatively, it will be able to use and to display many of the splendid items in its own collection. When the building programme is further advanced, perhaps we will be able to look again at that question.

      London Arts
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to meet the chairman of the London Arts Board to discuss funding for the arts in London.
      Mr. Renton: I met the chairman and chief executive of the new London Arts Board on 18 November to hear about the excellent progress made in setting up the new board and its plans for the immediate future. Since then, the Arts Council has announced at 13·9 per cent. increase in its grant to the London Arts Board for 1992–93.
      Mr. Hughes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that answer. When he next meets the chairman of the London Arts Board, will he discuss with him the suggestion made by some others that regional arts boards might be abolished? Will my right hon. Friend tell the chairman that the Government support regional arts boards and that he will do everything to fight their abolition? Will my right hon. Friend condemn those who are trying to abolish regional arts boards?
      Mr. Renton: Yes, I will certainly do that. The boards have got off to a very successful start. They have strong chairmen and chairwomen and are now nearly complete. I believe that they will be very successful in using the average 17 per cent. increase that they have been given by the Arts Council. I was most surprised when Labour's shadow spokesman for the arts said during a radio interview, which I shared with him, that under Labour's policy, regional arts boards would disappear. I believe that there was some confusion on the hon. Gentleman's part, but obviously the suggestion has caused great concern among the boards.

    CIVIL SERVICE

      Equal Opportunities
      Mr. Burt: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what is being done to further equal opportunities training in the civil service.
      The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): We take the subject of equal opportunities training very seriously. With that in mind, my Department recently published two equal opportunities training packages and a video. Those will be used by Departments and agencies in a wide range of training programmes.
      Mr. Burt: I am grateful for that answer. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with recent progress in the civil service in giving effect to such measures? Does he agree that those of us who want better representation of all minorities in the civil service believe that that can best be achieved through co-ordination with the education service? Is not it important that people come through naturally and that no special favours are seen to be given, because otherwise those places would be devalued?
      Mr. Renton: To take my hon. Friend's second point first, it is very important that it should be made clear in schools, universities and polytechnics that the civil service and the public sector generally provide a good career for women as well as for men and also for ethnic minorities. It is a career which, with help, they can follow throughout their lives.
      As for my hon. Friend's first point, over the past four years the proportion of women in the top civil service grades has nearly doubled, from 4 per cent. in 1987 to 7·3 per cent. now. That is unsatisfactory; there is a long way to go. However, the civil service is trying very hard to implement equal opportunities.
      Dr. Marek: Is it true that only three of the 53 newly appointed chief executives of executive agencies are women? If it is true, are not the Minister's sentiments and what he says about trying to achieve equality of opportunity for women within the civil service just platitudinous rubbish?
      Mr. Renton: That sounded awfully tough, but the answer is that 41 of the 63 civilian chief executives will be appointed by open competition. One third of all chief executives are from outside the civil service and 11 per cent. are women. Of those 11 per cent., one, the chief executive of the Civil Service college, reports directly to me. When considering those for which I have direct responsibility, that represents one out of three, so in that area at least we are doing extremely well.

      Recruitment
      Mr. Viggers: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the recruitment procedures for the civil service as operated at universities and polytechnics.
      Mr. Renton: We believe strongly in the policy of selection on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. It applies to all applicants, including those from universities and polytechnics.
      Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a bright idea of the head of the civil service to encourage each of his grandees, the permanent secretaries in the different Departments, to establish a link with a separate university? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that that underlines the fact that the civil service offers a fine career to all, regardless of their educational background, since selection and promotion are purely on merit?
      Mr. Renton: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. In recent years the aim has been to spread entry into the civil service. During the past three years the proportion of Oxbridge candidates has dropped from 70 per cent. between 1982 and 1984 to 50 per cent. now. I hope that that trend will continue. As for the heads of the various Departments "adopting a poly", as it came to be called in the newspapers, that is a very imaginative idea, the purpose of which is to make the prospect of a civil service career much more widely known.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Since we are told that a fast stream has been created to enable more graduates to enter the Brussels organisations, why is not it possible for the Minister to create a fast stream and to increase pay rates so as to encourage more women graduates to go into higher-paid civil service jobs?
      Mr. Renton: I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that women are particularly successful in the fast stream competition. That is one area where their prominence is—
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Why not for the home civil service?
      Mr. Renton: Not just for the European fast stream, but for the domestic fast stream. It is there most particularly that women are getting a high percentage of the jobs and it is they who will be in grade 1 and 2 in future years. That is where women are showing that they can come first past the post.

      Arts Organisations (Secondment)
      Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants have been seconded to arts organisations.
      Mr. Renton: The Government are very ready to consider seconding civil servants to other areas where their experience can be of use. Details are not collected centrally, but I can tell my hon. Friend that I know of six such cases where civil servants have moved to arts organisations.
      Mr. Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the jewels in our cultural crown, based in Battersea, is the Royal Academy of Dancing? It sets the standards and the syllabus for dance and ballet tuition throughout the world and in particular throughout the European Community. The Governments of France, Italy and Greece are financing bids by their own organisations to rival the academy. Will my right hon. Friend ascertain whether his Department can support the Royal Academy of Dancing in such a way as to ensure that British dance tuition standards remain at the top of the ladder in the European Community?
      Mr. Renton: I congratulate my hon. Friend. He is a good friend of all the arts organisations in his constituency. I know of his interest in the Battersea arts centre and I am interested to hear what he said about the RAD.
      On my hon. Friend's point about qualifications, that matter may fall under the provisions of the treaty of Rome on the free movement of persons and recognition of qualifications. If my hon. Friend cares to write to me about the matter, I shall gladly look into it in detail.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Can the Minister give the House any information about the number of Scottish civil servants who have been seconded to the Scottish Arts Council and, indeed, to the Scottish Film Council, given what we are hearing about the much-awaited renaissance of the Scottish as well as the British film industry?
      Mr. Renton: If the hon. Gentleman had asked me about secondments to industry and commerce in Wales, I could have answered him because that is the subject of the next question. I am afraid that I cannot answer off the cuff his question about secondments in Scotland, but if he cares to write to me in detail, I shall be pleased to find out the answer for him.

      Industry (Secondment)
      Mr. Murphy: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many secondments to industry from the civil service have taken place in Wales.
      Mr. Renton: There have been 15 secondments from civil service departments to industry and commerce in Wales since the beginning of 1990.
      Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the Minister for both answers, but I suggest that the number of secondments is not sufficient. There should have been more secondments from the civil service to industry in Wales to improve the quality of advice from the Welsh Office. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the figure will be improved in the months ahead?
      Mr. Renton: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that the quality of advice from the Welsh Office could be improved. Having just listened to the end of Welsh questions, I am very much aware of the deep knowledge of and expertise in all Welsh matters of my colleagues on the Government Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that my comment received rapturous applause from both sides of the House.
      On the hon. Gentleman's particular point, it is not for us to direct secondments from the civil service to industry and commerce. People have to find partnerships in which they are willing to engage. I am sure that the Welsh Office will take the hon. Gentleman's point on board and I hope that the number of secondments will increase.

      Equal Opportunities
      Mr. Hague: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in achieving equal opportunities for women in the civil service.
      Mr. Renton: Much has been achieved since 1984, when the Government launched a programme of action on equal opportunities for women in the civil service. A report on

      21
      progress was published on 28 October and copies have been placed in the Library. To keep up the momentum, a new programme for action will be launched in the spring.
      Mr. Hague: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made so far. What improvements have been achieved in the proportion of women recruits entering fast stream competition? How many Departments have joined Opportunity 2000 and what is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage the rest to do so?
      Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. In 1984, 28 per cent. of those entering administrative fast stream competition were women and the proportion is now just over 40 per cent. That figure emphasises the position of women in the future because they are the people from whom the future top people will be chosen.
      Four Departments have already signed up, but many more are considering doing so. I have no doubt that in a few weeks' time the number will increase.

Child Abuse (Leicestershire)
3.33 pm
Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on the abuse of children in children's homes in Leicestershire.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): As the House will be aware, on 29 November, three child care officers formerly employed by Leicestershire county council were convicted on extremely serious charges of sexual assault and other acts of violence which occurred in three Leicestershire children's homes between 1973 and 1986. These were particularly despicable crimes. They went on over a long period and affected many children who had been entrusted to the defendants for care and help. I do not believe that it is necessary for me to put into words the outrage of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and of the country at the things which we heard during that trial.
The first concern of hon. Members, particularly those representing Leicestershire constituencies, will be to know whether children in Leicestershire children's homes are now properly protected against abuse. As soon as the charges came to light earlier this year, the Department's social services inspectorate carried out an inspection to assess the present quality of child protection in the county's children's homes. The report showed that there had been many changes and improvements since 1986, but that some deficiencies remain. The inspectorate's recommendations are now being vigorously addressed under the leadership of the present director of social services, Mr. Brian Waller.
Through the Children Act 1989 and its associated regulations and guidance, the Government have ensured that a much more effective framework for controlling children's homes is now in position. It includes proper complaints and rigorous inspection procedures. This new framework is both endorsed and supplemented by the Utting report of last August.
As I announced at the end of the trial, I am immediately doing two things. First, I am directing Leicestershire county council to establish a statutory and legally chaired inquiry whose terms of reference will be to inquire into management responses to complaints or other prima facie evidence of abuse, malpractice or other related matters in Leicestershire children's homes between 1973 and 1986; and any other relevant management and personnel management matters during that period or subsequently.
No amount of legislation can in itself guarantee that there will be no more child abuse in our children's homes. This trial shows yet again the danger that work with vulnerable children, particularly in residential homes, may attract the very people who should be kept at the greatest possible distance from it. This means doing more than checking qualifications and setting up systems, although these things should be done. It means that there must be constant vigilance by the authorities; it means that there must be methods of responding swiftly to alarm bells that may be rung either by staff or by children and that there must be alarm bells that can, in real life, be rung.
But the trial shows the need to look with the utmost care at staff selection procedures. I am therefore also
24
establishing a national inquiry whose chairman will be Mr. Norman Warner, former director of Kent social services. The inquiry's terms of reference will be
"to examine selection and appointment methods and criteria for staff working in children's homes and to recommend improvements; and to make such further examination as the committee may consider justified of management or other issues relevant to the protection of children and young people and to the support and guidance of staff in such homes."
I will wish to see the report and its recommendations by 1 July 1992.
I have no doubt that the majority of staff working in this difficult field do their job with compassion and professionalism, but this trial has shown that we can afford to take nothing for granted.
Mr. Ashby: I think that the whole House will welcome that statement and the fact that two inquiries will be set up. This is yet another major scandal involving the social services department of a council, and the country is rather tired of such scandals. I hope that the second inquiry, of which Mr. Norman Warner will be the chairman, will look closely at the role, quality, education and training of social workers as well as the way in which they are selected.
In respect of the inquiry into Leicestershire county council, in general there appears to have been a major cover-up by those responsible for the care and welfare of these children. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will wish the inquiry to investigate how numerous complaints came to be disregarded, how Mr. Frank Beck was able to simply resign, why the police were never informed of the complaints so that they could be fully investigated at the time, why Mr. Frank Beck, having resigned voluntarily after numerous complaints, was given a reference, why there was not even a report into the then Department of Health and Social Security, and why the inquiries by Brent therefore proved negative.
My right hon. Friend will agree that those questions must be answered and that we have to get to the very heart of the scandal to ensure that it should not happen again, not only in Leicestershire but elsewhere, and those responsible for the cover-up are made to realise what they have done and the subsequent effect it has had on numerous children.
Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the second part of my hon. Friend's question. He raises a range of issues into which the statutory inquiry must look.
On the first part, I could quote to the House increased statistics for money spent on training, but I do not wish to mislead the House into thinking that there is any qualification that can guarantee against the abuse that we have seen. Mr. Beck was a formidably powerful personality and doubtless would have passed any examination set for him in his profession—indeed, he did so. Examinations do not preclude against evil. What matters is that the authorities exercise their responsibility for checking and double checking what happens on the ground.
Mr. Greville Janner rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that everyone in Leicestershire will welcome the setting up of the inquiry into the regime of Frank Beck? There was, of course, not a shred of truth in any of the allegations of criminal conduct made against me during the trial by Beck and by

25
his accomplice, Winston. I hope to raise many important aspects of the matter in the House tomorrow evening, if I am fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
As my wife, my family and I have had a taste of the suffering that Beck can impose on innocent people, will the Minister join me in sending to the real sufferers, the individuals who endured Beck's homes and whose lives have been wrecked at his hands, the profound sympathy of us all?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the House has demonstrated its feelings on the matter in relation to the hon. and learned Gentleman by the reception that he has just received. I am sure that the House wished to join him in sending its sympathy to the many victms, some of whom may have suffered irreparable damage. We hope that that is not true in too many cases.
Mr. Michael Latham: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has just said about the vile allegations and lies against my hon. and learned Friend—I use both words advisedly—the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner).
I thank my right hon. Friend especially for the inquiry into Leicestershire. This terrible matter has brought shame on Leicestershire, and we expect to get to the heart of how it could have gone on for so long, while apparently nobody did anything about it.
Mr. Waldegrave: That is exactly what the local statutory inquiry must get to the bottom of. I am sure that it will wish to consider a wide range of evidence, including the Newell report producted by the county, which I am sure contains matters germane to the inquiry. We must get to the bottom of the matter. I repeat that there is no system that can automatically preclude evil people getting into positions of power over vulnerable people. That is why we must have complaints procedures that can be worked and really do work, why authorities must use their powers in the proper way and why we must have constant vigilance.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I thank the Secretary of State for acting so expeditously in establishing the two public inquiries. I also take the opportunity to inform him and the House that the people of Leicestershire have been shattered and appalled by the relevations of abuse in our children's homes. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that the public inquiry in Leicestershire establishes the circumstances that permitted the regime of terror to go on for so long and that permitted complaints made by the children to be ignored for long? Only if that background is established can we be assured that abuse will not take place in future either in Leicestershire or in other counties.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger exactly on some of the issues that must be addressed most seriously. The citizens of Leicestershire need not feel shame. There is no reason why such evil cannot happen anywhere, and it is their ill luck that many of their children have suffered from it.
Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend will recall that I asked on 18 July for an inquiry, and my constituents will welcome what my right hon. Friend has said today. Is the discredited regression therapy still taught and used in any homes and, if so, will he make
26
it illegal? What plans are there to tighten up the foster service vetting which, in this case, allowed a known homosexual to adopt a child? Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the inquiry of Leicestershire social services department to investigate departments throughout the country?
Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter point, the statutory inquiry must consider this case. Lessons may well be learned from it, but the statutory inquiry has the terms of reference that we have directed the county to adopt, with, I must say, the full support of the county and its present director of social services who, I am reliably informed, has a very high reputation in the service. On the other matters, we should await the report's conclusions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), I have personal views about some of those matters, but we should await the report, when we will have a little more to go on about the circumstances and how this could have happened. There are discredited and out-of-date theories around, and I have asked officials in my Department to report to me on those matters. However, we will need a little more evidence before we reach conclusions on some of these things.
Mr. Keith Vaz: May I join the hon. member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) in condemning the cowardly attacks made on the character of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I am sure that we all want to pass on our good wishes to his wife and family after their terrible ordeal over the past few months.
On 18 May 1989, in Standing Committee B, I moved an amendment to the Children Bill, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), which would have required all local authorities to appoint a children's rights officer. Bearing in mind the fact that the first complaint in this case was made on the advice of the Leicestershire children's rights officer, will the Secretary of State reconsider the Government's view about the appointment of those officers? Will he, as a matter of urgency, issue a directive or circular to all local authorities requiring them to appoint an officer as a matter of urgency and not simply to wait until the end of the inquiry before making such an appointment?
Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the important thing is the provision in the Children Act 1989 to have a named person to whom children in such homes can complain. It is no earthly use appointing a particular officer if the childen do not know how to complain to him or her and cannot do so. That is the vital and most important thing that has been done. I warn hon. Members not to think that there is an easy institutional panacea for any of those matters. All the authorities must work properly and openly if we are to avoid such abuse in future.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend consider the chasm that seems to exist between local authority children's homes, where 85 per cent. of the staff are unqualified, and private sector residential homes, which are run as businesses and which charge local authorities as much as £1,000 a week and the directors of which draw as much as £750,000 per annum?
Mr. Waldegrave: I would warn the House, and repeat my earlier point, that Mr. Beck had qualifications. There is no particular reason to think that people who are

27
determined to get their hands on vulnerable children will be so stupid that they cannot pass examinations. The issue is a little more complex than that.
Mr. David Bellotti: I congratulate the Government on appointing Mr. Norman Warner to conduct the national inquiry. His views and leadership will be well respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In that inquiry, do the Government intend to consider two very important aspects, the first of which is funding? The Secretary of State will be aware that the social services departments of many local authorities are struggling to meet their financial commitments in implementation of the Children Act 1989. Many local authorities are millions of pounds short of the necessary resources. For example, Hampshire is £2 million or £3 million short, and East Sussex is £2 million short for next year. I hope that the inquiry will consider all those aspects, because the things that we all desire come at a price.
Secondly, is not now the time for the Government seriously to consider an independent inspection service for complaints because in many cases—pindown was one, Leicestershire is another and I understand that there may be further examples at Wrexham and Bangor—the local authorities are not the best bodies to investigate the complaints? Will the terms of reference of the Warner inquiry include those two important aspects?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for Mr. Norman Warner, whose appointment will be widely welcomed by those who know him as an independent-minded and good man. However, I warn people against lumping together pindown and what has been happening in Leicestershire. Pindown was a serious professional failure, but was a hundred miles removed from the level of criminal activity of which we heard in the recent trial. Although the House was right to be concerned about pindown, we are talking about something of a different order of magnitude in this case.
The Warner report will not become involved in the issue of independent inspections. However, we have now insisted that there should be arm's-length inspectorates. Our own central social services inspectorate will be not only carrying out its own inspections, but also checking on the quality and systems of the arm's-length inspectorates that have been set up by the local authorities. It must be for the local authorities, which have the statutory responsibilities, to take those responsibilities extremely seriously and I would not want to divorce them from the primary responsibility for undertaking those tasks.
More money could, of course, be spent, but if we think that this is simply a matter of money—
Mr. Bellotti indicated dissent.
Mr. Waldegrave: Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) did not mean to say that. There are things on which we should be spending money, which is why we have increased the standard spending assessments in recent years, but in this case—
Mr. Bellotti indicated assent.
Mr. Waldegrave: I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me, because I can see him assenting. This is not
28
necessarily a matter of money. Evil men can be fully qualified and have resources at their command, so we may still find that we have evil to contend with.
Mr. Roger Sims: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that we should be grateful to the vast majority of staff who work in children's homes and who deal daily with children who, almost by definition, are difficult and disturbed. Although I accept that people can be both highly qualified and evil, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to have adequate numbers of properly trained staff in such homes? Is he satisfied that the establishment of the homes is sufficient and that a sufficiently high proportion of the staff are properly trained? Does he further agree that there might be a case for extending the training of social workers, especially in this area?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that there is common ground with my hon. Friend, because I accept that we need steadily to improve training—indeed, we have been putting more money into that. Although the Utting report. which was published in the summer, made it clear that training was not the central issue in such cases, I am not arguing that professionalism is not important. As I was saying earlier, paper qualifications cannot guarantee to exclude the kind of evil that we have been reading about in the past few weeks.
Miss Joan Lestor: I welcome both the inquiries that the right hon. Gentleman has so speedily set up, but may I advise him that, if we do not get it right this time, we shall be at the Dispatch Box again to consider still more cases? Unfortunately, there has recently been a terrible saga of children who have been abused. The crux of the matter today is that those children were not listened to or believed when they complained to the very people in whose care we had put them for protection. Although we must get it right, we will not necessarily be able to prevent such cases from happening again, because human beings are full of frailties. Nevertheless, this case could have been avoided. In connection particularly with the second inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that we have children in private as well as in local authority homes, all of which need to be looked into quickly?
How is it possible not only that children are not listened to when they complain, but that the man against whom they are complaining can leave one employment for another and be given a reference by the very people who have already received complaints about him? That seems unbelievable.
I hope that the Secretary of State, who I know is as appalled as all of us about the matter, will pay special attention to how that could possibly happen. I hope that the inquiry will underline the fact that, by and large, children do not lie about such matters and that the people who have now come forward as adults have probably been permanently damaged because no one would pay any attention to what they said.
It is important that we examine the Children Act 1989 to make sure that we have got the complaints procedure right. There must be an independent person to whom children can complain. The children's charities are backing our policy of a children's rights Commissioner to whom children can go, wherever they are, and be listened to. That is important.

29
I accept the Secretary of State's point that all the training in the world will not deter an evil man like Beck. The main inquiry will examine the vetting of people who work with children. Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that the police tell me that there is a backlog of six to 10 weeks for vetting certain people, especially teachers? To avoid other children being subjected to abuse during the inquiry, it is important that the backlog is dealt with as a matter of the gravest urgency. These are our most vulnerable children, and they deserve our best support and protection.
Mr. Waldegrave: I welcome the hon. Lady's comments. I will take up the latter point both in my Department and with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That is probably an issue that we should examine.
I strongly support the thrust of what the hon. Lady said. Children must be heard, and must feel confident that they have an independent person to whom they can complain. We have taken steps to draw to the attention of all children who go into a home the fact that there is a telephone number, a contact point and a named officer separate from the home to whom they can complain if they feel the need. That is a vital step.
The inspection under the Children Act 1989 is now extended to private homes. That is a welcome step. The reference issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) also mentioned, is one of the matters to which the statutory inquiry must direct its attention. I shall not make any further comment about it today, but it must be one of several essential issues which the inquiry will have on the table.

Home Secretary (Appeal Court Judgment)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Home Secretary, I should say that I understand that a notice of appeal has now been lodged but that I propose to exercise my discretion in respect of the sub judice rule to allow questions covering the Home Secretary's statement.
3.57 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker)rose—
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Baker: The House will know that, on Friday, my action in the case of the deportation of a Zairean national was subject to a judgment by the Court of Appeal. I have now had the opportunity to study that judgment and I have taken further legal advice. The court gave me leave to appeal. I have decided that an appeal to the House of Lords should be lodged, and this has been done.
I have placed a copy of the judgment, together with the earlier judgment of Mr. Justice Simon Brown, in the Library of the House of Commons. The issue centres upon the response to an order made by Mr. Justice Garland in the early hours of 2 May and the consideration that I gave to that order at a meeting at 4 pm on the same day. I was, of course, advised throughout not only by Home Office lawyers but also by Treasury Counsel.
As this matter will be central to the proceedings in the House of Lords, the House will recognise that I can say no more about it.
As the Master of the Rolls has acknowledged, this case raises issues of constitutional importance, issues which go far beyond the facts of the case which gives rise to them. The question posed by the judgment of the majority of the Court of Appeal is whether Ministers of the Crown and civil Servants, acting in the course of their duties, can be separated from the Crown itself.
I should like to make it clear to the House that I accept full responsibility for the actions taken in this case by officials of the Home Office and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who dealt with it. I was involved in the case at a late stage, and that is the subject of the court's findings.
On any view that may be taken, this case breaks new ground of great constitutional importance. Every Minister acts, and must act, under the rule of law. The only comment I wish to make at this stage is that the court recognised that I had no intention to act in defiance of an order of the court or to hold myself above the law.
Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Where is the honour?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to sit down.
Mr. Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary aware that, by purporting to describe his motives in persisting with the deportation order despite the instructions of the court, he is contributing to a debate which he described as sub judice? Will he understand that had he wished, as his

31
statement claimed, to remain within the law, his proper course would have been to accept the court's ruling and then appeal, not to flout the court's judgment? He claims that he had no intention of acting in defiance of the court order. That is exactly what he did. He also broke an undertaking which had been given to the court in his name.
Will the Home Secretary confirm that, aside from the point of law to which he draws our attention and which will soon become sub judice, the judgment described Home Office procedures as reflecting no credit on the Home Secretary, and called the treatment of that asylum seeker a disgrace. Does he understand that, while he may postpone or prevent debate on such matters in the House, outside he will be called upon to justify his incompetence?
Finally, the Home Secretary will recall that, at the time of the Brixton escape fiasco, he claimed that no blame attached to him because he had not been consulted. In the case of the wrongful deportation of any asylum seeker, he admitted that he was consulted, but he hides behind the excuse that he did no more than accept civil servants' advice. Are there any circumstances in which the Home Secretary would feel it right to take the honourable course and resign from the office which he discharges so inadequately?
Mr. Baker: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman mistakes the constitutional wood for the political trees. He has sought to make a political attack on me, and I shall reply in the same way because the right hon. Gentleman has been highly selective in his summary of the case.
I remind him that the applicant arrived in the United Kingdom on 23 September 1990 on a flight from Lagos, Nigeria, using a false passport, and claimed that he would be persecuted in Zaire—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary should bear in mind the fact that this case is sub judice.
Mr. Baker: Could I say that the actual issues that go to the House of Lords do not relate to the earlier events to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
I wish to come to the point that the right hon. Gentleman raised specifically about my role in this matter. I remind him that the applicant was interviewed three times, on 24 September, 2 December and 17 December, and was given every opportunity to present his case. The case for asylum was turned down, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and there were three applications for leave to move for judicial review. Three hearings took place, two of them on the afternoon of 1 May.
Could I now come to the events of which the right hon. Gentleman accused me—namely, my involvement on 2 May? In the various judgments that have been made in the High Court by Mr. Justice Brown, no contempt was found against officials or my hon. Friend for what is called phase 1 and phase 2. I was involved because an order had been made in the early hours of 2 May. I was advised by my legal advisers in the Department, and subsequently by first Treasury counsel, that that order was beyond the power of the court, and I was given leave to apply for it to be varied or discharged. I asked for that to be done at the earliest opportunity, the following morning at 9 o'clock. When the court met, that order was withdrawn.
That is the issue that will go to the House of Lords. As I said, it is an important issue, because it involves a
32
decision which I took. I do not shirk any responsibility in this matter, nor do I shirk any responsibility for the actions taken by my officials or for the way in which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary handled the case.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend accept that no hon. Member on this side of the House and, if they can leave aside party politicking for a moment, no hon. Member on the Opposition Benches, would believe that my right hon. Friend was capable of flouting the law —[Interruption.]—as has been suggested, either in his personal capacity, or, still less, as a holder of one of the great offices of State?
Is it not a fact that this is now an area of very important constitutional dispute, that my right hon. Friend accepted the advice of senior Treasury counsel, that two judges have spoken in his favour and two against, and that the House of Lords may find that he was right and they were wrong? Is it not also a fact that in this case it is clear that, if the Court of Appeal believes that he had no intention of flouting a court order and of putting himself above the law, that should be good enough for the rest of us?
Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for those comments, and I quote from the judgment of the Court of Appeal—[Interruption.] I could read the whole of it if I am asked to do so. On the question of the rule of law and observance of the rule of law—this is a very important matter; Ministers are subject to the laws of the land and to enforcing the rule of law—the Master of the Rolls said:
He"—
that is, the Home Secretary—
"has disavowed any intention to act in defiance of an order of the court or to hold himself above the law."
That is a disavowal which I fully accept.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary accept that, in his high office, he is the prime protector of the liberties of the subject and upholder of the rule of law, and that his position has been fatally compromised by his unwillingness to carry out the order of the court and to ask questions about it subsequently? Is he aware that, by persisting in the claim that he was not bound by the order of the court, he is compounding his offence?
Mr. Baker: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had made himself familiar with the two judgments in the case—those of Mr. Justice Simon Brown and of the Master of the Rolls. If he had, he would know that what he has said is not right.
Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend rightly accepts responsibility for what happens in the Home Office. Is it not a fact that everyone in the Home Office associated with this case has been properly advised by qualified lawyers, that the facts that my right hon. Friend had produced to the House today are not in dispute and that the issue is one of constitutional importance only?
Mr. Baker: As I said, I think that this issue is of very considerable constitutional importance, because the effect of the judgment is to separate the activities of a Minister acting under his own name from those carried out while acting as a Minister of the Crown. That has considerable implications for the conduct of affairs. It is certainly at variance with the constitutional practice—
Mr. Alex Carlile: Oh?
Mr. Baker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has his own view, but I think that, as a lawyer, he will agree that it is at variance with the constitutional practice that has operated hitherto. It certainly cannot be limited just to matters of contempt but must relate to the other coercive jurisdictions of the court. This is a matter of major constitutional importance which will have to be looked at by the House of Lords and no doubt considered by this place in due course.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Home Secretary aware that his decision of 2 May put that Zairean teacher in an extremely dangerous and vulnerable position, and that it is not the first time that his Department has deported people in the face of a court decision that they should remain in this country? Does he agree that it is now essential that he withdraw the Asylum Bill now under consideration and instead institute a proper system of legal appeal that gives automatic rights of appeal to political asylum seekers and does not leave them at the mercy of his erroneous decisions?
Mr. Baker: In the consideration given to that case, the most scrupulous care was taken of the safety of the Zairean. Right at the last minute, before the final Court of Appeal hearing on 1 May, evidence alleging torture was adduced. It was looked at by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and was available to the Court of Appeal when the appeal was turned down. As for the safety of the Zairean, I was glad to see that, in his judgment, Mr. Justice Brown said:
"However, it is at least now clear that no irreversible damage has resulted from his removal on lst/2nd May"—
as he has been in touch with his solicitors both from Zaire and Nigeria since then.
I certainly will not withdraw the Asylum Bill. Indeed, such legislation would have helped in a case like that, because the asylum seeker concerned sought asylum at the port of entry. The Bill gives asylum seekers in that position the right—it did not exist when the case was before the court—to appeal to an independent adjudicator.
Sir George Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has considerable sympathy on this side of the House and in the country, especially as there is now some doubt about whether the judge had the power to make the order that he made?
Mr. Baker: I would be treading a little widely in the direction of sub judice if I were to answer that, because any decision is for the jurisdiction of the court. All that I can say is that the judges who have considered the matter so far are divided.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Although I accept that the Home Secretary will not resign at this stage, does he accept that, when that case is combined with prisoner escapes and Sunday trading, his credentials as a law and order Minister begin to look a little threadbare?
Mr. Baker: That raises very different questions. The Attorney-General and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), made statements on Sunday trading, whereas I have made a statement on the interpretation of last Friday's judgment.
Mr. David Sumberg: Is not the hypocrisy and confusion in the Opposition ranks shown by the fact that, when that judgment was announced, the legal affairs spokesman for the Opposition was immediately in the media demanding my right hon. Friend's resignation, while the shadow Home Secretary was demanding that he remain. After a weekend's contemplation, the shadow Home Secretary now says that my right hon. Friend should resign. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case breaks new ground, that he acted at all times on legal advice and that wise counsel should permit the case to go before the House of Lords rather than rush to judgment now?
Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is entitled to change his view, as he does from time to time. The view that he changes is not usually very considered and, from his short statement, he has clearly not studied in depth either of the judgments that we are discussing today. I hope that he now applies himself to them, because he has not applied himself to the rest of his portfolio.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to this judgment typical of the decline in standards of political integrity over the 11 years of the regime of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)? Is not it particularly typical of the tacky conduct of the Home Secretary in every office that he has held?
Mr. Baker: I had not appreciated the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley had been involved in the matter; as far as I know, she has not. I know perfectly well what responsibilities I have for the Home Office and for the actions of Home Office officials and the Minister who handled the case, and I know my own responsibility in this matter. If the hon. Gentleman would do me the service of going to the Library and reading the judgments, he would find that in the earlier proceedings, neither the Home Office nor my hon. Friend were held in contempt for the actions that were taken on 1 and 2 May.
Mr. Patrick Ground: Is it correct that the majority decision of the Court of Appeal said that the present order was irregular and should not have been made, and accepted that my right hon. Friend acted on legal advice to that effect? In such circumstances, is it not absurd for Opposition Members to talk about resignation?
Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, because that is exactly what the judgment says. I must in no way criticise the judgment or make any comment upon it, because this is material to the House of Lords. I note what my hon. and learned Friend has said on the basis that the order was irregular. None the less, a constitutional issue was raised on separating the function of the Minister acting personally from the Minister acting as a Minister of the Crown. That has considerable constitutional implications.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Of course the Home Secretary has criticised the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and I deplore the attempts to rubbish the decision taken by three senior judges. As Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman has awesome power in immigration cases.

35
As resignation is an issue, if he is not prepared to resign at this stage, will he resign if the House of Lords dismisses his appeal?
Mr. Baker: One should see what the House of Lords makes of this case. It will be an important matter. I know perfectly well my responsibilities for the Home Office and for the decisions that have been taken on my behalf. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blaming others."] I am not blaming anybody. The decision taken on 2 May was mine, and I make it absolutely clear that I will answer for that decision. It was taken with the fullest advice from Home Office lawyers and from first Treasury counsel, which is exactly how Ministers operate on these occasions.
Mr. John Watts: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to reflect upon the bogus indignation of Opposition Front Bench Members in respect of the allegation that he failed to observe an irregular order of the court, and to contrast it with the deafening silence from that same Front Bench in the face of an assertion by an Opposition Member that, if he had information about the identity of the murderer of a police officer, he would withhold it from the police?
Mr. Baker: I will say only that I thought that that was a disgraceful statement by an hon. Member. I hope that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will dissociate himself from that statement and condemn the Member who made it.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. On this matter, I call Mr. Hattersley.
Mr. Skinner: Have you had your eyes tested recently?
Hon. Members: Order!
Mr. Speaker: Fortunately, I do not hear everything. The two hon. Members, who just rose, have made so many comments, not necessarily sedentary comments, that I do not intend to call them
Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary will recall that, in answer to my original question, before you, Mr. Speaker, reminded him of the sub judice rule, he began to explain his opinion that M, the man at the centre of this case, was not a genuine asylum seeker. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, on page 16 of the judgment, the Master of the Rolls says:
"Whether M was a genuine asylum seeker is irrelevant"?
The serious error of judgment made by the Home Secretary concerns his dealings with the court, not the evidence that he claimed to put before the House.
Mr. Baker: I do not disguise from the right hon. Gentleman or the House the fact that the matter on which I was found to be in contempt was the decision taken on 2 May. The position that I put to the House and the right hon. Gentleman, that the decision about whether this Zairean national was an asylum seeker was heard twice before a court of law and by the Court of Appeal, which was presided over by Lord Justice Donaldson on the very afternoon on which the decision was taken.

Points of Order
4.18 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Home Secretary given notice of an intention to make a statement about the ruling of Mr. Justice Popplewell this morning in a case that is germane to the matter under discussion on which he has just made a statement? In the High Court, Mr. Justice Popplewell has asked the Home Secretary to reconsider his decision to deport to India a leading Sikh independence campaigner, Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal. If there has been no such request from the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman is present and may feel it appropriate to make a statement on whether he intends to observe the advice of Mr. Justice Popplewell.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): It might assist the hon. Gentleman if I say something on that case. The decision to deport Mr. Chahal for national security reasons and other reasons of a political nature, including the international fight against terrorism, was taken by my predecessor—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Baker: If the House will be patient, it will hear the facts.
Since then, an application for asylum was refused by me. This was challenged by judicial review and the judgment given in the High Court today. The judge asked me to reconsider Mr. Chahal's status as a refugee, and I shall most certainly do so. I give the House an undertaking that if, after consideration, I come to the conclusion that Mr. Chahal should be deported, that will not occur until he has had an opportunity to go back to the courts again.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is on a different matter. I know that you do not get the opportunity to study the weekend papers in Scotland, but perhaps you will take my word for it that they have been full of reports that Government sources have said that there will be a statement tomorrow on hospital opt-outs, which will approve the opt-out of hospitals in Ayr and Aberdeen.
Have you had notification, Mr. Speaker, of a request to make such a statement, and if so, have you been told what the contents of it will be? Is this not just another example of parliamentary accountability being reduced to the same farce that we have seen in the Government's crooked consultation exercises on this issue and in the whole untenable position of the Government north of the border?
Mr. Speaker: Since my recent happy visit to Dundee, I do see the Scottish newspapers, but I have not had any notification of such a statement.
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in saying that you are allowing further questions to the Home Secretary on his second statement?
Mr. Speaker: As the Home Secretary made that comment, I will allow questions to be put to him on it.
Mr. Gale: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, both in the previous case

37
and in the case of Mr. Chahal, all the correct legal processes have been, and will be, followed? In the light of the comments made earlier, can my right hon. Friend tell the House of the growth in the numbers of people seeking asylum in the past four years? Is not that growth a sign that the system is being abused, and if so, is it not to the detriment of genuine asylum seekers, and is that not what the Asylum Bill will redress?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend goes rather wide, but as the House knows. there has been a substantial increase in the number of asylum seekers. My Department has before it 6,000 applications from Zaireans, all of which have to be processed and looked at individually. I agree that the Asylum Bill is necessary so as to distinguish between the genuine and the bogus asylum seeker. I hope that it will find its way on to the statute book as soon as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will call one more hon. Member. Will the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) please sit down while I say this? I shall call him, but it does not help the Chair if comments of the kind that I have heard this afternoon from him are made from a sedentary position.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, but it may be that the sound system is not as accurate as it should be.
Does not the Home Secretary's assurance on the second case—that the person will not lose his court rights--arise directly out of his contempt in the first case, which has demonstrated that he has ignored his responsibility to the court and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not about the first case.
Mr. Cryer: Yes, it is. I am linking the two and saying that the Secretary of State has given the House a welcome assurance, but that is surely an attempt to retrieve his position in the first case, which is digraceful.
Mr. Baker: I advise the hon. Gentleman to look at the two judgments. He will find that the Zairean applied for judicial review on three occasions, and had three hearings, two on the last day. In the case of Mr. Chahal, this is the first of his judicial review cases, and I have given the House a clear undertaking.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that, in the early hours of last Friday morning, Sergeant Alan King of the Metropolitan police, who was based at Chingford police station, was callously and brutally murdered in the execution of his duties—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This comes directly within the sub judice rule. I cannot allow the hon. Member to make comments about the case.
Mr. Summerson: I do not wish to make a comment about the case, Mr. Speaker. My purpose in raising a point of order is to ask whether you have received a request from the Government to allow them to make a statement about the control of knives, which appear to be used more and more for violent purposes.
Mr. Speaker: I have not received a request for a statement to be made on that matter.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has nothing to do with the previous point of order. It is another matter.
Mr. Speaker: Maybe, but sit down please. Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. I have proof, which was sent to me anonymously, that the Islington, North Labour party black section Christmas fund-raising social is being advertised by using House of Commons internal envelopes. Is this a matter that I should raise with you, Mr. Speaker, or with the House authorities? It is a disgrace that taxpayers' money is being used for that sort of organisation.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will bring the envelope to my office, I shall have the matter looked into.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Skinner: In view of the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, have been checking the records lately about what is unparliamentary or otherwise, I ask you to check the word "crap". It has been drawn to my attention that the Tory party has recently received £25,000 from Gerald Ratner. We do not want £25,000-worth of crap being dished out in here, do we? Or is it that Gerald Ratner will be put in charge of propaganda for the Tory party?
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. Let me deal with one point of order at a time and think about this one.
I rule that that is definitely an unparliamentary word in this Chamber.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any intimation from the Home Secretary whether he plans to make a statement about the planned visit tomorrow to this country of the fascist leader from France, Jean-Marie Le Pen? Will he make a statement to the effect that Le Pen is not welcome here and that his nazi connections are found to be odious by everybody in this country who believes in racial harmony and justice rather than a perpetuation of racist ideas?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no notice of that, but the matter was certainly raised during business questions last Thursday.

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

EDUCATION SUPPORT GRANTS
That the Education Support Grants (Amendment) regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. John D. Taylor.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Transport and Works Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is one of those rare Bills which will change radically the business that Parliament transacts. It is being presented in response to the work of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which is chaired so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). I pay tribute to him for the way in which he conducted the Committee and to its report and findings.
  There has been a remarkable increase in weighty private legislation authorising public transport schemes and works at ports. This reflects the profound changes in those industries. It has become clear that Parliament is not prepared, as it once was, to see numerous Bills brought before it to authorise such schemes and works. For example, in 1838, Parliament was able to deal with the 62 Bills deposited in that Session with relative ease. Today, Parliament has great difficulty in handling less than half that number of new Bills each Session. A number of causes cêlêbres have emphasised that.
  The Bill will give effect in the most part to the proposals published in "Private Bills and New Procedures", the consultation document published by the Government in June 1990. It proposed that a system of ministerial orders should be created to cover the works most frequently authorised by private Bill—railway and tramway works —and that the Harbours Act 1964 should be amended to encompass a greater range of measures than it does at present. The consultation documents was widely welcomed in the House and elsewhere. Those who currently promote Bills had reservations about the time that would be taken under the new procedures to authorise projects and I shall deal with these issues as I describe the Bill. First, I shall make some general comments.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the wide acceptance that the consultation procedure produced. He may be aware also that the Select Committee which dealt with the matter earlier—which he rightly complimented—did not mention canals or inland waterways. There was no consultation with the inland waterway authorities. If my hon. Friend intends to press ahead with that part of the Bill, will he either immediately consult those bodies or, better still, build into the Bill a consultation procedure before the orders, which could be very damaging to small organisations, are made law?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I will cover some of my hon. Friend's points later, but I assure him that we want to hear from all relevant bodies. We are still open to consultation on specific points about which individuals or organisations feel aggrieved.
  We tried to achieve a fair balance between the interests of promoters and those who are affected by their proposals —the objectors. A system for authorising projects should
  40
  not be used as a means of holding up development that is generally desirable. At the same time, promoters should be sensitive to the needs of those on whose lives their proposals will impinge.
  The well-established local inquiry system, which has been with us for more than 40 years, enables the promoters' proposals and the views of objectors to be examined thoroughly. It will be one of the available means for deciding new orders. The Government's concern is to provide a framework in which decisions can be made as quickly as possible, while affording those with an interest a proper opportunity to make their views known. That is what part I of the Bill does.
  Part II contains safety measures for railways and other forms of guided transport. Some are necessary because the principal legislation is so out of date that private Bills have been used to give the railway inspectorate the powers it needs to supervise railway and tramway works. The most important changes are made by chapter I of part II, which provides a modern code on drink and drugs abuse.
  This is a technical Bill and therefore I shall not describe every clause in detail, but I will pick out the main features. The first four clauses describe the kind of works that will be subject to the new system. They empower the Secretary of State to make orders authorising railway, tramway, trolley bus and inland waterway schemes. They refer to guided transport systems that are to be further described in regulations.
  Right hon. and hon. Members who are familiar with those matters will know that there are already several novel systems of that type in the country and more are planned. We want to avoid the need for private Bills for those systems, so we drafted a comprehensive definition in an attempt to provide for all foreseeable modes. However, it seems wise to provide for specific regulations to be made later, when it has been possible more closely to assess their principal features.
  There is also a power to prescribe types of work that would interfere with rights of navigation. Those, too can be varied. At present, such works mostly require a private Bill.
  It would be convenient to mention time scales at this point. We are not introducing this legislation primarily to speed up the process of approving works, but it is important to ensure that we do not slow them down. We looked at the recent history of the progress of private Bills —not just the notorious ones, but all the others. There can be no doubt that they are taking longer to enact.
  Private Bills used commonly to be passed in a single Session. The average time for Bills that have now passed was 19 months. At the beginning of this Session, no fewer than 23 transport or other works Bills were still before the House from previous Sessions, including one that started in 1988. I understand that some 23 new Bills were deposited last Wednesday, 16 of which would involve works. That means that the average time taken is bound to increase.
  The time taken by local inquiries and by the inspector to write his report has been criticised in the past. In recent years, the Department of the Environment has done a great deal to sharpen up inquiry procedures, with some success. We therefore hold to the view, advanced in the consultation document, that projects which are progressed by order will, on the whole, take no longer than private Bills and that the smaller ones will progress much more quickly.
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier remarks, but to make sure that we avoid incorporating delay in the new procedures, will there be no holding out on a decision whether or not to grant an order? Is my hon. Friend prepared to stipulate a timetable in the Bill, so that the Secretary of State could not unreasonably delay his determination on whether an order should be granted? Also, will my hon. Friend make it clear that if inquiries are necessary in certain areas because there are objections, enough inspectors will be available to conduct those inquiries? If not, a large number of public inquiries could be in the pipeline—and in the case of railway works in particular, that could slow down the development of the system.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The suggestion that the Secretary of State should have to adhere to a timetable is an interesting one that does not appear on the face of the Bill.
  Mr. Robert Adley: It jolly well should.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I shall look closely at my hon. Friend's suggestion. The Department of Transport does not wish to hold up schemes after an inquiry has been held. Important works are often necessary. My hon. Friend also asked whether sufficient inspectors are available. We shall keep that matter under constant review. If problems arise, we shall have to address them. I can be no more specific than that.
  Orders may be applied for at any time, whereas at some moment private Bills can be deposited only once a year. In some respects, that would help the flow. It would do away with the great dash to deposit Bills by a certain date in November. The very fact that there would be no specific date by which orders had to be deposited and that they could start their natural progression at any time of the year would go some way towards relieving the existing bottleneck.
  The Joint Committee also identified limitations in the Harbours Act which meant that, even though harbour works could be authorised by order, the private Bill route would still be available. There were some purposes for which orders were not available—for example, the setting up and construction of purely recreational harbours. These matters are dealt with in clause 57 and schedule 3. I should mention here that we have not provided for the complete closure of a harbour by means of a harbour order. Dismantling the regulatory, navigational and conservancy functions of a harbour authority might raise wider issues which we thought should still come before Parliament on the rare occasions when the closure of a harbour is envisaged.
  Those clauses cover a good 95 per cent. of all the works Bills that come to Parliament. What remains are those works which are normally authorised by procedures outside Parliament, but, because of the need to amend private enactments, some aspect of the scheme must come here. It would have stretched unduly the scope of the Bill to deal with those circumstances and a general provision would have been indefensibly vague. The Joint Committee recommended that the private Bill system should be so policed that only the powers required to be sought in Parliament should be the subject of a Bill and that, if its primary purpose could be achieved elsewhere, it should be.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister has outlined the order-making procedure and compared it
  42
  with the private Bill procedure. The abolition of the private Bill procedure would have certain advantages, but does not the Minister think that the orders which are to take the place of the private Bill procedure should be subject to the affirmative procedure? The scrutiny of negative procedure instruments in this place is appalling. There is no guarantee that time will be made available to debate a prayer. The Bill therefore provides Ministers with a great deal of power that will be subject to no scrutiny. It is going from one extreme to the other.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's criticisms, but I hope to be able to answer some of them later. If he is here when I do so, he will hear me explain why we feel that the affirmative procedure is not the best course to adopt in some cases.
  It is, of course, for the House authorities to act on these matters and to decide when a private Bill should come before the House. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means is content that they have adequate powers to do so.
  Clause 5 deals with what may go in the orders described in clause 1 to 4. Our examination of the purposes for which private legislation has been sought has led us to seek this power; schedule 1 lists some of the objects for which orders may be made. The powers in subsection (3) are apparently wide, but can be exercised only in relation to the objects for which an order could be made. They will be used to apply existing legislation—on compensation, for example —to apply or disapply the old Railways Clauses Acts and to modify legislation so that its purpose is retained but it is tailored more closely to the requirements of the relevant order. Paragraph 51 of the Joint Committee report foresaw that a provision of this sort would be necessary.
  The procedure for making orders is dealt with in clauses 6 to 14. It follows the normal pattern which we have come to expect where orders are made by Ministers following a public inquiry. Clause 6 enables the Secretary of State to make rules about applications for orders. The rules will require that an environmental statement should be submitted with most applications for orders. We may have a system like the one that applies to private Bills now, where the applicant might seek a dispensation from the Secretary of State that an environmental statement need not be submitted because the works proposed in question order were clearly not likely to have significant environmental effects.
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The hon. Gentleman mentioned public inquiries. Does the procedure mean that Ministers can state how long a public inquiry should last —one week, two weeks and so on?
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Bill does not provide that power. It would be wrong if it did. A public inquiry may want to look into matters that. initially felt were not relevant. There would therefore be no time limit.
  The exact text of the rules will be informed by the discussions that are now going on with the Commission. We shall abide by, the directive on environmental impact assessment, as we always have. That European directive is, I fear, vaguely drafted. The orders will in due course be based on model clauses, which can be prescribed in clause 8. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to propose orders for defence purposes or where works have been abandoned and are a danger to the public.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister happy that the promoters will have to provide environmental statements? Is that better than requiring the promoters to commission an environmental statement from a neutral body? One danger is that an organisation that is asked to produce an environmental statement in support of a scheme may look at matters differently from an organisation that is asked to produce an environmental statement from a neutral point of view.
  Mr. McLoughlin: That is a problem, but I think that it would be addressed by a public inquiry. An environmental statement which was made in the initial stages could certainly be questioned by a public inquiry and by anyone who wished to make representations to it.
  Mr. Bennett: As Ministers have decided that the House should approve a measure first, surely the House should have that independent information before making its decision. I have coresponded with the Minister about the possibility of having two stages in Parliament, one before and one after an inquiry. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments about not having a second stage, although no doubt we shall come to that matter in Committee. If Parliament is to give its approval about a scheme before a public inquiry is held, it is important that it has available to it impartial environmental information before making any decision in principle.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not dealing with a scheme's national significance, when Parliament would be asked to give a broad view: I am dealing with strict criteria and local public inquiries, rather than a later stage. The hon. Gentleman's point about independent environmental statements can best be discussed in Committee, when we can listen to the arguments in full, but it is certainly worth thinking about.
  I hope that, in dealing with clause 9, I shall cover some of the points made by the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The clause is important, even though I do not expect its provisions to be exercised often. The Joint Committee noted that there were occasionally schemes of such importance that they touched on national policy, and a variety of devices had been used to bring them before Parliament. In the debates on the Joint Committee report, there were those in both Houses who wanted such a mechanism.
  In the consultation document, we suggested that that might be done by affirmative resolution after a public inquiry, but a number of objections were put to us. Perhaps the most important is that, if Parliament is going to say no to such an important scheme, it should do so early in its progress rather than waste a lot of time and money and cause invonvenience to those who would be affected by the scheme. The Council on Tribunals was concerned that the inquiry system could be brought into disrepute if, after a long and thorough inquiry, the whole process were overturned by perhaps a single vote in Parliament. The Royal Town Planning Institute recommended that local decisions should always be taken in a strategic framework and, although I would not go quite that far, what we are proposing is consistent with its suggestion.
  There is, of course, another point of view. There are those who say that no decision in principle should be made until all the details of a scheme are thoroughly
  44
  investigated. I certainly agree that no final decision should be made until that has been done, but these schemes are so huge that it is simply not practical to work them and all the other options up in fine detail before making a decision in principle. No decision in principle often means no decision at all. If this country is to prosper, it must be able to make difficult decisions of this kind.
  In any such case, the draft order and supporting documents, including the environmental statement, will be available to Parliament at least two months before any debate—that point, which was made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, could certainly be considered in Committee. Both Houses would then be invited to pass a resolution which endorsed the need for the project and, broadly, the chosen option, but all the questions about detailed alignments, mitigating environmental effects and so on would be left to a public inquiry.
  The Secretary of State would be prevented from making an order which was inconsistent with Parliament's resolution, but he would not be compelled to make the order. Those proposals should play to the strengths of Parliament, in making broad judgments, and the local inquiry, which is better suited to sorting out local details.
  Clauses 10 and 11 deal with the handling of objections and inquiries. They provide for a full local inquiry and fewer formal hearings or written representations. A relevant local authority or the owner of land proposed to be taken by the order may insist on an inquiry or a hearing; otherwise, the method of assessing objections is left to the Secretary of State. The inquiry rules will be made under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. Once the objections have been considered, the Secretary of State will make his decision on the order under clause 13 and publicise his decision under clause 14. There will be no further parliamentary involvement unless National Trust or common land is to be taken, in which case special parliamentary procedures could apply.
  One of the advantages of a private Bill is that all the consents for a scheme which would otherwise be required under different legislation can be obtained in one go. Clauses 15 to 20 seek to achieve that for orders.
  Clause 23 makes provision for the handling in the courts of any proceedings about orders and is modelled on very similar provisions in the Highways Act 1980 and the Harbours Act 1964.
  When we published the consultation document, we thought that there might be schemes so local in impact that they should be dealt with by local authorities. On examining the matter further, we have found them to be too few to warrant the legislative apparatus, including possible appeals, which would be required. Clause 24 gives power to the Secretary of State to transfer certain classes of case to inspectors on the model of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 if experience shows that to be the best way of dealing with them.
  The system of orders which I have been discussing will not apply in Scotland. The existing Scottish system, governed by the Private Legislation Procedures (Scotland) Act 1936, is judged generally to work well. The greater part of the Scottish private legislation procedure is administered locally, is relatively informal and takes up very little parliamentary time. One effect is that cross-border schemes will continue to require private legislation. That requires an amendment to the 1936 Act which is contained in clause 25. However, such cases will be rare.

  45
  I come now to the safety provisions and, first, to the offences about drink and drugs in clauses 27 to 41. These provisions back up operators' strict policy on alcohol and drug abuse. It is a rule on BR that no one should report for duty under the influence of, nor take while on duty, alcohol or any other substance which might impair their safety, efficiency or vigilance. Similar provisions apply to London Underground staff. BR's code of practice views contraventions of that rule very seriously and regards dismissal as the normal result. BR has a policy of pre-employment testing for drugs of recruits to safety posts. It also has voluntary in-service and post-incident testing.
  Although the operators' disciplinary codes are useful, experience has shown that statutory provision is necessary. Clauses 27 to 41 provide comprehensive powers. The House will no doubt be relieved to know that, as most of those clauses are based on road traffic legislation, t do not propose to describe them in detail. For nearly 150 years, it has been an offence to work on a railway while drunk.
  After a railway accident at Morpeth in 1984, the Government undertook to modernise the drink offence and extend it to drugs in the light of the inspector's subsequent report. Since then, we have had the Cannon street case. After the inquest, the coroner wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State about the absence of police testing powers. I have put a copy of his letter in the Library. We have concluded that the law must be brought up to date. Most people whom we consulted this autumn agreed with us and with what we propose.
  Clauses 28 and 29 are the key ones. They create criminal offences of being unfit through drink or drugs or being "over the limit" of alcohol in the body while working on a railway, and of operating a railway where such offences have been committed without doing all that is reasonable to prevent them. We have specified the types of work in respect of which offences might be committed. They are all jobs where it is possible to affect directly the safety of the travelling public.
  The operator has an important role to play in preventing incidents of this sort. Operators must show that they have taken all reasonable precautions to prevent drinking and drug taking if they are to avoid prosecution. As the House will see, at clause 56, it will be possible to prosecute individual directors as well as companies for safety offences under this Bill. The provisions also apply to tramways and other forms of guided transport.
  We have decided that the alcohol limits in this Bill should be the same as for road traffic offences. It would be hard to justify a difference, say, for a tram driver or a bus driver on the same road. The best rule is for no one to work on the railway when under the influence. That is reflected in the operators' rule book. The limits in the Bill do not imply that drinking up to these limits is a safe practice. The offence of exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit is a second line of defence to operators' strict standards, and the prescribed alcohol limit is that which justifies a criminal—rather than disciplinary—offence. We will keep the prescribed limits under review, and clause 39 enables them to be amended by regulations.
  This is not the place to discuss whether the road traffic alcohol limits are right. The British Medical Association has pressed for them to be lower, but I must say to the House that lower limits, whether on roads or railways, should be soundly based. If we are to criminalise an action, we must be sure that an act has been committed which
  46
  justifies the term "criminal". The first line of defence must be the working rules operated by British Rail and other railway undertakers, which is a matter of employment practice. The limits in the Bill do not imply that drinking and drug-taking of any kind by railwaymen is a safe practice.
  The remainder of the safety clauses are in the Bill principally because, without them, some private legislation would still be required. Clauses 42 to 44 give the railway inspectorate powers to carry out supervision of new work and to receive accident reports. We are taking this opportunity to implement the recommendations of the Fennell and Hidden reports on the King's Cross and Clapham Junction accidents which also pointed out that the legislation, which dates from 1871 and 1933, is inadequate to deal with modern conditions.
  Consequently, clause 42 gives the Secretary of State a wide power to make regulations about the approval of new works and equipment to be used on railways, tramways, trolley vehicle systems and other systems of guided transport. Clause 43 extends the powers of inspectors to all those forms of transport. Clause 44 allows for the reporting not only of accidents but of those incidents which could easily have led to them, such as signals failing on anything but red.
  The provisions at clause 46 and 47 are principally aimed at heritage railways and tramways which have blossomed all over the country. They are normally authorised by light railway orders made under the Light Railways Act 1896. They will now come within these provisions except in Scotland where the Scottish private legislation procedure will apply, but it is thought wise to take powers limiting speeds and loads and to ensure that these railways are properly insured against accidents involving third parties.
  There has been some controversy about clause 48 and schedule 2, which amend the Highways Act 1980 so that footpaths and bridleways which cross railways can be stopped up or diverted on safety grounds. That can be done only by a private Bill at present, the most inappropriate means imaginable for something which is essentially local. In these provisions, we have tried to strike a balance between safety and convenience and we have provided for a local inquiry to examine all the issues.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We are all worried about safety —there have been some horrific accidents—but does the Minister accept that, if the balance is to be right, the Bill should contain a mechanism under which British Rail, when speeding up train times on the line, should be required to provide either an underpass or a bridge?
  Mr. McLoughlin: That might be one of the matters best addressed by the local inquiry. A private Bill is not the best method for such matters because of the possible delay involved. We could consider the issue in Committee, but it will need to be considered by the local inquiry because it is essentially a local matter rather than one that needs to come before the House.
  The remainder of the clauses deal with safety at level crossings, especially private ones.
  If Parliament passes the Bill, we would hope to have the new orders system running as soon as possible. As the House will understand, the Bill provides for a lot of secondary legislation—for orders and the safety provisions —which must be in place before the new system can work properly. It would be wrong of me to promise that we shall

  47
  have it all ready by a particular date. There may be amendments which change the timetable. It is important that we get the secondary legislation right so that the new system has a good start.
  In this necessarily brief tour of the Bill's provisions, I hope that I have said enough to describe broadly what we are trying to achieve.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister make it clear to outside interests when he expects the House to stop accepting works Bills? That would be helpful and I should have thought that it would be very foolish for anyone outside—presuming that that legislation is passed—to expect to introduce a works Bill in the next Session of Parliament.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I do not think that I can go further than I have already. The Standing Orders of the House do not allow issues to be introduced in private Bills if they could be introduced by any other means. When dealing with secondary legislation, we shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. Clearly, the time scale will depend to some extent on when the Bill finally seeks the approval of both Houses.
  I do not think that the Bill's provisions are controversial, but they are necessary. The legislation arises from the recommendations of the Joint Committee and I have already paid tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest chaired the Committee and made the recommendations. I am glad that we have had this opportunity to introduce legislation which, I hope, goes some way to meeting the Committee's recommendations. The Committee comprised members of all parties and made its recommendations almost unanimously. I sense that there is cross-party support and I hope that today's debate bodes well.
  I commend the Bill to the House and trust that it will have a swift passage through both Houses.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: I believe that the Bill commands a degree of cross-party support and I shall attempt to point out the issues on which we agree as well as the one or two which might cause some difficulty at a later stage.
  Part I of the Bill will replace the current parliamentary procedures for Bills involving new railway works or harbours with orders granted by the Secretary of State and subject to public inquiry. Those changes should avoid the uncertainties of the private Bill procedure and will on occasion, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I are aware, reduce the parliamentary time spent on such matters.
  The regulatory provisions in part II will make an important contribution to ensuring the safety of passengers on rail and other transport systems. As for part I, I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for outlining the principle of the changes inherent in this section and, basically, we welcome them. The existing private Bill procedures impose time-consuming and unpredictable obstacles in the passage of legislation and hon. Members from both parties have occasionally used the existing procedures to delay important railway schemes as a result, sometimes, of factors not wholly related to the scheme or to the Bill in question.
  48
  I will outline some of the reasons behind our welcome for the general thrust of the Bill. We believe that the public inquiry procedure has a number of advantages over the current parliamentary rules, especially for the general public. Such inquiries are better able to consider technical details than some parliamentary Committees are. Such inquiries can be held locally rather than in London and can consider alternatives broader than merely the provisions of a single Bill. The cost of attending a parliamentary Committee hearing would be eliminated for members of the public. I hope—I seek clarification from the Minister —that the new procedures would require environmental impact assessments to be considered where appropriate. I have no wish to linger too long on the Government's griefs over their present difficulties with the European Commission, but I hope that we shall receive some reassurance from the Minister that in future such assessments will be considered.
  The Bill does not concern only conventional railway schemes. A number of light rail initiatives have been taken by local authorities and some of them have already become bogged down in our somewhat elaborate procedures. Some have been bogged down as a result of deliberate delay and obfuscation at the Department of Transport. The aims of part I will be achieved in the way in which the Minister would like them to be achieved only if certain issues are properly clarified.
  Clear timetables must be set for inquiry hearings and for the announcement of a decision if we are to ensure that the new procedures work more effectively than the existing procedures. I suggest that a time limit be written into the Bill in Committee: a period of six weeks for the appointment of the inspector and a similar period for the inspector to report after the conclusion of an inquiry. The Minister looks a little doubtful. I have no doubt that his advisers will tell him, "That is very difficult, Minister." I can see some of their lips moving now on those lines.
  I hope that Conservative Members who take an interest in such matters will agree that with schemes which might be embarrassing for any Government or might lead to difficulties in any area for a prominent member of any Government, the temptation without a laid down time limit would be to prevaricate, especially if an embarrassing political event, such as a general election, was due. I know that the Minister will want to do what he can to reassure people outside that such unworldly considerations will not unduly delay schemes to be considered under the Bill.
  Mr. Barry Field: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he confirm to the House for the record that, if a Labour Government faced an inquiry concerning one of the privatised industries—privatised industries, such as Associated British Ports, hitherto required private legislation—he would believe that a timetable should be instituted by a Labour Secretary of State who might be tempted to use the public inquiry procedure as a way to delay implementation of the reforms? That might hold up the trading position of that privatised industry.
  Mr. Snape: I assure the hon. Gentleman that any transport industry affected by the Bill would be treated by an incoming Labour Government in exactly the way that I urge the Minister to treat such an industry. The hon. Gentleman may be artful in introducing such irrelevancies —[Interruption.] Once again the Whip, the hon. Member

  49
  for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) cannot contain himself on the Government Front Bench. He obviously has not read the legislation. Of course, it is not his job to do so —his job is to get the Bill on the statute book regardless of what it contains.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who takes an interest in these matters even if his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam does not, will be aware that the Bill is specific about the industries that it covers. It covers transport matters, most of which are railway matters. I assure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that I urge its provisions, with the safeguards that I propose, not merely on a Conservative Government, but on a future Labour Government whom I expect to abide by them as well.
  Mr. Roger Moate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Snape: I fear that the hon. Gentleman will not be able to resist some political barb about these matters. If he does make such a barb, I may pursue him down that road, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the early cross-party consensus may be prejudiced. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment. If, after reflection, he wants to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way.
  The Secretary of State must adopt standard criteria for deciding which schemes come within the remit of clause 9 —"schemes of national significance". Before the hon. Member for Isle of Wight intervenes, I must tell him that such decisions should not be left simply to the discretion of a Secretary of State, even a Secretary of State as wise and as far-seeing as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
  Mr. Moate: I shall be as constructive and as cross-party as the hon. Gentleman always is to me. We all welcome timetables which require Secretaries of State to set up planning inquiries rapidly, although there are practical difficulties. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are trying to make the normal planning procedures apply to railway works? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would urge any future Government to set up a public inquiry within a certain time? Is he saying that the Labour party commits itself to do the same on all planning matters? The arguments that apply to roads, highways and housing are the same as those that apply to railway works. If the hon. Gentleman is not saying that, why not?
  Mr. Snape: The short answer is that it is vital that a time limit is laid down for minor schemes. It would be impossible and undesirable to put time limits on the length of an inquiry into a major scheme. However, a future Labour Government would approve such a time limit for appointing inspectors and for reporting after the conclusion of an inquiry. I stress that that does not affect the length of time of the inquiry because, for obvious reasons, some inquiries will be more detailed and technical than others. However, the time limits on either side which I have proposed are eminently reasonable and I look forward to urging them on the ever-receptive ears of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
  Will the Minister assure us that if a scheme does not come within the remit of clause 9, the rules for making objections under clause 10 will not unreasonably limit those objections? It would be highly unsatisfactory if
  50
  inquiries were limited to very local and detailed issues concerning, for example, the precise alignment of a route and if they could not consider wider issues that might affect people locally.
  There should be a clear separation between the order-making procedure and the role of the Secretary of State in grant-aiding, for example, light rail schemes. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
  The Bill does not provide for local order-making power for minor schemes, although such a provision was included in the original consultation paper. Would it not be more sensible if in relation, for example, to small changes to previously aproved schemes, such local power was reinstated? Under the Bill, it does not seem logical that minor proposals would also go back to the Secretary of State and would be subject to the full-blown order-making procedures.
  For railway proposals that include the closure of an existing line or station, it appears that the new procedure wil replace the closure consideration held by the local transport users consultative committees. Will the Minister give us an assurance that all objections will be heard at the public inquiry, and that both the relevant TUCC and any individual users affected will be given the status of statutory objectors under clause 2?
  I will ask the Minister to comment on other provisions in part I in due course, especially if the Government are really committed to helping local authorities plan and implement light rail and other desperately needed public transport initiatives. Will the Government give a commitment during the passage of the Bill to review investment appraisal techniques and rules to ensure that differences in such techniques for road and rail schemes cease to result in discrimination against public transport schemes in the allocation of resources?
  Will the Minister give us an undertaking that his Department will work with local authority associations to develop a package approach to transport investment in urban areas under the provisions in the Bill? Does he accept that there is a need to develop a transport investment programme embracing all transport modes, which would replace existing trunk road and the transport supplementary grants programme? Will the Minister undertake to inform the promoters of major public transport schemes whether such schemes have passed grant appraisal, even if the Treasury tells him and his fellow Ministers that funds are not available and, given its habitual parsimony, are unlikely to be available in the foreseeable future?
  I want now to consider part II and the introduction of a new regime controlling the use of drink and drugs by those who work on the railways. Working in the railway industry is, from my experience, to become involved in a mixture of long-standing rules and regulations and to be subject to an everyday system of discipline which is almost akin to military life.
  The observance of numerous rules and regulations by those working in extremely responsible albeit pretty shabbily paid jobs explains the 150-year-old safety record of railways and lies behind my belief that a modern railway system is still the safest mode of transport. However, over the years there have been a number of railway accidents which have been partly or completely alcohol—related. In a modern high-speed, high-technology railway environment, the provisions of the Railway Regulation Act 1842

  51
  about the conduct of what were known then, and in my experience are occasionally still known now, as railway servants, are obviously outdated.
  Those of us who are interested in railway matters, railway management, the men and women who work in the industry and their trade unions all support the provisions of part II which deal with those matters. Having said that, there are a number of points that I want to put to the Minister about the introduction of the regulations which are based on the Road Traffic Act 1988.
  My first point relates to the decision in the Bill to adopt the same limits of alcohol concentration for a train driver's offence as are prescribed for drivers of motor vehicles. At the outset, we should acknowledge that the driving of trains by drivers whose ability is in anyway impaired by alcohol could lead to consequences far worse than those caused by drivers of even the heaviest motor vehicles.
  The British Medical Association has written to hon. Members about the Bill and has made known its concern at the possibility of a person driving a train with a blood alcohol concentration above 80 mg per 100 ml. It is right to draw our attention to that. The best possible concentration of alcohol while a driver is on duty is zero. It should certainly be less than the proposal in the Bill.
  The possible anomaly to which the Under-Secretary of State rightly drew our attention was the subject of discussion behind the scenes. A Treasury solicitor suggested to the draftsmen of the Bill that, unless we varied the proposed limits, it would be anomalous, to say the least, for the driver of a Manchester metro vehicle to be prosecuted if his blood alcohol count was less than that of the driver of a motor vehicle with whom he had collided.
  The Minister was right to say that this debate is not the time or place to consider blood alcohol levels and whether the levels should be reduced, but none of us would enjoy being told that the driver of our train had been breathalysed and had revealed a blood alcohol level slightly below the legal limit and was then, under the provisions of the Bill, free to drive the train. I am sure that all hon. Members would accept that the best alcohol limit for train drivers is zero. However, I appreciate the difficulty of enforcing such a provision.
  Mr. McLoughlin: This important point requires clarification. Under BR's code of employment, it would be an offence for a driver to have taken alcohol before coming on duty. The Bill is concerned about criminal negligence or liability, and that is a point for wider debate. However, it should not be thought that we condone people driving trains if they have consumed alcohol before taking charge of those trains. The difference between criminal law and BR's operational guidelines is important.
  Mr. Snape: I understand that, and I am grateful to the Minister for pointing it out. He is aware that the BMA has expressed considerable reservations about the enforcement of the levels and about the legislation, particularly given the lack of experience of the transport police in administering the law in respect of railway staff. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether the provisions of the Bill will be operated specifically and only by the transport police.
  Mr. McLoughlin indicated dissent.
  Mr. Snape: We shall be asking for more details in Committee about who else will be involved and how they will discharge their duties. While I stress that we believe that the safest limit is no alcohol at all, we should be reluctant to see the Metropolitan police in London entering railway property willy-nilly to enforce the provisions of the Bill. Could that happen under part II? Will police forces other than the transport police be responsible for administering certain aspects of the Bill?
  Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Primarily, it will be for the British Transport police to carry out the tests. However, other police forces will also be able to enforce provisions if a transport police constable is not available, or in relation to systems not covered by the British Transport Police, such as tramways, preserved railways and the Tyne and Wear metro. Normally, however, one would expect the transport police to be responsible, but it is possible for other police officers to conduct tests.
  Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that, and we shall wish to return to the matter in Committee because there must be safeguards on both sides. In Committee we shall consider the way in which this merited and necessary change in the law can be administered.
  Chapter II of part II provides for amendments to legislation dealing with railways and similar systems and the footpaths that cross them. It amends the Highways Act 1980 to allow closure or diversion of footpath crossings on grounds of safety. That part of the Bill has been strongly opposed by the Ramblers Association, but I imagine that it will be welcomed by railway locomotive drivers who, for example, face more than 100 such crossings whenever they drive from King's Cross to Newcastle.
  The blocking of footpaths and the removal of rights of way are obviously contentious. As a former railwayman, I read the views of the Ramblers Association with some scepticism. In its brief, the Ramblers Association has stated that it
  "doubts whether such new powers are needed."
  That shows a failure to appreciate the dangers of crossing a railway line. Those dangers were amply illustrated by the recent terrible accident at Carr lane crossing, Doncaster, when a woman and two small children were killed.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Snape: I know that my hon. Friend will have something to say about this matter and I shall give way to him later.
  In the case to which I have referred, the footpath to a privately owned nature reserve crossed five railway tracks. The maximum speed of trains on at least two of those tracks was 125 mph. At that speed, pedestrians would have had seven seconds from the time the train came into view until it reached the crossing. For the Ramblers Association to state:
  "BR should be required to improve safety or make reasonable alternative provision, for example by building a bridge"
  demonstrates a lack of feeling for the views of the bereaved and for the two drivers involved, both of whom will remember that tragedy every day for the rest of their lives.
  Mr. Bennett: The Ramblers Association does not dispute that there is a problem. It has made it quite clear that it believes that the existing legislation can deal with

  53
  such matters. The association has stated clearly that it is up to British Rail—and, perhaps, the Government—to take such dangers into account if they wish to increase railway speeds, as many of us would like, and to ensure that people can cross the line safely, even if that means the Government providing the money either for an underpass of for a bridge over the line.
  Mr. Snape: I am aware that the Ramblers Association has said that, but there are 100 such crossings on the east coast main line, which is the example that I gave. Is my hon. Friend saying that an alternative method of crossing should be provided for each and every one? If so, I must advise him—and Conservative Members before they intervene—that that is not a commitment that I should like to make on behalf of any future Labour Administration because it would be an unreal commitment.
  Indeed, the Ramblers Association has gone further than my hon. Friend has suggested in connection with that line, and has stated that, if British Rail increases the speed on a line, it will also be reducing the safety on it. I do not see it like that, and I am sure that the nation as a whole would not either. If we were to take the Ramblers Association's argument to its logical conclusion, every train on the east coast main line would be preceded by a man on foot, carrying a red flag, in case someone wanted to walk in front of the train.
  Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that, if British Rail has decided that only 13 of those crossings are unsafe, it therefore appears to believe that 87 are perfectly safe? Is that not an interesting observation? Surely, if only 13 of the 100 crossings are unsafe, it is not unreasonable for British Rail at least to propose alternative crossings at some of those points. I am sure that if British Rail had done that, the ramblers would have been prepared to compromise. They were upset because British Rail wanted to close 13 crossings as unsafe without offering to provide alternatives at any of them.
  Mr. Snape: I am not here to defend British Rail's management decisions—I am usually better at condemning them—but during the passage of the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred earlier, British Rail stated that it had picked the least safe of the 100 crossings to which I have referred. From my discussions with British Rail, I know that it made specific proposals for the diversion of at least four of the crossings and that the Ramblers Association objected to them all. There must be some co-operation from both sides.
  I do not think that British Rail should be given carte blanche to abolish rights of way on every railway track, but where train speeds and frequencies are as great as on the line to which I have referred, we must recognise that the combination of pedestrians and such high-speed trains is deadly. The evidence that proves just how deadly that combination can be is on my side. I hope that at a later stage we can persuade the Minister that a compromise is possible, feasible and affordable.
  Opposition Members support clause 56, which seeks to make the directors and managers of British Rail personally liable for offences attributable to their neglect. In the aftermath of the Clapham disaster, I am sure that the House will agree that such a provision is both necessary and overdue.
  We also welcome the provision in part III that removes the use of the private Bill procedure to obtain powers that
  54
  could be granted by orders for harbours. I should, however, like the Minister to clarify the issue of rights of way in dock areas, where I do not think that many trains will be travelling at the high speed of 125 mph. Such orders are often made in connection with works. However, diversions or blockages of a right of way can be considered under the provisions of part I.
  So far, we have achieved a degree of unanimity. Although we welcome the Bill, we shall subject it to detailed scrutiny in Committee. I give an undertaking, however, that we shall not attempt to delay its progress unduly. Both sides of the House could and should support most of its provisions, but where improvements are necessary we shall be pressing them on the Minister, and I hope that we shall receive as fair a hearing from him as I have tried to give his Bill this afternoon.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley: As this is a tightly drawn Bill, there is no opportunity of making a general speech on transport matters, and I have no intention of trying to abuse the procedures of the House by doing so. I welcome the presence on the Treasury Bench of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, in addition to my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping. I have rarely met two Ministers who take more trouble to carry out the duties of their ministerial office. The presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State shows that he does not miss any opportunity to listen to his colleagues.
  We are dealing with a time-honoured procedure. Those who have some knowledge of railway history will recall what was known in the last century and in the early years of this century as "the railway interest". One can only assume that, if the Bill had been introduced 70 or 80 years ago, the House would have been rather more crowded than today. Although I welcome the presence of my. hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) immediately in front of me, I should have welcomed equally the presence of the attractive blonde lady who was sitting in front of me last week, but she obviously has other things to do this week.
  Although it is clear that the House welcomes the Bill, the provisions appear to have been drafted largely with British Rail in mind. Before I comment on the Bill in any detail, I must declare a possible future interest with British Rail in activities that are unrelated to my parliamentary duties. I say that more in hope than expectation, but one never knows.
  My main concern about the Bill is its possible effect on some of our preserved railways. I am not sure, but I believe that I am the unpaid, unofficial "parliamentary friend" of the Association of Independent Railways Ltd. That body has not yet contacted me about the Bill although the Association of Railway Preservation Societies and David Morgan thereof certainly have. I should like to put to my hon. Friend the Minister one or two points which, due to his courtesy, I have been able to discuss with him briefly during the past few days. I hope that he will take on board some of the concerns that have been expressed to me.
  Almost all the proprietors of the preserved railways are members of either the Association of Independent Railways or the Association of Railway Preservation Societies, and carried more than 6 million passengers on their railways in 1989, which is the latest year for which I have the full figures.

  55
  Like any other railway, a preserved railway normally requires statutory authority for its operations, which nowadays—until the Bill becomes law—is, in practice, enacted under a light railway order. It is likely that, in recent years, a majority of such orders have been sought by the preserved railways under the very procedures that are to be replaced by those laid down in the Bill. Thus, the Bill is of vital interest to those railways, and they are probably much more affected by it than the two earlier speeches have suggested.
  If we are to look after the legitimate interests of the preserved railways, one or two changes need to be made to the Bill. The first is in connection with Scotland. Although there are no hon. Members from Scottish constituencies in their places at the moment, my hon. Friend the Minister made a passing reference to Scotland, which is one of the issues that I discussed with him the other evening.
  The memorandum at the front of the Bill refers to ministerial orders in England and Wales, but schedule 4 shows that the whole of the Light Railways Acts 1896 and 1912 are to be repealed; so Scotland will find itself in an invidious position. My hon. Friend the Minister touched on the matter, but his interpretation was not one which I or the Scottish preserved railways share. He said that, if the Bill is passed unamended, the preserved railways in Scotland would have to be dealt with under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936. That is correct, but not satisfactory. Such an arrangement is potentially much more complex than the existing one. It would be a time-consuming and expensive procedure which required provisional orders under the Act.
  It seems wrong that a few legitimate private railways in Scotland should be disadvantaged by the Bill. The only beneficiaries would probably be the lawyers. It is my impression that the Department of Transport has not so far been sympathetic to the potential plight of some of the preserved railways in Scotland. I should prefer to see the Bill amended so that the two Light Railways Acts were repealed only in England and Wales.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give serious consideration to that point. The Conservative party is not exactly in the ascendant in Scotland. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister, who has Scottish ancestry, that to upset large numbers of railway enthusiasts in Scotland would not be of additional help to the Conservative party north of the border. If that is special pleading, so be it.
  The second point that worries me is also a minority concern. For some reason best know to those who drafted the Bill, line 23 of clause 60 says that a railway means a system of transport employing parallel rails which
  "(b) form a track of a gauge of at least 350 millimetres."
  At least one narrow-gauge railway in Britain operates on a gauge of 10·5 in, and there may well be others. If those words are retained in the legislation, those railways would still require a light railway order at some time. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that he could simply delete that line of clause 60. I cannot see that it serves any useful purpose.
  Everyone in the House welcomes the proposals in the Bill which relate to safety. I have considerable sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). He dispassionately and properly referred to the feelings of locomotive drivers.
  56
  They are people whom we rarely consider in this House, but when there is a suicide or accident on the railway, the driver, and his mate if appropriate, may be mentally scarred for life by the experience. It is surely incumbent on us to do everything possible to ensure that safety is paramount. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East made the simple proposal that it should be a criminal offence to take any alcohol if one is driving a train. I should certainly like to see the Bill amended to take care of that point.
  In his few remarks on clause 56, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East assumed that it referred to British Rail. He talked about British Rail's management. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to imagine the effect of the Bill as it is presently drafted on the preserved and private railways. Such railways are manned mainly by volunteers. Clause 56 could put a terrific burden on the unremunerated directors or officers of a preserved railway. If a ganger was working on the track and was found to be over the limit, a director or manager could be found guilty of a criminal offence.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister allow me to bring a delegation from the Association of Railway Preservation Societies to discuss the matter and the other two matters that I have raised? It would make the association feel that it had had a better hearing if it saw the Minister face to face rather than pursuing the matter in correspondence.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I give the undertaking that I will meet any delegation that my hon. Friend wishes to bring to me.
  Mr. Adley: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I had no doubt that he would say that.
  Railway safety is a big subject. It is just one illustration of the double standards that we have tolerated for generations that, for one and half centuries, the House has rightly imposed the strictest safety rules and regulations on the railways, while doing virtually nothing about the roads. The result is that we kill 5,000 people and maim a quarter of a million on our roads in the name of personal convenience. I have often thought that I should like to push through the House a simple single-clause Bill which would reduce death and injury at a stroke: it would be to insist that road traffic operated with signals in the same way as trains. That would save an awful lot of lives and make travelling by train a great deal more attractive and competitive.
  I understand from a brief discussion that British Rail is reasonably happy with the Bill. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) about the delays that could be inherent in the new system proposed by the Bill. None of us would want to find that, at the end of our work, we had produced a piece of legislation that increased the delay in obtaining the approval necessary to build new railways. My hon. Friend the Minister must pay attention to the point that has been made—that time limits must be set for, first, appointing an inspector and secondly, the production of the inspector's report once the inquiry is complete, if not necessarily on the length of the inquiry.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made several interventions—I was going to say on behalf of, but that sounds rude; in which he put the view of—the Ramblers Association. I share the view of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that it does not make sense to go back to the days of the red flag, but we

  57
  must find a compromise between the passenger's interest, which is the interest of the railways, and the pedestrian's interest. I say to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and my hon. Friend the Minister that I do not see why British Rail, as ever, should be expected to bear the full cost. That simply illustrates yet again the inequality and double standard which we employ in the treatment of road versus rail.
  If the Government of the day decide that a motorway is to be built and a footpath is to be built over the road, the cost of building a bridge or underpass is all part of the cost of building the motorway, and it is borne by the taxpayers. I see no earthly reason why we should shackle British Rail in providing a better service still in terms of safety and speed if it comes into conflict with those who want to walk across the line. We must find an equitable solution that does not put a yet greater financial burden on British Rail.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if he is as keen as I am to provide a level playing field for road and rail, he should recognise that, when motorways were built around Greater Manchester, of three footpaths that crossed the motorway, one was closed or diverted and bridges or underpasses were put in for the other two. That sort of compromise would be reasonable in dealing with footpaths that cross railways.
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Member illustrates my argument —there are double standards. As he said, two of those motorway crossings were paid for by the taxpayer. I shall not pursue the matter further, as I have bored my Back-Bench and Front-Bench colleagues endlessly with it, but it is fair to say that there should be an equal playing field.
  Talking of double standards, of road versus rail and the Bill, where footpaths are concerned we are talking about the removal of ancient obligations. British Rail has an ancient obligation to pay for its own police force. In this day and age, why should we expect that? Let us think of the cost that the police incur on all our behalfs by attending accidents. Think of the untold billions of pounds spent by the police on attending court cases dealing with so many facets of the internal combustion engine. However, nothing in the Bill would relieve British Rail of that burden, which costs in excess of £40 million a year.
  I do not think I would be out of order in recalling a private conversation with the Secretary of State for Transport about a year ago on this subject. He said that he did not think that it was a high priority to ask the Home Secretary to take £40 million out of his budget and put it on to the Secretary of State for Transport's budget. He did not think that he would get away with it. It is a shame that the Bill does not deal with that matter.
  Nor does it deal with the historical obligation for British Rail to maintain hundreds of listed buildings. It offered an opportunity to do so. Perhaps those matters may be attended to during the passage of the Bill.
  Finally, clause 56 states:
  "Where an offence under this Part committed by a body corporate is committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in such a capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall he guilty of the offence."
  We are prepared to clobber the ganger working on the Keighley and Worth Valley railway or his notional supervisor, or send him to prison. Meanwhile, large supermarkets are defying the law by opening on Sundays
  58
  and abusing society in almost everything they do, but we are doing nothing about it. I should like clause 56 to be utilised to deal with the activities of many other organisations.
  I welcome the Bill, I wish it a speedy passage and I hope that some of my suggestions will result in one or two minor changes in it.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the Bill, even though on the surface it hands considerable powers from Parliament to Ministers. I have spent too many hours on these Benches arguing on behalf of Bills, often at considerable length. I have meandered round all sorts of fairly obscure topics, just about pleasing the Chair by remaining in order, knowing that whatever I said it would not make the slightest difference to the outcome of the private Bill. Provided that I and my colleagues could keep going until 10 o'clock, the fate of the Bill would be decided by whether 98 hon. Members returned from dinner or 102. It was a pretty farcical procedure.
  Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend is far too modest. We all know that what he terms his "meandering" round private Bills has been responsible for a good deal of heartache and not a little management time in British Rail spent trying to meet some of his objections. Those objections might not always have been covered by the Bill that we were discussing, but we understood his argument.
  Mr. Bennett: I accept that, and I admit that there have been occasions when I and other hon. Members have blackmailed various organisations, including British Rail, with the amount of time that we would take in the House unless they did something to improve the position of our constituents.
  It is high time that the private Bill procedure was reformed. However, we must be clear in our minds that we are dealing with substantial issues. We are considering the rights of individuals as against the rights of the state and of corporate bodies. We must also recognise that any changes that we make will almost certainly not satisfy people outside. I sometimes think that it would be almost impossible to satisfy them. If someone wants to put a nuclear power station, a new road or railway, a science park, a supermarket or even a public convenience at the bottom of one's garden, most people would not want it. However one designs the procedure—whether a parliamentary procedure or a public inquiry—the majority of poeple will think that it is unfair that it is being forced or inflicted on them.
  The Bill will be a better way at least to convince people that they have an opportunity to influence events than the present private Bill procedure. We all know what is supposed to happen. The House debates a Bill on Second Reading and it is passed by chance rather than as a benefit of the arguments. Then the Bill goes to Committee. Four hon. Members are appointed—two from each side of the House—as well as the key appointment, the Chair, who has a casting vote. We all know that all sorts of manipulations take place during the appointment of the members of a Committee.
  It always amazes me how Bills which the Government support end up with a Chairman from the Government side of the House, thus giving the Government a majority.

  59
  People argue and give evidence to the Committee, for perhaps 10 or 12 weeks or longer. In theory, everyone listens carefully to the evidence, but some of us know that the reality has much more to do with the political persuasion of hon. Members appointed to the Committee and to discussions that take place when they are debating.
  It can be extremely frustrating for people who have to travel to London and face the expense of preparing a case —sometimes employing parliamentary counsel to put their case—knowing that decisions are not necessarily taken on the merits of the arguments but on political considerations.
  Mr. Barry Field: I apologise for taking up the time of the House. I chaired the Committee that considered the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill, which will improve the safety of a number of London underground stations when it takes effect, including Oxford circus, which several million commuters pass through every day. The Labour party, to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) belongs, objected to that Bill and voted against it. Is he suggesting that, by wanting to improve safety in one of our biggest underground stations, I am a Government stooge?
  Mr. Bennett: I am not suggesting that. However, various political considerations come into play with some Bills rather than their merits. Any hon. Member who does not understand that is relatively naive.
  It is important that we discuss the new procedure. There may be problems and differences between the two sides of the House over the way in which we plan Britain, especially as we move into the next century. The Conservatives have a tendency to believe that planning decisions can be taken on the profit motive. Opposition Members believe that there should be more objective planning criteria.
  Some of the measures that will come before us will have international or national significance and others will have regional or local significance. Under the Bill there will be problems deciding whether the matter has local or national significance. Perhaps I may pursue that in Committee.
  Another question is whether Parliament should give its approval first before a public inquiry is held or whether Parliament should have a say after the inquiry. There is also the question of the evidence put to Parliament, and I want to take up those issues in Committee.
  I press the Minister to consider carefully the order-making procedures. For most of my time in the House, I have been dissatisfied with them in the same way as I was dissatisfied with private Bills. I am dissatisfied with the way in which the House deals with secondary legislation. Whether it is affirmative orders for national schemes or negative orders for local schemes, the procedure is very unsatisfactory.
  When hon. Members table an amendment to a Bill, it can concentrate the Minister's mind on a clause or section and occasionally hon. Members can be persuaded to force amendments on the Government. It is almost impossible to form a coalition of interests to get something changed in a statutory instrument or an order, so if there is broad agreement that an instrument is a good idea, one must either take it all or have nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend further agree, on that important issue, that it cannot be argued that there are no precedents of statutory instruments being subject to amendment? For example, orders relating to the census are subject to just that procedure.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I regularly argue with the Table Office that we can table amendments to Bills which make provision for orders that are amendable because of the census legislation. I cannot recall it precisely, but I believe that there is one other parliamentary precedent to that effect.
  In Committee, the Minister invariably points out that Parliament has a simple way of dealing with orders and that we should stick to it. He points out that they are negative or affirmative orders and that the Standing Orders of the House lay down that such matters may be debated for an hour and a half after 10 o'clock.
  Although we are now debating a piece of works legislation, it represents a major reform of parliamentary procedure, so I put down a marker at this stage to the effect that the Minister should be more forthcoming in considering whether we should have new procedures for dealing with orders. Such new procedures could allow for longer debates, perhaps in Committee, with the ability to amend regulations and with provision for an effective vote to take place in Committee.
  It is nonsense for us to debate such matters in Committee for an hour and a half and then, at the end of the debate, we vote not on the merits of the matter but on whether it has been considered. A day or two later—whenever it suits the Government—the theoretical actual vote takes place on the Floor of the House and, if a Division is called, most hon. Members do not know what they are voting about.
  On this occasion, because of the unique nature of the measure, we should be prepared to consider in Committee changing the way in which we deal with statutory instruments, enabling us to give them more adequate scrutiny. That is especially so at this time, when we are effectively handing from Parliament to Ministers the right to decide, on private Bills, to lay orders. That is a considerable sacrifice of parliamentary power. Although I accept that it is right for us to do that, a counterbalance should be a more effective way of scrutinising affirmative and negative orders.
  Various organisations have lobbied me about the Bill. I join the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) in pointing out that the Inland Waterways Association believes that it was not sufficiently consulted on the Bill. That association is particularly concerned about a measure that is proceeding through the other place and the question whether it will be dropped and be replaced by the provisions relating to canals in this legislation. I hope that, when we come to that part of the Bill in Committee, the Minister will assure us that the association has been consulted and its fears allayed.
  The fears of ramblers' associations about closures have been rehearsed. I appreciate everything that has been said about the need to maintain safety standards. We must be equally concerned about the effect of what we do on engine drivers. Historically, British Rail and its predecessors have argued to the House for certain railway lines to be built in a particular way. They argued at that time that pedestrian crossings of railways were perfectly safe.

  61
  For almost every railway line built by the different railway companies—permission for which was passed by the House in different eras—we laid down different procedures. It was common for some to build footpaths across the lines and in other cases bridges were built. Indeed, on some lines, bridges were built on almost all occasions. It should be possible to obtain a compromise which is effective in the legislation and which says, in effect, "There will be some crossings which are so rarely used that people are not inconvenienced by their closure." In other cases, a simple diversion, often involving the use of a private crossing that already belongs to British Rail, could be brought into use to enable people to cross in safety. In some instances it will be necessary to provide a bridge or underpass.
  I am often upset when people approach British Rail on the safety issue and ask how much it would cost to do the job properly. The price quoted for a bridge or underpass is always horrendous. The old railway companies had almost Meccano kits for bridges which were built as standard in various places. They varied only according to whether the approach was from the right or left. If it was possible to do that in the past, it should be possible now for British Rail to design relatively cheap crossing facilities.
  I appreciate that there are problems. In one instance, when a local authority was asked to approve a bridge, which could have been built relatively cheaply, the authority refused because, it said, the bridge must be suitable for use by the disabled. I appreciate the arguments that go on nowadays, but let us not forget that the old crossings were not suitable for the disabled, which is why, in the case to which I am referring, it seemed unnecessary for the authority to insist on a ramp being built. I hope that in Committee we can make some progress on that front.
  I have received a set of objections from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It is concerned about the implications of the legislation on estuaries. I a m keen for the Bill to cover estuaries, in view of my experience with private Bills over the years. In the 1970s many local authority Bills were introduced dealing with issues such as procession clauses. More recently, we have had many railway Bills. I predict that, if we do not reform matters, we shall have introduced a large number of Bills dealing with estuaries.
  There are power schemes and other proposed developments involving estuaries. That particularly applies to the Severn and the Mersey. There are schemes on hand for virtually every estuary in the country and it is important for the legislation to cover them. At the same time, we must have a proper national debate to see how many estuaries can be changed from being tidal areas, where there is extremely good feeding for birds, to areas which, in effect, become inland lakes.
  That has significance nationally and internationally, especially if we reduce the facilities for large numbers of birds. We must ensure that there are proper safeguards in legislation. Although a scheme may appear local in nature and the amount of an estuary that it encloses or otherwise alters, we must take the national significance into account for breeding birds. I am worried by the enthusiasm of some of my constituents for the Bengal tiger and rare species in various parts of the world, while tending to disregard animals in our local habitats. I hope that we can deal with that, too, in Committee.
  62
  We must look carefully at environmental statements which accompany orders flowing from the legislation. I appeal to the Minister to give at least some consideration to how far the environmental statement should come from a neutral source rather than from the promoters. Although promoters may employ reputable consultants, it is difficult for a consultant to a project to put all the disadvantages from the environmental point of view as thoroughly and firmly as would be done by a totally neutral person. I urge the Minister to bear that in mind.
  Many attempts have been made in the House to reform the private Bill procedure and many of them have collapsed because it has always been easier for a private measure to be introduced. We must do all we can in the coming few years to block any parliamentary private Bill which could as easily be dealt with through this legislation. It is a question for the Court of Referees, and it will be a matter for the House.
  I would have hoped that the Minister might have spelt out more clearly the fact that he would not expect any more private works Bills to be introduced. We have had 23 this year, of which 13 or 14 have been works Bills. They may go through, but I hope that he will make it clear that, in the next Session of Parliament, this legislation will apply, and anybody considering introducing a works Bill will do so through this legislation and not as a private measure.
  I hope that we shall have a useful Committee stage in which many of the points that I have made can be answered.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: No mention of private Bills would be complete without paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) for the way in which he chaired the Committee which sought to untangle this web. His knowledge and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is considerable. I also pay tribute to Mr. Willoughby and the staff of the Private Bill Office, whose courtesy is unfailing. They have assisted many hon. Members, including myself, in fathoming the difficult procedure.
  No mention of private Bill procedure would be complete without mentioning the Dartford warbler. It is always endangered and turns up whenever we discuss a private Bill. Whether it is the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill or the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill, the Dartford warbler is always certain to be nesting in the middle of the projected works. If we ever want to save endangered species, the private Bill procedure may be one way to ensure that they are more plentiful.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) assured me that a Labour Secretary of State would be bound by the timetable that he proposes for public Bill procedures. However, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill took 41 hours to be discussed in the Chamber and 86 hours on 24 days, spread over five months, to be discussed in Committee. After several weeks, the Committee's proceedings were suspended because a Labour Member departed from the Committee. As Chairman of Ways and Means, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, attempted to resolve the situation and eventually you made history in the House by deciding that the Committee would be quorate with just two members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. As I recall, the Chairman of Ways and Means did not attempt to resolve this situation—he did so.
  Mr. Field: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did so most expeditiously. I would not be so ungallant as to doubt the word of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East today, but given the pressure that Labour Members placed on that Bill, a serious question mark would hang over any Labour Secretary of State who did not give way to pressure regarding the timetabling of a public inquiry procedure and who did not take some time to allow the result to be published or deliberated on.
  Mr. Snape: I was beginning to fear that the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's speech was part of the delaying tactic that he denounces. I made a couple of moderately long speeches on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, but we are not discussing existing procedure. The undertaking that I gave refers to the Bill before us. It refers not to truncating the inquiry but to the timescale before appointing an inspector and publishing the report. I can only give an undertaking and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it in the spirit in which it is given. I hope that he will also accept that Conservative Members have used the existing procedure to delay legislation which they have disliked over the years, which is why we want to change it.
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would not be the first inspector's decision that took some time to see the light of day once it had been referred to a Department. That was the point that I was trying to make.
  I have been in the House for only a short time, but since I have been here I have been involved in a number of private Bills. The Isle of Wight Bill was my alma mater. Because of the activities of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in holding it up, I eventually became the wrecker of every other private Bill. It always amuses me when Liberal Democrats accuse me of having a ministerial career. If only they had seen the correspondence that flowed to party chairmen from "Horrified of the Home Counties" when some of those Bills hit the deck; one example was the correspondence from the lighthouse keepers association. Some of my colleagues, even to this day, hardly speak to me because of how their Bills were delayed. With your wonderful knowledge of the Bible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you produced the Lazarus motion which revived them all from the dead and they eventually passed on their way through the House.
  I also served on the Committee considering the London Local Authority Bill which was, remarkably, opposed by the ice-cream alliance when the SDP and the Liberal Democrats were in a state of meltdown. That Bill abused the rights of individuals to object to private Bills. London local authorities had delayed hearing petitioners' cases and put them to considerable inconvenience.
  In July 1990, I chaired the Committee on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, which subsequently passed into the trust ports legislation, about which I hope we shall hear more before the end of the year. Recently, I chaired the Committee on the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill, to which there were some 56 petitioners. We resolved the situation and the Bill was out of
  64
  Committee within two weeks, so the fact that there are many petitioners or objectors to private legislation does not always delay it.
  For more than three centuries, large-scale projects of public significance, such as the building of railways, the construction of bridges, and the regulation and construction of ports, have required the authority of an Act of Parliament. The sanctioning of transport infrastructure, central to the development of national commerce and industry, requires the careful balancing of national and local needs, environmental issues and the interests of the private individuals affected. It has long been recognised that Parliament is the ultimate planning authority best suited to deal with such issues.
  There are important constitutional aspects to the Bill. We are transferring substantial power to the Executive and taking away from Back Benchers a power to make decisions, as Committee members, that affect people's lives. The ability and right of hon. Members to legislate on behalf of individual citizens is important. I am worried that the desire for an easy life could lie behind the Bill. Those of us who remember the late-night sittings associated with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill will remember how difficult the parliamentary timetable was.
  Anyone who suggests that public inquiries are a speedy way to resolve matters worries me. Planning inspectors who reach speedy decisions ar rarer than rocking horse manure. As a device for speeding up matters, the Bill seriously concerns me. If the Crossrail Bill currently before the House were the subject of a public inquiry, I wonder how long it would take. The channel tunnel and Winchester bypass legislation are examples of how public inquiries go on and on. I wonder why we have put our faith in public inquiries in this Bill, especially given that the Government have been so pleased with the result of some of the private Bill procedure.
  The other day, Commissioner Ripa di Meana said that one reason why he took action in this country was the amount of correspondence that he receives from the United Kingdom compared with any other EC state. The attention that this country pays to those matters is one reason why it takes so long to resolve them in public inquiries.
  I am pleased that marinas are included in the Bill. In Ventnor in my constituency, we had a proposal for a marina. Half the population thought that I had a magic parliamentary wand and the other half thought that I was fully in agreement with it, because, knowing private parliamentary procedure as I did, I realised that it would take at least 18 months to two years to come to fruition. They interpreted my rather laid-back approach as an indication that I agreed with the marina, and did not realise that I would not be allowed to take part in the debate.
  The Bill allows for guided transport schemes. Will that include buses of the type that are used on the continent? They travel on guided tracks and switch from diesel power to electrical power which allows the bus to be driverless. We shall see more of that sort of transport in the United Kingdom and certainly it is much better for the environment of cities. I hope that the Bill takes cognisance of such future developments.
  Clause 7 deals with redundant transport facilities and mentions military installations. Will the clause affect the redundant Victorian piers on our shores? If it does, it will be welcomed in many seaside towns with rather decrepit

  65
  structures. A long time ago, I asked the Civil Aviation Authority whether it tested its air traffic controllers for drugs or alcohol and I was told that it did not. As I say, I asked a long time ago and I am open to correction.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend's mention of clause 7 prompts me to pick up a point that did not occur to me before. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the piers of the former Fort Augustus railway in the highlands. Because of the Bill's effect on Scotland, at what stage could somebody who did not like the piers in the middle of the river use clause 7 in a way which I am sure nobody could have intended?
  Mr. Field: Whether intended or not, I hope that they do and that the Minister will offer some comfort on that. Many seaside resorts are fed up with the state of their piers and the Isle of Wight is no exception. We would like a procedure to resolve that so as to make our sea fronts more presentable. I hope that the clause encompasses such structures.
  I was speaking about the fact that the CAA does not test its air traffic controllers for drugs or alcohol. That seems remarkable—if it is still the case. We now rightly propose to test train drivers for drugs and alcohol, but it seems that air traffic controllers are not tested. If that is correct, perhaps we could extend the Bill's provisions to include such testing. The Minister will appreciate that it is an important matter, although I do not say for a moment that air traffic controllers suffer from problems of alcohol or drugs. Many companies now adopt such test procedures. Esso tests its bowser drivers and merchant naval officers. This is a suitable area for extension.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I can help my hon. Friend on this. Under the Air Navigation Order 1989, it is an offence for air crew to be under the influence of drink or drugs. From 1 October 1991 air traffic controllers have been subject to the same requirements as air crew. I hope that answers my hon. Friend's point. We shall consider the matter to see if further legislation is needed.
  Mr. Field: My hon. Friend has given me a full answer, and I am pleased to note it.
  Will the harbour orders cope with the fact that for some time the Royal Navy has been trying to give up its Solent navigational and harbour duties outside the Queen's harbour jurisdiction? I do not know whether the Royal Navy is on the record about that. It is extraordinary that the Navy is responsible not only for the eastern part of the Solent but for the navigational aids in that area. I have often asked the Secretary of State for Defence about what defence purpose that fulfils. Jurisdiction over Wootton creek on the Isle of Wight by the Queen's harbourmaster seems arcane in this day and age. In that respect, will the harbour orders serve a useful purpose?
  For some time I have felt that there is an air of Government morality in the private Bill procedure. The Government have worked wonders in rolling back the areas of state ownership and have returned hundreds of valuable assets to the efficient control of private enterprise for the benefit of customers and shareholders. They have not fulfilled all their duties towards those companies, which are required always to jump the hoop of the private Bill procedure. I welcome the fact that recently the
  66
  Government have been taking over some private Bills, such as the trust ports legislation, and they took over the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
  I hope that the Bill will be a natural precursor and will pave the way for the easier privatisation of British Rail in which, as the Minister knows, I take a deep interest. I even found a purchaser for British Rail's interests in the Isle of Wight. To my consternation, I was held up over that, but it has always been the case that where I lead others will follow tomorrow. I hope that I may soon take the Government with me and that the legislation will enable privatisation of British Rail to proceed much more quickly.
  I remain concerned about the speed of public inquiries and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he will deal with it in Committee. Otherwise, I welcome the Bill's principles.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Most hon. Members seem to agree that the principles for approving transport projects are antiquated and in great need of reform. I welcome the principle of clause 1, which lays down new procedures for the consideration of transport schemes. Whether it will continue to have my support depends on Government or Opposition amendments in Committee.
  I am concerned about some parts of the Bill. When any new transport infrastructure is proposed, conflicts of interest between those affected by the scheme and the need for the infrastructure are difficult to reconcile. Although I accept that the private Bill procedure has not proved to be competent in resolving such conflicts, I am not yet convinced that the public inquiry procedure and our system of compensation are any better.
  The Bill gives little detail about the new procedures and leaves much of the process to be decided by rules issued by the Secretary of State. The amount of discretionary power that the Bill gives the Secretary of State is quite wide, and in some areas that is a matter for concern. For instance, clause 9(6) deals with schemes
  "which in the opinion of the Secretary of State are of national significance".
  The Bill does not set out the criteria to be used by the Secretary of State when exercising his powers to decide what is of national significance. The national interest and what is of national significance are far too important to be left to the opinion of the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that in his winding-up speech. I hope to have an opportunity to clarify that point in Committee and to define on the face of the Bill the specifications which constitute a scheme of national significance.
  I share the concern of the Council for the Protection of Rural England that clause 9 appears to provide for parliamentary authorisation for the principle of a scheme before a public inquiry is held. This is in contradition both with the recommendations of the Joint Committee and with the Department of Transport draft paper.
  We cannot tell from the Bill whether the order to be presented to Parliament will be accompanied by an environmental statement. Hon. Members will not be able to make a proper judgment about a transport scheme unless they are aware of the impact that its proposals will have on the environment. I was pleased to hear the Minister's reassurances at the beginning of the debate on that matter.

  67
  However, I was surprised that a Bill such as this, which has the potential to create an explosion in the number of transport projects and wreak havoc with the environment, contains so little about the protection of the environment. The Government's continuing argument with the European Commission about the environmental impact assessments of the east London crossing and the Winchester bypass—the latter has already been mentioned —are examples of their lack of commitment in this respect. The Government should take the opportunity of the passage of a Bill such as this to make a clear statement about their objectives on environmental issues.
  If the procedures set out in clause 9 are not reversed, the clause will limit the terms of reference of any inquiry and may prevent consideration of alternative schemes. It may also hamper legitimate and important objections, particularly if they raise issues of principle. Under the present procedure, a Select Committee can reject a scheme after investigation, whereas in the proposed procedures, the outcome of the public inquiry will be limited to modifications of the scheme rather than outright objection. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
  Before giving full approval to part I, I shall be looking to ensure that the right for members of the public and their representatives to be heard is not diminished by the proposals. Those who can demonstrate an interest, including amenity bodies, must be ensured of a full hearing. The Bill must set out clearly the conditions within which a public inquiry will be held, the consultation process and the rights of third parties. Only then can we be sure that the powers in the Bill will not be used to ride roughshod over the wishes of local people and the public at large.
  I do not see any new procedures working without a clear statement from the Government setting out a coherent transport strategy. The removal of the decision-making process from Parliament to the hands of local government and public inquiries may be welcome, but it must be accompanied by a transport strategy and that we do not see here. The decision-making bodies must have a framework within which they can work, confident that their decisions will be upheld.
  Our transport systems have suffered from lack of investment, lack of direction and short-term piecemeal decisions without a clear and coherent policy. The Bill could plunge us deeper into the mire by an explosion in the number of projects for light supertram systems, built for their entrepreneurial opportunities rather than in the interests of the community.
  The Bill is an enabling Bill. Its powers are permissive rather than mandatory. The Secretary of State is the one who blows the whistle. The interpretation and application of the Bill may reflect the ideologies of a Secretary of State rather than the transport and environmental needs of the country. The Bill must be seen in the light of the Government's desire to give free rein to the market economy and to privatise the railways and any other form of public transport. Some of the clauses in part I should be amended to clarify the proposed procedures and make them more specific. I hope that the Secretary of State will make draft rules available to the Committee before we start our proceedings.
  68
  Part II, which provides for safety on rail and other guided transport systems, has my full support. Some clauses may require amending, or will at least be the subject of much discussion. These are the clauses pertaining to the permitted levels of alcohol and to the procedures of evidence. Some of the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State should perhaps be amended to place a duty on him, but that will be a matter for the Committee.
  Another subject that will require attention is the stopping up and diverting of public footpaths and bridleways in the interest of safety. As the Bill stands, there will be no requirement on British Rail to provide alternative means of access. That is a cause of concern to the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society and other groups. Judging from what I have heard, other hon. Members will, like me, be seeking assurances that the provisions will not seriously reduce access to the extent that it affects the quality of life, particularly for the elderly, infirm or disabled. Near Southport is what people call the "devil's crossing". To my knowledge, at least three people have been killed there and I have heard that it may be as many as six, so we need a safety provision that will satisfy the Ramblers Association and others who have complained about it.
  On the whole, I expect part II to be given a smooth passage through all its stages. However, I stress that I do not see the safety measures taking the place of more effective means of making our transport system safe. The criminalisation of public transport drivers may be necessary, but it should not deter us from insisting on adequate investment to introduce other measures which may provide a greater guarantee of safety. For example, the introduction of automatic train protection to stop drivers going through a red light is probably a more effective measure. The Clapham and King's Cross disasters arose from under-investment and overworked staff, not irresponsible drivers.
  I and my party are in full agreement with the principle behind the Bill. We have reservations about part I, but these could be partly dispelled if the Government would announce a clear and coherent transport strategy.
  I hope that the Minister will answer one question for me. Once the proposed procedures are in place, what role will the Secretary of State for the Environment play in transport matters? He is the Minister responsible for local government, where many of the decisions will be taken. The recent transfer of the docklands light railway from London Transport to the London docklands development corporation has brought that system within his sphere. His plans for the development of the east Thames corridor will, I am sure, encompass various transport schemes, including the channel tunnel. Given all this, will the Minister clarify who is to have ultimate responsibility for transport matters? Will he clearly spell out the lines of responsibility, and where they lie?
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Alan Amos: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping on bringing forward this much-needed and sensible measure. The Bill will improve the way in which transport schemes are dealt with, while reducing the burden on Parliament and thereby enabling it to concentrate its time on those matters which are more properly its responsibility.

  69
  Part I provides a much better system, by which railways, tramways, other guided transport schemes and canal works can be approved by ministerial order instead of, as at present, by a private Bill. The order will give all the necessary and specific authority, including compulsory purchase and planning permission. It implements the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and will reduce the number of private Bills by an estimated half. Replacing private Bills in this way will play an important part in the Government's wider plans to release more time and reform the grossly inefficient and antediluvian way in which Parliament conducts its business in the last decade of the 20th century.
  The growth in the number of private Bills relating to rail and light rail projects, together with a much greater interest in, and highly organised support for and opposition to, such schemes has meant that the burden on Parliament has become intolerable, while the time taken to process the applications has dramatically increased. This is not in the interest of Parliament, the promoters of private Bills or those affected by the planned developments. In the last Session, 23 of the 28 private Bills dealt with transport or transport-related matters and took on average 19 months to receive Royal Assent.
  Any proposal to speed up this process is to be warmly welcomed, particularly given the escalating construction costs of those much-needed projects, which are frequently delayed in the House not by reasoned and constructive debate but by filibustering designed to block the whole project and kill the Bill—a ploy that can succeed unless 100 Members happen to be available to support a clause. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to this earlier on.
  It is wrong that procedures should be allowed to get in the way of improving our transport infrastructure. The job of Parliament is to remove as many unnecessary obstacles as possible to the ability of private and public enterprise to undertake capital projects. As the Joint Committee rightly said:
  "Private Bills are not in the opinion of the Committee an appropriate system for authorising works of purely local significance. The Committee would regard the transfer of power from Parliament in these cases not as a substantial constitutional shift, but as a logical step in a pattern of historical development and a necessary response to modern requirements."
  Sensibly and neatly, the Bill makes the distinction between local and national schemes. Those that are of essentially local importance will henceforth be authorised by means of a local public inquiry rather than detailed scrutiny by Members. These schemes will inevitably be speeded up considerably. For those projects of strategic and/or national importance, Parliament will properly have an opportunity to debate and approve the principles and policy involved before the scheme goes for detailed scrutiny to a local inquiry. In that way, due weight can be given by the inquiry to the wider implications of the scheme.
  There must be a suitable balance between national and local interests, but it cannot be acceptable that very localised concerns should prevent a major strategic project from proceeding as soon as possible. If public funds are responsible for the construction costs, the wider public have the right to expect that their interests are given due account. But even private sector promoters are entitled to have the wider national benefits of their schemes given maximum weight.
  70
  Part II deals with important safety measures, including new police powers to test drivers and other persons working on the railways for drink and drugs. The measures are to be warmly welcomed. I hope that the proposals, which have been both warmly and widely welcomed within and outside the railway industry, will go through the parliamentary process unopposed.
  Also to be welcomed are the new powers for the Secretary of State to approve the safety standards of new works, plant and equipment, and to require more reports on accidents and occurrences. The amendment of the safety regulations to ensure that all serious incidents are reported to the railway inspectorate, whether an accident occurs or not, will implement recommendations of the Fennell and Hidden reports. The drafting will cover existing and anticipated forms of transport, and it is a sensible piece of foresight. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me what other forms of transport he might be anticipating. As I have said, it is sensible to include such foresight in the Bill in a technological age.
  I am especially pleased to see that the Bill will give the police new powers to allow them to breathalyse train and tram operators where there is even a suspicion of an offence, or after an accident. The powers will extend to include all those whose job involves controlling the movement of a vehicle, such as level crossing keepers, as well as guards and drivers.
  Train drivers are responsible for far more passengers than car drivers, so the effects of alcohol and/or other drugs on their actions are correspondingly more serious. I agree, therefore, with the British Medical Association that the Bill should require a zero level of blood alcohol for those driving or involved in the operation of railways, trams, and other means of guided transport. I support random breath testing for car drivers, and to be logical and consistent, I should like to see that approach extended to those who are involved in the operation of rail systems.
  It is important also to ensure that there will be adequate special training for the British Transport police to enable them to use breath-testing equipment properly in accordance with their duties under clause 30. I am sure that that is something to which my hon. Friend the Minister will be giving attention.
  Safety is and will remain British Rail's highest priority. Investment in safety last year was £140 million, and it will reach £330 million over the next three years. All new and recently built trains are being fitted with black box recorders, and pilot tests of automatic train protection equipment are to begin shortly.
  The Government have rightly made it clear to British Rail that high standards of safety must remain its top priority. All the recommendations of the Hidden report on the Clapham junction accident, which were published in November 1989, either have been or are being implemented. New procedures have been introduced for wiring and testing signals, staff training has been reviewed and procedures for dealing with emergencies have been updated. A further 24 measures are in the pipeline, and two are for later implementation. British Rail's external financing limit for 1990–91 was raised to £700 million in July 1990—an increase of over £100 million—to pay for safety measures.
  British Rail has taken many initiatives which demonstrate its commitment to safety. For example, all staff have been issued with a safety policy statement, and last February a safety plan was published. The fitting of

  71
  black box data recorders has now begun, as has that of cab radios, together with automatic train protection, a device that is designed to prevent a train from passing a signal at danger and to control a train's speed if the driver does not. Two pilot schemes are now being tested on the Chiltern line and on the Paddington-Bristol line.
  In conclusion—
  Mr. Cryer: Who wrote this?
  Mr. Amos: I did, this morning, and I wrote it in great detail.
  Although road projects are already catered for by the planning and public inquiry system, this is a good opportunity to urge the taking of action to speed up pre-construction procedures for road improvement, which already tend to be slower than the existing procedures for railways. Many of the delays occur when the Department of Transport is considering the next stage—for example, at the conclusion of public consultation or after a public inquiry.
  Gestation periods of 20 years or more are common for major road schemes in Britain, and not only major motorway schemes such as the M40 extension from Oxford to Birmingham, the M3 Winchester bypass and the M20 missing link from Maidstone to Ashford. I shall not pursue that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that you would rule me out of order. I have made the point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has noted it.
  The Bill is a good, sensible and useful measure, and I wish it a speedy passage.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I rise with some pleasure because I dare say that I am the only hon. Member who for many years past has had the pleasure of obtaining a light railway order and transfer order to transfer the powers of the Light Railways Act 1896, as amended by the Light Railways Act 1912, to apply to the five-mile Keighley and Worth Valley light railway in west Yorkshire. I am the owner of five shares, which have never received a dividend. They were part of the £3,500 capital with which the venture was started. That is when the railway was transferred to the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway.
  The procedures under which powers were obtained to run what was a standard-guage standard railway for the purpose of a light railway operation proved to be flexible and reasonable. They ensured that there were proper and adequate standards of operation. The fact that amateurs run many light railways does not detract from the need to ensure that they have the highest standards of operation, which is commensurate with public safety. Light railways have proved that they have been able to meet those standards. The Keighley and Worth Valley light railway has been a tremendous success. When it was started, many potential critics thought that it would go bankrupt in a year or two.
  I seek an assurance from the Minister that the new legislation will not prevent access and flexibility through the repeal of existing legislation. The Light Railways Acts 1896 and 1912 are both to be repealed by the appropriate schedule to the Bill and I am not too happy that that legislation should be replaced by a series of orders.
  72
  We recognise that the private Bill procedure has been unsatisfactory, and dissatisfaction has been stimulated by the way in which the Government have abused the procedure, and by little else. We must ensure that it is replaced by a good system and that we do not succumb to the temptation merely to hand over order-making powers to the Minister so that Parliament is reduced to a legislative sausage machine in which there is no scrutiny of legislation.
  Nearly all orders are subject to the negative procedure, which means that a prayer has to be tabled to ensure that an order is considered. The procedures for ensuring that prayers are debated are less than adequate and Parliament does not scrutinise delegated legislation in an adequate fashion. It is a matter of concern, therefore, that so many powers should be allocated to the Minister.
  All the procedures are negative, with the exception of those relating to the powers in clauses 9 and 39 on alcohol limits, which are exercised by the affirmative procedure and require a resolution of the House to gain approval of the instrument.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the maximum debating time permitted for an affirmative order is one and a half hours and no amendments are allowed except for a tiny class of instruments. There is no reason why the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments could not consider a new orders procedure that would allow amendments to be produced and for debate to extend beyond the usual one and a half hours when such legislation is considered in Standing Committee.
  The Bill provides an opportunity to introduce far better procedures than are now available. I say that in the knowledge that the number of instruments considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in 1978–79 was 794, and that in 1979–80, in the first Session of a new Government who were meant to take legislation off our backs, the number was 1,800. In 1980–81, the figure dropped to 1,225; in 1981–82, to 1,076; and in 1982–83, to 786. That latter figure was markedly lower because it was a general election year.
  In 1987–88, the number of statutory instruments shot up to 1,947; in 1988–89, to 1,380; in 1989–90, to 1,457; and in 1990–91, to 1,366. That is an enormous number. In one two-year period, 260 were reported by the Joint Committee or Select Committee as being defective in some way.
  I am concerned that clauses 6, 7 and 10 allow powers to be exercisable by statutory instrument. Where the negative procedure is invoked in respect of other clauses, that is mentioned. I hope that the Minister is noting my comments, because these important points need answering. Clauses 6, 7 and 10 state that the powers that they confer
  "shall be exercisable by statutory instrument",
  but the procedure is not defined. That is the draftsman's way of saying that the Secretary of State is being given powers to make a statutory instrument that he is not even required to put before Parliament.
  That is a legislative disgrace.
  If my interpretation is correct, the Minister should come clean. He should make it clear whether that is the case, or whether the fact that the Bill does not state that

  73
  clauses 6, 7 and 10 shall be subject to annulment is an omission or oversight. That requirement is stated in all the other clauses where order-making powers are listed.
  Too often in primary legislation, Ministers are given excessive powers. Those included in clause 6 embrace all forms of application for orders under the Bill's general provisions, the rules that apply in respect of any such application, and the fees payable. Therefore, the Secretary of State appears to be giving himself money-making or money-raising powers without any parliamentary accountability being required.
  Clauses 6 and 46 give the Secretary of State the power to make directions, but they are not defined in the Bill. Do they have to be in writing? Will they be published? If so, where? Under the other application procedures, reference is made to the London Gazette. If we are to shift a system away from Parliament and the private Bill procedure, we should retain at least some element of occasional parliamentary scrutiny.
  Clause 48, which follows on the failure of British Rail's Bill on the closure of rail crossings, allows a Minister to close a railway crossing by order. Although it is true that the clause stipulates certain criteria, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish in arguing that there must be cases where the Government could provide a little money to make crossings safer, or to provide bridges to enable pedestrian access.
  The railways were built under powers granted by the House which provided for access across railways, and that provision for access should be honoured rather than removed by ministerial fiat.
  Under clause 24, applications can also be dealt with by appointed persons. The Secretary of State is given the authority to appoint persons to exercise powers given by the Bill—which makes it clear that officers of the Department of Transport, Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will be permitted to carry out the duties of the Secretary of State.
  Many years ago, Thomas Dugdale established an honourable precedent: everyone thought that he was a wonderful man for resigning over the Crichel Down issue, in which he was not directly involved. That precedent has long disappeared. Today, we had the example of the Home Secretary coming to the House to say that he is appealing against a judgment which found him guilty of contempt of court.
  If the Secretary of State is to have powers to give civil servants the power to exercise primary legislation, it must be made absolutely clear that the Secretary of State will take responsibility for their actions without qualification and that there will be no shrugging off of responsibility for accidents or errors because something happened to be done by a civil servant. In view of recent examples, we must ask the Minister to make it clear where responsibility will lie in such cases.
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) expressed concern that there had been no consultation with organisations representing the interests of waterways and said that it was understood that they would not be included in the Bill. The Minister replied that consultation was continuing, but that is not very satisfactory. We want an assurance that the Minister is prepared to meet delegations from the waterways industry as and when necessary—and that, if they can make a strong enough case, he will table amendments in Committee.
  74
  There is agreement in all parts of the House on clause 39 and the affirmative procedure in respect of prescribing alcohol and drug limits, but let there be proper standards across the board. The Government should examine, for example, proper ways of dealing with alcohol abuse, which is a serious national problem. In Bradford, an important hospital, Scalebor Park, was closed, with the result that there are no facilities in Bradford now to treat people suffering from alcohol abuse.
  It is not enough to impose punishments or to increase penalties. They may be necessary, but alcohol is a disease of society. Let us see Government action in curbing advertisements and the glamourising of alcohol. Consider the cheating that goes on when sporting events are televised and huge placards advertising alcohol can be seen in the background. All that should stop.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Cryer: I would rather not, because I know that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) hopes to contribute to the debate and I do not wish to prolong my remarks.
  I hope that the Minister will give positive replies to the points that have been made. I welcome the Bill in principle, but I remain cautious about its detailed application.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I also appreciated listening to his experiences as the director of a successful privatised railway company. I hope that we shall soon hear him advocating the extension of that privilege to many more people throughout the country.
  I welcome the support that has been given to the Bill by all the parties and the constructive, co-operative approach that has been adopted. I say that as one who sat for what seemed like endless months on the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). That co-operative approach is warmly welcomed.
  The Committee agonised for a long time over whether to adopt this radical approach to the transfer of public works Bills out of parliamentary procedures and into the planning procedures. It was not an easy conclusion to reach. We heard representations from many interested parties. I believe that the Committee reached the right decision and that that view is now being endorsed by the reaction of all the parties and, generally speaking, by outside bodies.
  It is a historic decision. The fact that it is being debated in a spirit of co-operation and amity does not mean that it is any the less decisive. A system that has grown up over the centuries is to be changed. The way in which public works of this sort are to be considered during the next century is to be decided by this legislation—if, indeed, to sound a note of caution, it reaches the statute book this Session. I welcome the Bill's early arrival this Session, but who knows what other events might occur to truncate our legislative programme?
  I very much hope that the Bill reaches the statute book. It provides a much more efficient and fairer system for dealing public works matters. It cannot be right that

  75
  decisions on motorways which carved up the countryside were taken by inspectors at public inquiries and by the Secretary of State while the house spent hours and hours debating very small matters such as minor railway diversions and even footpaths. It was an illogical system. The one that we propose is much more logical. It will treat railways—we hope that there will be more of them—as we have treated roads. If one can be dealt with seriously, sensibly and fairly under the planning procedures, I believe that the same logic should be applied to railway projects and, for that matter, to ports. Moreover, the public would regard it as logical.
  I believe, too, that it is fairer. Like many hon. Members, I have served on many private Bills, but I have never been completely satisfied that it is a fair system. Hon. Members often enjoy taking part, but the system is not always fair to petitioners and promoters. I have sat on Committees that considered Bills at great expense, only for them to return to the Chamber and be defeated by what we, as parliamentarians, believe to be legitimate tactics. However, is it fair to use what is a quasi-judicial system as a means for indulging in parliamentary tricks that should be reserved for public Bills? We have some way to go yet in tightening up the procedures for all private Bills so that they receive fair treatment at all stages.
  My hon. Friend the Minister should clarify—not necessarily today, but at some stage—the criteria that will be used to determine what is a matter of national significance. It may be impossible to specify that in legislation, but guidelines should be provided.
  I had intended to ask about the Bill's impact on the biggest issue of national significance that will come before us—the high-speed rail link. We need to know whether it will be dealt with under this procedure, as a matter of national significance, or under the private Bill procedure as it stands, which it might well have to do, or whether it will be dealt with under the hybrid Bill procedure, in which case all the rules and dangers of that procedure will apply.
  It is vital that we should be told soon what procedure will be adopted for that scheme. The success or failure of the high-speed link will be determined by the procedures that are adopted. If it is the hybrid Bill procedure or the private Bill procedure, the scheme could be delayed for several years, and I am anxious that that should not happen.
  I think that we should all give a warm welcome to the Bill. I hope that it reaches the statute book soon. We must endeavour to get it through Parliament as quickly as we can so that it is not endangered by a general election. I share the wish that public works coming forward for consideration next year should be dealt with under the new procedure, not under our outdated and inadequate procedure.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. McLoughlin: Unfortunately, I shall not have time to deal with many of the points that have been made in the debate, but I shall endeavour to deal with specific points in Committee.
  For obvious reasons, the House has given a warm welcome to the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends referred to the interesting and not so interesting debates that have taken place throughout the past few years on a number of
  76
  private Bills. It is right, therefore, to try to devise an appropriate procedure to ensure that Bills which go through all their parliamentary stages are not prevented from reaching the statute book late in the day.
  A number of hon. Members consider that time limits should be imposed on public inquiries. We shall have to consider that issue in Committee. Some difficulties may be encountered, however, over imposing strict time limits on how long the Secretary of State may have to consider inspectors' reports.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) made an important point regarding how schemes of national significance are to be decided. He referred to the high-speed rail link. If it were to come under this procedure, it would be regarded as a matter of national significance and would be debated in the House.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) wants us to adopt criteria. We believe that the criteria may be too inflexible. The Secretary of State will decide each case on its merits and expects only the biggest schemes to be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State needs to be flexible, but schemes that are regarded as of great national importance will have to come automatically before the House.
  A meeting is being arranged regarding inland waterways. The Bill will have no effect whatever on the Bill that is now in the other place. That should not cause problems for hon. Members.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that the fear is that this Bill duplicates some of the provisions of the Bill now being considered in the other place? Will the Minister agree to meet those concerned before the Bill is considered in Committee so that time can be saved?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I very much hope that we can set up a meeting as quickly as possible. It would obviously be practicable to do so before the Bill reaches Committee.
  Many references were made to whether we should or should not close public footpaths. That is an important issue. We believe, however, that that is best left to the discretion of local public inquiries. I was grateful for what the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said. I do not believe that every time a public right of way or public footpath is proposed to be closed it should be necessary to come to the House for approval. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who has great experience of private Bills and other private legislation procedures, amply illustrated the need for the Bill.
  I am glad that the Bill has received a generally warm reception. We shall have to discuss a number of issues in Committee, but I believe that all hon. Members wish the Bill to make progress. However, progress must not be made at the expense of getting the legislation wrong. It is important that the legislation can be adapted to meet the many needs that are catered for in private Bills. The aim is not necessarily to speed up their passage, but to ensure that there is a better way of securing progress. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope that, before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, there will be virtually a zero alcohol limit for professional drivers, not a bottle of wine in an hour.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  TRANSPORT AND WORKS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation have been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport and Works Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act, and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

British Railways Bill

  (By Order)
  As amended, (in the Standing Committee), considered. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  7 pm
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The nice juxtaposition of the remaining stages of the British Railways Bill and the Transport and Works Bill, debate on which preceded it, will not have escaped hon. Members' attention. The latter is likely to make Bills such as the British Railways Bill unnecessary.
  The Bill was deposited in November last year, had an unopposed Second Reading on 19 March and was reported on 13 June. It may assist hon. Members if I refresh their memories by saying that the Bill has 47 clauses. In their various ways, all are concerned with improving the general structure of British Rail's operations throughout the country and, so far as is possible, continuing the policy which has been in place for some years of encouraging the transfer of the movement of goods and passengers from road to rail.
  In some instances, the principal works outlined in the Bill are reinstatements of old works. For the convenience of the House, I shall go through some of the more important works provisions. Work No. 1 provides for the reinstatement of a chord line at Guide Bridge in Greater Manchester to assist the construction industry in moving stone by rail rather than by heavy lorries. Work No. 2 provides for the reinstatement of a curve at Edge Hill, Liverpool, to allow coal trains for Gladstone dock to reach Fiddler's Ferry power station—again, a move from road to rail.
  Work No. 3 provides for the restoration of the rail link between St. Helens and St. Helens junction on the Liverpool and Manchester railway to take account of the new passenger service between St. Helens and Warrington. Work No. 4 provides for a temporary diversion of the railway at Bingley to allow the construction of a bridge for the Airedale trunk road. Works Nos. 5 and 6 allow the construction of two extra tracks on the western approach to Leeds station to handle the increasing number of passenger trains planned for the future with West Yorkshire passenger transport executive.
  Work No. 7 relates to the rail link to Dover, which ultimately will be of great significance to the channel tunnel plans. A new footbridge will be provided for pedestrians and the nearby Crow Corner bridge will be widened to take the extra road traffic. It will mean a general improvement in traffic flow in the area.
  Work No. 8, which was of significance on Second Reading, provides for the establishment of a chord line at Clarborough near Gainsborough, which will allow coal trains from the Immingham coal terminal to reach Cottam power station direct. It was agreed that it is far better to move coal by rail than by road.
  Work No. 9 is for a new siding at Sherburn in Elmet, between Pontefract and York, to carry gypsum trains. That gypsum is a by-product of the flue gas desulphurisation plant at Drax power station, and trains will use the new railway siding which is to be built there.
  Small changes were made to the Bill in Committee. As hon. Members will see, they are typographical changes.

  79
  Under clause 29, three level crossings were to have their status reduced. The Bill was amended so that all three crossings would retain their status as bridleways. That is the only change of any significance. The rest of the Bill contains the normal, standard provisions with which the House will be familiar. They have been included in every British Rail Bill so far and I do not intend to waste time explaining them yet again unless specific questions are raised.
  It is essential to recognise that the Bill is part of a continuing strategy. It is important, therefore, that it should progress swiftly to the statute book. I am always delighted to play a small part in assisting British Rail to achieve powers which are of such significance to its operational future. I hope that the Bill will be given a Third Reading.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few moments on a Bill which, as the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) pointed out, makes some additions to our railway system. I am bound to say, however, that a Bill which adds a few metres to our railway system is a poor comparison with provisions in France, where they add to the railway system by hundreds of kilometres at a time. I found it painful to have to talk in metres and kilometres rather than the furlongs and miles which are the normal way of describing lengths of railway, but there is a big difference between what happens in this country and what happens in France, whatever measurements one uses.
  My point arises from a statement on behalf of the promoters, which was made available to hon. Members. It stated:
  "The Board are continuing with their attempts to negotiate a settlement with those opposing the Bill and, meanwhile, respectfully submit that the Bill should be permitted to pass Consideration stage and proceed to Third Reading."
  I wish to counsel hon. Members that all the undertakings and all the arrangements that BR negotiates with people to secure the passage of the Bill must be considered in the light of experience.
  My experience is that, when BR undertook to restore overnight services on the east coast main line, it did not carry out its undertakings. The result is that I continue to receive a great deal of correspondence from angry constituents who want to know why they cannot have an overnight service to and from London, which they used to have and which could readily be provided.
  When those who are still worried about some aspects of the Bill are approached by members of British Rail bearing gifts of concessions and arrangements which they expect to be the basis of letting the Bill proceed through all its stages, I hope that they will bear that experience in mind and recognise that sometimes those undertakings are not worth the paper they are written on. I hope that reminders of what happened in the past will eventually persuade BR to reverse that foolish decision.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I recognise that I spoke just before 7 o'clock on the Transport and Works Bill, and it may be worth linking it with the British Railways Bill. I
  80
  congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) on the way in which he presented the Bill.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Perhaps I should give a little guidance and remind the House that this is a most historic day and a most historic time. For many years, the House has sought to improve the private Bill procedure. It made the changes a short time ago and the rules of debate are therefore new to us today. We are now on Third Reading and the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) can refer not to what might have been or to what should have been but only to precisely what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Bottomley: If that debars me from continuing to congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has presented the Bill, I apologise, but it will probably be in order for me to congratulate a fellow hon. Member on his speech, which is what I was trying to do.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: But not to link it to the previous Bill.
  Mr. Bottomley: I was going to say, by way of apology, that my service on European Standing Committee B prevented me from being here during the previous debate. Those words are not part of this Bill—I am fully aware of what this Bill is about.
  I had not intended to oppose the Bill. My precise reason is dissimilar to those of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), but British Rail has annoyed me. It has found a way to let an operator use part of British Rail property for a market without planning permission. If that continues to be an option for British Rail, I regard it as a suitable reason to oppose many British Rail Bills.
  In view of all the fuss about shops opening on Sundays, for British Rail land, made available by agreement or by authority under such Bills, then to be used for another purpose to the exclusion of those who wish to use the railways, makes one wonder whether the new procedures are right or whether Parliament should retain some control under the procedure which will operate if the previous Bill receives Royal Assent. I think that I am right in saying that the Bill received a Second Reading but has not gone through all its stages.
  The issues that we are discussing are basically about safety and level crossings. I strongly support the idea of British Rail having powers to get rid of unsafe crossings of railway lines, because the speed at which trains now move requires more bridges and more grade separation. It is a mistake for British Rail Bills to leave out powers to close bridleways. My hon. Friend mentioned—as I do in passing —that that change has been made to the Bill since it was last considered on the Floor of the House. As more trains use the lines, and as headway is reduced, people must accept that there is greater danger for those who cross railway lines at rail level.
  During my service as a junior Northern Ireland Minister, I had the experience of going to the Slaght level crossing crash outside Ballymena. Anyone who has seen the effect on a train—let alone on a car—of a train hitting a car will understand the importance of supporting British Rail in its basic aim of increasing safety of railway lines.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest mentioned bringing back into use lines which had previously had

  81
  railways on them. It is an issue on which this country made a mistake compared with France. I think that I am right in saying that, where a railway line was taken up in France, it was not available for other use but was protected.
  In the United Kingdom—this applies to Great Britain and to Northern Ireland—we have too often allowed small sections of land to pass into other hands at low prices. That is partly due to the ideology of the present Government during the past 12 years—they were not willing to look ahead to see changes in transport needs and to accept that there might be different competitive advantages in different forms of transport.
  I strongly support what my hon. Friend said about trying to help to move traffic from the roads to the railways where that is commercially viable and, if necessary, with some subsidy. Again I refer to previous experience, this time at the Department of Transport. Although I was called the Minister for Roads, I strongly supported the apparent subsidies to have heavy goods railheads in quarries and to allow other goods to go by rail where possible and thus to allow British Rail to get freight business as though between consenting adults instead of by Government diktat. That is an important way of allowing British Rail's freight business to become more prosperous.
  British Rail should give more consideration to replacements for unsafe and unsatisfactory pedestrian bridges over railways. That also applies to subway tunnels. Many of the bridges and tunnels built in the 1920s and 1930s are no longer satisfactory. There is a greater expectation that people with pushchairs and shopping and that elderly people should be able to take gentle ramps rather than decaying concrete steps.
  I hope that, if British Rail is willing to consider the issue, it will examine not only the Sunday market in my constituency, which I regard as unsatisfactory, but the crossing of the railway line at Middle Park, which, although it is not part of this Bill, should be.
  7.14 pm
  Sir John Farr: I do not want to delay progress, but someone must say that he is not entirely happy about the way in which British Rail has promoted
  82
  the Bill and about the contents of some of the clauses. Many of us believe that parts of the Bill—especially part III, which has been considered in Committee—could be improved.
  There is a widely held view in Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and the east midlands in general that British Rail is riding rough shod over many thousands of people and their elected representatives merely by failing to take the opportunities available. For example, part III contains provisions for the purchase of and rights over land, part IV relates to protective possession and part V contains the usual provisions relating to planning permission and arbitration.
  A great sense of frustration is building up because many hon. Members feel that the Bill represents a lost opportunity for British Rail. I shall seek to remain in order by referring to what is in the Bill. Nevertheless, I must say briefly that the constant inability of British Rail in successive British Railway Bills to recognise a real need is causing much frustration. If one writes to British Rail, one gets the brush-off. If one writes and asks—or begs—British Rail to include improvements in the Bill which it could easily have done by extending part III, one gets the same treatment.
  Part III deals with purchase of land and the rights over land and schedule 3(1) specifies the purpose. Those parts of the Bill are vehicles for British Rail to do work that is publicly demanded but which it resolutely refuses to give even the slightest hint that it contemplates.
  I thoroughly welcome the Bill, but it is what is missing that worries me. What is missing and what concerns tens of thousands of us is that the midland main line should be electrified as soon as possible.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given guidance on the rules of debate. This is Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Construction Board (Training Levy)
  7.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.
  The proposals before the House seek authority for the construction industry training board to raise a levy on employers in the building and civil engineering industries to finance the running costs of the board and to fund a range of training initiatives, including a grants scheme.
  The basis of the proposals is a levy of 0·25 per cent. on the payroll of employers in the industry and a levy of 2 per cent. on all payments made by employers for sub-contract labour. Employers with a payroll of £45,000 or less will be exempt from the levy. The proposals have the support of the employers, as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982, and have the full support of the board.
  The House will know that the Government thought long and hard about their decision to retain the statutory training board. In principle, we believe that independent employer-led arrangements which have the full support of employers offer the best way forward for industrial training. In general, the track record of compulsion through statutory levies in raising the quality and quantity of training is not good.
  In the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", we recognised that the industry has particular characteristics which create peculiar problems for training. The mobile nature of the work of the industry and the mobile nature of its work force, both geographically and between employers, together with the large-scale use of subcontract and self-employed labour, produce a unique set of circumstances.
  Against that background, we consulted the industry widely about the contruction industry training board. There was a widespread and strongly held view that the CITB should be retained, but that its management should be streamlined and reformed. In addition, the employers in the industry argued strongly for the retention of a statutory levy because of the largely self-employed nature of the labour force.
  We were persuaded to give the industry a chance to reform its training board, to remodel it as an employer-led body and to alter the basis of levy collection. I am happy to say that much progress has been made. The board was reconstituted with a majority of key employers from within the industry, its operations and financial systems have been restructured and a strategic plan has been produced which sets out clear objectives against which the success of the board's actions can be judged. New measures have been introduced to counter the effects of the recession on training, and the board is on schedule to create national vocational qualifications for all major occupations by September 1992.
  All the signs are that the board, under its chairman, Sir Clifford Chetwood, is fully committed to demonstrating its value to the industry and others. I especially draw the attention of the House to positive relationships that the board has established with 102 training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies for the provision of training for about 20,000 young people on its youth training schemes and to the £6·5 million that it is using
  84
  from its reserves this year to maintain the momentum of training in the industry. The improvement in effectiveness will be taken into account next year, when we review the continuing need for statutory arrangements in the industry.
  It is right for 1992 that the House should approve the draft order. I commend it to the House.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: The construction industry is an industry in crisis. The crisis has been created by the Government and it provides the context in which there have been tremendous implications for training. The Minister introduced the order characteristically, outlining the Government's interest in voluntarism and the fact that the order has the support of the construction industry training board. The reality is far removed from his speech.
  We have no desire to divide the House, because this is a procedural order. It allows the board to continue with the levy, which ensures that income will be gained and that training can continue. However, important issues should be raised this evening. The order does not command the support of the CITB. A pistol is pointed at its head, because it has been warned that, in the next year, there will be a further review under which it is likely that it will again lose its statutory framework and be cast adrift into voluntarism along with the 22 other boards which have been dismantled in the past eight to nine years.
  In that context, it is important to identify the flaws in the order. The crisis in the industry has now been reflected in the near-collapse of skills training in the sector. There is probably no better example of an industry and a sector in which economic policies are causing so much damage. The crisis has been created over the past 10 years, and this is the second recession in which the building industry has been hit hard.
  A number of strands to the crisis should be identified. First, there is the recession. It is clear from all those in the industry that the recession has a devastating impact on emloyment and on the ability to train. It is measured in the repossession of houses and in the lack of new house starts.
  Secondly, the crisis is measured in terms of Government cuts in training. Over a year ago, just after the autumn statement, the Government cut almost £340 million from the training budget, including the budget for adult training and the budget for youth training. Over the past year, some of the cuts have been reinstated, but the damage has been done. As will become clear tonight, the construction industry still suffers from the irresponsible cuts imposed by the Government.
  Thirdly, uncertainty now surrounds the future of the industry. The Minister suggested that the Government had listened to the employers and had decided to provide a statutory framework for the CITB. We welcome that. However, the decision to allow the board to continue was cloaked in Ministers' remarks suggesting that the statutory provision would be short-lived. We have the major problem that one of the key sectors in British industry has hanging over it the threat that, in a year's time, the decision will be further reviewed and the industry will again lose its ability to impose a statutory levy.
  Fourthly, the threat is an example of the Government's lack of commitment to training and to skills development. Every other nation in Europe puts that at the top of the agenda, but in Britain training is used as a political

  85
  football by the Conservatives. The Government have launched TECs, but they have then provided less funding than was envisaged. Morale is low, and many people are disillusioned.
  One problem above all is the lack of commitment to sector-based training. The French, the Germans and, increasingly, the Italians value strong sectors producing quality training in which the employers and the trade unions have confidence. That is very different from the approach of the Government, who have not only abandoned a serious commitment to training, but have suggested that sectors do not have a valuable role to play.
  We have one of the best construction industries in Europe, but unfortunately, it has one of the worst Governments. In a "State of Trade Enquiry" report published in November by the Building Employers Confederation, we read the outline of one of the bleakest futures for any construction sector in the whole of Europe. The confederation asks why, after two recessions and amid the deepest recession since the war, the Government show no sign of listening to the pleas made, or to the concerns expressed on the training front and, more importantly, on the need for investment.
  The Building Employers Confederation had a meeting with the Prime Minister, which was reported on 1 October in The Independent. It was clear that the employers proposed a plan to generate more immediate investment in the sector to provide some stability and to ensure that quality training would be provided. The article says:
  "Mr. Major disagreed with the delegation's gloomy forecast of when the recovery in construction would begin, saying he expected industry to emerge from recession in the middle of next year."
  Clearly the construction industry has extremely bleak prospects, and the Government do not take its major concerns especially seriously.
  We talked about the importance of the sector to the economy. One would not think that it was important from the statistics that have been compiled about the industry under this Government. Over the past 10 years under this Government, the number in employment in the construction industry has declined by almost 250,000. In the present recession, almost 100,000 jobs have gone, according to the Government's figures published in Employment Gazette. The industry says that the figure should be almost 165,000, and that more jobs are threatened to go in the next few months.
  Construction output is falling rapidly. We have to look back to the first quarter of 1988 to see a time when construction output was so low. We have to go back to the first quarter of 1986 to see such a low figure for construction output per person in the past decade. Regardless of the statistics used, we now find that one of Britain's greatest industries is threatened by a Government who ooze indifference, and who are not interested in investment or in investment in skills.
  We really discover the extent of the difficulties facing the industry when we consider training. Between 1989 and 1991, the number of construction trainees enrolled by the CITB fell by 40 per cent., from 14,385 to 8,500. In the same period, the number of apprentices registered with the council fell by 45 per cent., to just 2,710 starts. That 2,710 starts for apprentices must be set against an industry which employs nearly 1·8 million people, half of whom are
  86
  employees and the other half self-employed. Those starts cannot sustain the skills in the industry in the decades ahead.
  Local authority direct labour organisations are the cornerstones of training in construction. According to a recent survey by the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and the Association of Direct Labour Organisations, training places have been cut by 27 per cent. for women and by 47 per cent. overall between November 1990 and November 1991. The construction industry has an excellent provision for youth training, unlike many other sectors of British industry, but by 20 November 1991, only 9,562 young people had started on YT, compared with 11,877 by the same date last year. That is a reduction of 2,315, or 19·5 per cent., in just 12 months. The raw statistics show that training faces a crisis for many reasons.
  The Government fail to appreciate—although they are prisoners of their own rhetoric and ideology—several important points which others readily grasp and would clearly like to do something about. The cut in the number of trainees has already been identified. It is also obvious that there are fewer apprentices. One of the damaging implications of the recession is that very few employers are now able or willing to offer employment to trainees. Indeed, very few employers are willing to provide work experience instead of full employment. All that has been compounded by the Government's crazy cuts in youth training, including in the construction industry.
  The Government laughingly refer to a YT guarantee for every young person. However, it is clear that, throughout Britain and particularly in the construction industy, the YT guarantee for many young people is simply not worth the paper that it is printed on. Because of that, the CITB has had to introduce various schemes using its own investment to tide it over what it believed at the outset would be a short recession, but which has now become a very deep and long recession. If the recession lasts much longer, and with present cuts in Government funding, the board will not have enough money to invest to tide itself over this period in which young people face such difficulties.
  The board faces a crisis, and the Government are unable—some people would say unwilling, but I would be more charitable—to assist. However, that behaviour is characteristic of the Government. What can we expect from a Government who are dismantling quality training in the construction industry and whose record on training boards over the past decade has been one of failure? There used to be 23 such boards, but 16 were demolished. Of the seven remaining, five were then demolished and the two that remain are now under threat. What next for the training boards?
  Skill centres are a key part of the provision in any sector, but the Government have privatised them. That privatisation was ludicrous. Four of the sectors under the TICC consortium have entered receivership, and £2·1 million of public money has simply disappeared. The Government have reneged on all their commitments to the civil servants who were transferred into the private sector. We have lost capacity, skills and people who had some faith in the Government's processes. They have been sold down the river.
  What about the Manpower Services Commission? It was charged with the objective of bringing Britain into the

  87
  premier league for skills. However, the Government nearly abolished it. Many people deplored that. Clearly, our national focus for training has been removed.
  The employment service is disillusioned, demoralised and underfunded. In a sense, it is not required by a Government who preach the market model and who see no long-term future for the service. The treatment of training in the construction industry falls into line with the Government's practices over the past decade. The Government have nothing to be proud of over that period. After all that and the investment of nearly £30 billion in real terms, this nation has nothing to show for 12 years of this Conservative Government.
  The order refers to the future of the CITB and the continuation of a levy. The Minister said earlier that that is supported. It is not. The Building Employers Confederation and the trade unions—the key providers —do not want a levy at 0·25 per cent. of payroll. That is far too small. They are arguing for a minimum of 0·5 per cent. of payroll. I am sure that the Government were informed of that, but they did not listen.
  The Building Employers Confederation wanted no exemptions, because it must be right that every employer should contribute investment to his employees. The BEC must have told the Government that, but they did not listen. Exemptions have been raised from a base of £ 10,000 to £45,000. The industry wanted to be able to use the funds that it had generated to invest in youth training.
  Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that charities are also exempt. Does he object to that?
  Mr. McLeish: Every employer in Britain, including charities, small businesses, medium-sized and large businesses, must contribute to the skills needs of the country. When we talk about exemptions, the Government refer to them simply from a basis of ideology. They do not want a levy: they want everyone to be exempt. That is the essence of voluntarism. The BEC, which is not a strong supporter of the Labour party, has requested no exemptions, because it sees the benefit of every employer being involved, but the Government ignored that plea. The Government also ignored the Confederation's plea to use its finances to support YT when it saw fit. The Government encouraged heating and ventilating and plumbing and electrical to remove themselves from the scope of the CITB.
  Why do the Government preach that we should listen to industry when they ignore everything that industry tells them about training in the construction sector? The simple facts speak for themselves. I received a letter written by Mr. Smith, the secretary-director of the CITB, on 28 November. He made a point about the exemptions from the levy and said:
  "The Board and much of industry considers that there should be no exclusion from levy but that the whole of industry should contribute to the cost of training. However, the current legislation and Government policy requires a level to be set and the present level is reluctantly accepted on that basis."
  That is the board's view of Government policy—the very same Government policy that the House has been told has been endorsed by all those in the construction
  88
  industry. I must advise the Minister that that is not what the construction industry is saying to others about the problems that it is facing.
  Faced with such a crisis, we need some action. We are facing a loss of jobs, skills and capacity. The prospects for the immediate future are bleak. The Government need to take action on four issues, the first of which is the skills shortage. By instinct and possibly by ideology, the Minister never shows much interest in this subject, but perhaps he should listen to this debate. If we ever climb out of the current recession, the skills shortage in the industry will be a major problem.
  Some forecasts suggest that, by the turn of the century, 250,000 skilled people will have been lost to the industry. That is a product of the present lack of interest in the construction industry which the Minister must address, because the skills shortage is of crucial concern not only to those in the industry but to Britain, because we must invest in training in the 1990s if we are to survive.
  Secondly, there is a widening trade deficit in building products. Why, in 1989, did we have a £3 billion trade deficit in building products against the background of building firms, building material producers and brick-makers all going to the wall? It does not make sense to squander important resources that the nation can ill afford to lose.
  The third issue is our failure to meet the demand for new housing. Is the Minister interested in building homes in Britain not only to tackle the problem of homelessness but to allow peple to move within the private sector? Is he not interested in ensuring that building skills are available and, more importantly, that homes are made available in the right place and at the right time?
  The fourth issue is something in which the Minister will not be at all interested—European competition in the 1990s. Whether the Minister likes it or not, we must be prepared to face such competition, because major European contractors are already in Britain, winning contracts and using skilled labour from their own countries in which there is better investment.
  Those are some of the important reasons why the Government should be alive to the problems faced by the industry and the challenges that lie ahead. The first thing that Britain needs is a new model for sector skills training. We need to take advantage of the European experience. We need strong sectors and effective organisations that are widely representative of their members. We also need organisations that are free to determine and to organise the most effective way to tackle those needs. We need sectors that will work in partnership with Government.
  Secondly, along with the development of the training and enterprise councils, Britain's sectors should be given a key strategic role. We need national coverage in key sectors to provide skills and company-specific training. There should be an interface with the delivery of local training through the TECs, which can provide an intimate local delivery mechanism based on their own activities and local intelligence.
  Thirdly, we need a CITB and engineering construction sector from which the heavy hand of conservatism has been removed. If the industry wants a levy, it should have one. If it wants to decide on the level of that levy, that issue should also be left to the sector. If the industry does not want to have any exemptions from the levy, it should be able to undertake such a policy in partnership with Government and the TECs. That is what we mean by

  89
  freedom from increasing centralisation and from the Government's highly prescriptive policies. Industry should be allowed to fashion and to shape its own policies based on the needs of the employer group companies.
  We need a sector policy that will look closely at the Engineering Training Authority, which was also dismembered by the present Government. The construction industry's authority should remain a statutory body while the Engineering Training Authority should be allowed to take over the functions of the old engineering industry training board. Because of the importance that we attach to their manufacturing activities, we should take an early look at those organisations' progress and performance within their sectors.
  That amounts to an important step forward for the sectors. I am sorry that the Minister finds this subject uninteresting. In the past decade, it has never been clear whether the Government have found satisfying their own political philosophy more important than satisfying the training needs of the nation. In the last two or three months before they leave office, they have an excellent opportunity to mend some of their ways and to start to take the construction sector seriously. They should embark on the programme and policy that Labour will certainly pursue when we are in office.
  Finally, it has been said that the Department of Trade and Industry bears the mantle of the most unsuccessful Department of State. However, the Department of Employment shows no leadership, no understanding, no commitment and no real interest in training. It contains a "hands off—do nothing" set of Ministers. Time is running out for them, but, fortunately for the sectors involved, we will invest in them when we take office and will start to do the things that are being done in Europe which have made companies there so successful and so much more competitive than ourselves. That is the way forward. That is what we intend to do when we remove the Government from office at the earliest opportunity.
  7.45 pm
  Sir Michael Neubert: I must declare a new interest at the outset of my speech in that I have recently become the parliamentary adviser to the Federation of Master Builders.
  As the order's reference to the 27th levy period suggests, the motion is not a great parliamentary novelty. The previous 1991 order was discussed at a slightly later time of night, but on the same day of the week nine months ago, since when there has been no significant change in the construction industry's circumstances. Times are still hard, not to say very hard.
  Although the order does not propose any great innovations, it is worth making some brief comments on its background. I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) will understand that I do not intend to follow what he said in his long speech—it was almost the same length as his speech in our previous debate on the subject—or his wide range of criticisms of the Government's policy. This is not because I share his criticisms—quite the opposite—but because, like him, I anticipate and relish the prospect of my hon. Friend the Minister replying to the debate, when I hope that he will give a robust rebuttal of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms.
  As far as it goes, the order has the support of the industry, although that support is not unreserved, does not
  90
  come from all quarters and does not relate to all aspects of the provisions. Like the hon. Member for Fife, Central, I refer to the exemption of small employers with a payroll of less than £45,000. The advantages of exemption can be easily seen, if only as an illustration of the de minimis principle.
  However, things can look rather different from the angle of those just above the exemption limit. At the best of times, the industry is very competitive, but this is not the best of times. When price competition is at its keenest, the extra on-cost that is entailed in the payment of a statutory training levy can be unwelcome for a company that is competing with a slightly smaller concern which enjoys the exemption.
  The same factor comes into play with value added tax, in which there has been a change as a result of last spring's Budget. Those just below the VAT level can have a clinching advantage over those just above it, but that is the nature of thresholds. Such considerations may appear comparatively unimportant in other industries, but the construction industry contains many small firms, more than 23,000 of which are likely to qualify for the exemption that is provided in the order. However, as I said, the industry broadly goes along with the CITB's proposals and with this order, which embodies them.
  The dominant day-to-day concern of the industry is naturally the recession. Technically, it may have come to an end, but recovery will be slow, sluggish and patchy. By tradition, the construction industry is the first to feel a recession and the hardest hit—and this recession is no exception. In his statement on public expenditure—in part, this refutes what the hon. Member for Fife, Central said —my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced increased programmes in a number of Departments which will provide substantial work for the industry. Of course, for the next financial year that is still some dark winter months away.
  When the upturn comes, there will be a renewed demand for skills. It has been estimated that the industry may be short of some 50,000 skilled craftsmen in the next two years. That is a round figure subject to the hazards of forecasting, but no one should doubt that, among the quarter of a million people who lost their jobs in the recession, there will be many craftsmen and trainees, who will be permanently lost to the industry. That puts the importance of the order in sharp focus.
  Unless training continues, the future of the construction industry will be in jeopardy. Wage inflation and overheating will be in prospect as employers chase scarce skills with higher payments. That underlines the importance of the construction industry training board. The Federation of Master Builders fully supports the board and believes that the special character of the industry justifies its continued role and its statutory powers to collect a levy and pay grants for training. It is difficult to see how the training function could be guaranteed otherwise.
  The construction industry is different. In a competitive climate, it has short-term objectives. In good times, the timespan can be as much as three months. In any other times, it can be less than a week. In those circumstances, it is not a realistic option to take the long view which is characteristic of other industries and to invest in benefits that are achievable only years ahead. So a statutory levy makes sense. Without it, the short, cheap cut would almost always be taken.

  91
  It has to be recognised that the construction industry consists of a large number of businesses which are mainly small. They are widely dispersed and are engaged in a wide variety of activities. The workload is cyclical, vulnerable to changes in economic policy and economic performance, and often subject to the late award of contracts. In those circumstances, forecasting of manpower requirements a matter of weeks or months ahead, which might be typical in other industries, is impossible.
  Large projects can distort the skills requirement in a locality for short durations. The construction industry is a mobile industry. The site is the working place and the working place is the site—and for short periods at that. Businesses come and go with alarming frequency. Well established firms are relatively few. However, it is all to easy for a person to establish his own business or become self-employed, however inadequately trained or qualified. Yet in one respect, training in the building and construction industry is particularly important. The nature of the work means that the industry has a high risk of accident and injury, so safe working practices are imperative. They can be inculcated only as part of proper training.
  My last point is realistic and understandable. No employer will willingly train a craftsman only to see him go down the road to work for another employer who has invested nothing in training. In those circumstances, a central statutory requirement for a training levy is absolutely necessary. Contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for Fife, Central, the Government have made the judgment that an exemption is warranted. It is clear from my brief remarks that I endorse the Government's judgment. The purpose of the order is of high importance and it deserves the support of the House.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I agree with many of the comments of the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). He explained why a training levy is important, especially in the construction industry. Plenty of studies, and my own experience of talking to people in the construction industry and especially small businesses, have shown that the fear of poaching is constant. It is the reason why people do not invest as much in training as they should. They feel that the benefit of any investment that they make will be enjoyed by someone else.
  The hon. Member for Romford was also perfectly right to point out that, in the construction industry perhaps more than in most industries, health and safety are of considerable importance. Regrettably, the number of deaths and injuries is far too high. The importance of training in health and safety cannot be overestimated.
  As the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said, it is a disappointment that the number of people engaged in training in the construction industry has steadily declined. The number of youth training trainees on the construction industry training board's programme dropped from 14,385 in 1989 to 11,379 last year—a fall of 20 per cent. A further fall of 20 per cent. to 8,500 is expected in the current year. That is clearly related to the recession, which has hit the construction industry particularly hard.
  92
  It has been a severe recession for the construction industry. Whatever the technicalities of coming out of the recession, to those engaged in the industry it does not appear to be over. If there is any upturn, people wonder when it is going to benefit them and whether it can be sustained.
  My hon. Friends and I have proposed some measures, which we accept will not slash the unemployment figures but which would be helpful. The receipts from council house sales should be unfrozen to be invested in housing. More should be invested in the fabric of our schools. We should engage in more energy efficiency projects such as draught-proofing and insulation. Such projects are all worth while in their own terms, but they would also bring direct benefits to the construction industry and should be introduced and stimulated.
  The chairman of the CITB, Sir Clifford Chetwood, made a statement in July this year in which he announced some of the board's projects to stimulate training. He bemoaned the recession, and said:
  "The government does not appear to be aware of the seriousness of the situation, especially with respect to smaller builders who are on short term jobs. Amongst them bankruptcies are up 100 per cent. this year compared with last year. It is now a question of survival. Mere exhortation to train is not enough."
  When one criticises the exemption, as some hon. Members have done tonight, one must bear in mind the fact that, for many small businesses, survival is of the essence.
  I regret that I do not know at what level the exemption was first introduced. I think that it was originally about £10,000. I cannot recall whether it was a Labour Government who set it at that figure. If it had been index-linked, it would now be about £100,000. At £45,000, only the smallest of businesses are affected. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Romford—that any threshold gives rise to feelings of unfairness. I suspect that it might be administratively difficult to have a sliding scale from £45,000 to 100,000, but a levy of 0·15 per cent. or 0·25 per cent. might be worth considering. The jump would not be as high as is implicit in the order. I understand why the Government have maintained an exemption for small businesses, for which survival is of the essence.
  There is another unfairness in the system. I have found that employers who are registered with the CITB feel that it is unfair if other companies which have set up just down the road do not appear to be on the board's records. What steps have been taken by the CITB to ensure a maximum register of employers and that none slips through the net? As all hon. Members who have spoken have said, training is exceptionally important in the construction industry. Another relevant factor is the sense of unfairness and the feeling that some employers seem to get off free. I hope that the Minister will deal with enforcement when he replies.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Den Dover: I came to the House 12 years ago. In my first few years in Parliament, the building industry experienced a tremendous downturn in its work load and was worried about its future. However, from about 1982 to 1989–90, there was a tremendous increase in building and civil engineering activity in Britain. The industry is comparing the biggest boom it ever had—the peak in 1989–90—with today's admittedly lower level of activity.

  93
  In recent months, the industry has been whingeing and moaning. I agree that there has been a drop in investment, but this is a good time to invest in building—whether in property, in house building, for industry, in extensions or in repair work.
  I am delighted to be able to say that I have just received notice from the Department of the Environment that Chorley is to be allocated an additional amount for doing up old housing—nearly £0·25 million. That will have a fantastic effect on local housing and the lack of facilities in my constituency. The money will be put to good use, and the work is labour-effective. A great deal of labour is required for repair work and for such fiddly jobs as roofing, installing an extra bathroom, or for mechanical, electrical and plumbing work.
  The present recession is a complete about-turn. Normally, the regions and the north-west suffer badly, but at the moment the south is suffering. In my patch, many small builders are doing well and are struggling to find enough labour to keep them going in today's market. However, it is impossible for small builders to take on trainees. They do not have the wherewithal to carry out the administration and paperwork or to watch over them and ensure that they learn on the job and produce an effective piece of craftsmanship. Only the medium and large builders can mount a training campaign and ensure that it is effectively carried through.
  I have no interest to declare in the construction industry, but during my first 10 years in that industry I worked for John Laing, then I worked for Wimpey for about eight years, and I was the head of the largest direct labour organisation in the country—the Greater London council—for nearly three years. I speak from hard experience at the workface. Mention has been made of direct labour and of how such organisations have reduced the number of trainees by about 40 per cent. in the past year.
  In a downturn, it is inevitable that there will be fewer trainees, but in the boom years of the mid and late 1980s, much good training took place. That is why the industry was able to cope with its highest work load ever in real terms, and did not suffer the labour shortages experienced in the 1960s.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) said that the Federation of Master Builders—it is composed of small builders, and there are a large number of them—fully supports the order. Small builders cannot see their way to take on many trainees. It is right and proper that the medium-sized and larger building firms should carry out proper training. Admittedly, they are training on behalf of some of the smaller firms, but it is in the interests of the industry. Many of those trainees go to smaller firms, perhaps taking over positions of responsibility or even taking over from the owners when they die and thus continuing the industry's good work.
  I fully support the order. A levy of some sort is essential, so that the industry plays a major part in all training. I pay tribute to the efforts of the construction industry training board. However, small builders need to be exempted. I am delighted that the value added tax position was eased in the last Budget. That has made an enormous difference, and has replaced a lot of penpushing with bricklaying and planning.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Forth: This has been a useful debate on an important subject. The knowledgeable contributions made by hon. Members—certainly those made by Conservative Members—have added greatly to the value of the debate.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). It is all very well for him to pepper a debate with the emotive terms to which he is addicted, such as "crisis" and "collapse", and to describe the board as having "a pistol to its head". That sits oddly with the fact that the board was reconstituted as recently as May 1990 and has been rationalised, streamlined and reinvigorated since that date. To suggest that the board was cowering timorously before the Government is ludicrous and pays no tribute or attention to its good work and to the robust way in which it represents its interests and those of the industry.
  I should be surprised if many Conservative Members opposed a review, although Opposition Members seem to be suggesting that reviews are a bad thing. I should have thought that it would be common ground that it is right to review such organisations from time to time to establish whether they are achieving their objectives. If the hon. Member for Fife, Central dislikes the idea of reviews, it suggests that his attitude to public expenditure is less rigorous than I would have expected.
  Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister acknowledge that, if the review takes place next year, the construction industry training board may say that it wants to retain a statutory levy, to determine the rate of levy imposed and also wants flexibility on exemptions. Will the Minister respond positively and allow the board to do what it wishes?
  Mr. Forth: That is hardly my idea of a review. A review is what it says. I confirm that, when undertaking a review we would consider what the board has done, how it has done it and whether it had achieved its objectives and we would draw the appropriate conclusions. To ask me to give commitments in advance of the review is an outrageous request, and I cannot meet that commitment for the reasons that I have given.
  Another criticism was about levels of expenditure. Given the robust level of reserves that the board has enjoyed, and given that about £6·5 million of the reserves is being drawn down by the board to ensure a continuous and constant level of training, I should have thought that the board was exhibiting a responsible approach. Having built up the reserves, it is prepared to use them in difficult times, and that is the right thing to do.
  As for the comments made by Opposition Members about the reduction in the number of trainees in the industry, regrettably that has to be explained by the fact that the industry has been going through an especially difficult time and still is. My hon. Friends, from their knowledge and connections with the industry, pointed out that fact.
  The fact that the numbers of trainees have been maintained at present levels, despite the difficult times that the industry is experiencing, is a tribute to the continuing commitment in the industry to such levels of training, assisted by the board and the work that it is doing. I should have preferred that to be put in a more positive light than the hon. Member for Fife, Central was able to do.
  Several hon. Members referred to the exemption provisions. They drew an interesting distinction between

  95
  the Government and Liberal Democrat approach, and that of the official Opposition. We fully recognise the need for an exemption provision. We believe that the level is about right, although in a sense it always has to be arbitrary.
  I confirm to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that the exemption level was introduced at £15,000 many years ago and was only recently raised to £45,000. That was not indexation but a recognition of the fact that, if an exemption is to be made, it should be at a sensible and workable level. It is worked out at broadly the level of a payroll of three employees. In the circumstances, that is about right.
  The fact that the Opposition seemed to find exemption so objectionable was interesting. With my responsibility for small firms, the House will not be surprised that I for one would robustly defend the exemption level and the fact that it helps small firms in the industry. I would applaud that.
  Mr. McLeish: The Minister misses one essential point about the changes in the labour market. The construction sector employs under 1 million people at present and there are 800,000 self-employed workers in the industry. The nature of the sector is changing dramatically. If the exemption policy continues, one will probably find that the group of people one wants to bring into training is completely outwith the scope of the board.
  In 10 years' time, the balance between the self-employed and employees will have altered significantly and we shall have to think up new methods of bringing the self-employed and the small business sector into training. That is the crucial issue—not the politics of whether or not there are exemptions, but the fact that the labour market is changing and the Government must deal with that as other countries such as France are doing.
  Mr. Forth: That is a tortuous argument. Considering the number of small employers—now ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), whom I congratulate on his association with that key part of the industry—to play fast and loose with the future of such companies, which are under pressure from the recession and have other difficulties, would be a risky approach, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is taking it.
  Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister confirm from his experience that just because certain firms will be exempt from the levy does not mean that they are not training? Some firms to which the exemption might apply will have an apprentice or trainee, and may therefore have training expenditure, albeit they are not paying the levy.
  Mr. Forth: Yes. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point, which is obvious but important.
  Hon. Members have spoken about the potential loss of skills to the industry and the need to maintain a commitment to training. The board attaches importance to that. The activities that the board is pursuing, and the use of its funds, are in many ways directed to addressing that very problem, compensating for the fact that in times of difficulty and recession, with the sort of pressures being faced by the industry, there is need to compensate for the natural, if regrettable, loss of skills to ensure that the training commitment is continued so that when recovery comes, as it undoubtedly will, the industry can recover quickly.
  A similar point was made about the connection between health and safety requirements—which are paramount in an industry whose record in this regard is not of the best—and training. Wearing my health and safety hat, I appreciate that connection. It is essential to maintain a commitment to, and resources for, training so as to give the industry the best possible chance to develop and maintain an acceptable record of health and safety which many, even in the industry, agree is not and has not been the case.
  We are debating an important matter. It comes before the House each year and gives us an opportunity to review the activities of the CITB. We are satisfied that the board is in good health, is doing good work and, since its reconstitution and redirection, has achieved a new sense of dynamism and effectiveness. We shall be reviewing it next year, and I look forward to that review in a positive way, as it makes a major contribution to the efforts of the CITB and the support that it gives the industry in these difficult times.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

  JUDGES
  Resolved,
  That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  CHILD CARE
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7845/91, relating to child care; and supports the Government's view that the terms of the Recommendation are welcome in principle, subject to detailed changes to improve the text to ensure adequate recognition of the principle of parental choice and the involvement of the private and voluntary sectors, and to ensure that the wide range of developments in child care services, leave and other arrangements for employed parents are not adversely affected by the imposition of statutory arrangements.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  Tobacco Advertising (Children)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  8.13 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: I wish at the outset to explain what this debate is not about and I am pleased that we have rather longer to discuss the matter than would have been the case had the previous business run for its full time.
  This debate is not about the banning of smoking, whatever my personal feelings may be about that. It is not even about banning tobacco advertising, although I deeply regret the Government's refusal last month to support an EC proposal to that effect. A ban on tobacco advertising should, in my opinion, be matched by a rethink of the enormous sums spent under the common agricultural policy on subsidising tobacco production. That costs about £900 million a year. I would rather some of that were diverted to help the national health service, which currently spends £437 million dealing with tobacco victms.
  The debate is specifically about the impact of tobacco advertising on children. Some people more cynical than I say that it is a cold-blooded and calculated effort by the tobacco manufacturers to recruit sufficient under-age smokers to replace the 300 men and women who die every day from smoking-related diseases.
  The debate is also about how the voluntary codes of practice which govern tobacco advertising are failing our children. There is now sufficient independent and expert evidence to suggest that tobacco advertising influences under-age smokers and that the current voluntary codes governing tobacco advertising do not work in the best interests of our children. As a matter of urgency, we should be pressing for a strictly enforced, independently monitored, statutory system of advertising control.
  Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) successfully piloted through the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 to strengthen the law governing the sale of cigarettes in shops to children. I served on the Committee which dealt with that measure and, like other hon. Members, I was appalled by the concrete evidence laid before us of tobacco companies flouting the voluntary code.
  As a result of that measure and pressure from Parliament and the health lobby, many of the offending advertisements were withdrawn or resited, but a recent survey revealed that, some of the offending advertisements are still in place. Should any hon. Member doubt that, I have the details.
  Last month, The Observer ran a front page story which claimed that in Canada, Imperial Tobacco Ltd., a subsidiary of BAT Industries, was targeting non-smokers as young as 12 as part of its marketing strategy. The article was based on documents laid before a court in Canada during a legal fight over the banning of tobacco advertising. The judge ruled in favour of the tobacco industry on the basis that an advertising ban violated the industry's freedom of commercial speech. That case has now gone to appeal, and the ban remains in force.
  The judge discounted thousands of pages of evidence related to health issues, but among the documents were
  98
  papers which revealed an advertising strategy which acknowledged that children as young as 12 would fall within a targeted range.
  I wrote to the chairman of BAT Industries. I wanted him to dissociate himself from the activities of the Canadian subsidiary. I wanted reassurance that such practices as detailed during the Canadian court case had since ceased. I also wanted confirmation from a leading figure in the British tobacco industry that the rules governing the protection of children from harmful tobacco products were both fully understood and fully accepted.
  I received two letters in reply. The first was from Helen McDonald of BAT Industries' external affairs department, enclosing a copy of a letter written by Mr. Mercier, chairman and chief executive officer of Imperial Tobacco Ltd., addressed to Donald Trelford, editor of The Observer. Miss McDonald drew my attention to this sentence in Mr. Mercier's letter:
  "Imperial Tobacco did not and does not advertise to non-smokers or to anyone below the legal age to buy cigarettes."
  Those were weasel words. Imperial Tobacco knew the age range of readers of magazines in which it placed cigarette advertisements.
  Adam Raphael, in The Observer, quoted from Imperial Tobacco's own document:
  "If the last 10 years have taught us anything, it is that the industry is dominated by companies which respond most effectively to the needs of non-smokers … Young smokers represent the major opportunity group for the cigarette industry."
  The second letter which I received from BAT Industries was from David Haywood, the deputy chairman, who wrote:
  "BAT believe that smoking is an adult choice … Imperial Tobacco did not and does not advertise to non-smokers or to anyone below the legal age to buy cigarettes."
  He went on:
  "We certainly would not promote cigarettes to non-adults or to any non-smoker."
  Again, those are weasel words.
  The tobacco industry needs young smokers. Research has shown that, if people are not smoking by the age of 20, they are unlikely to start. As more and more adults either kick the habit or kick the bucket, new smokers must be found to keep up the sales and the industry's profits. The number of adult smokers is falling, and I am glad about that, but in the past decade the decline among teenage smokers has ceased. The latest figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that 10 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds smoke regularly—[Interruption.] I am happy to clear my throat. The smoke in the Tea Room has probably affected it.
  I feel extremely strongly about the issue, because my area of Salford has the dubious distinction of having the highest proportion of deaths due to smoking of any district health authority in the UK. Of a total 3,400 deaths a year, more than 20 per cent. are attributed to smoking. The victms are the grandparents, and, sadly, in some cases the parents, of children in my constituency. It is too late to help them, but it is not too late to help their children.
  I do not suggest that advertising alone determines whether a child will smoke. A range of factors, including the example of parents and friends and other social pressures influence young people. However, for 25 years Governments and the tobacco industry have accepted that tobacco advertising recruits children as smokers. That is one of the main reasons why cigarette advertisements were

  99
  banned from television in 1965 and why hoardings advertising cigarettes have been prohibited within sight of schools. But the Government have concentrated on protecting children through voluntary agreements with the industry.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although tobacco advertising is banned on television, the ban is not effective because cheating goes on the whole time? On many sporting occasions that are attractive to children and young people, placards are shown around the ground and are picked up by television cameras, no matter how careful the television companies are. That amounts to deliberate cheating and it, too, should be prohibited.
  Miss Lestor: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and was about to come to that point.
  The Government have concentrated on protecting children through voluntary agreements with the industry, but they do not work. As someone put it recently, the policeman may be around but he is not on duty. Despite a ban on television advertising, cigarettes are heavily advertised in newspapers and magazines, cleverly promoted through sports sponsorship, and widely available in corner shops and supermarkets festooned with bright and eye-catching posters that are attractive to children.
  When tobacco advertising was in its infancy, the general trend was towards adverts that presented tobacco smoking as an adult or even sophisticated thing to do. Children who saw those adverts were in no doubt that smoking was an activity primarily for adults. But then came a move toward a more subtle approach. Golden Virginia has run a series of adverts which depict its brand name and logo in attractive and unusual materials such as mosaics, carvings and jigsaw puzzles. Readers of those advertisements are rewarded by cracking the code. They feel clever at guessing the message and advertisers clearly intend that that feel-good sensation should carry the reader on to purchasing their product. The increasing use of imagery associated with childhood blurs the distinction between an adult activity and one that is appropriate to children.
  A new advertisement takes that trend to the extreme. Benson and Hedges are currently promoting their cigarettes with full-colour advertisements on hoardings in the street, and in newspapers and magazines featuring a puffin and a book. That is an outrageous theft of a symbol associated specifically with children. There can be no excuse for such advertisements. Puffin Books is a long-established and highly respected publishing house, and it is horrified at being blatantly associated with the promotion of smoking to children. The Publishers Association has also stressed that publishers of educational and children's books take the greatest care to avoid association of their products with practices such as smoking. The voluntary code has clearly been violated by Benson and Hedges' promotional material.
  Benson and Hedges are marketed by Gallaher Tobacco Ltd. Ian Shepherd, its public affairs manager, tells me:
  "We have agreed not to seek to encourage people, particularly young people, to start smoking".
  100
  I have heard that before. In response to my specific point about the puffin advertisement, which Mr. Shepherd referred to as "Beak", he said:
  "Considerable efforts were made to give it an adult appeal, through the use of text drawn from ornithological reference books depicted on the left hand side of the picture".
  In other words, Gallaher was aware of the obvious connection and, to get round the Advertising Standards Authority, looked for a cleverer way to disguise its message.
  Mr. Shepherd assures me that Gallaher has had no complaints about the advert. I have news for him. I have a letter from the publishing director of Puffin Books, which describes Benson and Hedges' use of a puffin in cigarette advertising as highly objectionable. Puffin Books has now issued a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, explaining:
  "We at Puffin Books have been distressed and dismayed to receive calls from several members of the public complaining at a children's publisher associating itself with the promotion of smoking."
  I well understand that, yet Mr. Shepherd tells me that he has had no such complaint. I, too, have received complaints, which prompted my interest in the matter.
  What a remarkable coincidence that Benson and Hedges chose the puffin for their latest advertisements in the same year as Puffin Books celebrates its 50th anniversary. Bookshop windows throughout the country are emblazoned with the puffin symbol. There are competitions on BBC's "Blue Peter", newspaper features, and events at Alton Towers and at the Edinburgh festival. The main message of Puffin Books' promotional efforts has been that children should get enjoyment from reading Puffin books, as they do. Imagine its upset at having its special year sullied by a cheap trick of that nature.
  Tobacco companies will deny the link with under-age smokers. They hide behind the claim that they do not advertise to recruit non-smokers, especially children. They say that they advertise to improve their market share and make existing smokers more brand aware—an absurd claim. Advertising not only reinforces the habit of those who already smoke but recruits new smokers, the majority of whom are under age. Research carried out by the advertising research unit at Strathclyde university shows that cigarette advertising reinforces under-age smoking. Another study among 10 to 12-year-olds revealed that those who notice and take a favourable view of cigarette adverts are twice as likely to start smoking within a year as those who do not.
  There is increasing evidence that children are receptive to cigarette advertising. That is all the more disquieting when set against the need of tobacco companies to replenish their stock of customers. Substantial sums of money are paid by the industry to have its brands placed in children's films, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South might also have referred. For example, Marlboro appeared in "Superman" and Lucky Strikes appeared in "Beverley Hills Cop" and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" That is advertising directed toward a young market, because mainly youngsters watch those films.
  Even the Tobacco Advisory Council's own spokesman, Brendan Brady, admitted in a television interview:
  "Every industry has to recruit new customers. We recruit new customers once they are over the age of 16. Of course they see the advertising before that age; of course, they see people

  101
  smoking before that age. They make up their decisions before that age. But we are not interested in that market under the age of 16."
  But the industry is there to recruit and influence those young people. That market is worth some £90 million to the tobacco industry, so I shall let hon. Members draw their own conclusions.
  In this country, tobacco advertising is governed by voluntary agreements negotiated between the Department of Health and the tobacco industry or, in the case of sports sponsorship, by the Minister of Sport and the industry. Independent observers representing health interests are not allowed at those meetings and the industry refuses to allow publication of the research Commissioned by the monitoring Commission. That information should be made available.
  The very existence of these voluntary agreements, especially when they relate to young people, is proof that the industry and the Government accept the substantial health threat to youngsters posed by tobacco and the need to protect them from harmful information. They accept that it is wrong to position posters within full view of schools. Why is it not wrong to position the same posters near bus stops used by school children, or in magazines or newspapers that are read by them? Who is monitoring the content of those advertisements with a view to child protection?
  It is clear that as long as the industry can claim, hand on heart, that its advertisements are legal, decent and honest the question of their appeal to children directly or indirectly will not be addressed by anyone in authority. Tobacco advertising is everywhere. It swamps health advertising and undermines its effectiveness. It influences children to smoke. A study of 18 countries carried out by the New Zealand Toxic Substances Board shows that countries with a ban on tobacco advertising saw a decrease in the number of children smoking. Of course, tobacco advertising is subject to inadequate controls.
  I raise this topic now and have raised it in other ways over the years because we have a duty to protect our children. We cannot always expect adults to behave in a healthy fashion. That choice is theirs. We can warn them about the dangers, but when advertisements such as those that I have shown—and I could show others—are directly aimed at attracting children by using a symbol that is meant for children, the voluntary code has been exploded. I urge the Minister to make suggestions that will provide for children real protection from the effects of unscrupulous cigarette advertising.
  8.31 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that the Minister will agree that the Department of Health should look at what it costs this country to deal with the effects of smoking-related diseases. Although the evidence has been available for many years, it is extraordinary that the House still does not give sufficient weight to the impact of those costs on the national health service. One of the saddest and most frightening statistics of the past decade has been the increase in the deaths of women from smoking and smoking-related diseases.
  Without wishing in any way to add to the guilt of any of the women concerned, I can tell the House that in many homes smoking has once again become part of the acceptable face of family life. That adds to the enormous pressures on children at every level.
  102
  Advertising does not assume that its sole role is educational. It seeks, and has always sought, to present products in a way that makes them attractive. Therefore, advertising that is specifically aimed at children does not seek to fulfil a pure information role. It does not say to those who are at or leaving school, "You should think about this but remember that it has implications." Advertising is meant to do something rather different. It aims to sell a product. There would not be anything wrong with that if society as a whole had not considered the impact of smoking on the young, but we know what happens. We know that, if smokers are caught young, they will be customers for many tens of years.
  When I was a small child—which was not very long ago —it was customary for working-class children to smoke because it was regarded as a sign of growing up. As a naturally perverse child, I was the only one in my class who did not smoke, because it was an easy way to stand out. People were encouraged to feel that smoking marked the divide between the small child or the teenager and the adult.
  For a while, because of the voluntary code of conduct and the acceptance by the industry of the need to understand that cigarettes were a health hazard, society started to come round to the idea that there should be direct controls on advertising and that we should do nothing to encourage the young. Unfortunately, that has undoubtedly changed. The techniques used by advertisers are far more sophisticated than before, and that is the real hazard.
  It is no longer a question of simply having a glowing picture of a cowboy on a horse. Advertisers now make specific and cynical use of detailed marketing techniques. Companies pay educational psychologists and those with knowledge of marketing techniques to work out how goods can be presented most attractively to the young. Therefore, such advertising is no accident. The companies know that they are targeting specific buying groups who will have access to money, will be hooked on the product and will produce large numbers of future buyers.
  The House has a specific duty. When we originally debated the code of conduct, we were told that the industry not only accepted the difficulties but was prepared to comply with a voluntary code because it knew that that was the way in which it could best fulfil its duty. We were told, and many hon. Members genuinely believed, that the industry accepted that its advertising campaigns had an impact on the health of the nation. I never believed that. I never accepted that such a large, expensively maintained and profitable industry would lightly give up an advertising habit of a lifetime without continuing to look at the customer as the ultimate and most important object.
  What is happening now is outrageous. Quite small children are being encouraged at every level to regard smoking as an activity that is almost automatically tied in with specific health promotions which are important to them. Why does the tobacco industry spend so much money on the promotion of sports events? It is because the young, almost automatically, go to those events. They are excited by what they see and become followers of a sport or a team. Automatically they begin to see within the ambiance of that sport the constant advertising of certain goods. Almost without thinking, they accept that that is somehow or other part of the sport. Football is the classic one, but such sponsorship now appears everywhere.

  103
  Motor racing is just one of the sports which for many years has been promoted in connection with certain famous tobacco company names.
  Despite all that, the industry is still prepared to suggest to the House that the voluntary code is working. Not only is it not working; it is being exploited in the most cynical, almost depraved way. If we were asked to give to every teenage or pre-teen child in our constituencies a noxious substance in a mild form to which they would become addicted and because of which they would face possible death and certain illness, the House would react violently. It would say that there was no conceivable way in which hon. Members could be asked to pass or support laws that would somehow or other put children at risk. But by not insisting on very deliberate controls and by ignoring what is happening in the tobacco industry, that is what we are doing, week after week, month after month.
  For about 30 years I have watched developments in the health service and have seen the rising graph of deaths from carcinoma, coronary heart disease and smoking-related diseases. In my active time in the House of Commons, I have done everything that I can to promote the need for controls on the tobacco industry, but it is still necessary for my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) to make her plea tonight. She and I call one another "sister grandmothers" because we have been here for some time and our concern for our families and grandchildren makes us feel strongly that the House of Commons has a duty to protect those who are most at risk.
  Enough of the cynicism, and of the abandonment of common sense to the promotion of commercial which that are dangerous substances. Enough of a House of Commons which no longer regards health promotion as something that requires equal commitment in terms of money and support to that which is expended by the industry in promoting its goods to the young. Enough of a House of Commons no longer fulfilling its proper watchdog functions and allowing noxious substances to be sold to our children. If we do not understand the implications, the deaths, illnesses and long-term unhappiness of many families will be on the consciences of every elected Member of Parliament.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on securing an Adjournment debate on the important topic of targeting children in advertising tobacco. It links with the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who promoted what has become the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 to curb advertising at point of sale in retail shops.
  I shall deal with two areas—a regulated one, television, and a non-regulated one, which is now covered by my hon. Friend's Act. The Independent Broadcasting Authority was replaced by the Independent Television Commission under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1987, under which the most recent auction of franchises took place. Hon. Members felt that the IBA was a toothless watchdog and we expected the newly constituted Commission to do
  104
  better. The House took a long time debating the broadcasting Bill. I served on the Committee that spent many hours in diligent examination of it.
  I have already mentioned my particular concern in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). It is the way in which—at sporting events in particular, but all outside broadcasting events—the names of tobacco products are visible for all to see in the background. I am not much in favour of sponsorship, particularly that by the tobacco industry, and I think that one can divide sponsorship between that done by those who are genuinely seeking to assist an organisation and that by those who wish to exploit it. There is no question in my mind—this was reinforced by the evidence produced by my hon. Friend—that the tobacco industry falls in the latter category. Furthermore, it seeks to exploit the young.
  Outside broadcasts of test matches, soccer matches, rugby league and rugby union matches and track activities at athletic events are keenly watched by a significant proportion of our young people, as they should be. Watching such events helps to stimulate young people to take part in sports, but in the background there is always advertising of tobacco products. On the whole, it is advertising of cigarettes, although sometimes it is of pipe tobacco, which is less of an offence.
  Club owners and sports event organisers fix up events so that tobacco advertisements are given prominence. For an outside broadcast with a big audience, they can ensure that the advertising space commands a premium, particularly for those displays that are near where the main events in an athletics competition are to be held or within the camera range at an important cricket match or test match. Therefore, it is important that the Government, through the ITC, make it clear that broadcasting of cigarette advertisements on television is a breach of the 1965 ban.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that, some time ago, researchers for the Esther Rantzen programme "That's Life" were preparing a television programme about children and tobacco, which unfortunately was never broadcast? As an experiment, they sent children to tobacconists in my constituency, together with an adult who kept out of sight. All those children were able to buy cigarettes.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that, first, parents must be encouraged not to send their children round the corner to buy a packet of cigarettes and that, secondly, tobacconists must be asked not to sell to children who say that they are buying for their parents, but who nine times out of 10 are not? They are doing so for themselves, because they have been encouraged by the advertising to which my hon. Friend referred. I should like to see anti-smoking advertisements at sporting events saying that every cigarette is a coffin nail. Rather than linking tobacco with healthy sports, we should be linking it with death.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. The link between cigarette advertising and sporting events is mischievous. These events are about healthy exercise and can sometimes be very glamorous. They involve strenuous physical effort and sometimes shrewd mental processes and selective judgment. By associating that with cigarettes, the advertisers give a false image to cigarettes. As my hon. Friend said, if cigarettes are mentioned at all at sporting

  105
  activities, people should he told that they are a drug which produces an addiction and which can lead to death if smoked for long enough. as we know.
  A week ago, the Tobacco Advisory Council held a reception in the House of Commons for small retailers who were concerned about the reduction in their turnover that would result if taxes on cigarettes were increased. Ironically, that was the same day as the publication of yet another report setting out the dangers of tobacco smoking and the enormous consequences for the rest of us because NHS facilities must be used to cater for those who are endangering their bodies and losing their lives as a result of their addiction to cigarette smoking.
  The ITC has the power to do something about this advertising, but it does not. Year after year, there has been deliberate, organised cheating by the ITC and its predecessor body to allow tobacco advertising despite the ban. It is time for the Government to say that they want an end to all placards advertising cigarettes on outside broadcasts from both the BBC and the ITV. I hope that the Minister, when he responds to this useful debate, will make a clear statement on that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles spoke about the disgraceful use of tobacco products, and cigarettes in particular, in feature films. Feature films are well enough financed, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles—"Superman" and "Who Killed Roger Rabbit'?", which were financed by American money—and they should not use advertising in a dishonest way. That is when advertising in concealed within a story that is presented by the film without an explicit reference to the fact that money is being paid to promote a particular product.
  That is something that we do not allow on television. We do not allow invisible advertising. The last "invisible" programme that was allowed was shown in the 1960s. The programme was a weekly trip to a consumer magazine, which went through various products, and it was paid for by the promoters of the products shown in the programme. That abuse was stopped. It is unfortunate that we do not have an organisation to examine hidden advertising in feature films.
  I am concerned because I consider the feature film industry to be important and I believe that we should have one in the United Kingdom. The criticism that there is hidden advertising cannot be attributed to British producers, but it can rightly be directed towards American producers. It should be made clear that, if such advertising is incorporated in a feature film, the practice can be taken into account when the censorship certificate is being awarded.
  The censorship system is essentially trade organised, but I think that the Government should make it clear that they deplore the sort of advertising that I have described, which is a form of cheating. The advertising is not made clear and specific on television. Instead, it is part of the background. The same could be said of any feature films that promoted cigarettes in a hidden and dishonest way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) intervened to talk about advertising at retail outlets. It has been stopped specifically by the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East. It was a simple measure that passed through the House because of the good will of hon. Members on both sides and their wish to ensure that such advertising at retail outlets was curtailed. That advertising
  106
  is attractive to children, and very often the small retail street corner shop—I accept that their number has diminished and that this form of retail advertising applies to all shops—is used by children. Their parents ask them to go for small items such as milk, loaves of bread and tins of food. If they see the advertising, they find it a temptation.
  When the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East was passing through the House, many examples were quoted of shopkeepers who were prepared to split packets and to sell single cigarettes to children. The Bill merely enhanced existing legislation by providing facilities for local authorities to institute prosecutions against shopkeepers who adopted that practice. When the Bill was being considered, I recall asking the Government to provide financial resources to local authorities to ensure that environmental health officers could put the relevant legislation into operation and to make it clear to all shopkeepers that, if they were found to be selling cigarettes to children, they would be pursued, prosecuted where evidence was available and fined heavily in the courts.
  It is no good the Government taking action on advertising that helps to lure children if, when lured, they can buy cigarettes easily in the street corner shop or in the local supermarket. It must be made clear—I hope that it will be by the Minister—that the Government will take action.
  What is the Government's position? They stood idly by while supermarkets opened their doors on Sunday in town after town and city after city. The supermarkets traded with impunity, unfortunately. The Attorney-General told us last week that he could not do anything. The Prime Minister said on Tuesday that he could not do anything either because, as he claimed, the law was confused. In this instance the law is not confused. If the resources are available, local authorities will take action against the scavengers who are selling the poisoned weed to schoolchildren who are often younger than 16.
  We must be careful in this place about the effects of the tobacco industry's lobbying efforts. It has been said that, when the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) was a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security—he is now the Minister for Housing and Planning—he said that he was determined to introduce much more widespread curbs on advertising. It has been reported in books about the advertising industry which have been written by practitioners that the hon. Gentleman became a victim of lobbying.
  I warn the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), that if he is determined, as he should be, to improve the health of the nation by completely curbing tobacco advertising, especially that which is highly accessible to children, he should be aware of the influence of the lobbyists. They will pad round this place with a view to sidling up to his superior Minister, the deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister, and saying, "Self-regulation is better. The young Minister is going beyond his brief. He is trying to do something that will harm the tobacco industry." They will not say that the intention is to save children's lives or to save them years of miserable existence as they cough out their last few years.
  I say that as someone who has never smoked cigarettes. My father died of a heart attack when he was 78. I think that a number of years would have been left to him if he

  107
  had not smoked Capstan full strength for so long, until his doctor advised him to stop doing so because his smoking was causing his health to deteriorate.
  My father started smoking as a young lad when he volunteered to serve in the first world war. It was a period of great stress, deprivation and difficulty. Many people smoked and they did not think much about it. After all, the next cigarette might be their last. The thought of living until their 70s and 80s, or perhaps beyond, by avoiding tobacco did not occur to them.
  My father became addicted to Capstan full strength, which were probably the most poisonous of all the attractively packaged poisons that were available in the form of cigarettes. I am certain that his life was made more miserable as a result. He coughed heavily every morning of his later life and was afflicted with a heart condition in his final years. The tobacco industry is powerful and certainly wealthy enough to employ parliamentary lobbyists. If it is true that their influence displaced a Health Minister who was determined to achieve something important and useful—curbing tobacco advertising—I hope that such a thing will never happen again.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles for allowing me to contribute to her Adjournment debate. I am glad that she initiated it, but unfortunately I think that we will have to agitate much more forcefully before we will be satisfied with the Government's action in this and similar areas.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I share the delight of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in being able to participate in tonight's debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on initiating it.
  The debate reminds me of the Jesuit dictum—"Give me a boy when he is seven, and I will give you the man." That is how the tobacco industry looks upon our young people —"Give them to us young, and we will keep them throughout their adult life."
  Research—not least by Strathclyde university's advertising unit, which is part of its marketing department—for the report "From the Billboard to the Playground", which was published a few months ago, show that almost all smokers start as children. I did the same. I started smoking at 14 years of age because I thought that it was the right thing to do, just as my classroom friends did. It was also one up on the teacher.
  At lunchtime, my friends and I would go to buy singles —or on days when we were well off, five Players. Our English teacher, who was a particularly nasty little character, was even nastier than ourselves. He knew which of us smoked, took our cigarettes—calling us "smoky beasts" in the process—and then kept them for himself and his pals. I did not think that that was particularly fair.
  I was hooked on smoking from 14 years of age, and I did not give it up for 11 or 12 years, until I was about 25 —despite making six or seven attempts to do so. I stopped because my father made me. He died of an arterial disease, and had both his legs off because he was a heavy smoker. After I reached the age of 20, I had a litany from him every
  108
  day, exhorting me to give up cigarettes for my own good. I did not listen to him then—but later I tried again to stop smoking, and eventually, at 25 years of age, I succeeded.
  Those who start smoking at an early age can take it from me that it is very hard to get off the weed if one starts on it at an early age. The tobacco industry knows that very well. Why else does it spend £160 million a year trying to convince people that smoking is good? It spends that money because it receives its rewards—but those rewards are to the detriment of the country, and particularly the national health service, to which the cost of smoking-related diseases is £437 million a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said, every hour 12 people die from smoking-related diseases—nearly 300 per day.
  My late father spent many years receiving hospital treatment. I often accompanied him on his hospital visits, and the consultant challenged me to find one patient suffering from vascular problems who was not a smoker. It is true to say that not one non-smoker was to be found in those wards. That empirical evidence, burnished in my mind, is enough for me to know that smoking damages health.
  As a former schoolteacher, I was dismayed to learn that the incidence of smoking among the young has not diminished. Although the number of adult smokers is falling, research shows that 30 per cent. of 19-year-olds smoke regularly, and in the past nine years, the decline in teenage smoking has been arrested. Latest figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that 10 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds smoke regularly. What are the Government doing about that? They are fighting the European Commission because they do not want the Commission to impose a ban on cigarette advertising. The Government have succeeded in obtaining a six-month stay of execution. They should be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right when he says that the Government are behaving disgracefully, but does he accept that the Commission has double standards? It is spending about £20 million a year on a tobacco mountain. It has bought tobacco at a fixed price. The wine lake, the cereal mountain and all the other mountains have now been joined by a tobacco mountain. The Commission ought not to subsidise tobacco growers.
  Mr. McFall: I did not think that it would be possible to mention the European Commission without my hon. Friend jumping to his feet, but I take his point. Yes, the Commission is hypocritical in a number of respects, but we should join it in fighting to have this directive implemented.
  Cigarette smoking harms young people, but it harms women and young girls even more. Medical research shows that pregnant women who smoke have underweight babies. The tobacco industry focuses its advertising campaign on young girls. Strathclyde university's report, "From the Billboard to the Playground", shows that the tobacco industry's advertising campaign is directed specifically at young people. The report was Commissioned by the Cancer Research Campaign and demolished the argument that the tobacco industry advertises only in an effort to attract smokers to particular brands. That is not So.
  The position was summed up by the chairman of McCann Erickson, an advertising company, who said that the primary purpose of tobacco advertising was to create

  109
  "a positive climate of social acceptability for smoking, which encourages new smokers to join the market."
  Reference has already been made to cigarette advertising in cinemas and sports grounds. Advertising by Marlboro, and all the other cigarette companies, is designed to make people feel good. They show cowboys on horses riding the prairies, beautiful clear streams and wonderful weather; then somebody sits down and takes out a cigarette. Why? Because it is another world that advertisers are trying to show to young people. They are faced not with reality but with a dreamlike world. Young people are falling for it. It is an acceptable alternative to everyday reality.
  The Minister and the Government know that the voluntary code does not work. Why otherwise does the tobacco industry spend £160 million on advertising? That question must be answered. By their inactivity, the Government are condemning people to a slow and painful death. They are also condemning those who work in the national health service to looking after them. It makes no sense. Only the interests of big business are being served. The sooner the interests of big business and the tobacco industry are subordinated to the health of all adults and young people, the better.
  Mr. Cryer: I have not received the details of Labour party research that may have been carried out this month into any contributions that the tobacco industry makes to the Conservative party. If. however, the industry has made any such contributions, it would behove the Government to send them back so that they can be seen to be completely free from any tobacco company influence. They ought also to send back the money that Asil Nadir and the other crooks have contributed to Conservative party funds.
  Mr. McFall: I could not have put it better.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be some equivalence between the amount spent on advertising and the additional expenditure occasioned to the national health service by its consequences? That would happen if, instead of donating to the Conservative party, tobacco companies donated to the NHS the sums that it has to spend because of smoking.
  Mr. McFall: As I said, advertising by the tobacco industry costs £160 million per year, whereas the cost to the NHS of tobacco smoking is £437 million a year—a 3:1 ratio. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government should do something about inversing that ratio.
  I am sure that the Under-Secretary will give a dismal response, because the Government are not willing to take on the tobacco giants and to preserve the health of young people. A dismal message is being sent to young people —they can continue smoking and damaging their health, but the Government are not interested, because there are a few bucks coming in the front door, and perhaps a few coming in the back door, too.
  Strathclyde university's research has shown that the subliminal message which gets across to young people, in advertisements for the John Player and Marlboro brands, is that smoking is associated with excitement and fast cars. It was found that children as young as six were aware of that excitement. The message that it is nice to smoke cigarettes because it brings excitement and another world is getting through to young people.
  110
  Brand stretching has been mentioned. Cigarette advertisements are displayed around football grounds. On the one hand, Ministers want health education councils to make life for young people more pleasant and varied, but on the other they are encouraging young people to smoke, thereby negating all the assistance given to health education councils. That is massive hypocrisy, and the sooner it is eliminated the better.
  As long ago as 1979, a British American Tobacco memorandum stated:
  "Opportunities should be explored by all companies so as to find non-tobacco products and other services which can be used to communicate the brand or house name, together with their essential visual identifiers."
  Strathclyde university's research showed that that strategy works well with children. An example was given of an advertisement for John Player Special grand prix holidays which did not mention cigarettes or carry a Government health warning, but 91 per cent. of 12 to 16-year-olds said that it advertised cigarettes. What a triumph for the advertisers. They got their message across easily, and the Government by their inactivity are condoning that strategy.
  If the Under-Secretary of State does not have anything positive to say to us tonight, he should be ashamed of himself. He should think of the young people who are dying, and of those who will die in the future. He should also think about the national health service. If it is supposed to be safe in the Government's hands, it should be made safer for the people who use it. That is the message to get across. We want action from the Government, not total inactivity. The facts have been spelt out. The nation's health is at stake. The Under-Secretary of State should do something for a change.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I fully endorse the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for the Under-Secretary to do something. I suspect that my hon. Friend will be disappointed, because short shrift was made of the last Minister who tried to do something about this matter—the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young); he was sent—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My hon. Friend was promoted to housing.
  Mr. Wilson: The Minister said that the hon. Gentleman was promoted to housing, but it was by a somewhat circuitous route. He was sent sliding down the greasy pole, was a poll tax rebel for a while and was then brought back to housing. He has certainly not uttered another word about smoking and health. I suspect that any Minister who has been in such a position will have learnt the lesson that to speak out as a matter of principle about the tobacco industry and its influence is not likely to lead to promotion within the Conservative party.
  Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman was very honourable in his actions but when the tobacco industry got word of what he was doing they had a word with Downing street. According to one policial pundit, the Prime Minister at the time—the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—asked, "What is he—is he clever or not so clever?" Someone said, "He is clever," so she said, "Well, he's got to get the bag."
  Mr. Wilson: The one episode of "Yes, Minister" that rang true was that in which the wheezing advocate of the tobacco industry ended up as Minister for Sport in the Conservative Government.
  However, the subject should not be treated with levity. It has interested me for a long time, both politically and personally. My father was a heavy smoker and a non-drinker who died after a massive heart attack at the age of 59. I am sure that he was one of the triumphs of the tobacco industry's activities in the past few decades.
  There is something peculiarly obnoxious about an industry that knows that in order to guarantee its continued profits far into the next century it now has to hook young people—the most vulnerable in our communities—on a habit which is unanimously agreed to be addictive. People who have not yet reached the age of reason, who are not responsible and who have their whole lives ahead of them are caught at an early age by the industry in the cynical knowledge that once they are caught as kids, the industry will probably have them for the rest of their lives.
  The fact that those lives are truncated—often markedly —and blighted by the cost of the exercise is as nothing to the tobacco industry or its handmaiden, the advertising industry, which promotes its wares. Those facts are irrelevant to the industry as long as it can keep churning out the profits for its shareholders—that is the extent of its interest. It is in every sense of the word a dirty business and it is a pretty grubby Government who defend the industry's activities and who live as closely with it as the present Government do.
  I have been interested in the issue for some time and I am grateful to my hon. Friends who quoted what I have written about it recently. I was struck by the absurdity and degradation of the fact that above all else in the European debate the Government are desperate for flags to raise as witnesses to their success in defending British interests against the wiles of Johnny foreigner in Europe. However, the best they can come up with is that they are "leading the Opposition" to an EC-inspired attempt to ban tobacco advertising.
  What a proud activity for our Government to be engaged in. We are supposed to be proud that they can carry on flogging their wares and promoting cancer and the sale of cigarettes to youngsters. That is possible on every front with the massive budgets to which my hon. Friends referred because in order to display their proud anti-Europeanism, the Government have successfully opposed a ban on advertising in the European Community.
  It was timely that, as the debate was getting under way, we had news from Canada through The Observer—as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said—that some documents have emerged. I do not believe that they differ from the existing documents in every tobacco multi-national in the world. They reveal that the strategies make it perfectly clear that all the verbosity and apologia for what advertising is supposed to do is so much padding. The fact is that the whole marketing strategy is to aim at children from the age of 12 upwards, especially girls of that age. In the industry's own terms, it is a great triumph. Every piece of research shows that the strongest client market for new smokers is that category, especially young women from the lower social and economic background.
  Millions of vulnerable, poor people are targeted. For the industry to be sustained, it has to get them into the
  112
  addictive habit between the ages of 12 and 18. How can any Government, even of the calibre and stamp of this one, defend that as a legitimate commercial activity? How can they refuse to take the modest step that my hon. Friends have proposed? To their honour, some Conservative Members support that step, and they would have been here if they had known that there would be an elongated debate. The issue crosses the House, because it is a question of basic morality. How can anyone accept that an industry should be allowed to go on flogging its wares in that way?
  This may be a convenient point at which to get the libertarian argument out of the road. If people make a decision to smoke of their free will, that is their business. If they are in possession of the facts and decide to smoke, it is a decision freely made. I may quibble with their right to smoke in places where there are non-smokers, and there is a whole debate about secondary smoking, but, if they make the decision when of mature age and with the information available from many sources, I cannot quibble with it.
  However, I quibble deeply with the idea that smokers should be deprived of that free will and that the argument should be so weighted towards those who have a vested interest in abrogating free will by pushing their wares through the most subtle techniques of advertising, marketing and sponsorship specifically directed at the people in society who are known to be the most vulnerable.
  Other hon. Members referred to the report "From the Billboard to the Playground", Commissioned by the Cancer Research Campaign, which is an extension of the Cancer Research Organisation. It is a timely report, because it considers precisely the issue of the impact of tobacco advertising on youngsters. It considered first the familiar self-justification which everyone in the House and in the country knows is rubbish. The industry says that all it is trying to do is to switch customers between competing brands. Nobody believes that, and I hope that it will not form part of the Minister's defence tonight.
  If tobacco companies were only promoting brand switching, the industry would have an ever-diminishing number of smokers among whom to share out the various brands. The Minister says that there are a diminishing number of smokers. That is true in spite of the best efforts of the tobacco and advertising industries, but it is not a sharply diminishing number. To prevent it from becoming a sharply diminishing number, the industry has to have new recruits. Everybody knows that advertising is targeted primarily at achieving those recruits.
  Mr. Morgan: The Minister will probably claim that the decline in the number of smokers is greater in this country than it is in Italy and in France. However, the decline is smaller than the decline in the United States, where smoking among the middle class and among college students is virtually unknown. It would be great if we could achieve that level of non-smoking among school and college students. The banning of tobacco advertising would be a great contribution to achieving what the United States has already achieved.
  Mr. Wilson: Everyone recognises that the banning of tobacco advertising does not achieve all those ends on its own—that it has to be part of wider strategy. It is obviously highly desirable that middle-class youngsters and students drop out of smoking—even in this country,

  113
  they do so in relatively high numbers—but that concentrates with an even stronger focus the efforts of the tobacco and advertising industries on youngsters 'who do not come from such categories.
  A huge gulf exists. I do not have the statistics to hand, but they show how the number of smokers differs between socio-economic groups. In a group of 20 or 30 youngsters from the background described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) it would be considered odd for someone to be puffing away and spreading filth in the direction of others in that group. However, in a group of 20 or 30 youngsters from the least successful socio-economic background, who have the least going for them and the smallest incomes, the chances are that there will be a greater number of smokers. The corollary of that is that a higher proportion of their income is spent on tobacco products.
  The attitude that smoking is anti-social is gaining currency among the more articulate, better educated and more aware groups in society, but the vicious corollary is that the tobacco and advertising industries must get their recruits from the lower end of the socio-economic scale.
  I attended two meetings in my constituency yesterday. The first comprised people with advanced educational qualifications. To some extent, it was a self-selecting group. There were no smokers in the room. However, there was a much wider range of society at my second meeting. There were more people from lower socioeconomic groups. I emerged from that meeting, like everyone else, covered in the smell and stains of tobacco smoke because 60 or 70 per cent. of the people had been smoking at the meeting.
  It would be desirable if we could reduce the number of smokers to the level found in the higher socio-economic groups. As an interim step, we must try to wean from smoking the people in society who are most vulnerable to the habit.
  The Strathclyde university report stated:
  "The idea of a mature tobacco market"—
  that means a market which cannot expand any further—
  "cannot be supported … the key group for the tobacco industry is young smokers. They have to be recruited and retained for the industry to flourish. In no sense can this market be said to be mature."
  The report examined research from the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, and concluded that cigarette advertising is getting through to children and encouraging them to smoke and to carry on smoking. That will doubtless be satisfactory news in Canada, and probably in the United Kingdom, where we know, from incontrovertible evidence, that that is the precise name of the tobacco industry's game.
  I want to refer to the relationship between tobacco and sport, and particularly the role of sponsorship. Recently, I was astounded to receive a document in my post entitled "British International Sports Relay." It is difficult to establish who published that document. Where one would normally expect to find those details, there is the logo of the Sports Council, and the statement:
  "Additional copies of Relay available from Sports Council International Affairs Unit."
  Under the heading "Tobacco Sponsorship" is a debate in which David Pollock, the director of Action for Smoking and Health, argues against tobacco sponsorship in sport under the accurate heading, "A cancerous growth on sport". However, to my bewilderment, I found that the argument in favour of tobacco sponsorship was not put by
  114
  some fruitcake from the tobacco industry's front organisations, but by the general secretary of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, Mr. Peter Lawson.
  If the Minister for Sport was on the Treasury Bench, I would ask him—instead, I ask all hon. Members and the country—what is going on when the general secretary of the Central Council of Physical Recreation puts his name and that of his organisation to a positive argument in favour of tobacco sponsorship in sport?
  His words read like an ultra-right libertarian tract rather than the reasoned utterances of a representative of a body that has been entrusted by the Government with the responsibility for sport and physical recreation. He begins:
  "Sport in Britain is strapped for cash."
  We all know that. The article continues:
  "Sports bodies are denied resources by government, which takes more from sport than it ever gives back. The gap between government parsimony and the needs of sport is filled by commercial sponsorship. Without it, sport would wither."
  That may be a wee indictment of the Government, but so far the argument is reasonably incontestable. However, Mr. Lawson then continues by making no distinction whatsoever between tobacco sponsorship and any other form of sponsorship.
  I very much regret that it is impossible to have a sports event, club or team these days without having a commercial sponsor. We could have an interesting separate debate about the role of sponsorship, but we accept that, if any sport in this country is to get off the ground, such sponsorship is a mandatory part of the scene. Surely, however, there are lines to be drawn, and it is not only remarkable, but worrying, to find that someone in such a responsible position can argue that the tobacco industry provides a neutral form of sponsorship.
  Mr. Lawson continued:
  "The tobacco industry is frequently and unfortunately vilified for its association with sport. Such criticism is, in my view, totally misguided. The governing bodies of sport are not naive, nor are they irresponsible. Sponsorship decisions that they face and must take because of their impecunity are based on a careful assessment of their impact upon their participants and their supporters. Sponsorship of sport by the tobacco industry is controlled by voluntary agreement and is carefully monitored to ensure that young people are not recipients of a pro-smoking message."
  With respect, that is so much cosh. Mr. Lawson knows it, the tobacco industry knows it and the Government know it. Indeed, I would be deeply concerned to think that the people who preside over the Central Council of Physical Recreation do not know it. It is extraordinary that an employee of that body is allowed to write publicly in such terms. It is even more odd that the Sports Council should publish his words.
  We know that the controls over tobacco sponsorship of sport do not have the affect that Mr. Lawson attributes to them, because all the academic research shows that the tobacco industry's sponsorship of sport is aimed at a younger market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has said, the sponsorship is aimed at a market that identifies sport with glamour and, by extension, with tobacco. That is not only the market at which the advertising is aimed—it is the market that it hits. It is appalling for the general secretary of the Central Council of Physical Recreation to argue otherwise.
  However, Mr. Lawson continued:
  "The often repeated suggestion that sports bodies are free to select sponsors as and when they wish is nonsense."

  115
  I shall stop quoting Mr. Lawson there because, until that point, he has used the argument of impecunity. The Government must address that argument directly.
  I am not interested in scoring cheap points in this debate about the underfunding of sport, but if sport is using underfunding as an excuse or justification for taking large amounts of money from the tobacco industry, the Government must address the question whether they should put more money into sport so that sport does not have to use that excuse.
  Mr. Lawson moves on to what I regard as even more dangerous territory. He writes:
  "At base, there is a larger issue than that of finance. Fundamentally, it is a question of freedom. Are sportsmen and sportswomen to be at liberty to negotiate in the interests of their sport or are they to be browbeaten by the lobby of latter-day puritans?"
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject before the House. He should return to the targeting of tobacco advertising on young people.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but sponsorship is a form of advertising. Every sponsorship is accompanied by advertising. There is manifold evidence which I could—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the financing of sport.
  Mr. Wilson: I have left that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  As Mr. Lawson writes:
  "At base, there is a larger issue than that of finance."
  So we are off finance altogether. He continues:
  "Fundamentally, it is a question of freedom. Are sportsment and sportswomen to be at liberty to negotiate in the interests of their sport or are they to be browbeaten by the lobby of latter-day puritans?"
  Mr. Lawson applies that description to people like me, who believe that tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sport are immoral and have precisely the effect that they are intended to have, which is to recruit young people into smoking.
  Mr. Morgan: Surely the critical issue is that of role models. Sporting heroes are naturally role models for young people. The deviousness and deceitfulness of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship activities which are directed at children lie in the fact that they tell them that one must be healthy and have lung function of 120 per cent. to do well at sport, while it is practised by people wearing jerseys and caps carrying insignia and logos which bear a message about a product which will reduce one's lung function to 80 per cent., 50 per cent. and eventually zero per cent.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is right. There is a link between the the words "advertising" and "sponsorship". The tobacco industry plans a long time ahead. It sees the writing on the wall for its advertising. It knows that, whatever the Government say, eventually European law or the law of a more enlightened British Government will say, "You just cannot do it."
  Tobacco advertising on television was banned in 1965. The industry has had 26 years grace for other forms of advertising. That will not go on much longer. Now the
  116
  tobacco industry is going for the slightly more subtle form of advertising which is sponsorship. It is aimed at the same target, which is the young and vulnerable people in society whom the industry needs to recruit.
  I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak. The points are obvious and clear. The only question is whether the Government have the will to do anything about them. Let us confront the matter. It is a moral question at root. We talk in many different contexts about the need to protect young people from various vices in society. The fact that something happens to be legal as a matter of tradition going far back into history does not mean that it is not a vice in society.
  I suspect that, if someone now discovered a substance as addictive and harmful as tobacco, even this Government would be highly unlikely to license it to get it off the ground as a marketable product. We experienced a similar event in Scotland, when Skol Bandits started to be manufactured in East Kilbride. They were a relatively new product. Eventually, the Government intervened to prevent the manufacture of that product in Britain.
  We all inherit a tradition from a different age when tobacco was acceptable. As I said earlier, one cannot switch off the tap and ban tobacco. That is not the proposition, but the fact that one does not ban it does not mean that, with the knowledge that we now possess, we do not regard it as a debilitating and dangerous influence on society, and especially young people. The question is whether we protect those young people from the recognition of the information that we have accumulated in the past two or three decades. That is a moral choice.
  I have no wish to attribute motives, but clearly finance intervenes. Every advertisement on behalf of the tobacco industry delivers millions in tobacco tax to the Treasury. If that is the wages of sin, to what extent are the Government prepared to maintain them? If the price of doing that is leading another generation into that habit—
  Mr. Alun Michael: The subject of the debate is the targeting of young people. Surely all hon. Members would argue that it is wrong for the industry to be able to target young people. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have the worst of both worlds? They seem to be allowing the targeting of young people through advertising, but, because of the tax regime that they have introduced in the past few years, they seem to be exporting jobs in the tobacco industry. We seem to have the worst of both worlds. We still seem to have cigarettes, but jobs are going overseas, yet we allow the targeting of young people. Both parts of that equation seem to be crazy.
  Mr. Wilson: It is tricky to agree with that argument. I am not that interested in where the jobs that make the product are located, but I have sympathy with tobacco workers. Like everyone else, they were taken into whatever jobs were available for them. If a social and political decision is taken against tobacco products and cigarettes, clearly there is a social and political responsibility to find other forms of employment for those people. In parts of Glasgow, the tobacco industry is very important. One cannot shut up shop and say, "We wipe our hands of those people." There is a responsibility to create other employment, and that would be the view of any responsible Government.

  117
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that it is doubly absurd to destroy jobs in the British tobacco industry—as has been done on a large scale—if that leads not to a reduction in tobacco consumption but to the substitution of imported brands of cigarette.
  Mr. Michael: There is a large tobacco factory in my constituency. I have made it clear to the people who work there and to the management that I am against the encouragement of tobacco addiction and in favour of measures which will prevent the use of tobacco in public places. However, when the company was considering the service and repair of machinery and was thinking of sending it abroad to Scandanavia, it was willing to listen and to ensure that the work was carried out in this country.
  The Government, through their tax regimes, do not seem to be interested in that. Tobacco consumption will be a fact of life in this country for some time. During that period, we want to do all we can to reduce it, especially among young people, and we want to avoid targeting them in advertising. However, we must do what we can to ensure that that does not have a consequent effect on unemployment in this country through a failure to understand that process.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend argues his own case very well. I do not disagree with a word of it.
  I suspect that people who work in the industry are under no illusions. They know the way that the wind is blowing, and would be only too pleased to be redeployed into another trade. The tragedy is that, whatever the direction that market forces blow, when they are left to their own devices, the choice for workers in such industries is not between the status quo and redeployment, but between the status quo and loss of their jobs. In those circumstances, it is natural that those who work in the tobacco industry should be as anxious as anyone to defend their jobs.
  I conclude with a plea to the Minister. We are faced with a moral choice: do we allow our youngsters to be exploited? Do we allow people from the age of 12 to be induced into a habit which is addictive and will undermine, and in many cases destroy, their lives? How many smokers who were hooked when 12, 13, or 14, in their formative years, are grateful for having been subjected to the wiles of the tobacco and advertising industries? The vast majority curse the day they became hooked on the habit. That surely places a responsibility on any Government of any political complexion to trample on the bogus libertarian appeal of the tobacco and advertising industries that they are only offering choice.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful for the opportunity that we have been afforded by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) to debate an extremely important subject. We are also indebted to the Minister and the Whips for allowing us adequate time in which to adduce our arguments.
  The debate is not about banning the advertising of tobacco. It is about the impact of tobacco advertising and the promotion of tobacco on young people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr.
  118
  Wilson) pointed out, we in Scotland know that the words of some irresponsible sectors of the tobacco industry during the 1980s turned out to be weasel words.
  One thinks of the way in which the industry set up a factory, with considerable Government money, to produce Skoal Bandits, and then blatantly promoted that carcinogenic product, which promotes mouth cancers, to children in nearby schools. That factory turned out to be a short-lived exercise and a gross waste of Government money. It was a symptom or symbol of the 1980s and a lesson for the 1990s of collusion between Government and irresponsible elements who have done much to give the tobacco industry a bad name.
  I pay tribute to people who have advised parents and children of the dangers of taking up smoking. Dr. Lynne Michelle, of Edinburgh, has highlighted in her studies on the perception of children of the promotion of cigarettes the grave danger, almost the entrapment of a younger generation by irresponsible elements in the industry and, sadly, the example set by other adults, including parents. Those results were published last year and cited by an all-party group in Westminster Hall. The findings were horrific. I also pay tribute to Alison Hillhouse, of ASH in Scotland, who has done much to highlight the dangers of smoking.
  Mr. Michael: While my hon. Friend is paying tribute to several people who have highlighted those issues, will he also pay tribute to a specialist in Wales, with the Celtic name of Dr. Ian Campbell, who has highlighted those issues strongly? In the light of his experience and expertise at Llandough hospital in my constituency, he has alerted people in Wales to the dangers of smoking, the burdens that smoking places on the NHS and the tremendous damage that it does to health. He, too, has sought to publicise and to persuade the public of the need to avoid the activities that are being condemned in this debate.
  Mr. Griffiths: I could not pay a more eloquent testimony to the doctor than my hon. Friend has just paid. He, too, will have had a chance to study the fourth report of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship, several paragraphs of which deal with the targeting of tobacco advertising at young people.
  Before I go into the details of the report's findings and the accompanying and interesting, if depressing, press statement by the Minister on 9 September, I should say that there is not only increasing public awareness of the problems of smoking and its long-term consequences to the health of smokers, but an increasing awareness of the dangers of passive smoking, particularly to children. Lothian Region Transport plc has done much to ensure that smoking is banned from public transport in the Lothian area. As in America, smoking is now increasingly prohibited in public places in Britain, which means that children are less influenced by adults who smoke and whose passive smoking does much to damage young children's health.
  I look forward to the day when restaurants, pubs, cafes and public transport undertakings through the United Kingdom take seriously the problems of smoking. If they permit smoking, they should set aside special rooms for those who wish to smoke and for those who do not.
  Mr. Morgan: I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, if, we are to stop young people inhaling smoke unintentionally and passively in public places such as restaurants and railway carriages, the physical segregation between areas where people are allowed to smoke and those where they are not must be far better.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of that relates to the targeting of advertising on young children.
  Mr. Morgan: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to come to that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I will allow the hon. Gentleman to get on with his speech.
  Mr. Griffiths: It was not an unhelpful intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because one of the problems in dealing with the targeting of advertising is that advertisements aimed at adults will be less effective than the Minister may wish if they take account of the fact that children may be present. The problem that my hon. Friend rightly highlights of there being no closing doors on trains between smoking and non-smoking areas exposes children to smoking.
  Mr. Morgan: The point that my hon. Friend is about to come to is that the advertising directed at young people creates a climate of social acceptability in which children will then not complain about the awful smell of smoke from the other side of a physical barrier—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is nonsense. Mr. Griffiths.
  Mr. Griffiths: The fourth report of the Committee on Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship was produced this summer and the Minister will have had time to study it in detail.
  One of the most disturbing aspects of the report relates to the financing of the committee. The funding for direct mail research was £24,000, the chairman's fees were £2,000 and there was a miscellaneous sum of £331 for telephone, stationery and the like. That is a total of £26,331. An additional sum for certain members and secretaries' expenses was met by the Department and the companies, but the amount is unspecified. That is a derisory total for a committee monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. It is less than £30,000, compared with the tens or hundreds of millions that are spent on promoting tobacco.
  Only four members of the committee represented the Department of Health, but there were seven from the trade, the Tobacco Advisory Council and various tobacco companies. That shows an imbalance. More disturbing is an analysis of the complaints. A fifth of the complaints against companies for advertising in an irresponsible fashion in breach of the code were upheld. That is serious in view of the fact that the committee has been running for more than four years. One would have thought that its very existence would be some sort of deterrent. The fact that one in five of the complaints were held to be breaches of the code shows that the tobacco companies have perhaps been treating the committee and the issue in a cavalier way.
  The report shows that the committee devoted some time to analysing a helpful report from the Health Education Authority, "Beating the Ban", which was published in 1990. It grieves me to say that the committee
  120
  seemed to spend some time trying to denigrate the authority's findings and to vindicate the tobacco industry. It should have spent a little more time looking at the serious work being carried out by the Health Education Authority and less time on carping criticisms of the authority's work.
  Sadly, the preface to the report, the covering letter from Mr. John Belloch, chairman of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship, shows that the increase in the number of breaches in the past year has risen by 35 per cent. Perhaps that increase reflects a decline in profits, the recession and the drive by tobacco companies to advertise their products even more fiercely. None the less, the rise is worrying.
  The committee was set up under the terms of a voluntary agreement. The Minister and I may disagree about whether the emphasis should be on voluntary or statutory agreements. The agreement was concluded with the Government on 1 April 1986. The committee contains leading representatives of the tobacco industry and its task is to monitor the operation of the agreements on advertising and on sponsorship of sports by tobacco companies in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North spoke about that.
  That is a more recent agreement, dating from January 1987. I shall not read out the main provisions of the agreement, because they fall outwith the terms of the Adjournment debate topic, but they are available to the general public, and to hon. Members in the Library. The problems that are highlighted—here is where we question the faith of some of the marketers of tobacco companies —include the limiting of expenditure on cigarette brand poster advertising to 50 per cent. of the level in the year ended 31 March 1980. The problem arises from the fact that—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Mr. Griffiths: I was saying that the proportion of advertising expenditure given was for that in the two lowest tar groups, which was rather less than the proportion of total sales.
  I do not want to carp about the work of the Committee. I welcome the fact that the industry gets together with the Minister's representative and with representatives of other Departments, and I welcome the agreement to cease advertising in cinemas and to support an advertising campaign about illegal sales to children under 16. These measures have the full endorsement of the Labour party, which also welcomes the fact that notices about the law will be made extensively available for display by the retail trade and will be fixed to automatic vending machines by operators.
  I know that the industry and the Department of Health are to consider what further action is needed to publicise the law in the light of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991. I refer to the case outlined in the report of breaches of the code and to the cases behind the figures that I have given.
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has mentioned the reports of the Committee, including one on the general aspects of two televised sporting events sponsored by tobacco companies. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is

  121
  not the specific element, but the general targeting of young people, which may not be explicit, that causes the most difficulty? All of us who have worked with young people know that, in relation to pop music and sport, the impact of the event and the personality goes way beyond w hat one would expect. Should this not be taken into account, and does it not appear that it is not taken into account in the voluntary code?
  Mr. Griffiths: I endorse that point, which follows on from the one that I have been making. There are volumes of evidence to substantiate what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope to give the House some examples. The Evening Standard of 20 May this year published an excellent critique of advertising and the ways in which the tobacco industry had dodged bans on advertising. Anyone who has not read Mr. Eric Clark's excellent article charting how classic adverts, in the past and in the present, have succeeded in linking the cigarette with sophistication, should read it.
  As he so rightly says, despite all the increasingly tougher codes, much of what is happening in advertising now does not contravene codes, yet tobacco companies get the message across in the same way. Marlboro, for instance, does not have to show or even mention somebody smoking cigarettes—it just has to show a cowboy. That is an example of what my hon. Friend has in mind.
  Mr. Morgan: There was a notorious example, similar to the one that my hon. Friend has given, which no doubt had a great deal of appeal to young people. It was the famous Peter Stuyvesant advertisement which showed passengers on aircraft. No doubt it had a great deal of appeal because it suggested that, if someone could afford air travel, he must be a bit of a swinger and must be with it. That was bound to appeal to young people as well. That was shown about 20 years ago, shortly after the first voluntary code. Instead of the advertiser stating directly that someone is a with-it swinger if he smokes, he implies that to young people by showing them smoking Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes on airliners.
  Mr. Griffiths: It could well be that it will take more than the measures that the Government have introduced to strip the glamour from smoking, notwithstanding the 115,000 smoking-related deaths per year in Britain alone. Tragically, as my hon. Friends have said, the image that is portrayed is still one of the smoker being chic or macho. That image is targeted at adults and at children, who are the most impressionable.
  Mr. Michael: It seems that my hon. Friend is going to the essence of the argument. For many years before coming to this place, I worked with young children. It strikes me that it is young people who are most at risk and who have most to lose. The children with whom I worked had the least opportunity in terms of personal development and careers, and they were likely to be drawn into a variety of different forms of behaviour, among which the first was often the use of and then addiction to tobacco.
  Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes the point well and pithily.
  122
  The article in the Evening Standard takes up the issue in the same vein. I am sure that that newspaper lives or dies by its advertising and can claim some expertise on the subject. The article states that we have only to look
  "at the black-and-white magazine shots of Val Kilmer, Jim Morrison in The Doors, with a cigarette. Read about Julia Roberts as she takes 'a deep draw on the cigarette in her right hand'. Or visit the Olivier/SWET '91 award-winning play Dancing at Lughnasa and hear talk of 'Wild Woodbines'."
  All these things have an impact on the public. In particular, as the journalist, Mr. Clark states, they have an effect on his daughter, who is 13. She mimes smoking. I am sure that that will be familiar to hon. Members with teenage children. That shows the impact of smoking. It is almost passive advertising and promotion, but I am convinced that it is carefully crafted in many instances by the advertising companies on behalf of the cigarette companies.
  The notion that we do not have to have anything to do with those who want to smoke is odious, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has said. The notion also that advertising is designed to persuade people to smoke one company's brand instead of that of another—in other words, to switch—has little validity.
  Today's cigarette has 110 years of image-making behind it. Part of the task of the modern tobacco promoter is to make the smoking habit appear clean and healthy, and to imply that it is all right to smoke if we take plenty of exercise. Spurious devices are used to put forward a powerful message.
  For young women in particular, the message conveyed is that of elegance, poise, and perhaps a hint of luxury. Such an image can be seductive to people who have not enjoyed so-called rising prosperity—the number who have not done so is increasing—and have fewer pleasures in life. I refer to people who, as I speak, are sitting at home, unable to put on their electric fires. The message that one can gain for just a few pence, by smoking, something that a Liz Taylor or a Julia Roberts with all their millions have can be seductive—and it is being deliberately promoted.
  The tobacco industry has done much to sidestep the Secretary of State's restrictions by moving more into other marketing areas, such as sampling, road shows, travel films, clothing, and sponsorship—from Glyndebourne to rock, from angling to snooker. Earlier this year, Philip Morris appointed a London agency to explore news areas of so-called non-conventional advertising.
  At the heart of the debate, and of the promotion of cigarettes to young people, is a crisis of confidence in the House and the country over the good will of the tobacco industry. The Government have at least been partly honest in their stand. A few years ago, they went in to Europe with the deliberate aim of sabotaging any tough ban on cigarette advertising, and any insistance on tough medical warnings of the kind that appear today.
  Since then, the Government have perceived public opinion and disquiet with their handling of the issue, but still they have not fully learnt the lessons. When the new voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising was concluded, the Secretary of State for Health issued a trumpeting press release stating:
  "The agreement will ensure that the new health warnings such as 'Smoking Kills', which will appear on cigarette packets from 1992, will also appear on advertisements."
  Three cheers for that—but they are three cheers three years too late in terms of Government action, the tens of

  123
  thousands of people who have died from smoking, and the tens of thousands more who have taken up smoking during that time.
  The messages that the Secretary of State trumpets in his press release are "Smoking Kills," "Smoking Causes Cancer," "Smoking Causes Heart Disease," "Smoking Causes Fatal Diseases," "Smoking When Pregnant Harms Your Baby," and "Protect Children: Don't Make Them Breathe Your Smoke." They are all welcome but my right hon. and hon. Friends—together with responsible interests outside the House, such as the British Medical Association and other medical authorities—have pressed for such a policy for some years.
  I suspect that the Secretary of State's inability to press that policy on the industry, and the industry's failure to adopt it voluntarily before now, has done much to heighten public awareness of the reticence of the Secretary of State and of the industry to take the issue as seriously as they might.
  I believe in tough regulations, not knee-jerk reactions to public opinion—but the industry should be allowed to gear up to them and to plan five or 10 years ahead. If the industry had gone along with the sort of scheme that we were urging three or four years ago, it would be well geared up to meeting the challenge now, instead of being caught short by its friends—who I am sure the industry feels have in some way betrayed it.
  In his press release the Secretary of State says:
  "Many of the new measures are designed to protect children from being influenced to take up the deadly habit of smoking."
  Again, we welcome that, but is it not sad that it comes 12 years after this Government were elected and after not just one but two Secretaries of State since I have been a Member of Parliament have been influenced because of criticism of tobacco advertising and irresponsible elements in the tobacco industry?
  The Secretary of State said that he wants to discourage
  "children and young people, particularly young women, from taking up smoking"
  and that it is
  "one of the most important things we can do to protect their future health."
  We welcome that statement. In the remaining 15 minutes we look forward to hearing from the Minister what he intends to do to advance that cause further.
  10.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on securing this debate and on mobilising so much support from her side of the House. Despite the best efforts of one or two of her hon. Friends, I do not believe that the debate has revealed a party political difference on anything other than the very narrow issue of an advertising ban. There is no dispute about the incidence of smoking among young people and among the population as a whole, which must be reduced.
  Statistics have already been quoted and they bear repetition. They show that 100,000 unnecessary deaths a year are the result of tobacco consumption. That is a Lockerbie disaster every day of every year. A third of all deaths in the age group 40 to 70 are smoking-related. That is a frightening statistic. A few Opposition Members told us that smoking costs the national health service £437
  124
  million a year. I am not sure how accurately that can be measured, but it represents a substantial cost to the NHS, which the hon. Member for Eccles compared, in my view rightly, with the large sums of money that the European Community still commits to subsidising tobacco production, against which we have argued vehemently in Brussels. At the very least there is something contradictory—most people would apply a stronger epithet to it—about an organisation that subsidises tobacco production but seeks to present itself as interested in reducing tobacco consumption.
  This Government's record, as well as that of our predecessors who pursued precisely the same policy, shows some success in delivering the objective that both parties have espoused—reduced tobacco consumption. The number of smokers has fallen from 45 per cent. of the population in 1974 to 32 per cent. of the population in 1988, the most recent year for which figures are available.
  The Green Paper which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health published this summer, entitled "The Health of the Nation", suggests, as part of the consultation about health targets, that we should adopt as a target a further reduction, within the time span of the White Paper, when it is published, of that proportion of the population who smoke from 33 per cent. in the case of men, as it was in 1988, to 22 per cent. and from 30 per cent. of women down to 21 per cent.—a reduction of more than 30 per cent. on present incidence rates.
  There cannot be and there should not be any attempt to open up a party political divide over the importance of further reducing tobacco consumption. Nor is there any serious basis on which it can be argued that there is a party political divide over the particular of reducing tobacco consumption among children.
  Clearly, if we want to deliver long-term reductions in tobacco consumption, we need to ensure that the smallest possible number of children—preferably none—take up the tobacco habit. Once again, that is not in dispute.
  We have made it clear that we are disappointed at the figures revealed in the latest survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of tobacco consumption by young people. It showed that, in 1990, 10 per cent. of children aged between 11 and 15 still used tobacco. I was horrified by the definition of "regular" users. Those are not children who smoke one or two cigarettes a week to prove to their contemporaries that they are older than they are; if they are boys, they smoke more than 56 cigarettes a week and, if they are girls, more than 49 cigarettes a week. By any definition, that is a substantial level of tobacco consumption by children, to whom it is illegal to sell cigarettes.
  Action has been taken, not just in the past few years but consistently by successive Governments since 1904, to inhibit tobacco consumption by children. The sale of cigarettes to children has been illegal since 1904. Successive legislative steps have been taken since then to tighten the restrictions on access to tobacco by young children.
  The most recent was the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) mentioned. It was passed with the Government's support. The Act makes it an absolute offence for a shopkeeper to sell cigarettes or any other tobacco product to young people. It makes it clear that a shopkeeper who sells cigarettes to young people cannot simply say that he did not know that

  125
  he was doing so. To establish his innocence, he must prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the Commission of an offence. In other words, if a shopkeeper cannot show that he took every reasonable step to satisfy himself about the age of the person buying cigarettes or any other tobacco product, he has committed an offence.
  Action has been taken to deal with one of the issues which undoubtedly is an important contributor to tobacco consumption by young people—their access to tobacco products. The law is tighter than it has ever been, and it has the backing of both sides of the House.
  Mr. Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman really wish to imply that it is difficult for young children to buy cigarettes from a local corner shop? My impression is that the old trick of saying that the cigarettes are for one's mother or older brother still works 99·99 per cent. of the time.
  Mr. Dorrell: The House need not rely on the hon. Gentleman's view that it happens 99·99 per cent. of the time. One of the slightly more encouraging findings of the OPCS survey—I emphasise the word "slightly"—was that, in 1988, 8 per cent. of young smokers had been refused cigarettes by the supplier the last time they sought to buy them but that, in 1990, the figure had risen to 15 per cent. Although that meant that 85 per cent. had been able to buy cigarettes illegally without challenge, none the less it was a welcome trend.
  The special position of young people has been recognised in the voluntary agreements that the Government have negotiated with the industry and it was explicit in the 1986 voluntary agreement. It has been suggested that the voluntary agreement makes no reference to children and young people, but that is not true. I quote the 1986 agreement under which the industry agreed
  "to take special care to ensure that their advertising … and promotion does not represent a greater attraction to young people than to the population as a whole."
  The agreement hinds the industry and is carried forward into the new agreement. It is the basis on which any discriminatory advertising directed at young people can be challenged under the terms of the voluntary agreements between the Government and the industry.
  The voluntary agreement published in September this year by my right hon. Friend takes several further steps towards restricting the extent to which advertising is directed—purposefully or otherwise—at young people. The voluntary agreement commits the industry to a 50 per cent. reduction in shop-front advertising starting at the shop fronts closest to schools. It commits the industry to applying the same ban on billboard advertising overlooking playgrounds as already applies to billboard advertising close to schools.
  It also commits the industry to a ban on cigarette and other tobacco advertising in magazines specifically aimed at the young women's market. "Specificially aimed" in that context is defined in the agreement as describing any magazine where the age group 15 to 24 comprises more than 25 per cent. of the magazine's readership. This year, we also insisted on a substantial strengthening of the nature of the health warnings put on packets and on any tobacco advertising. To suggest that the Government have
  126
  taken no action, or have taken no action against the specific problem of advertising directed at children, is a charge that does not stand up.
  The hon. Member for Eccles mentioned the case of the Canadian company Imperial Tobacco Ltd. The charges against that company are serious, although the hon. Lady made it clear that there is no suggestion in any of the supporting paperwork that the claims relate to any sales outside Canada and certainly not that they relate to any sales in this country. Indeed, it would be hard for them to do so, because British American Tobacco does not sell tobacco in the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Lady also quoted the use of the puffin symbol by Gallaher. That is a good illustration of the strength of the voluntary agreement approach to advertising and of the weakness of seeking to enshrine it in statutory to legal bounds. If the hon. Lady or Puffin Books can show that the use of the puffin symbol contravenes the text that I quoted from the 1986 voluntary agreement, without being bound by court procedures and legal niceties and technicalities, we have a system deliberately designed to be sufficiently flexible to allow action to be taken and new barriers which will not be allowed to be broken. We will not extend the limits of what is acceptable.
  I have stressed that there is no disagreement between the Government and the Opposition about the importance of reducing tobacco consumption or of reducing access to tobacco, especially among children, as a contributor to that objective. If the House is to take that objective seriously and then to deliver that objective, we need to consider what influences tobacco consumption among children.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I have only two minutes and I want to make some more points. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  The evidence suggests overwhelmingly that the biggest single influence on whether children smoke is the parental influence. First, it is a mistake to imagine that access to tobacco for children is an entirely discrete subject. Advertising directed at reducing tobacco consumption by parents has a substantial secondary knock-on effect on children. The second point to bear in in mind when we consider what influences children's consumption is the question of access and the tightening of that access. Hence our support for the Bill last year. The third is to ensure that children understand the health hazards that they run. One of the most encouraging aspects at the moment is that the Health Education Authority recently found that 87 per cent. of schoolchildren between nine and 15 think that smoking can kill. Therefore, the education message is getting through.
  Our most important priority is to secure the agreement of the industry to effective voluntary agreements and then to police them robustly. Evidence from the continent and comparison of our record with that of other European countries show that that is the route which delivers a substantial reduction in tobacco smoking.
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  EC (Visits)
  EC (Visits)
  Prison Officers (Brixton)
  Prison Officers (Brixton)
  Knives (Offensive Weapons)
  Knives (Offensive Weapons)
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Juvenile Crime
  Juvenile Crime
  Crime Victims
  Crime Victims
  New Housing Schemes
  New Housing Schemes
  Car Insurance
  Car Insurance
  Emergency Planning Review
  Emergency Planning Review
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Closed Circuit Television
  Closed Circuit Television
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  EC (Visits)
  EC (Visits)
  House of Fraser
  House of Fraser
  EC (Meetings)
  EC (Meetings)
  Fraudulent Share Applications
  Fraudulent Share Applications
  Law Commission Reports
  Law Commission Reports
  Probate Registry, Cardiff
  Probate Registry, Cardiff
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Credit Application Forms
  Credit Application Forms
  Telephone Bills
  Telephone Bills
  Company Auditors
  Company Auditors
  New Cars
  New Cars
  Breweries
  Breweries
  ECGD
  ECGD
  Rechar
  Rechar
  Export Licences
  Export Licences
  EC Directives
  EC Directives
PRIME MINISTER
  Irish Republic (Legislation)
  Irish Republic (Legislation)
  Child Care
  Child Care
  National Lottery
  National Lottery
  Disability
  Disability
  Sterling (German Support)
  Sterling (German Support)
  British Youth Council
  British Youth Council
  Welsh Research Organisations
  Welsh Research Organisations
  Special Financial Allowance
  Special Financial Allowance
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  Music Tuition
  Music Tuition
  Teachers (Pension Scheme)
  Teachers (Pension Scheme)
  Statemented Children
  Statemented Children
  American Studies
  American Studies
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Higher Education Fees
  Higher Education Fees
  Ministerial Travel
  Ministerial Travel
  Education (School Premises) Regulations
  Education (School Premises) Regulations
  Pupil Testing
  Pupil Testing
  EC Education Ministers (Meeting)
  EC Education Ministers (Meeting)
WALES
  EC Regional Policy
  EC Regional Policy
  River Quality
  River Quality
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Rural Housing
  Rural Housing
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  East Glamorgan District General Hospital
  East Glamorgan District General Hospital
  A465
  A465
  Inward Investment
  Inward Investment
  GP Fund Holders
  GP Fund Holders
  Cardiff-Wales Airport
  Cardiff-Wales Airport
  Community Councils
  Community Councils
  Nitrogen Oxides
  Nitrogen Oxides
  NHS Wales
  NHS Wales
EMPLOYMENT
  Low Pay
  Low Pay
  Employment, Northumberland
  Employment, Northumberland
  Apprenticeship Statistics
  Apprenticeship Statistics
  Earnings Statistics
  Earnings Statistics
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Large Goods Vehicle Licence
  Large Goods Vehicle Licence
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Employees' Earnings
  Employees' Earnings
  Bank Holidays
  Bank Holidays
CIVIL SERVICE
  Executive Agencies
  Executive Agencies
  Women Civil Servants
  Women Civil Servants
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Canadian Lobsters
  Canadian Lobsters
  Food Marketing
  Food Marketing
  Farmers (Early Retirement)
  Farmers (Early Retirement)
  Sheep Annual Premium
  Sheep Annual Premium
  Food Labelling
  Food Labelling
  Environmental Controls
  Environmental Controls
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Westminster Station
  Westminster Station
  Ministers' Pay
  Ministers' Pay
  Payroll Giving
  Payroll Giving
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Turks and Caicos
  Turks and Caicos
  Children's Rights
  Children's Rights
  Single Market
  Single Market
  Arms Control
  Arms Control
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  British Mercenaries
  British Mercenaries
  EC Business
  EC Business
  European Community
  European Community
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Fixed Profit Car Scheme
  Fixed Profit Car Scheme
  Civil Service Pay
  Civil Service Pay
  Travelling Costs
  Travelling Costs
  Uncollected Tax
  Uncollected Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  European Monetary Union
  European Monetary Union
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  EC Funds
  EC Funds
  Export Licences
  Export Licences
  Tax Revenue
  Tax Revenue
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  EMS (Norway)
  EMS (Norway)
ENERGY
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Oil and Gas Extraction
  Oil and Gas Extraction
  EC (Visits)
  EC (Visits)
  EC Councils
  EC Councils
  Electricité de France
  Electricité de France
  Subsidence Compensation Scheme
  Subsidence Compensation Scheme
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
SCOTLAND
  Enterprise Zone Status
  Enterprise Zone Status
  Scottish Bus Group
  Scottish Bus Group
  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Training and Enterprise Councils
  EC Meetings
  EC Meetings
  EC (Visits)
  EC (Visits)
THE ARTS
  Regional Arts
  Regional Arts
  Blue Box Theatre, Keswick
  Blue Box Theatre, Keswick
  Birmingham (City of Music)
  Birmingham (City of Music)
  City of Dance Festival
  City of Dance Festival
  Teesside Arts
  Teesside Arts
  Arts Funding
  Arts Funding
  Libraries
  Libraries
  Concerts, London
  Concerts, London
SOCIAL SECURITY
  EC (Visits)
  EC (Visits)
  Pension Age Equalisation
  Pension Age Equalisation
  Community Care Grants
  Community Care Grants
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Benefit Offices
  Benefit Offices
  Citizens Charter
  Citizens Charter
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Young Persons (Benefits)
  Young Persons (Benefits)
DEFENCE
  Challenger II Tanks
  Challenger II Tanks
  Royal Naval Reserve
  Royal Naval Reserve
  Tanks
  Tanks
  EC (Visits)
  EC (Visits)
  Unoccupied Homes
  Unoccupied Homes
  Operation Granby
  Operation Granby
  Near Misses
  Near Misses
TRANSPORT
  West Yorkshire Electrification
  West Yorkshire Electrification
  Radioactive Material (Transport)
  Radioactive Material (Transport)
  Lifejackets
  Lifejackets
  Merchant Navy
  Merchant Navy
  Citizens Charter
  Citizens Charter
  Training
  Training
  Car Security
  Car Security
  Large Goods Vehicle Licence
  Large Goods Vehicle Licence
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
HEALTH
  EC (Visits)
  EC (Visits)
  Cholesterol Testing
  Cholesterol Testing
  Alcohol Consumption
  Alcohol Consumption
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  NHS Trusts
  NHS Trusts
  Immunisation
  Immunisation
  Scanning and Kidney Machines
  Scanning and Kidney Machines
  Nasogastric Feeding Tubes
  Nasogastric Feeding Tubes
  Westwood Hospital
  Westwood Hospital
  Cervical Smears
  Cervical Smears
  Heart Operations
  Heart Operations
  Resettlement
  Resettlement
  Mammograms
  Mammograms
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  Cataract, Hip and Knee Operations
  Cataract, Hip and Knee Operations
NORTHERN IRELAND
  EC (Visits)
  EC (Visits)
  EC Meetings
  EC Meetings
  Road Surfaces
  Road Surfaces
  Newry Bypass
  Newry Bypass
  Club (Registration)
  Club (Registration)
  Fergal Caraher
  Fergal Caraher
  Autopsy Reports
  Autopsy Reports
ENVIRONMENT
  Environmental Assessments
  Environmental Assessments
  EC Meetings
  EC Meetings
  Coastal and Estuarial Waters
  Coastal and Estuarial Waters
  Water Designation
  Water Designation
  Estate Action Funding
  Estate Action Funding
  Public Registers
  Public Registers
  Renewable Energy
  Renewable Energy
  Council Tax
  Council Tax
  Tree Felling
  Tree Felling
  Standard Spending Assessments
  Standard Spending Assessments
  Community Charge
  Community Charge
  Government Grant
  Government Grant
  Civil Servants (Leeds)
  Civil Servants (Leeds)
  Dog Register
  Dog Register
  Registration of Waste Carriers
  Registration of Waste Carriers

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

British Shipping: Government Support
Lord Murray of Epping Forest Lord Murray of Epping Forest asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent consultations they have had with representatives of the shipping industry concerning the plight of that industry and the call for government action to strengthen it.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have regular contact with shipping industry representatives on a wide range of subjects of mutual interest.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In the course of the contacts he has referred to, will he bear in mind the statement made by his honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 16th July this year when he stated that careful consideration is being given to an up-to-date study of shipping requirements that is being produced? Will the Minister say when a statement can be expected on the outcome of the Government's consultations and of the study?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware of that statement made by my honourable friend which was made during the passage of the Finance Bill. We hope to make an announcement on that subject as soon as possible but I cannot say more than that today.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, if the shipping industry is in the same state as the building and construction industry, it must be in a plight. It is not good enough
2
for the Minister to say that the Government are holding discussions with various groups. We appreciate that, but will the Minister tell us what the shipping industry is entitled to expect from the Government, given the fact that the recession is supposed to be ending?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I said that the Government have regular contact with the shipping industry because that was the answer to the Question the noble Lord, Lord Murray, asked. I acknowledge that the British-owned shipping industry has suffered, not just during this present recession but over many years. However, the Government continue to believe that the shipping industry makes a valuable contribution to the economy. We recognise that ships are needed both for economic reasons and for defence.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, is it not time that we stopped crying about the demise of the British flag and looked instead at the total tonnage of British controlled shipping, which represents a much larger total? Should we not be thankful that, with the great reorganisation that is taking place in world container shipping at the moment, we still have very much a front runner in the shape of P&O?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord says. Although it is reduced in size and changed in nature, the British fleet remains a significant one. The UK-owned fleet, which the noble Lord mentioned, is over 50 per cent. larger in number, and in tonnage terms is more than treble the size of the British flag fleet. Much of the latter fleet is registered on other British flag registers.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we have learnt from the Minister that the Government are aware of the plight of the shipping industry. Will the Minister go a little further and indicate to the House what the Government propose to do to alleviate the industry's plight?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, over the years we have taken a number of measures to increase the

3
prosperity of the shipping industry. Under the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 the Government initiated a scheme to help with training and crew relief costs. Those measures have been successful. The shipping industry benefits from the 25 per cent. depreciation allowance and reductions in corporation tax.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the shipbuilding and ship repair industries are inextricably linked with the defence of this country? A factor that is causing some anxiety is the drop in the number of apprentices recruited to those industries.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the two industries that the noble Lord has mentioned are rather different from the shipping industry that is the subject of the Question on the Order Paper.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, in the light of the report researched by Warwick University calling for 10,000 additional Merchant Navy officers to be trained in the next decade, will my noble friend advise the House of the actions of his department to match that need?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I mentioned a moment ago we have started to offer assistance for training. The Government assist with 50 per cent. of the cost of training British merchant officer cadets. That scheme has been successful. Since the scheme began recruitment has increased from 162 recruits in 1987 to 525 last year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree with his noble friend Lord Sterling of Plaistow—I perceive that the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, will ask a question in a moment—who has said that we cannot pretend that the British fleet is other than in decline, or does the Minister pretend otherwise? The British shipping industry is one of the oldest shipping industries in the European Community. Over the past 12 years the Government have presided over the steepest decline in the British merchant fleet in comparison with the state of affairs that pertains with all our competitors. When will the Minister do something drastic to arrest that situation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sterling can no doubt speak for himself. I have already outlined various measures which the Government have taken. We also look for progress to be made on the European front.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, apart from the shipping industry's economic contribution of well over £5 billion a year, which makes it a very important part of the economy, any government which do not recognise its worth in defence terms do so at their peril? Does he also agree that without rebuilding the fleet and without training British seafarers we shall not have that defence force? Will he not also agree that whoever prefers to depend
4
on NATO staying together and therefore being dependent on a European defence combination again does so at his peril?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we certainly recognise the contribution made by the Merchant Navy in times of crisis. Fleet and manning levels are constantly monitored. We are currently studying our likely shipping requirements in times of conflict and the options for meeting those requirements. As I said earlier, we hope to make an announcement on that subject as soon as possible.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that these exchanges have illustrated the wide-ranging implications of the demise of our fleet? At an appropriate time will he consider the possibility of convening a high level, round table conference of representatives of shipowners, unions, marine insurers, financial interests and the Royal Navy in order to work out a national solution to this national problem?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have only very recently published, jointly with the shipping industry, the joint working party report. That report outlined many of the issues which have been raised in your Lordships' House this afternoon and made a number of recommendations, which are in hand, for putting those measures in place.

Concorde
2.44 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to secure the introduction of a successor to Concorde.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the Government believe that industry should take the lead in defining the need for such an aircraft and in securing its introduction. Although government support is already being provided for research into basic technologies, many of which are relevant to supersonic transport, it is too early to say what direct part, if any, government might play in the evolution of such a project.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that not very precise Answer. Is he aware that it is now 15 years since I gave Concorde her certificate of airworthiness and that a period of that duration without a successor aircraft even being in sight is unique in the history of the civil aviation industry? Does he realise that supersonic aircraft such as Concorde are a very important part of Britain's civil air fleet?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I acknowledge my noble friend's great experience in these matters. It is not possible to give a precise answer because it is not possible to foresee the future clearly. We believe that it is up to the aviation industry and not to government to decide on the future strategy of the industry and to

5
decide whether or not a particular project is viable. We do not believe that we should second guess industry or support prestige programmes which have no commercial justification.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House to what extent Concorde has proved a commercial and financial success? Can he also say which country has benefited most, if at all—France or the United Kingdom?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is my understanding that Concorde has been a commercial success for the airlines which operate it. However they did not have to pay the development costs. Those amounted to £880 million net and resulted in the sale of only 14 aircraft. That translates into £4.6 billion at present day prices.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Lord ensure that all the development costs of any second Concorde, so far as they are provided by the Government, are taken into account in considering its commercial viability and that we avoid repeating the financial disaster of the first Concorde?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government believe that such projects must be justified commercially and be initiated by industry.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would it not be unfortunate if Britain and France, having pioneered this new form of aircraft and having spent the moneys to which the noble Lord referred, nevertheless left it to others to develop further aircraft in the series? Would that not be a further illustration of the way in which we seem to pioneer new developments and then leave it to others to benefit from them? Would it not therefore be desirable for a major effort to be made on the lines of the initial Question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and for us to concert our efforts with our French friends in order to maintain our lead in this area?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord has given a fair picture of the situation. Any successor to Concorde is certain to be an international project. Secondly, a considerable amount of activity is taking place involving British industry. For example, British Aerospace is involved with Boeing, Aerospatiale, Deutsche Aerospace, McDonnell Douglas, Tupolev, Alenia of Italy and JADC of Japan in a group which is studying the viability of further supersonic transport aircraft. I should add that Rolls-Royce and SNECMA are also working together on the aero-engine aspects of such a project.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his reply to the first Question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the Minister implied that the Government were looking to the private sector and private capital to fund a successor aircraft. Bearing in mind the enormous costs of producing such an aircraft, does the Minister not agree that if the Government adopt that stance there will be no successor? Does he agree that both this Government and the French Government will have to be involved financially if such a successor, which is so necessary, is to be produced? Because of
6
the necessary technology governments will have to be involved and must not stand aside and let such a project fall.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I tried to indicate, we believe that it is up to industry to come forward with a commercially and industrially justifiable project. If it does so, government support for a specific project of that kind might be considered.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend's repeated suggestion that it is a matter for industry only show that the Government do not appreciate the enormous build-up in the prestige of the British civil aviation industry and of British technology generally to which Concorde, with its great success, has given rise? Will he not at least pay tribute to that?
Lord Reay: Yes, my Lords. I recognise that technically Concorde has been a major success, but I have emphasised that overall its commercial position is doubtful. I agree with my noble friend that it has played a flagship role through the airlines which operate it and that it has brought them prestige, but any future project must be commercially justifiable.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, although I sympathise with the Minister when he says that the Government cannot see the future clearly—that is what he said—will he give rather greater sympathetic consideration to the suggestion of his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter; namely, that there is a case for the Government being pro-active alongside industry in making sure that technological innovation of that kind can be pursued? Will he also assure the House that, in the event of such a project being pursued, the Government will, over the next six months—because that is all they will last—be prepared to give an undertaking that they will not commit the crass error made by the Conservative Government of the 1960s in not ensuring that there was a break clause in the agreement with the French with regard to the production of Concorde?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government are doing a great deal for the aerospace industry. For example, over the past 10 years, they have provided over £970 million of launch aid for the development of new aircraft and aeroengines. We also support research under the civil aircraft research and demonstration programme into several basic technologies which might be of value to future supersonic programmes. One of those of particular relevance to supersonic transport projects is work under the CARAD programme on advanced aluminium alloys, including alloys reinforced with ceramics.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can we not look to the Front Benches to set an example to us poor others by avoiding the sillier forms of party persiflage?
Lord Reay: My Lords, on this side of the House we try to do so.

Leadenham Bypass
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they now propose to hold a second public inquiry into the route of the Leadenham bypass.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the original orders that would enable the bypass to be built were quashed in the High Court. It was therefore necessary to publish new draft orders to obtain statutory authority to construct a bypass of Leadenham. These have attracted a number of objections that cannot be resolved other than by holding another public inquiry.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his extremely courteous and also extremely discouraging reply. Is he not aware that it was the opinion of my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs that a northern route would be preferable? Is he not further aware that to hold a second public inquiry overturning the result of the first must surely be a waste of public money?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had pronounced upon the merits or otherwise of the particular route involved in this bypass. However, there is to be another public inquiry and the cost will be in addition to that which has already been incurred. As I have outlined, it is necessary.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not the case that the inspector at the first inquiry found very firmly in favour of the northern route on environmental grounds? I understand that he said that in this case, when economic and environmental considerations were weighed, the environmental factors should take precedence. In view of the fact that the southern route has been opposed by the CPRE, English Heritage and the Countryside Commission as well as by local residents, why are the new orders being published for that route?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is for the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport jointly to take the final decision and bear responsibility for it, taking into account all material considerations, including the inspector's recommendations. They are of course answerable to Parliament for the decision. As to the noble Baroness's statement that some people are in favour of the northern route, I should point out that others are in favour of the southern route.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will accept that there is some slight confusion here. When he replied, he referred to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but my noble friend Lady Strange referred to the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I understand him to be the Member for the constituency of Grantham, to which this Question applies. It would be a pity if Hansard
8
recorded the matter wrongly. Will my noble friend tell me whether it is possible that, in view of the fact that the original orders have been quashed by the High Court, the second public inquiry might come out with the same result as the first public inquiry?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am happy to put the matter right if my noble friend referred to the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. If that is the case, it must be right. It is possible that the second public inquiry might come to the same conclusion as the first.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that the southern route was supported by the overwhelming majority of the 400 inhabitants of the village of Leadenham; that the main objection came from an individual who owned most of the land in the village; and that the second inquiry will go into the question of the land? I note the fact that the court of inquiry praised the department for the attention that it paid to both the economy and the environment. Is the Minister thoroughly content that there was a satisfactory environmental assessment in this matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting forward the case for the southern route, which is the route chosen by the department. I can assure him that an environmental impact assessment has been done and will be presented again to all those involved in the second public inquiry.

Driving Licence Renewals for 70 Year- Olds
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have introduced a charge to those over 70 years old, including the disabled, for the three-year renewal of their driving licences.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, changes in the fees are necessary because the driving licensing system is required to be self-financing. The number of 17 year-olds who apply for the first provisional licences, and provide the main source of income under the present system, has steadily decreased over the past three years and is projected to go on doing so for some time to come, while the number of 70 year-olds has increased.
Drivers aged 70 and over issued with licences for periods of one or two years, for medical reasons, will pay the renewal fee only every three years. Any necessary medical investigations remain free of charge to the driver.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. According to the licence application form, the medical renewal is still free for the under-70s and costs £6 for the over-70s. Does that not show discrimination against age? Will the

9
Minister tell us how much money the charge to old-age pensioners of 70 or over will raise to cover the deficit to which he referred?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, the problem is that there is an ageing population in this country. Over the past four years over quarter of a million more people aged 70 or over have applied for licences, whereas the number of 17 year-olds in the population has gone down by 17 per cent. in the past three years, and that is set to continue for at least the next five years. Therefore we felt that it was only fair to ask the over-70 age group at least to pay something towards renewing their licences. We expect income from that group to be approximately £3.3 million.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I declare a public interest; I am over 70. I shall apply for a renewal licence next February. Do I understand from the Minister that I have to pay for the privilege of having a licence? I have had a car for about 50 years—though of course it is not the same car—and I have been driving for about 50 years. Would it not be better for the Minister to say to those over 70—that includes most Members of this House—"If you drive you pay"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I realise that the age profile in this House may not be typical in relation to the rest of the country. I regret to have to tell the noble Lord that from next February, yes, he will have to pay £6 to renew his driving licence for three years. That works out at £2 a year, which is rather less than the price of a gallon of petrol.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will ray noble friend explain the logic of the system? While I accept that the system must pay for itself, why, because there are more 70-plus year-olds and fewer 17 year-olds, should the 70 year-olds pay a higher fee? Should the fee not be spread population-wide?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, 17 year-olds' fees are also increasing from £17 to £21 at the same time. In other words, they will pay a great deal more than 70 year-olds. Had 70 year-olds not had to pay anything, the 17 year-olds would have had to pay about £25. As a result of the decrease in the number of 17 year-olds, they would have to pay about £30 in two years' time.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister refers to 17 year-olds and 70 year-olds. Why pick on us?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, because until the age of 70 one keeps the same licence. One pays once for a licence which lasts until the age of 70. After the age of 70 one has to renew one's licence every three years
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as one aged 77, I declare an interest in this Question. However, does the matter arise because driver and vehicle licensing was transferred to an agency whose sole interest, frankly, is revenue? Is that a matter of which we should take notice? We understand that a large number of organisations were consulted. Will the Minister state the nature of the organisations and the results from
10
the consultations? Is it not strange that little publicity has been given to the matter? I usually keep a thorough record of communications from the Department of Transport. In this case a press notice was issued; and little attention seems to have been paid to it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that it is not because the DVLA has become an agency. Since 1980 the DVLA has been obliged to balance its books, if I may so express it. Last year there was a shortfall of, I believe, about £5 million. Therefore it was essential to make some adjustments to the fees. That is why the fees that I have outlined will come into force next February.
With regard to publicity, in April of this year the department issued a press notice proposing the new fees. A consultation period followed in which 150 organisations were sent the consultation paper. Only 17 written responses were received. We published the result of that consultation in September by way of another press notice.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is one of the most extraordinary propositions that has ever come before the House? Are we unique among European countries in adding to the charges for older people?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that it is an issue on which we may be able to make up our own minds, whatever they may do elsewhere in Europe. One ought to put the matter into perspective. Instead of those who renew their licences at the age of 70 for three years obtaining the licence free, they will have to pay £6. That is just £2 a year.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, one appreciates what the noble Lord said about balancing the books. However, does he agree that the same agency raised several millions of pounds by selling cherished number plates? It is now already advertising the new list of cherished number plates. Could such sales not have saved the money of the old-age pensioners?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly money has been raised by the sale of number plates. However, the issue of driver licences is a separate matter. That body has to balance its books on its own.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the charge of £6 at the age of 70. Is it not made quite clear in the press release on 3rd September that that applies not only to those who reach the age of 70 but to each time one renews the licence? I am now 77. Therefore I should have had to pay three times.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it would be only once every three years.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, how does the DVLA reconcile the charges? A person of 17 receives 53 years-worth of licence for under 50p a year while someone over 70—and I support my noble friends who are over 70—has to pay £6, which is £2 a year.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is because up to the age of 70 drivers do not have to renew their licence whereas at the age of 70 they do.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Order 1991 and the Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) (No. 2) Order 1991 will be taken.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness Serota in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Publication of information as to standards of performance]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: I always enjoy this spot. I speak very slowly and allow noble Lords to leave in comfort. If I give Members in the Chamber the warning that I am about to make a long, boring speech on quality assurance and customer contracts perhaps more noble Lords would care to leave.
Baroness Faithfull: We are staying.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I would never have included the noble Baroness in my wish for the Benches opposite to be empty.
In moving Amendment No. 1, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 10 and 26. Amendment No. 26 is the most significant amendment of the four. The others in effect are paving amendments.
I yield to no one in my respect for the Audit Commission and I am particularly grateful that in the past few days I have received a letter from the Comptroller of the Audit Commission, Mr. Howard Davies in which he has been able to bring me up to date on the publications of the Audit Commission over recent years and to set out the views of the Audit Commission on the Government's proposals. I say immediately that they are favourable. I repeat what I said on the subject at Second Reading. We wish to support the Bill. We believe that the provision of Citizen's Charter safeguards for the people of this country in respect of local government services is a
12
valuable and worthwhile improvement. But of course we wish to support the Bill by ensuring that it is the best possible provision.
As I said on Second Reading, the history of Citizen's Charter provisions for local government is ancient and respectable. I quoted from Herbert Morrison who in 1921 published a pamphlet on the subject. Since then the question of how to measure quality in local government services, as in any private manufacturing or service industry, has received a great deal of well-informed and imaginative discussion. The Audit Commission has not been behind in its publications.
I shall do no more than refer to the most important characteristics of the debate, otherwise this could be a long and boring speech. It is important to distinguish between the dimensions of quality and the ways in which we are able to measure quality. The two are not necessarily the same. It is relatively simple for us to identify the dimensions of quality of service. It is obvious that they will be the costs; the resources provided and the costs of those resources; the output as measured in perhaps crude terms of quantity of service provided; and the outcome which is a simplified way of referring to the quality of the service provided and its value to the consumer. The latter part is the most difficult.
If we are to make these dimensions operational—if we are to distinguish between the service of one local authority and another—we must go a little further. We must provide performance indicators which, in effect, are ratios between the dimensions that I have described. "Economy, efficiency and effectiveness", is the phrase used in the Bill and in a great deal of prior legislation. Economy is the cost of the resources required. Efficiency is the ratio between the output and the resources used. Effectiveness is the output in relation to the outcome; that is the quantity of service provided in relation to the quality. Many other criteria could be introduced. Clearly, the level of service is a significant factor. In addition, the take-up of the service is a significant criterion where a service is offered to local people instead of being provided on a universal basis.
All those aspects begin with relatively intangible dimensions and they attempt to relate one intangible dimension to another. That is extremely difficult. The Audit Commission rightly points out the danger that Gresham's law might apply to quality measurement; that is, that the measurable changes might drive out the unmeasurable. Perhaps I might cite the drunk looking for his keys under the lamp-post. On being asked why he was looking there he said, "I didn't drop them here but the light is better here". That is the danger that will arise if we apply measures that are too crude.
I welcome the statement made by Mr. Davies in a letter to me last week. He stated that it is not the role of the Audit Commission to set standards but rather to specify how they should be measured. He also pointed out the need to avoid distorting service provision through the measurement process. In tabling the amendments I wish to suggest that with the best of intentions the Government are going about the

13
provisions the wrong way. They are looking at the whole issue of the Citizen's Charter as being between central Government and their agency; that is, the Audit Commission and in Scotland the Scottish Accounts Commission. We would prefer to look at the issue as a contract between a local authority and the citizens living in its area. We believe that to be missing from the Government's whole approach to Clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill.
For that reason Amendment No. 26 spells out the guidance which the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission should give to local authorities as regards the establishment of customer contracts within the meaning of the clause. Unlike anything so far proposed by the Government, a customer contract is drawn up and published by a local authority. It specifies the standards of service; the opening and closing times of offices; the means by which residents may obtain or secure services; the means by which services are to be provided to or for residents—I apologise for the legal wording but it is necessary—targets as to response times; the unit cost of each of the main services identified; and the way in which residents may make complaints about the quality of service if they are not satisfied.
There are plenty of examples. In front of me I have some from Islington and Stockton but there are many more. I understand that 250 local authorities voluntarily joined with the Audit Commission in a quality exchange, which is a starting point towards this approach to quality management. However, it is important not merely that information should be published as a result of directions from the Audit Commission to the local authority and made available to interested persons, as the Bill proposes, but also that the residents should be involved from the beginning. A clear contract should be made in advance, including sanctions if it is not adhered to by the local authority.
That is what we say in our approach to the issue. It is a more realistic, practical and forward-looking approach than that which the Government are taking. I hope that the Committee will see fit to approve the amendment. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment. I too have admiration for the work of the Audit Commission. I have been privileged to chair a performance review committee in my local authority. That proved to be a fascinating and worthwhile exercise. I am worried that as a result of well-intentioned legislation we shall be imposing on our local authorities the dead hand of uniformity. We must always allow the reflection of local choice and circumstances. The most important performance indicator is that of client satisfaction, although that is not easily obtained. I too wish to speak to the most important amendment in this group—Amendment No. 26—with regard to the establishment of customer contracts.
The legislative specification for a customer contract cannot be entirely complete. There are additional criteria which every local authority will wish to
14
identify in order to make its contract more applicable and appropriate. For example, there is decentralisation enabling services to be delivered at the most local level and consultation enabling communities to contribute to the process rather than merely having things done to them. I use the two buzz words. The contract appears to fit well into this part of the Bill, which is headed by a reference to the Citizen's Charter. The charter should give citizens rights, and a contract is a personal way of allowing rights to be exercised and enforced. Members of the Committee may believe that the introduction of customer contracts will require the establishment of elaborate machinery. Therefore, I shall give an example from a local authority of the ADUR. A couple of years ago it agreed to reimburse its residents £5 each time a rubbish bin was not collected. In the first year it had to reimburse only £210. No doubt the customer contract made the authority deliver the service better and it turned out not to be the draconian measure that might have been feared.
In Tower Hamlets there is a different type of customer contract. There is a service guarantee. When residents go into one of its one-stop shops there is a guarantee that they will receive a response to their inquiries within three days. If a complaint or inquiry is not dealt with fully within two weeks—and this is not a financial recompense —a senior officer will intervene. I suggest that that is a mechanism for concentrating the minds of junior officers.
I support what is not a measure of uniformity but what is a means of allowing local authorities to draw up contracts appropriate to their own communities.
Baroness Blatch: I feel a certain sympathy towards these amendments. After all, as has been mentioned, Amendment No. 26 introduces what are called customer contracts, which contain many of the customer friendly features that we are committed to establishing in the departments of government, privatised utilities and in local government, as set out in The Citizen's Charter White Paper.
However, the good intentions behind them should not blind the Committee to the fact that the manner of achieving those desirable ends, as provided under Amendment No. 26, is a typical piece of Labour Party bureaucracy. The intention of this group of amendments is to pave the way for customer contracts —a good idea in theory but almost impossible in practice.
Amendment No. 26 attempts to set out the content of such contracts but the idea of a customer contract is not amenable to legislation in this way; an opinion which can be justified by consideration of the difficulties of just one paragraph. I ask the Committee to consider subsection (2) (iii) of Amendment No. 26 which reads:
"the means by which residents may obtain or secure services".
It would be necessary to define "residents". Does that cover those people who dwell in a particular type of accommodation, those who live in the area of a local authority, or the local electors? For some services it would be necessary to specify means unless it is suggested that it is necessary to spell out, for example,

15
"by ringing 999" or "by attending school" and so on. The essential point is that it is simply not sensible to define a customer contract in legislation.
There is another reason for rejecting this group of proposals. The effect of Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 10 would be to remove any service which was the subject of a customer contract from the publishing requirements in Clause 1(1). Therein lies the rub. That would mean that local authorities would not be required to report the facts of what had been achieved and the costs incurred. It would be necessary merely to promise the intended achievements, no doubt with the best of intentions, and what it is hoped would be the cost. When judging performance, intention and hope are never as good a measure as fact.
These proposals will allow local authorities to escape another hard factual measure. By signing up to promises local authorities would escape the comparisons of performance which the Audit Commission or the Scottish Accounts Commission would make under the powers provided by Clause 3. Thus, the public would be deprived of the unbiased analysis of local authority performance which the proposals are designed to achieve.
However, the principal objection to the proposals is that they would give rise to needless, useless and unworkable bureaucracy. I ask the Committee to reject this ill-thought out and, I believe, misguided proposal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that the Minister has been involved more recently than I in local government. It is over nine years since my involvement but I believe she has lost touch with what has been happening on the ground over the past few years. If she believes that the amendments introduce an element of additional bureaucracy, she cannot have read them properly.
Amendment No. 26 provides that the Audit Commission shall issue guidance for local authorities as to the establishment of customer contracts within the meaning of the clause. As the Minister rightly says, it then provides that where customer contracts have been drawn up in accordance with the guidance, some of the more rigid bureaucratic procedures proposed elsewhere in the Bill will no longer become necessary.
The customer contracts are precise and provide the protection for residents. I have only one or two in front of me but my noble friend Lady Hollis has 150 which she threatens to produce. The customer contract for the Beech Wood Road area of Thornaby in Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council specifies precisely who are the residents. There is a map of the streets covered by the customer contract. As regards street cleaning, it specifies the day of sweeping, the type of sweeping and the day of the refuse collection. It specifies exactly what should be done, right down to the closing of the gate after the completion of the refuse collection. That is close to people and is exactly what local authorities should do and what many local authorities —not only Labour authorities—are doing now.
We propose that some of the unnecessary bureaucracy among central government, the Audit
16
Commission and local authorities should be avoided. In substitution for that, there should be a direct, clear, publicised contract between a local authority and groups of its residents in adequately defined areas.
I should have thought that that is the reverse of the amendment which the Minister seemed to describe in her reply. What we propose is eminently practical, sensible and would be understood by local people to be a true guarantee of the service which they are entitled to expect from local authorities. I am sorry that the matter was responded to in that way. It is not a particularly partisan or controversial point. It is intended, as are so many of our amendments, to be helpful. It is better that we establish the way in which we are to proceed so that we make it clear that we shall not accept such replies. Therefore, I seek the opinion of the Committee on the amendment.
3.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Listowel, E.

Annan, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lytton, E.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mar, C.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mason, of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Porritt, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ennals, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Fitt, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shaughnessy, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Underhill, L.

Kennet, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

White, B.

Leatherland, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belstead, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blanch, L.

Arran, E.

Blatch, B.

Astor, V.

Blyth, L.

Atholl, D.

Borthwick, L.

Auckland, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Balfour, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Barber, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bauer, L.

Butterworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

17

Carnock, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Cayzer, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mancroft, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Manton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Marsh, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mills, V.

Cox, B.

Milverton, L.

Cross, V.

Morris, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

De Freyne, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Denham, L.

Norfolk, D.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Orkney, E.

Dudley, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pender, L.

Effingham, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pym, L.

Faithfull, B.

Quinton, L.

Flather, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reay, L.

Gainford, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Selborne, E.

Gridley, L.

Shannon, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Henley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hood, V.

Terrington, L.

Howe, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ironside, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Trumpington, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ullswater, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Waddington, L.

Knollys, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.35 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 11, after ("making") insert ("(in respect of matters on which a common national standard has been prescribed by or in accordance with statutory provisions)").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 3 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 11 and 17. In introducing those amendments I can do no better than refer back to the letter from Mr. Howard Davies to which I referred in moving the last amendment. I hasten to add, in case there is any doubt about it, that it is not a private letter. There is nothing contained in it which Mr. Davies would not have been happy for the Government to see. There are no backstairs communications between myself and the Audit Commission.
As I said to the Committee when speaking to the last amendment, Mr. Davies said in his letter that it is
18
not the role of the Audit Commission to set standards—rather to specify how they should be measured. That is the thrust of these amendments.
It should be self-evident to anyone with a detailed knowledge of the way in which local government works that the standards to which local authorities wish to aspire and adhere should be established as far as possible on a local basis between them and their electors. It is the stuff of local government that when people in a local area vote they are making a judgment regarding the standards, quality and cost of the services they wish to see. Of course they wish to see that whatever level of service they specify is provided in a cost-effective and high quality way. But they want the ability to say, "No. If it is to cost that much I do not want the service". After all, it is the privilege of people living in East Sussex to say that they do not want nursery education. I believe that they are profoundly wrong and that there are many social reasons why the county council of East Sussex should provide nursery school education, which at the moment it does not do. But the local people have that privilege because that is the nature of local democracy.
The same is true where a local authority, elected on a democratic basis by the people in its area, wants to provide a higher level of service than the Government believe desirable. It should be the privilege of the local authority and those local people to specify that higher level of service and to see that it is adhered to.
Amendment No. 11, the most significant of the group, provides that local authorities,
"shall publish on an annual basis a report setting out the local standards which it has adopted in respect of each service area for the financial year concerned; an assessment of the extent to which the standards referred to … have been achieved; a summary of the results of a survey of the views of residents in the authority's area as to the local standards adopted by the authority and the performance of the authority in relation to those standards".
Many important points are contained in that wording. They are points neglected by the Government in their approach to the whole matter.
A common view exists in regard to the publication of information. We shall not be opposing the provision in the Bill regarding the publication of information, auditors' reports or, in most cases, lists of defaulters on auditors' reports. But the idea that there should be a publication every year of the actual level of service which has been contracted and the extent to which the local authority achieved that level of service is something which does not appear in the Government's proposals. The survey of the views of residents both on the level of service adopted and the performance of the local authority in achieving it is again something of importance which does not appear anywhere in the Government's proposals.
Amendment No. 11 goes on to say:
"The Audit Commission … shall, after consultation with such persons representative of local authorities … issue guidance to local authorities on the form of any report published in accordance with subsection (1A) above".
That is not simply a provision which enables local authorities to get round the provisions of any citizen's charter; far from it. It is a provision which forces local authorities to set realistic standards relating to the area that they serve, to seek to achieve those

19
standards, to report to their residents on the standards and whether they have achieved them and to seek their views. In other words, it should be a two-way process on the standards and the way in which they have been achieved.
On this occasion I hope the Minister will not rise to say that she is sympathetic to the purpose behind the amendments but she cannot accept them because of various defects in the wording. I suspect that behind her response to the last group of amendments was the fear that true negotiation on quality of service would take place between a local authority and the people living in its area rather than directly involving central government. That is what is behind so much of the Citizen's Charter. So much of it is central government saying what other people shall do and multiplying those lessons to their own services.
This is not an occasion when those defects in the Citizen's Charter should be allowed to take precedence. This is a case where it is the proper exercise of local discretion under the guidance of the Audit Commission, as we make clear in the amendment, to set out standards of service, to assess performance in respect of those standards of service and to see to it that people have some come-back if those standards of service are not achieved. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I make absolutely no apology for my objections to the first amendments. I was comparing what the noble Lord was talking about; namely, aspirational contracts and intentions, as against what the Government are proposing, which is positive measurement against actual achievement by local authorities. As regards the present amendments, quite uncharacteristically the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, displays a serious misunderstanding of what this part of the Bill is about. He says that he wants local authorities to set their own standards locally. That is precisely what the Bill sets out for them to do.
These amendments would change fundamentally the nature of the clauses. The Bill as printed requires the Audit Commission to issue directions as to the reporting of standards. Directions would set out the yardsticks against which local authority performance would be measured. They would not be prescriptive in any way; rather they would be descriptive or comparative. However, under these amendments the information which authorities would publish would also be used to assess performance against a nationally required standard. Again I emphasise that that is what these amendments are calling for—that is to say, a nationally required standard and not a locally determined one.
Amendment No. 3 would prevent the Audit Commission issuing directions unless national standards had been set. Amendment No. 17 is consequential on Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 4 would insert the word "quality" as one of the criteria to be considered in making comparisons. The Committee will note that the directions that the Audit Commission would issue under the Bill would require comparisons to be made by reference to criteria which
20
would include effectiveness. In assessing effectiveness, the quality of service has to be taken into account. Therefore, it is unnecessary for specific reference to be made in the way proposed.
Amendment No. 11 is another example of needless bureaucracy. It is badly designed for achieving its apparent purpose. I say "needless" because two of the three items covered by subsection (1) (a) of the amendment are already provided for in the Bill, and I suggest it is a better provision. Under paragraph (a) of the amendment local authorities would be reporting on the standard of service they had adopted. Those standards would not be on a common basis and there would therefore be no possibility of a comparison of standards between one authority and another, let alone a comparison of cost. There would be no possibility of telling whether the authority was delivering value for money.
Under paragraph (b) the Committee is being asked to accept the idea that an authority should assess itself. That is hardly a basis for enabling the public to make an informed judgment on the performance of their authority.
In paragraph (c) there is a suggestion of surveys of the views of residents as to the standards adopted and the performance of their authority. As we all know, consumer surveys can be considerably influenced by the vested interest of the body asking the questions. The wording, ordering and context of the questions could be variable and could be based on the inadequacies of self-reporting. How much better for there to be an effective judgment made by local communities who will receive information in a common format about a level of service achieved by a local authority and at what cost. The public can then make a judgment unfettered by the subjective judgment of a commissioning body such as a local authority with a heavily vested interest in the outcome.
Let me make it clear that we believe it is right that authorities should determine their own standards. That would not be possible under these amendments. When it publishes its comparative information the Audit Commission will set out the standards achieved by authorities. The authorities and the electorate will be able to judge for themselves whether the standards and the costs of services provided are acceptable. We do not wish to dictate to local authorities matters which are rightfully for them to determine. We hope that these provisions will encourage authorities to improve value for money by competition and example rather than by imposition. The wording of the amendments would depart significantly from the purpose of this part of the Bill which is to enable comparisons to be made rather than to monitor performance against a statutory national standard. I urge the Committee to reject the proposals.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I support this group of amendments. I am reassured to some extent by what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just told us concerning the flexibility for local assessment of local needs. However, those from the local authorities who

21
have been considering the Bill have not read it in that way. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. If there is a better way of expressing the objections contained in this group of amendments, I do not suppose that anyone would feel proprietorial about the drafting.
For example, the assessment of local views should not be dismissed. Opinion polling should not rule our lives but it is a most useful tool of the age in which we live. The matter of arriving at performance indicators and the whole process of discussing and agreeing them is of itself valuable. We should be encouraging local authorities to discuss those matters not just with local people but involving officers—I have seen that method work well in practice—in addressing carefully what it is the local authorities are trying to do as part of their service. Opinion polling also demonstrates the trends and indicates whether public opinion is that you are doing better or worse both in a general way and as regards specific areas of service.
What is most important is quality. We are told by the Minister that it is included in the Bill in so far as it needs to be there. Those who will be asked to implement the provisions at local authority level—that is to say, the professional bodies, the local authority associations and the recipients of the service —would be much reassured if we could use specifically the word "quality" which they see as one which actually describes what they want from their services.
Baroness Faithfull: I have great sympathy with my noble friend the Minister, but I wonder whether she can clarify the situation. Before 1970 it was the rule in every local authority in England that the medical officer of health, as he was then, had to produce an annual report. That report did two things: first, it gave local people the picture of what was being done in their area, and, secondly, it showed comparisons between one area and another. These reports were so valuable that other departments began to do the same thing. Will my noble friend explain why this would not be acceptable? Would it not help enormously in the raising of standards?
Baroness Blatch: I am not absolutely certain where my noble friend's question fits into this amendment. This does not invalidate local authorities producing annual reports about their own performance. This group of amendments substitutes a third party's objective assessment about the standards of a local authority by a local authority asking its own questions and making judgments about its own performance. It is a question of subjectivity versus objectivity. For that reason I believe that it is for local authorities to be judged by their electorates—certainly by a third party—and not to be the sole arbiter of their own quality.
Lord Tordoff: Will the noble Baroness follow the point made by my noble friend? Amendment No. 4 inserts the simple word "quality" into line 12. Although the noble Baroness dismissed it as being dependent on Amendment No. 3, it does not seem that that is so. Even the simple insertion of that word would go some way forward. We are talking about facilitating the making of appropriate comparisons.
22
The reference criteria is then given, such as cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. However, nowhere do I see quality mentioned.
Baroness Blatch: A very serious point is being missed. As I said at the outset of the debate on this amendment, the actual level of service—in other words, the quality level of service—will be determined quite independently by a local authority. The judgments that will be made upon it at the end of the day will be whether the chosen level of service was delivered economically, efficiently and effectively. Therefore, there will have to be a judgment about the quality and level of service chosen by that authority. It will be measured against a standard yardstick which will describe—not prescribe—a range of levels of service ranging from a very high level of service through to a lower level of service. Therefore, the freedom for local authorities to determine quality and to be judged on that chosen level of quality is what the Bill is proposing.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to support my noble friend in resisting these amendments. With regard to the first amendment, I cannot understand what is in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he seeks, as I see it, to limit the power of the Audit Commission to require action only where a national standard has been established. As the Bill stands, the Audit Commission has the right to intervene whether or not a national standard has been imposed. That seems to be very desirable. To take that away would seem to be wrong.
I entirely share the view as I understand it, of my noble friend with regard to the insertion of the word "quality". What exactly would be added to the Bill? We already have sufficient words without the word "quality" being inserted: economy, efficiency and effectiveness. I suppose it would not do any harm to insert the word "quality", but I do not see what it would add to the Bill. I know how fashionable it is to eschew brevity and to go for length on every possible occasion, but to my mind to add the word "quality" would be to add nothing to the meaning.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not know about that. The fact is that there seems to be a fundamental difference between the two sides of the House. One side believes in true local democracy in local government and the other does not. We know which side is which, do we not? The noble Baroness has made it absolutely clear in the past two debates that while with her local government experience she would like to accept some of these amendments, her brief tells her that she must not. She knows that the amendments are a move towards democracy. She knows perfectly well that local government very much resents being told exactly what to do from on high. Local government also very much resents the erosion of its power and the limiting—indeed the ending—of the partnership which used to exist before this Government came into office. With my background and experience in local government I very much resent the interference which has gone on over so long a period.

23
It is little wonder that we are having difficulty in getting people to serve on local authorities as councillors and very often as officers when the Government seek to interfere in every nook and cranny—if I may put it that way—of local government activity. These amendments give the opportunity to the Minister to look back on her local government experience, to bring it to bear in this debate and to give some support to real local government rather than a centralised bureaucracy with gauleiters in local areas.
Baroness Blatch: This is a quite extraordinary debate. I find myself here at the Dispatch Box stoutly defending the freedom of local authorities to choose their own level of service. The noble Lord opposite has stood the argument on its head. May I remind the noble Lord opposite that under these amendments the information which local authorities would publish would also be used to assess performance against a nationally required standard of services. We are saying that local authorities should be absolutely free to determine the level of standards that they wish to provide for their local communities and at the end of the day to stand judged on that level of service as to whether it is efficient, economic and effective.
Lord Tordoff: That is contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said. In my view he was right. His interpretation is that the activities of the Audit Commission would be restricted. It does not relate to the local authorities themselves.
When I look at Clause 8 of the Bill, which we have not yet reached, I find the word "quality" included in relation to competitive tendering. I do not see why it is possible to have the word there and not in this clause.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What the Minister does not appear to understand is that national standards may very well be all right in some respects but in many other respects they do not apply. It is very difficult to apply a national standard to all the various services which are administered by local authorities throughout the country because the conditions in local authorities vary. The personnel varies and the people to be administered—the voters themselves—vary in their wants, their desires and their perception of the services provided. To try to set national standards over such a wide field removes from local authorities and the people they represent the opportunity to choose the level and quality of service that they want and at what cost to themselves.
Baroness Blatch: I am beginning to feel like Alice in Wonderland. The noble Lord is just so very wrong. It is noble Lords opposite who are calling for a national prescribed standard. I am standing here stoutly defending the right and freedom of local authorities to choose their own levels of service. I simply cannot understand the noble Lord who has positively stood the argument on its head.
As regards the Audit Commission, my noble friend said that its freedom would be restricted. As we have set the proposals in the Bill, the Audit Commission can make a judgment about any level of service chosen
24
by a local authority and whether that level of service is economic, efficient or effective. Under the amendments we would be talking about measuring only against a prescribed national standard. We are the purveyors of freedom for local authorities to choose.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know where Alice in Wonderland comes into this. There is a choice to be made—and it is not the choice that the Minister has suggested to the Committee. The choice to be made is between the procedures proposed in the amendment, which are contracts based on locally set standards between local authorities and their residents, with national standards where they are appropriate—but only where they are appropriate—and a nationally based prescriptive series of provisions which is so complicated and so remote that it will never work.
I have before me the performance review supplement implementation guide published by the Audit Commission in August 1990. It is by no means complete. I cannot count the pages because they do not seem to be numbered. The guide is very thick. It is impossible to set standards of that kind for all local authority services. I shall give, as an example, the simplest type of service—refuse collection. One can set the standards nationally about how often and at what cost the bins shall be collected but one has to take into account, if one is judging a local authority's performance, whether the local authority is using dustbins, wheely-bins or plastic sacks; one has to take into account whether the collection is from the kerbside or from wherever the householder keeps the bin on the property; one has to take into account the distance between properties—in other words, whether it is an urban area or a rural area; one has to take account of whether the local authority is good at recycling—in other words, whether it collects various kinds of household waste differently for recycling or re-use. All those considerations have to be taken into account. Only the local authority and its own residents know the significance of those elements and therefore only a local authority and its residents can make a judgment about whether the job is being done efficiently at the standard set and at a proper cost.
I am astonished that the Minister should couple with her misunderstanding of the amendments an attack on surveys of local people. She will know that the Government spend many millions of pounds a year on surveys of the users of public services. A good deal of that money goes to my own company, and I am very grateful for it. But it is not vitiated by the fact that it is being commissioned by government. It is supposed to be done objectively and professionally. That is exactly what the Audit Commission could and should require for the survey of the views of residents set out in paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 11.
If the Minister really thinks that she is living in Wonderland she should contrast the view that she has expressed in Committee today with what is happening in the health service. In the health service there are

25
national charter standards, but there are also local charier standards. As the National Health Service publication states on the subject:
"Many aspects are services which are important to you and which your health authority needs to consider. From April 1st 1992 authorities will increasingly set and publicise clear local charter standards on these matters, including waiting times for first appointments, waiting times for accident and emergency …"
I could continue with the quotation but the detail of the health service is not relevant. The point is that there are in the health service national charter standards—we have preserved those in our amendment—but there are also local standards. It is up to local authorities to set those standards and to negotiate with the people in their own areas.
Baroness Blatch: Can the noble Lord explain to the House why he asks in the amendments that national standards should be met? Indeed the Audit Commission's powers would be limited unless nationally prescribed standards were met. I read from his amendments, not from mine.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a place for national standards, as there is in the health service. But there is not a place for all-embracing, prescriptive, national standards, which is what the Government are proposing here. When we seek to limit national standards to those aspects of local authority services for which they are genuinely suitable, as in national standards for the health service, we propose to replace those national standards or supplement them by local standards—locally determined, locally negotiated, locally publicised and locally agreed—but subject to the guidance of the Audit Commission, as is set out in Amendment No. 11. The interest of central government is fully protected. The interest of comparability is fully protected. But the fundamental contract between local authorities and their people, which is what local democracy is all about, is also protected. It is not protected by the Government's proposals. That is the essence of the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful once more to the noble Lord. Does he not agree that in every single answer I have given him I have defended local authorities' right to choose their level of service? The amendments fly in the face of that and determine that the measurement must be made against a nationally prescribed standard. That flies in the face of a local authority choosing its level of service.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have now come to the crux of the matter. We have now identified the source of the Minister's misunderstanding of the amendments and indeed of a large part of this part of the Bill. The Minister is now making it clear that central government set standards and the level of service provided is to be determined by local authorities.
Baroness Blatch: The standard to be set is set by the local authority, not by the commission and not by the Government. The local authority chooses its level of service. The commission and indeed the local community will judge a chosen level of service against a described, not a prescribed, range of levels of service.
26
What the noble Lord is advocating is that there should be nationally prescribed standards. What we are advocating is that local authorities shall be free to choose the level of standards they wish to provide for their local communities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister sometimes uses the word "standards", she sometimes uses the phrase "level of standards", and she sometimes uses the phrase "level of service". They are not the same thing. The noble Baroness used different words at different times. I agree that the Government are providing in the Bill that local authorities shall set their own levels of service. But what is being required—this is why it is so enormously complicated and so difficult to do —is that those levels of service shall be set in terms of criteria laid down by the Audit Commission.
I understand the reasons for that. I understand that the noble Baroness is looking for comparability between one local authority and another. That is not a worthless thing to look for. What I am saying is that the difficulty of it will be so great, the bureaucracy will be so great and the lack of consonance with local conditions will be so great that it will not work. There will be some space for national standards. We support that and the Government support that. Why they should deny it I do not know. But where national standards will not work and where it will be impossible to set national criteria against which local authorities will set their own levels of service, we propose a different, more realistic and more local approach. We propose that under the guidance of the Audit Commission local authorities shall deal with their residents. That is what local democracy is all about. It is the exclusion of local people from the negotiating process that is the hallmark of the Government's approach to all of this part of the Bill. That is why, with all the good intentions in the world, the Government persist in misunderstanding the meaning of the amendments and indeed persist in misunderstanding the import of their own provisions. If they had listened to what has been happening in the National Health Service they would have realised how far they are away from reality. I am sorry but I shall have to seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

David, B.

Birk, B.

Desai, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bottomley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ennals, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Galpern, L.

Chorley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

27

Grey, E.

Monson, L.

Hampton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Hamwee, B.

Nicol, B.

Hanworth, V.

Peston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L.

Hooson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hunt, L.

Rochester, L.

Kennet, L.

Seear, B.

Kissin, L.

Serota, B.

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Underhill, L.

Mishcon, L.

White, B.

Molloy, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Monkswell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gridley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Grimthorpe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Arran, E.

Astor, V.

Halsbury, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Atholl, D.

Henley, L.

Balfour, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Bauer, L.

Hives, L.

Beloff, L.

Hood, V.

Belstead, L.

Howe, E.

Bessborough, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Birdwood, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Blanch, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blyth, L.

Kimball, L.

Boardman, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Knollys, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lawrence, L.

Butterworth, L.

Liverpool, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cockfield, L.

Mancroft, L.

Coleraine, L.

Manton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Marsh, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Mills, V.

Craigavon, V.

Milverton, L.

Cross, V.

Morris, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

De Freyne, L.

Nelson, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Orkney, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Effingham, E.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Porritt, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Quinton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gainford, L.

Selborne, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shannon, E.

Gray, L.

Sharples, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

28

Skelmersdale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Strange, B.

Trumpington, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Swansea, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinfen, L.

Waddington, L.

Terrington, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Teviot, L.

Wise, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, disagreed to accordingly.
4.18 p.m.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5
Page 1, line 13, after ("effectiveness") insert ("and including all information relating to the performance of statutory duties").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5 is, in effect, a cry of pain; it is not a cry of pain from me but from a number of small organisations which are part of the Community Rights Project. The example that I shall give the Committee is one of misjudgment, to put it mildly, by a Labour-controlled council. Therefore, let no one think that this is a party-political matter.
Perhaps I may first explain the purpose of the amendment. It would add to the primary conditions of the Citizen's Charter the requirement that, in addition to economy, efficiency, effectiveness and cost, the words,
"including all information relating to the performance of statutory duties",
should be inserted.
I know that there are many amendments to follow on the subject of information. However, I do not think that this one will in any way prejudice those future amendments. It is an attempt to bring to the top of the agenda for discussion the problem of differences which exist between one council and another. In bringing the matter to my attention, the Community Rights Project pointed out many examples where councils have done well in providing training for councilors, access to information and meetings. Such councils have also provided good informative leaflets on public rights.
However, the example that I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee concerns the London Borough of Southwark. There, the Hummingbird Community Project was threatened with closure in March this year after a successful life of eight years. During that time, it provided adult and toddler facilities, advice work, group work, community facilities, a creche and holiday play schemes for about 30 children in the Glengall Road area of Southwark. Some of those children were referred to the project by the social services department and some by the families themselves. The project had had a grant for many years and then suddenly, without a reason being given, that grant was withdrawn. On 17th May this year the nursery was closed, with the loss of 30 places for the under-fives, and the staff was made redundant.
No one is saying that projects cannot be closed or that a local authority does not have the right to close such projects if, in its judgment, that is the correct thing to do, or if it does not have the money to provide the service, however valuable the service may be.

29
However, what happened, according to the project sponsors, was that they were given no information on how to appeal to the council, how to have the matter dealt with and how to express their views to the council. Southwark Borough Council's social services committee is meeting today and the central grants committee is meeting on 5th December. It is recommending that more of the grant, which had originally come from outside, should be released to the project, so there is some prospect of the project reopening. But between 17th May and today, the people responsible for the project have been unable to get the matter on to the council's agenda or to obtain from the council a clear expression of their rights.
I have chosen one example from a Labour-controlled council. I fear that there are many more. I am expressing the pain that those people feel as a result of not having access to information about the council's statutory duties and their rights as residents of the area. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I must confess that I am at a loss to understand fully what the noble Lord has been saying about the amendment. The amendment relates to the performance of statutory duties. If he believes, as he appears to, that a local authority's statutory obligations were breached, then it is possible to invoke a number of measures, including an allegation of maladministration against the authority.
The amendment appears to be inserting a requirement for the Audit Commission to give directions by reference to the performance of statutory duties. That is unnecessary. The directions will of necessity have to take account of how a local authority meets and performs its statutory duties. I cannot conceive that the Audit Commission would not take that fundamental matter into account. The amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Committee will not have the opportunity to reject the amendment, because I am not going to press it. It is not that kind of amendment. The complaint of the people of Southwark is that Southwark does not have, as all good councils should have, written information about rights available to the public in respect of the conduct of public meetings. Many of them do not understand what happens. They do not understand what is meant by an agenda. They do not understand what is meant by minuses of a meeting. Without help they are lost in dealing with the bureaucracy. The access to public bodies legislation relating to local authorities—the Minister will forgive me for not giving the name of the legislation correctly—provides that meetings of that kind should be open. It does not adequately provide that the council should obey the spirit of those open meetings by helping people to use the meetings to pursue their cases. The wording of the amendment does no more than take the opportunity to express the feelings of people whose views I have been passing on to the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Mills Viscount Mills moved Amendment No. 6
Page 1, line 13, after ("effectiveness") insert ("and the protection of the environment").
The noble Viscount said: Clause 1 sets out four criteria against which standards of local authority performance will be compared. They are cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. However, it is not sufficient for local authorities merely to provide a cheap, efficient and effective service if there is to be an environmental cost. The purpose of the amendment is therefore simple. It seeks to add a fourth criterion—the environment. Its inclusion would ensure that relevant environmental data are included in the information required from local authorities by the Audit and Scottish Accounts Commissions; and that environmental criteria will be considered by those bodies when assessing the performance by local authorities.
The Bill presents a real opportunity to ensure that local authorities carry out their activities in such a way as to safeguard and, where possible, to improve the environment. The inclusion in the clause of a requirement for a general audit of the environmental performance of local authorities would help to realise that opportunity. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I support the amendment. We have come to expect that many traditional local authority services will be subject to scrutiny and regulation; but somehow the environment is in a different category. It has only fairly recently become important in local authority terms. It is therefore vital to draw attention to it on the face of the Bill. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
Baroness Hamwee: The amendment is an interesting one and not one that Members on these Benches would wish to discard without the most serious consideration. I hope that from what I say it will not be inferred that we feel that the environment is unimportant. The difficulty is that to insert such a criterion at this point in the Bill would, if it were accepted, make it only the first of a long line of criteria which should be considered—for example, matters like freedom of information, women's issues, equal opportunities and so on. I doubt whether it is appropriate or possible to list everything which should be considered. I am also a little doubtful as to whether I would wish to rely upon the Audit Commission—admirable body though it is—with regard to environmental standards. I sympathise, and I hope that what I am saying is not misunderstood, but I cannot support the amendment.
Earl Howe: It is easy to have sympathy for the intentions of this amendment. Indeed, I do have sympathy for its intentions, and I fear that in rising to oppose it I shall appear to be guilty of an old-fashioned attitude to matters environmental. But we have to be hard-headed, though not, I hope, hard-hearted. Legislation needs to be reasonable, and reasonably capable of being implemented. I do not believe that the amendment stands up to that kind of scrutiny.
In many areas the criteria of economy, effectiveness and efficiency are related directly to environmental

31
considerations. Waste collection and disposal are the obvious examples, but I am sure that Members of the Committee will be able to think of many others for themselves. In those cases the requirements of the Bill as it stands already provide for local authority performance, in protecting and respecting the environment, to be measured; and no further amendment is needed.
However, I agree that that is not the whole picture. It is important that environmental awareness should extend across the whole range of government activity, and I include central as well as local government in that statement. We all need constantly to be aware of the environmental implications of what we do. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just pointed out, that is true of so many other things. In developing their policies and performance, local authorities have to be constantly aware of a whole range of factors. Environmental considerations represent one factor among many others—an important factor, to be sure, but not the only one.
How are we to measure the ways in which authorities weigh up these different considerations, and indeed is it appropriate to do so? I suggest that it is not appropriate to single out one of the contributing factors in the decision-making process, as this amendment would do, and require its effects to be quantified. I am sure we all recognise the importance of the issues which have been raised. Certainly on our side of the Committee that is the case; but, for the reasons I have stated, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Mills: I am disappointed and surprised by the Minister's response: disappointed because I believe that this amendment upholds an important principle, and surprised because of the inconsistency of the response in relation to the Government's policy on the environment. The Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside, David Trippier, in a letter to The Times on 26th November, stated that so far as he knew no other government requires each of its departments to produce an annual account of their environmental stewardship. He also emphasised that Britain has taken a clear lead in giving practical commitment to integrating the environment with other areas of policy. Why should any less be expected of local government? Indeed in the summary of the White Paper on the environment, This Common Inheritance, the philosophy of action for all is clearly stated. I quote:
"Although the Government has to be in the lead, responsibility for our environment is shared by all of us: it is not a duty for Government alone. Businesses, central and local government, schools, voluntary bodies and individuals must all work together to take good care of our common inheritance."
If we are fully and truly committed to safeguarding and improving our environment, clear and consistent environmental policies are needed which extend throughout all the relevant legislation. These policies should not be picked up or put down at will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord does what he intends to do, may I suggest to him that if he had supported Amendment No. 11, that might have been an appropriate place at which to insert his amendment.
Earl Howe: If I may just interject briefly before my noble friend metaphorically sits down, I should like to say to him that, as I see it, the amendment is based on a misconception as to how the system of directions and comparisons is expected to work. Considerations of environment and, for that matter, quality of service, to hark back to an earlier amendment, are built into the commission's direction, which conditions how the relevant bodies report their performance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7
Page 1, line 14, after ("or') insert ("service and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 18. In a sense I suppose we are going back over the same ground as we have been over before. I hope we shall do it with fewer accusations of being like Alice in Wonderland because I believe that these amendments are relatively clear. Some of the points in support of them have been touched on already and have achieved widespread recognition.
Let us begin by recognising that the Audit Commission is the creature of the Secretary of State. I intend no disrespect to the Audit Commission because that is actually what is provided for in Schedule 3, paragraph 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, which says that the Secretary of State may give the commission directions as to the discharge of its functions and the commission shall give effect to any such directions. There is no greater level of control in legislation than can be given by that little subsection. The Secretary of State does not even have to specify in advance or tell Parliament what directions he is going to give. Whatever the directions, the Audit Commission has to comply with them.
The Audit Commission has, quite laudably and admirably, set out on the road of providing performance indicators. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to say that these indicators should be of standards of service and performance achieved by the different relevant bodies in that financial year and in different financial years. In other words, the comparison should not only be of output, to use the dimension we talked about when discussing the first amendment, but also should be in terms of outcome: the service, the quantity and quality being produced.
The Audit Commission, inevitably and quite understandably, has started with the relatively easy services. I spoke earlier about refuse collection as being a relatively easy service and I pointed out that many of the dimensions in the evaluation of refuse collection are not and cannot be adequately considered in the Audit Commission's guidelines. I spoke about kerbside collections, the nature of the bins or bags used and recycling policies. Of course one can add to that list. As has been said, one can have criteria for action to be taken when there are

33
complaints, to weight the costs to reflect journeys between different houses and to weight the cost of the different frequency of collection. What is the policy for large items? Is it a civic amenity site, a skip or a special collection? What is the policy on garden refuse? One could continue with these questions.
There are many things to be considered, even in regard to the relatively simple service of refuse collection. Imagine how much more complicated it will be if the Audit Commission starts to get on to the really difficult areas like housing and education. The Secretary of State for Education is digging himself into ever-deeper pits of dispute with educationalists, teachers and parents around the country by attempting to over-specify what shall be contained even in primary education. Imagine what is going to happen if the Audit Commission has to set standards alongside those which the Secretary of State for Education sets for quality of service in education. I think that the Audit Commission, which is bold and relatively realistic, understands the difficulty of all this.
In Amendment No. 18, which is the third and most important of these amendments, we say that the Audit Commission shall not simply consult the local authority associations but shall actually agree with them what comparison should be made on standards of service, standards of performance and value for money. If that is compromising or reducing the role of the Audit Commission and increasing the role of local authorities, so be it. I think that is a proper way for us to approach this. After all, it is the local authorities who are providing the services and it is they who are responsible to their electors. It is the local authorities who have the day-to-day knowledge of what they have to do and of the difficulties of explaining that and evaluating it.
I feel sure that if these amendments are adopted by the Committee the relationships between the Audit Commission and the local authority associations will be that much better, and the adoption of common standards of comparison will be facilitated by the need for them to be by agreement rather than simply by consultation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support this group of amendments, but I wish to address my remarks to Amendment No. 18. That amendment seeks to include a mechanism not for mere consultation but to achieve the agreement of the relevant parties. In my professional life when I use the word "consult" in a contract, I always know that it means that I have to ask for opinions but not necessarily take any notice of the answer. I am sure that is not what is meant by that term here. I hope we can provide a mechanism that—I do not suggest that the Audit Commission will not do the job properly—will assist the whole process. I hope the mechanism will allow local authorities, through local authority associations, to own—as today's terminology expresses it—the result of that consultation and discussion exercise. I support the amendments.
Baroness Seear: Why are the Government giving so much authority to the Audit Commission? I am sure
34
it is is composed of excellent people. Those I have met are excellent people. How many of those people are accountants, however? Accountants are not particularly qualified to make judgments on all the matters they are being asked to make judgments on. My former boss in industry used to say that accountants are excellent servants but extremely bad masters. That has been my experience. How qualified are accountants to give opinions on quality? They are qualified to give opinions on cost, but quality is a different matter. Who are these chaps?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Any measure to compel the Audit Commission to agree with the local authority associations would effect quite a substantial alteration in the Bill. If one is compelled by statute to agree with someone, one has to accept anything that is put forward by that person. That position would seriously weaken the impartial position of the Audit Commission. I hope therefore that we shall retain the word "consult" which seems to get the balance about right.
Baroness Hamwee: I would say in response to the noble Lord that there may not be agreement. That is the point of the amendment. If agreement is not reached, everyone will have to continue until they reach an agreement. There might be a better result at the end of that process than if the process had not been attempted.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Baroness seems to be saying that if the local authority associations dig in their heels, the Audit Commission will be compelled to trail along behind them and accept whatever they dictate. Is that her view?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The same thing could be said in reverse. After all, an agreement works both ways. It could be said that if the Audit Commission digs in its heels, local authorities would be compelled to trail along behind it. As anyone who is involved in complicated negotiations in business or in public life knows, reaching an agreement is a matter of both sides making concessions. It is not a question of one party trailing behind another.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is important to establish what happens when the parties do not reach an agreement. Surely such a situation would blow an enormous hole in this section of the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am sure it will come as no surprise to the noble Lord to hear that the Government cannot accept these amendments. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would introduce a requirement for standards of service as well as performance to be measured. Standards of service are a matter for the local authority to determine. The extent to which a local authority achieves the standard of service is a measure of its effectiveness. Under Clause 1 of the Bill as printed this is one of the criteria to be taken into account. We therefore feel it is not necessary to add the proposed additional words to the Bill.

35
I would say in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the Audit Commission is not simply composed of accountants. Accountants form only a minority of the Audit Commission's members. The members are mainly professional people from other disciplines.
Amendment No. 18 would impose an arrangement whereby the Audit Commission would be required to reach agreement with local authority associations before giving directions. This would effectively give local authorities a veto over any such direction which the Audit Commission planned to issue. One cannot force people to agree on something. Once it is known that there is a mechanism for escaping a direction, certain local authorities will be only too ready to take advantage of that.
Such an arrangement is flawed, and I believe wholly unworkable. Local authorities should have the opportunity to make their views known and offer constructive criticism before a direction is issued. That is why the Bill has a requirement built into Clause 2(3) to consult before such directions are issued. But ultimate responsibility must rest with a single body and not be dispersed between different agencies and interests. Such an arrangement would be a recipe for inaction and confusion. For the reasons I have given, I recommend therefore that these amendments be rejected.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl has expressed the oversimplification of the year in that reply. He has said that the extent to which a local authority achieves a standard of service is the measure of its effectiveness. It is not possible to omit to mention more dimensions of quality of service in one simple sentence than the noble Earl did just now. The extent to which a local authority achieves a standard of service is one measure of what the Government would wish to define as the effectiveness of a local authority. However, the extent to which it satisfies local people, or the extent to which it provides genuine competitive quality in relation to other local authorities is not covered by the formulation used by the noble Earl.
I am sorry the Government feel that way about the amendment. I am also sorry it should be thought that the search for agreement is somehow inferior to what is in effect consultation when the decisions are in the hands of the Audit Commission. I am sorry that the independence of local authorities should be whittled away to such a great extent by the provisions of this part of the Bill.
Lord Tordoff: Does not the noble Lord agree that the statement we have just heard indicates the extent of the Government's attack on local authorities? This is a means of handing over local authorities to the Audit Commission in every sense. The Government are not just trying to improve efficiency. They wish to dictate to local authorities what they shall do and when.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wholeheartedly agree with that. As I said in introducing the amendment, for
36
the term "Audit Commission" one should in effect read "Secretary of State". As I made clear in referring to the 1982 Local Government Finance Act, the Secretary of State gives directions on any aspect of the Audit Commission's activities, and the Audit Commission gives effect to those directions. There is no question of consultation or of having regard to opinions. The Audit Commission does what the Secretary of State dictates.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord appears to be saying that the Audit Commission is somehow a creature of the Secretary of State. It is quite true that the Secretary of State can give directions but the Audit Commission is an independent entity. It always has been independent and I trust it always will be. We value that independent judgment from the Commission and we want to keep things that way. Any directions would have to be subject to prior consultation with the Audit Commission and with the local authority associations. That is the safeguard here.
Baroness Seear: That may be all right while there are nice people such as the noble Earl in the Ministry giving directions. We have referred to such examples so often in this Chamber. However, one day it may be the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, giving directions. There is no safeguard here for independence. The Secretary of State appoints the members of the Audit Commission and he can sack them. He directs them.
Earl Howe: The key thing to remember is that what we are writing into the Bill is the provision that local authorities can choose their own quality and level of service. It is up to them to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am afraid that is not what the Bill says. The Bill states that although all of these provisions are set out by the Audit Commission, its only responsibility as regards local government is to consult with it. It is perfectly possible under the terms of the Bill for the Audit Commission to consult with local government and to reject the views—perhaps not out of hand—expressed during the consultation process. The noble Earl accused me of calling the Audit Commission a creature. That is the case. I am not attacking the individuals in the Audit Commission or the way they carry out their work. However, the law is clear. The Audit Commission is a creature of the Secretary of State. As has been said, the Secretary of State can appoint and sack the members of the Audit Commission and can disregard or pay attention to its findings as he wishes.
There is no provision in the 1982 Act for consultation on the directions to be given to the Audit Commission. "Creature" is not a term of abuse. Anyone who has read the Rupert Brooke letters knows that it is a term of affection which he used to refer to a loved one—and look at what happened to him.
It must not be thought that we on these Benches are attacking the Audit Commission. We are attacking legislation in which the Government, through the Audit Commission, are laying down in detail how local authorities will be run.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for giving way at this point. Since starting to speak this afternoon has he re-read lines 11 and 12 of page one, from which it is quite clear that the only role of the Audit Commission is to facilitate the making of appropriate comparisons? How then can the noble Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or anyone else suggest that any force majeure or direction is imposed on local authorities, either by the Secretary of state or the Audit Commission? The noble Lord has lost me totally. If he could explain it to me he might even have me on his side.
Lord Cockfield: With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I think he has misunderstood the constitutional position in the case of independent bodies. It is normal practice to include in an Act a reserve power for the Secretary of State to give directions. The reason it is done in that way is to maintain the rights of Parliament, because when a direction of that kind is made by the Secretary of State it becomes debatable in both Houses of Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, with all his experience, for that correction. Of course I accept what he says.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, quoted correctly from line 11 of Clause 1. However, the whole of that part of the Bill, up to and including Clause 9, imposes obligations on local authorities. The matter is a good deal more complicated than he thinks.
Regarding the response of the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to the point about accountants, it is certainly true that membership of the Audit Commission itself is drawn from a large number of professions. However, the staff of the Audit Commission are almost entirely accountants. Of the 1,000 employees of the Audit Commission, 850 are involved in district audit. Of those the most senior are the 323 qualified and part-qualified accountants. Among the 150 staff employed in the central directorate there are 29 accountants. Accountants are in charge of the Audit Commission. That is what the commission is there for. That is what audit means. Audits are carried out by accountants. I do not believe that the membership of the commission is a relevant consideration.
The amendments cover ground on which the Committee has already expressed an opinion. Therefore it would not be proper for me to seek the view of the Committee again on a similar subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 9
Page 1, line 17, at end insert:
("provided that no direction issued for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) above shall have the effect of requiring a relevant body to publish information which is commercially confidential and which concerns a service subject to compulsory competitive tendering.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the Audit Commission, if the
38
Committee so agrees, from requiring the disclosure of information which could be of practical advantage to outside organisations interested in tendering for local authority services.
We all accept that a local authority has a fiduciary responsibility to achieve value for money on behalf of its residents and local taxpayers. Clearly it can only exercise that duty to secure value for money if information which is commercially sensitive in relation to compulsory competitive tendering is kept confidential. The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 quite rightly opened whole categories of public business to public scrutiny and the public domain. Nonetheless, it recognised that financial or business information affecting an individual, or, for example, the expected cost and terms of a contract for the acquisition of property, goods or services, should remain confidential for obvious and good reasons.
For example, to take a very common case, a local authority might be proposing to buy property. The relevant committee might steer the local authority's officer as to the maximum price which that officer might agree in negotiations on that contract. It is clearly in the public interest that that maximum figure should not be disclosed in public because otherwise the local authority's price would be forced up to the maximum figure. That is an obvious example which we all accept, and it was recognised in the 1985 legislation, which in all other ways was designed to open up local government information. There appears to be no such protection in this Bill. That is why I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
The Audit Commission can require the publication of information relevant to performance standards in ways which, I suggest, could give an unfair commercial advantage to competitors. In the process of seeking to help local authorities achieve value for money, the Audit Commission may undermine value for money. For example, if the Audit Commission requires detailed information about the pricing of refuse collection in terms of unit costs and productivity per employee, that would allow competitive contractors to underbid for that contract. Equally, the organisation of the workforce and level of supervision expected in a task which has not yet gone out to CCT is also commercially sensitive information.
I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that we do not want local authorities to disclose the very information which would allow the private sector to undermine value-for-money considerations. That is even more important where there may be a risk of cartels, such as we have seen in recent revelations about price fixing for window frames, bricks and glass, or where there is a monopoly private competitor. If local authorities are not able to protect commercially sensitive information it will not be local authorities as such which lose out but the local taxpayer, who will pay more than he or she should for the service. It has always been accepted under the 1985 Act that commercially sensitive information should be protected. We seek from the Minister an assurance that under this Bill such information will not be released through

39
the Audit Commission in ways which would undermine what we all seek to achieve—value for money. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment seeks to prevent the Audit Commission from issuing directions requiring publication of information which is commercially confidential and relates to a service subject to compulsory competitive tendering.
Once again this part of the Bill is seriously misunderstood by the noble Baroness. The Audit Commission issues directions about performance achieved and not about potential performance. Therefore information published will relate to previous years.
In practical terms it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which directions under Clause I could require commercially confidential information to be published. If, as the inclusion of the second restriction suggests, it is information on tendered services which concerns Members of the Committee, I would simply point out that information on past costs is already in the public domain. At the time of an audit those interested may examine information relating to accounts, including contracts and bills, by virtue of Section 17 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. The information published will relate to previous years.
In the case of services subject to compulsory competitive tendering an authority will set out in the contract the standard of service to be provided. The authority will be responsible for monitoring the performance of a contractor. Therefore, it is at least as desirable that the contract services should be subject to directions as it is for in-house services, if not more so. That is the argument that I would expect noble Lords opposite to press. I can see no justification for excluding those services from the provisions and I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that reply, which I found extremely helpful.
There may be occasions when information published after the event could impinge on confidentiality. I do not intend to press the amendment, but I wonder whether the Minister might take back the anxiety that has been expressed, particularly in the light of the wording in the Competing for Quality White Paper which states on page 6, under the heading of "Guide to Good Buying":
"Contracting out should not affect security, confidentiality and privacy".
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness makes an important point. When regulations are formulated they will have to preserve confidentiality, where appropriate. That is right. The other safeguard is that, by issuing directions, the Audit Commission will have to consult local authorities. It will be for them to negotiate what they believe is confidential and it will
40
be for the Audit Commission to be sensitive to the need for addressing confidentiality as long as it is in the public interest and not against it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That was a helpful answer from the Minister. She said that a great deal of the information with which we are concerned will have been published in previous year reports. Nonetheless, as contracts come up for renewal—for example, where it is at present an in-house service which has been won under the previous CCT legislation and goes out for further contract—there may well be situations in which information is on the borderline between that which is currently in the public domain and that which would give competitors unfair commercial advantage. Incidentally, that argument may well be repeated when we deal later with internal trading accounts. Again, there is a clear line through all of this between what is in the public interest, given that people have a right to know what they are paying for their services, and what is commercially sensitive, which would give a competitor an unfair advantage when pitching his bid.
We shall see what the Minister has to say on the matter. I thought helpful her remarks that it was appropriate for local authorities to talk to the Audit Commission before publication. Members on both sides of the Committee recognise the tightrope that must be walked and the need to ensure value for money in the public interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis Baroness Hollis moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 3, after ("direction") insert("(i)").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 14.
This amendment deals with the point at which the role of the Audit Commission, as envisaged by the Government, and the use of customer contracts, as described by my noble friend Lord McIntosh earlier this afternoon, overlap. It is the point at which we make common ground. The amendment has two purposes. First, it seeks to improve on the definition of the word "publish" in the Bill. Secondly, it seeks to clarify what might be a potential overlap with the 1986 Local Government Act. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that will allay our worries.
Perhaps I may deal with the first of those points. As the Committee will have noted from our earlier discussion, for performance standards to be effective and appropriate, they need to measure both the input and the output value of local authority services. Clearly, for them to be relevant to local people they must be monitored and scrutinised in appropriate ways. As I understand it, all that is required at present is that the information associated with that need only be published in a newspaper. It might be the back page of a newspaper or in the small print. Speaking as a former member of the Press Council, I can see how skilful the press can be in avoiding large-scale publicity in response to complaints. We on this side—and, I hope, Members on the other side—will accept

41
that we want to ensure more than the minimum possible observance of the publication and publicity for those standards.
The amendment therefore proposes that not only should local authorities be required to publish that information in local newspapers, but that publicity should go out with local tax bills, much as happens at present with current levels of expenditure proposals under the poll tax, or perhaps in special leaflets such as local council newspapers and publications in a variety of languages. In other words, we wish to empower local authorities to extend the concept of "publish" as laid down in the Bill and by cross-reference back to the 1986 Act. We genuinely want that information to be as open, accessible and available as possible and we fear that the Bill may be drawn too tightly in that respect.
Secondly, we fear that the Bill may run foul or may put local authorities in the position of running foul of the 1986 Act. I am sure that the Committee will remember that that Act limited local authority expenditure on publicity, whether through newspapers, leaflets or whatever, to two areas. First, Section 3 stated that local authorities may publicise only matters concerned with the functions of a local authority and not with the wider considerations affecting local government. Secondly, Section 2 limited local authority expenditure on publicity where it was designed to affect or might have the consequence of affecting support for a political party. In practice, the Act has not turned out to be as restrictive as local government feared. Seventy per cent. of local authorities have no problem with it. The 30 per cent. that did have problems reflected all parties and all types of authority. It appears to be hung councils which have had the most difficulty with that section. There have been virtually no public complaints either before or after the 1986 Act, except from councillors of the opposition party, whatever colour that may be.
However, if the 1986 Act has not restricted what local authorities can say in their publications, it has, as has been admitted by professionals throughout local government, affected the quality of publication. As a result of the 1986 Act, one cannot produce the glossy, high-quality, eye-catching material that would invite the reader of the Sun to explore the relevance to him of local authority services and standards. Local authority publicity has become more bureaucratic and less attractive and accessible. It is therefore important for the Minister to help us in that area. First, she must clarify that we can have a wider rather than a narrower definition of the word "publish". Secondly, she must ensure that the 1986 Act, which restricted the notion of what the word "publish" might mean and what it could be attributed to, does not hinder the efforts in good faith of local government across the board to make available information in the most accessible way. That is what lies at the heart of the Citizen's Charter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I wonder whether, in view of the wording of the amendment, we shall end up with a duplication. I am thinking particularly of one example. If Committee Members look at the bottom
42
of page 2 of the Bill, they will see a reference to internal drainage boards. The wording of the amendment may lead to duplication.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What the noble Earl might call a duplication would, in my opinion, considerably widen access to information. As someone who has been involved in drawing up material that goes out to electors and local taxpayers, I have to say that the literature is not always the most accessible, sexy or attractive of reading materials. It is too often binned. If, by repeating it not just formally through the newspapers but by duplicating it through door-to-door leaflets, we enable the citizen to have a greater awareness of and control over events in city hall, that is money worth spending. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that at present only 0.1 per cent. of a local authority's budget is spent on publicity. We are talking about fractional costs, so I hope that the noble Earl might decide to support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendments. I was struck by a comment made in an AMA publication by councillor Chris Willmore that,
"a local authority now appears to have wider powers to make information available 'on application' than it does by use of its own initiative".
This is in the context of the Local Government Act 1986.
We all know how important information published by local authorities and by many bodies disappears into the small print of the rather boring columns which, on the whole, people do not have the time or inclination to read. Although I have an instinctive dislike of prescribing the means of dissemination, it must be said that newspaper advertisements are a fairly inadequate means. There is an important point in ensuring that information gets round as widely as possible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said. It is not just that the public should know. But when they know, they are enabled to make a greater input into the process by reacting to the information that they are given. I support the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment. The Bill already provides for sufficient information through advertisements in a local newspaper and documents available in council offices for those who are interested to read them.
There is a suggestion behind the amendments that there are hosts of people hungry for information from local authorities. I believe that it is easy to exaggerate that number. I wish to make a modest comment on the amount of paper flowing from official sources today. If my noble friend can do her bit to resist the temptation to add to that inundation, she would be deserving of our gratitude. She would certainly have mine.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I too support rejection of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already drawn our attention to the different types of local authority—urban and rural. Is it not true that they will know best how to reach their audiences? An important sector involves persons who travel to work in the area and have cause to use the services. The amendment totally ignores their needs. If

43
we prescribe specifically that local authorities use those methods, do we not leave them without the capacity to use a more open method of communication?
Lord Skelmersdale: Although I accept that the more information given, and the more widely disseminated it is, the better, is there not a danger that such information may not be read? I have some experience of mail orders. I am sure that all Members of the Committee have received many advertisements, leaflets and exhortations on pieces of paper accompanying the publication that they wish to read. I suspect that, like me, noble Lords put such paper straight into the wastepaper basket.
It is important that there should be a brief synopsis with ratepayers' or chargepayers' annual charge sheet but that it should not go into such detail as does, for example, the Audit Commission pamphlet which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, held up a few moments ago. While I sympathise with the amendment, I am not sure that that is the way to achieve its objectives.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 would set up a totally artificial and unnecessary distinction in the way in which information is made available to different classes of person.
The authorities can publish elsewhere. Many send extra information with bills. Many publish detailed annual reports. Indeed many send so much information that it confuses the electorate. I am happy to inform my noble friends that the important factor is to get information out in a digestible form to all the people and not to differentiate between one class of person and another.
With regard to bodies publicising information, I cannot understand why households or residents who are the target of Amendment No. 14 should not be made aware of the information in the same way as the local electors. The publicity arrangements required by the Bill as printed seem perfectly adequate for all classes of person. There is no need to distinguish between different classes of person; and there is absolutely no need to set up different ways of publicising the information. The only result of such distinction is to add to the costs; and that is important.
The objective is to make sure that the information is in the public domain in an understandable form, and where it can be explored and made sense of by local people. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am disappointed by the response by the noble Lords opposite, including the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, did not believe—he may well be right, and I would regret it—that there are hosts of people hungry for local government information. The objective of the amendment is to make them hungry for that information so that they become not only consumers of services but citizens of the services which local authorities are empowered and mandated to provide. That is the thrust of the amendment. The noble
44
Baroness, Lady Denton, considered that the amendment might be unfair to those who did not live in the area but worked there.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may lift a quotation from quite another source:
" … that surfeiting,
The appetite may sicken, and so die".
Has that occurred to the noble Baroness?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord may have had more experience than me of rich dinners. I would not care to cross swords with him on that. However, local government is local government and not local administration, because it is sensitive and responsive to informed citizens and informed tax and charge payers. All sides of the Chamber surely share that view.
Perhaps the only justifiable argument that might have been raised against the amendment is that it produces too much additional paper at too high a cost. I suggest that neither of those arguments is true. Most city authorities produce, for example, hand delivered newspapers on a monthly basis. Leaflets go out with bills. Annual reports are available to citizens on request in city halls. Leaflets are available in local community centres which people take home. If the amendment were accepted, it would be empowered that those leaflets carry the information about standards that the local authority seeks to meet. The amendment is necessary because it is not clear whether local authorities which acted in what seems a sensible way might run foul of the 1986 Act.
If the Minister will say that local authorities, using their discretion, who wish to convey this information in such literature which is currently circulated—it seems a sensible way to inform local residents—will not run foul of the 1986 Act, I shall be content. Perhaps the Minister will briefly respond.
Baroness Blatch: There will be a requirement on the face of the Bill for local authorities to publish information in an accurate form and that should be in the public domain. That does not rule out other ways of producing the information. Local authorities will be able to choose. The requirement on the face of the Bill is for accurate information to be in the public domain and in a way in which local people can make sense of it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall consider whether we wish to raise the same issue at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 4, after ("body") insert ("for the information of electors entitled to vote in annual local elections introduced in accordance with recommendations made under section 13(1A) below.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 138, 146, 184 and 237. I hope that we shall have the indulgence of the Committee with regard to the grouping together of a large number of amendments. The amendments seek to ensure annual elections in local government. At present the

45
metropolitan districts have annual elections, as do 40 per cent. of shire districts. We seek to extend that arrangement to all appropriate local authorities. Clearly county councils are not such appropriate bodies.
Why do we seek to do that? This is the point at which a concept of the Citizen's Charter and concern with customer contracts—that is, services monitored and scrutinised by local people—meet. Annual elections ensure that local taxpayers through customer contracts help local authorities to draw up their performance standards, and scrutinise those customer contracts through the medium of the Audit Commission and the value for money principle which results. Through annual elections electors can also make a judgment about the three "e"s—economy, effectiveness and efficiency—that local authorities are required to achieve. If, as a result, they are dissatisfied with their local authorities they can change their elected representatives. In other words, annual elections would turn customers into citizens. Performance leagues and standards cannot mean much as a democratic and financial tool of the taxpayers if they can pass judgment on them only once every four years. The amendment would give local taxpayers powers beyond their purchasing capacity and there would be additional democratic rights.
Last year we discussed the planning and finance legislation. An argument was then put forward for local annual elections. It was said that after the all-out elections in 1990 the budgets of London boroughs rose by only 6 per cent. In other words, the all-out elections proved to be highly cost effective as a budget control. The county and district councils which did not have annual elections were simultaneously raising their budgets by 13 and 14 per cent. respectively. It is clear that annual elections increase the accountability of local government to its taxpayers. The same could and should apply to performance standards. I accept that annual elections do not always sharpen accountability but they are more likely to do so than elections spaced every four years. I was at one stage simultaneously a district and county councillor. I assure the Minister that in such a situation annual elections have a wonderful effect of focusing the mind on both budget and service accountability, compared with one's experience as a member only of a county council.
The Minister may argue that ours are not single-issue elections and that that would be unreasonable. That would be to misunderstand the purpose of performance standards. We say that at the core of the issue is the delivery of services. If the Bill is to be meaningful local taxpayers must have the possibility of passing annual judgment on annual performance. That is the purpose of this and all related amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: Members on these Benches do not object to the amendment, although we believe that there are better ways of making local authority representatives more accountable through changes in the electoral system. However, I shall not discuss that matter in detail at the moment. The issue stems in part from the fact that it is possible to change the complexion of the council only once every four years
46
even though the percentage of the electorate supporting the majority of the council is less than 50 per cent. Many councils are not fully representative of the people. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Hamwee is a member of Richmond Borough Council on which one party is grossly over represented. There the quirks of the electoral system come down in favour of the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party has been totally unrepresented for many years and the Conservative Party is now grossly under represented. The amendment will not sort out that problem. However, we do not object to it as a means of ensuring an interim judgment on councillors who are not totally representative of the wishes of the electorate.
Baroness Blatch: There is almost a kind of arrogance about the amendments. The noble Baroness chooses to pre-empt the consultations which are only just at an end. The detailed results have not yet been properly considered. The amendment is certainly highly prescriptive, which runs counter to everything that we wish for local authorities. It is without consultation and it fits the expression used by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, of being the dead hand of uniformity.
Members of the Committee will be aware that a variety of electoral arrangements is in force in the various types of councils in England. In county councils there is one member for each electoral division. Elections are held every four years and all the seats are contested simultaneously. Metropolitan districts have three members per ward. Elections are held in three years out of four with a third of the seats contested at each election. In shire districts wards can have one, two, three or more members. Elections are either of the whole council every four years or, as in about one-third of councils, by thirds. In the case of by-third elections, they are held in three years out of four. Therefore, where there are fewer than three councillors in a ward, elections can be every two or four years. In London boroughs elections are held every four years. Most wards have three members but a few have only one or two.
The Government have invited views on the local authorities' electoral arrangements. That was announced in the consultation paper on the internal management of local authorities published in July. The consultation period ended last Friday. We have begun to analyse the responses although some are still arriving. The Committee will appreciate that that will take a little time and it is presumptuous to pre-empt the results of that. The proposed amendments—
Baroness Seear: In that case, is it not presumptuous to be legislating at all?
Baroness Blatch: No, because it falls in nicely with the work of the Local Government Commission which will take into account and discuss with local people electoral arrangements for the new or existing authorities that will be confirmed as a result of its work. The proposed amendments will have the effect of standardising all principal councils to the arrangements applying in the metropolitan districts. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree

47
that such a change will be premature. We must first consider the responses to the consultation paper and ask the new Local Government Commission to consider electoral arrangements as part of its review of local government. Only then shall we be in a position to say whether there is a case for standardising electoral arrangements and, if so, what those arrangements should be. There might well be a basis of support for those proposals. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The Minister accused my noble friend of being arrogant. It is not arrogant to try to put forward a means by which local authorities can be supervised by the electorate on a basis more frequent than every four years. That was the basis of the amendment. I have had experience in local government as the leader of a county borough and chairman of its finance committee. I can assure the Minister that the discipline which annual elections imposed upon me and upon the local authority was most serious. It ensured that every year the council took into account the effect that its actions would have on the electorate. It also gave the electorate the opportunity to change the council on an annual basis —certainly less than every four years—so that real democracy was at work.
In my experience, such a situation keeps the party machines in operation. It ensures that local councillors and others visit their electors every year instead of every four years. In that way they are enabled to collect annually the views and the opinions of the electorate. I believe that the Minister used the wrong word in applying arrogance to my noble friend Lady Hollis. I urge the Minister to think again in spite of what she said about the consultation document. After all, we shall pass this Bill before the results of another consultation document come into effect. I should have thought that if anything were arrogant it was that situation. I hope that the Minister will listen to the arguments put forward by my noble friend. I hope that the Minister will understand that if she and the Government wish to impose some discipline on local authorities they should give the local electorate a better chance to have some effect and some sway over its local authority. That will happen if elections take place more frequently than every four years. She should give a sympathetic reply to the amendment, although I appreciate that she may not be able to accept it.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I wish to take up a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. In associating ourselves with the amendment and the proposal for annual elections, we on these Benches do not suggest that local councillors should be in touch with their constituents only on an annual basis. Some of us are in touch with them on a weekly or even daily basis. I am sure that the noble Lord did not mean that for a moment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: There is no doubt that there are some extremely good councillors. However,
48
some believe that once they are in office all they need to do is sit in committee rooms and make decisions. Annual elections impose a discipline upon those sorts of councillors because the party and the councillors must then go out to meet the people if they are to retain office.
Baroness Blatch: I have far too much respect for the noble Baroness to attach the word "arrogant" to her as a person. These amendments totally disregard the results of the consultation paper. They do not even allow the Local Government Commission to be set up, to take its course and do its work or to take soundings from the local community. I believe that there is an arrogance in saying that before any of that work is completed, Parliament should determine and impose annual elections on local authorities.
We should allow the results of the consultation to be properly considered. We should allow the Local Government Commission to be set up so that it can sound out voluntary groups, local communities, local authority members and associations. At the end of that, Parliament will consider recommendations from the Local Government Commission on the basis of that evidence. At that time Parliament should decide whether local elections are the best and most effective way forward. I ask for time for the proper democratic process to take its course.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that I accept that this amendment is not about proportional representation, although no doubt the noble Lord wishes it was. It is not meant to be and that may or may not be on a ' future agenda. Nevertheless, I accept his coded support for what it was.
I thought that the Minister's second contribution—if I may be so arrogant—was rather more helpful than the first. In that first response she described the amendment as "arrogant", "prescriptive" and the "dead hand of uniformity". Those descriptions come from a government who have imposed the poll tax and are imposing rate capping across the country on the basis of standardised SSAs with single variables. That is somewhat rich.
Secondly, the noble Baroness said that it is arrogant and presumptuous because the results of consultation have not yet been received. This Bill gives to the Secretary of State 16 more powers and we do not know what any of them will mean. In some cases that is before we have received the replies of the consultation paper, and the consultation paper on housing has not even been issued. The Minister uses a perverse form of language when she describes our amendment which seeks to strengthen the hands of local electors to scrutinise what takes place in town hall as arrogant, presumptuous or prescriptive. I find that unfortunate to say the least.
We may wish to return to the subject of annual elections but it may be prudent to await the completion of consultation procedures. However, I take strong exception to the language used by the Minister, which I believe was extremely ill judged.
Baroness Blatch: The comment that I made was not against the noble Baroness personally but against the amendments. Secondly, the regulations to which the noble Baroness referred which flow from primary legislation in this Bill will be for Parliament to approve at the end of the day. By asking the Committee to accept these amendments the noble Baroness is asking for primary legislation, which gives no opportunity whatever for consultation to take place. I merely ask for time to allow the democratic process to take its course.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 46, leave out paragraph (h).
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to include passenger transport executives within the scope of the provisions, bringing them within the aegis of the Audit Commission and subject to the same performance standards and criteria as local authorities.
The amendment is an excuse to express the feelings of many people that passenger transport executives are but a mere apology for metropolitan strategic government. They are a means devised and put into place as a poor second best for proper control of one of our most important services; that is, transport and transportation.
I have a certain dislike—almost repugnance—for the fact that unelected organisations such as this should be in a position in which they are not subject to the same scrutiny as local authorities. The functions of passenger transport executives would be carried out better by elected bodies. As we are not able to have that, I ask the Minister to consider whether they should be under the same sort of scrutiny.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I support the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not move Amendment No. 15 because her arguments apply as strongly to health service bodies as to passenger transport executives. By listing all those bodies the Government are in a sense admitting the range of bodies which have been taken away from local democratic control and put under the direct control of central government. To have the nerve then to take them out of the Citizen's Charter provisions seems to memberconstituency—and I use the words of my noble friend Lady Hollis—a bit rich.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I can be helpful to the noble Baroness. The Bill already applies to the metropolitan county passenger transport authorities. The executives operate under the direction of those authorities and the Government are content that through that channel the Bill will provide sufficient access for local taxpayers to information about standards of local public transport administration. Therefore I confirm that the executives will be subject to the provisions of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I am sure she will understand that we wish to reserve our position and perhaps return to the matter at Report stage.
50
I apologise to the House for tabling but not moving Amendment No. 15. I tabled it for the reasons to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred. However, on further consideration I felt that there were other occasions on which to discuss the application of the Citizen's Charter to the health service. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Directions under s.1]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before calling the next amendment I should point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 19.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 18, after ("shall") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 19 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20. I would not normally be tempted to move an amendment of this nature were it not for the incredible wording to be found in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. Referring to the financial effects of the Bill it blandly says,
"The measures in clauses 1 to 7 are not expected to cause any significant increase in public expenditure".
No significant increase in public expenditure! Local authorities which comply with the conditions of Clauses 1 to 7 will certainly incur additional costs. They will need to improve and change their information systems to enable them to produce nationally comparable information. Above all, it may not be generally realised that the Audit Commission will have to be paid for by audit fees raised by local authorities. They will have to pay the increased audit fees to cover the auditors' work in checking the new information and the increased audit fees to finance the Audit Commission's enhanced role in Clause 3(2).
I do not believe that the Audit Commission thinks for a moment that those additional responsibilities, worthwhile though they may be, will be carried out without cost. As that cost will fall on local authorities it will be public expenditure. The financial memorandum is wrong. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 would impose an additional administrative burden on the Audit Commission to little effect. In practice, any cost to local authorities will be negligible—at least, it will be negligible if the Government's proposals are accepted. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has been imploring us this afternoon to accept some bureaucratic amendments. If we were to accept those proposed thus far and the many more to come tabled by noble Lords opposite, I should have to agree that the cost would be excessive.
Well run authorities will already have systems for monitoring performance and any adaptation necessary will be minimal. The fact that information will be put out in a common format should make life easier and not more difficult. Monitoring of performance

51
may itself lead to improved value for money. I strongly urge that the amendment, which I believe to be unnecessary and unworkable, be resisted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Has the Minister thought that there may be further effects of the provisions in Clauses 1 to 7? Where local authorities are shown to be underspending and underproviding it may be that local residents will bring pressure upon them to provide an improved service, if necessary at an improved cost. That is something which should not be ruled out of consideration. It would certainly involve an increase in public expenditure.
The Minister has in no way reassured me that the Audit Commission will not incur substantially increased costs under the government provisions in the Bill. It is a red herring to refer to the amendments already moved, even if the noble Baroness was right about them, which she is not. I am totally unconvinced that the financial memorandum accurately reflects the costs of the provisions of the Bill. It may be a matter to which we shall return at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert:
("(3A) In the case of any direction under section 1 above which imposes a new requirement on a local authority, the Audit Commission or Scottish Accounts Commission shall consult the local authority associations in England and Wales or, as the case may be, Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 21 is a relatively minor amendment. However, it seems to us to be peculiar that the wording of the Bill should state, unusually, that,
"the Audit Commission or Scottish Accounts Commission shall consult such associations of relevant bodies and such other persons as it thinks fit".
Even bearing in mind the Minister's own responses to earlier amendments, I thought it was well accepted that local authority associations reflected the views of their members of all political parties and of none. It is therefore a proper and a good precedent for including the need for consultation with local authority associations on the face of legislation affecting local government. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 21, as the noble Lord said, specifies that the Audit Commission and Scottish Accounts Commission shall consult the local authority associations before giving directions. As printed, the Bill already contains a requirement for the commission to consult associations of relevant bodies as they see fit. As the definition of "relevant bodies" includes local authorities, their associations will be consulted wherever relevant. It goes without saying that in different cases it will be appropriate to consult different bodies. Rather than specifying in any particular case which bodies are to be consulted, I believe that it is sufficient to rely on the good sense of
52
the commission to consult those that they feel are the appropriate ones in each case. I ask that the amendment be rejected.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: So the Minister says and I believe her. But that is not what the Bill says. The Bill says,
"such associations or relevant bodies and such other bodies as it thinks fit".
Therefore the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission are totally free to consult anyone they like. Of course, under the 1982 Act they can be given directions by the Secretary of State on any subject and shall give effect to those directions. However, save for that provision, on which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, rightly rebuked me, the Audit Commission does not need to consult the local authority associations.
I am sure that the Minister is right; if they are wise they will wish to do so. However, for the life of me I cannot see why on this occasion and only on this occasion they should be free not to consult the associations which can most help them. The Audit Commission expects local authorities to give "helpful advice". We must not forget that it has the power to direct local authorities on all the matters contained in these clauses in the Bill. It is quite unsatisfactory that the Government should go out of their way to deliver this unwarranted snub to local authority associations. The point has been made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("31st December") and insert ("30th June").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 22 concerns a practical point. As the Bill is drafted, the Audit Commission in Clause 2(4) specifies the last date for giving new requirements to local authorities on the publication of information as 31st December in the financial year preceding that in relation to which the information is to be published. That means that local authorities may have only three months between 31st December and 1st April—the new financial year—in which to give effect to the directions of the Audit Commission.
I have no doubt that we shall be told, as we were told in relation to the last amendment, that the Audit Commission will seek to give as much notice as possible. I am sure that is the case. But, sadly, experience has shown that when central government give directions to local authorities and impose restrictions on them, which they are doing all the time, they tend to do so as late as possible. The example of the rate support grant being announced only last week is a very good one. The classic example is that of capping which is made known only very late in the budgetary process of local authorities.
I do not accuse the Audit Commission of any ill-will because I am sure that it will give good notice whenever it can. However, would it not be a wise precaution, in case any future Audit Commission were not as well meaning and efficient as the present one, to

53
provide on the face of the Bill that there should be adequate notice in order to enable local authorities to give effect to the directions? I beg to move.
Earl Howe: As we have heard, Amendment No. 22 seeks to extend the minimum time which local authorities have to prepare for complying with new directions from three months to nine months. Three months should normally be quite sufficient to prepare for collecting and recording such information. But the three-months' period is in any case only a minimum. The Audit Commission will be able to give a longer time if it feels that it is necessary. It is quite possible that in its good judgment, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, it will do so on some occasions depending on what is reasonable in the circumstances. I hope with that reassurance the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It can hardly be a reassurance because I anticipated almost word for word what the noble Earl was going to say. Of course the Audit Commission will give longer notice if it can. The members and staff of the commission are people of the utmost goodwill just as Ministers are. That does not relieve us of the responsibility of seeing to it that legislation can be enforced. It does not relieve us of the responsibility for thinking, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, or the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested, that there might be a much worse Minister like me around who would behave very badly towards local authorities and give them the minimum time to implement my directions. They would have no protection from somebody like me under the provisions of the Bill. I suggest that the purpose of legislation is to see to it that all Secretaries of State shall be required to behave properly and not just the present Secretary of State. I gladly give way.
Earl Howe: Perhaps it may be helpful to the noble Lord if I make two points. The first is that the consultation process itself will enable local authorities to see what they are likely to need if and when directions are given. The second point is that the commission has to satisfy itself as to whether the systems and procedures are in place to fulfil the directions that are given. Initially these directions will build on the performance measures that are already in place.
Lore McIntosh of Haringey: I accept the validity of the second point; but the first point is sharp at both ends, if I may put it that way. If the noble Earl is correct when he says that it is evident from the consultation document to local authorities what is going to happen, that means that the consultation process is not being taken seriously. If one looks at the range of options contained in the White Paper Competing for Quality, it will be seen that very little guidance is given in that consultation document as to what decision the Government will ultimately reach on compulsory competitive tendering. That is why we shall have such a laborious process in seeking the Government's views and attempting to restrict their powers later this evening and tomorrow.
54
The point had to be made. It would be unreasonable if the Audit Commission did not take precautions which it is not required to take. It would be better if it were required to take them and if that was stated on the face of the Bill. It would have been better if my amendment had been accepted. Sadly, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Internal management of local authorities
.—(1) This section has effect for the purposes of assisting local authorities to—

(a) maximise the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of their services, and to achieve the highest standards of performance in accordance with the needs of their areas as required to be published under section 1(1) above;

(b) fulfil the requirements of sections 5 and 6 below;

(c) fulfil any requirements arising from orders or regulations made under sections 8 and 9, or from section 10 or Schedule I below, in the most appropriate and effective manner in the interests of their areas;

(d) fulfil any requirements or activities, whether arising from paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 or otherwise, arising from the provisions of Part II to this Act.

(2) Subject to any statutory provision, a local authority may organise the internal management of its affairs as it considers appropriate having regard to the needs of its area.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the internal management of a local authority shall he taken to include the structure of decision-making within an authority, and arrangements for support to the work of elected councillors.
(4) Before issuing any guidance under subsection (5) below, or making any order under subsection (6) below, the Secretary of State shall consult the local authority associations and such other persons as appear to be concerned.
(5) The Secretary of State may issue guidance for the purposes of informing local authorities as to the effects of the power contained in subsection (2) above.
(6) The Secretary of State may by order provide for an activity of a local authority to fall within subsection (1) above by adding a paragraph to those for the time being appearing in that subsection.
(7) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to the consequential Amendment No. 228. This new clause is in effect in response to the Government's own Green Paper on the internal management of local authorities in England. On the face of it it may seem curious that in this amendment we are seeking to specify the way in which the internal management of local authorities should take place. In subsection (5) we even provide that,
"The Secretary of State may issue guidance for the purposes of informing local authorities as to the effects of the power contained in subsection (2) above".
There is good reason for that. The Government's Green Paper rightly said that local authorities should be able to experiment with different forms of internal management subject to central government's approval. I exempt that last phrase from the words "quite rightly". I believe that the criticism of local authority committee procedures is that they are

55
sometimes time-consuming and cumbersome and blur the executive and constituency roles of government. That statement is made in the Green Paper and it is often true.
It is certainly true that local authorities find it very difficult to act flexibly outside sometimes protracted committee cycles. It is certainly true that the ways in which committees take detailed decisions means that individual councillors are confusing the roles of managers and representatives of the electors. It is also certainly true that local authorities should be seeking more flexible ways of dealing with these matters. Perhaps I may praise a Liberal Democrat council. The neighbourhood structure of Tower Hamlets council is an example that should be followed more widely. It has groups of people representing all the different interests and departments in a particular community. They are not organised to set one department or one chief officer against another. I believe that the system there works well and I wish more people would follow it.
The danger contained in the Green Paper is in the phrase, which I did not endorse:
"subject to central government's approval".
The great fear is that the Government are going to seek, not least by the privatisation of the corporate strategy function of local authorities, to control the ways in which they operate rather than assist them to operate in ways which are most suitable for efficiency, economy and effectiveness. The introduction to the new clause is,
"This section has effect for the purposes of assisting local authorities to
(a) maximise the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of their services".
The amendment seeks to bring that closely into the structure of the Bill at many points. There is no doubt that the way in which the internal management of local authorities is organised is absolutely critical to their ability to deliver services effectively, economically and efficiently and also to deliver services of high quality. We recognise and welcome the role of the Secretary of State and of the Audit Commission in that process. However, ultimately local authorities must do what is appropriate for their local circumstances. By bringing the matter out into the open and putting it on the face of the Bill, this new clause will clear up a threat which exists in the wording of the Green Paper and which could be implemented by order without specific parliamentary approval. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am most obliged to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, first, for his support which is implicit in his proposed new clause for the provisions in the Bill. I also welcome the enthusiasm for improvements to local authority services' internal management arrangements. The Committee will be aware that in July this year the Government published a consultation paper on the internal management of local authorities. As I said earlier, the consultation period ended last Friday. The paper has generated a considerable amount of interest. The department has
56
so far received about 500 responses; and I know that there are others still in the pipeline. The department has already begun to analyse these responses to the consultation paper, but given the complexity of the issues involved and the wide range of the responses received, this analysis will inevitably take a little time.
The Government will come forward with the results of the consultation exercise in due course and their proposals for taking the issue forward. The present legislative arrangements allow local authorities quite wide discretion in the ordering of their affairs. I am aware from my own local government experience that many councils have already made changes to the way in which they manage their affairs and they would not wish to go any further. Others consider that they would wish to go beyond the constraints of the existing legislation and to introduce quite novel arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already referred to one local authority which has introduced a unique arrangement. Some of these were discussed in the consultation paper. They include delegation to committee chairmen; the formation of executives of elected members; and even directly-elected mayors. These arrangements are not permitted by the existing legislation governing the management of local authorities.
The consultation paper also discussed other issues such as whether some councillors should be paid on a salary basis and whether there should be additional administrative support for councillors. The latter is a point which I notice is referred to in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. The paper also stressed the importance of proper safeguards against the abuse of power if new management models are to be introduced. That is an important point and is certainly a point which was made at Second Reading.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this amendment which has allowed us to discuss that important subject. However, I have to say that I believe the amendment is premature in much the same way that I thought the previous one was premature in that it pre-empts the results of the consultation process and it pre-empts further debate. We need to analyse the responses to the consultation paper and come forward with properly thought out proposals as soon as possible. We shall discuss our ideas with local authority associations and shall welcome their participation in this important area. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will agree to withdraw this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot resist saying that to hear the Minister say that we are pre-empting the results of consultation is—to use words that will have to be used again—a bit rich. We are proposing to pre-empt the wrong response to the consultation paper. It is not as if there are not bad examples of central government wading in and interfering with the internal operations and finances of local authorities. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is a very good example of that in the way in which it imposes very precise restrictions on how a local authority should implement its housing finances.
I am afraid that despite the Minister's description of the Green Paper and the consultation process and

57
the nature of the responses to it, that the reaction of the Government, given the Government's track record in these matters, will be to lay down the law to local authorities. The purpose of this amendment is not to lay down the law, not to pre-empt the consultation, but to make sure that the response to the consultation is not proscriptive but is instead facilitating. The intention of the amendment is to assist local authorities to maximise the efficiency of their operations and not to lay down exactly how they should do it.
Despite the friendly tone of the Minister's reply, I am tempted to seek the opinion of the Committee on the matter. I shall not do that because it occurs to me that an alternative might be to add this to the functions of the Local Government Commission and we night do that by Thursday. I shall consider that matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Functions of auditor and studies by the Commissions.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 47, at end insert ("and that the body have made proper arrangements to secure the views of users of services on their performance").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25. The amendment refers back to a theme which runs through our approach to this part of the Bill. We are proposing that as the national standards are prescribed, or indeed as local standards are proscribed—I shall not go back over the issue of levels of service again—that there should be adequate consultation not merely as between the Government, the Audit Commission and local authorities, but also users of the services and persons representing voluntary organisations. The consultations should cover desirable levels of service, the national standards applicable where they are applicable—those are my words—and the comparative performance of local authorities.
It is not our intention to depart in any way from the thrust of the Government's move towards the application of the Citizen's Charter. We are trying to make sure that customers are actively involved, and providers of voluntary services are involved in the process. We are not alone in this. This year the Audit Commission published a document called How effective is the Audit Commission? One of the considerations to which considerable attention is paid at page 24 is assessing customers' views. The commission says that this will be a priority area in the next few years. The commission thinks it is more likely to be effective when it can provide tools for use by those responsible, and what it needs is something comparable in local authorities to the assessment of patient satisfaction, which is part of its responsibilities for the health service.
Once again I make no apology for using the analogy of the health service. It seems that in these matters the health service has adopted a much more
58
realistic approach to local and national standards, and a much more realistic view of assessing patients' views, users' views, of the health service.
It may be said that it is easier for the health services to identify users than it is for local authorities. After all, the users of health services come to hospitals or doctors' surgeries. I do not deny that. However, there are methods of contacting users, including the much despised survey method for which the Minister does not seem to care. There are also methods of assessing customers', users' and residents' perceptions of value for money which are well established and which are used in private industry quite widely. I suggest to the Government that to accept Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 would not in any way depart from the purport of this part of the Bill. They would instead add a new dimension which would make the application of the Citizen's Charter more effective than it would otherwise be. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support this amendment and Amendment No. 25. The words that I am about to use are not mine but they express the position better than I can.
In local authorities we should reverse the doctrine of professional infallibility, and we should be creating service-led organisations, not organisations which are producer-led. These two amendments refer to the views of users of the service. They are the most important people. They are the clients and are the people most affected by the way in which any service is delivered.
The second amendment refers also to representatives of the voluntary organisations. Local authority services are increasingly delivered not directly by local authorities but by others; not necessarily directly on their behalf but covering the same subject area. I do not for a moment suggest that that should not be so. The work of voluntary organisations is tremendously valuable. Indeed, in many cases it is probably better than could be delivered direct by local authorities. However, we must recognise that we are imposing on voluntary organisations the most enormous responsibilities, and imposing them when their resources are decreasing pretty much in line with the decreasing resources of local authorities. I have so often heard the suggestion that if a local authority cannot cope with a service the voluntary organisations will pick it up. We should not find ourselves in that situation.
I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. Many Members of the Committee have links with voluntary organisations. They will be aware of the value of their services and would want them to be recognised formally in the legislation.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, attempted earlier to persuade us to amend Clause I so as to require each local authority to carry out surveys of local residents' views on the standards adopted and the performance achieved by the authority. Amendment No. 24 would then require the auditor to check that the authority had proper arrangements in place to fulfil that new duty. As the noble Lord did not succeed in persuading the Committee to make the earlier amendment, there is little point in this one.

59
Indeed it is pointless to require the auditor to certify that an authority has made certain arrangements when it is under no duty to do so.
Clause 3, as it now stands, is concerned with what I may call relatively "hard" information about the standards which an authority has achieved. In principle the auditor should be readily able to see whether or not the authority's systems are up to this task. But what I may call "soft" information about the views of users is quite another matter. What exactly is it that the auditor would be expected to check? That surveys had been carried out?—surely not. It would have to be more than that—certainly to be on the face of the Bill. The survey would have to be a "proper" survey, whatever that may mean. It would have to be universal, or based on a representative sample. The questions would have to be relevant, well framed and unbiased. The survey methods would have to be appropriate. Those judgments are not the domain of the auditors. They are the domain of market researchers. It is entirely inappropriate to extend the audit function into this area.
Amendment No. 25 would require the Audit Commission to consult representatives of the users of local authority services before undertaking a study under this clause. So, whereas Amendment No. 24 would have effect at the local level, Amendment No. 25 is a roughly equivalent national provision. As regards consultation, I shall simply repeat the point I made earlier. The Commission is required by Clause 2(3) to consult such associations of relevant bodies and such other persons as it thinks fit. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that, where appropriate, that would include voluntary organisations. The noble Baroness made some important points about voluntary organisations. Their work dovetails with local authority services and, with community care on the horizon, will do so more in the future. Where appropriate this will extend to user groups which includes the voluntary sector.
However, Amendment No. 25 would extend the consultation to cover desirable levels of service and national standards. It is possible, from what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said earlier, that I may have confused Members of the Committee in regard to whether I used the words "levels of service" or "standards of service". I hope that I did not confuse the Committee, but in case I did I shall put on record precisely what we mean. It is important to note that we are not prescribing levels of service. It will be for local authorities to determine their own levels of service. We are, however, asking the commission to develop yardsticks against which those freely chosen levels of service can be measured. The standardisation is the standardisation of the measuring stick against which freely chosen local levels of service will be measured.
We have been through all this already. This is not a Bill to prescribe national standards for local authority services. The standards of service to be provided are, and will continue to be, a matter for local judgment. I am sure the Committee will agree that that is how it should be. At other times it has been the constant refrain of noble Lords opposite that this
60
Government have gone too far in usurping the powers and discretion of local government. I reject that allegation. Indeed I have been fighting a battle on this side of the Chamber for the freedom of local authorities to do just that—to determine their own levels of service. But I find it ironic that in this case at least the noble Lord sees hitherto undreamt of virtues in a centrally prescribed approach.
I am sure that many individual local authorities are already and will continue to be responsive to the demands of their local communities, including the users of local services and the local voluntary organisations. This Bill will ensure that the standards of service achieved by all authorities are publicly stated so that local people can see for themselves how well they are being served by their local council. But that is as far as we should go. I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: At this stage I wish to make a comment—no more than that —on the administration of the arrangements between local authorities and voluntary organisations. The financial position is extraordinarily difficult in that local authorities do not inform voluntary organisations until 31st March, if then, of what they will receive the following year, which starts on 1st April. The voluntary organisations have sometimes been forced to get rid of staff whom they do not want to get rid of and need not have got rid of had they known what they were to receive. I want to put that point on the record because it is one that needs to be considered.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that point. It is not strictly to do with the amendment but it is one which the Committee should take seriously. It will feature very much in the structural arrangements for local authorities and the way in which one local authority relates to another and indeed to its community, which includes the voluntary sector.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: One reason why local authorities may find it difficult to give an early answer to voluntary organisations is that they may be threatened with capping. If the knowledge of capping does not become available, as is likely, until February or March, there is little a local authority can do in terms of giving advance indications of non-statutory expenditure. The authority may be worried that it will be capped. I am not defending those authorities which delay unnecessarily, but capping is a major reason for delay, or could be next year.
Baroness Faithfull: This difficulty has been going on for years. It is not just connected with capping. The structure has been wrong.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I am not of the view that the amendments and the type of survey and audit that the amendments suggest are the way to tackle the problem but I beg my noble friend not to be sanguine about the user friendly aspect of local authorities. I can assure my noble friend that people are treated in a high-handed, cavalier and bureaucratic way; often

61
by chief officers, often by their social workers and often by their psychiatric social workers and their heads of department.
When I represented Gloucester in another place one of my constituents had a heart attack in the housing department. It was brought on by the aggravation she experienced. I could give many more anecdotes which would wipe away any feeling of confidence about the way users are dealt with by departments and chief officers. Moreover, the way in which complaints can be made through the local authority ombudsman, which involve a county councillor making a complaint, is not always satisfactory. The county councillor is not always accessible and the local authority ombudsman has to apply to the very department which is being complained about for evidence to counter the points which have been made. Therefore, although I do not support the amendment, I do not think that we can be confident or sanguine about the status quo.
Baroness Blatch: I can give my noble friend an absolute assurance that I am far from sanguine. She has graphically illustrated some of the problems pertaining to local government. However, if she will forgive me, I believe that we are talking about two different issues. First, we are talking about whether we can put on the face of the Bill measures which would allow the Audit Commission power to dabble in what are sometimes a variety of ways in which local authorities can test opinion. Therefore, it is difficult to bring forward a standard provision which would apply to all local authorities.
Secondly, I believe that my noble friend made an exceedingly important point. In my view, the measures in the Bill taken as a whole will do more to expose the good, bad and indifferent practices of local authorities and put in the hands of local people information in a form which is sufficiently understandable for them to make judgments about whether they are receiving good, bad or indifferent service from their local authorities. I hope that this will be the beginning of the end of cavalier treatment and high-handedness—treatment, as my noble friend pointed out, which has been meted out by local authority officials, and indeed by some local authority members, to their electorate. As I said, I hope that we will see an end to such treatment. I take on board the point made by my noble friend, but so far as concerns this amendment I do not believe that it is the mechanism for securing that aim.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for what she said in elucidation of her earlier statements. If I may say so, I believe that what she has said now is what we understood the Bill to say. I am glad that we are now talking the same language and using the same phrases. I do not doubt that the noble Baroness fights for local independence; but I fear that she is fighting her colleagues in government rather than those of us on this side of the Committee.
When we consider the whole issue of consulting users and providers of voluntary services, I believe that we ought to look at what happens now and what is proposed under the Bill. At present local authorities
62
pay for value-for-money studies. Such studies are carried out by the district auditor under the Audit Commission, and of course they are largely accountancy based; in other words, they are largely concerned with cost rather than customer satisfaction, quality of service or, for example—to return to the issue raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Mills—environmental impact.
That is all very well but it is not what I thought the Citizen's Charter was supposed to be about. Clauses 1 to 7 are an improvement on the position. They extend the range of issues to be considered from simply accountancy-based issues, although they are still largely to be devised by accountants within the Audit Commission. The reason we welcome much of the thrust of the Bill is exactly the extension of the considerations in the evaluation of local authority services. However, it still does not go far enough. The principal reason for that is that there is no real consultation with the users of services and with the providers of voluntary services, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, rightly said, are often more efficient than is the case with direct provision by local authorities.
Our whole thrust in talking about contracts in connection with earlier amendments was along those lines. The Minister said that I did not succeed in persuading the Committee. I am not proud of my powers of persuasion. But the noble Baroness knows as well as I do that the decision is taken by virtue of the number of people that the Whips can bring in rather than by my powers of persuasion. Therefore, I do not pay too much attention to that thrust of her argument.
There are ways of consulting users of services and of bringing in voluntary providers of services. In a paper published earlier this year, the Labour Party suggested that there should be local audit teams which could include an accountant, a representative of the district auditor, a service manager, other professionals and also representatives of consumers, and, indeed, consumers. I believe that "representatives of consumers" is perhaps something of a misnomer. There are ways of doing this on a local basis. Local authorities ought to have the power to experiment with ways of improving consultation with consumers other than at election time. Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 would make it more possible to do so.
I am sorry that the Government are still so set on the central government-Audit Commission-local authority tramline that they ignore those for whom the services are provided. Sadly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment; but it is possible that we shall return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Application to parish and community councils and charter trustees]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, leave out line 31.
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 28. As the Bill is drawn, it would allow the Secretary of State to bring parish and community councils within the provisions which we have discussed. I suggest to the Committee that we might go a little further than that and put it firmly into the arena of the parish and community councils in England and Wales that these are provisions to which they might like to be subject.
Amendment No. 28 would allow parishes to come into and be part of the system unless they opt out of it. The reason for that is that it would be, I suggest, an issue at local elections as to how parishes and community councils are running their affairs and whether they are scared of this sort of scrutiny or would welcome it. Our parishes carry out the most useful work. Although we by no means have the monopoly on this sentiment, we on these Benches believe that local services should be delivered at the most local level possible. Those of us who have served in local government in London must, I believe, regret that we do not have community councils here to replicate the good work carried on outside London by councils at that level.
I am not suggesting in the amendment that I have any doubts as to the standard of work which parishes and community councils taken overall are capable of achieving and indeed do achieve. However, making them as fully accountable as they should be, and as many of them would wish to be, to the democratic process seems to me to be a notion which I believe they might be quite open to adopt. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My name is attached to this amendment and, therefore, I rise to express my support for the noble Baroness. Having had some part in the drafting of the amendment, I am bound to say that I realise that the latter is defective. It was not our intention for the amendment to say that if a parish council wants to be excluded then it must be excluded. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me on that issue. I apologise for that defect.
I am sorry if I bore the Committee, but I must say that, as president of the Association for Neighbourhood Councils, I am strongly in favour not only of having active parish and neighbourhood councils but also of them being accountable to their electors. The thrust of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness seems to me to be entirely right. We on these Benches support it.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: The effect of Amendment No. 27 would be to exclude for all time parish and community councils from the performance indicator provisions of Clauses 1 to 3. The effect of Amendment No. 28 could be just the same: at the discretion of the councils themselves they would be excluded. As to paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 28, I should draw the
64
Committee's attention to the fact that subsection (3) (b) of Clause 4 already enables the Secretary of State to distinguish different cases.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends that parish and community councils should be left outside the scope of Clauses 1 to 3 for some time. He does not intend to extend those provisions to the smaller councils. However, the Committee is no doubt aware that the larger parish councils spend more than the smaller district councils and it would seem appropriate to bring such councils within the scope of the performance indicator provisions.
In order to bring in parish and community councils the Secretary of State would have to make an order under Clause 4(2). That procedure should be sufficient to ensure that an order could be debated, if it seemed inappropriate, on whatever grounds.
With that explanation of my right honourable friend's intentions, I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, but in doing so I should say that it is a subject to which we may wish to return and we may take a little longer to say in plain English what it is that we mean. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Complaints procedures
.—(1) The Commissioner for Local Administration shall agree with the local authority associations and such persons representative of consumers as appear to him to be concerned, a Code of Practice with respect to the establishment, implementation and publishing by local authorities of complaints procedures.
(2) Any local authority shall have regard to any code issued under subsection (1) above in establishing a complaints procedure as specified under this section.
(3) Any local authority shall monitor complaints received under a procedure established in accordance with this section and shall include a summary of the results in any annual report on its performance in relation to local standards issued to residents in its area.").
The noble Baroness said: So far we have had a series of amendments from this side of the Committee which have sought to increase the leverage that local electors have over their town, city and county halls. We have discussed, for example, an amendment, designed to provide better access to information which, alas, was not supported by the Government Benches. We have had an amendment to provide for annual elections which was also not supported by the Government Benches; and we have had an amendment designed to take account of the views of the users of services based on a survey. That also was not accepted by the Government Benches.
I shall try for a fourth time to increase the accountability of town, city and county halls to local people. I do so again in good faith and in the spirit of the Citizen's Charter by seeking to establish a proper complaints procedure which will help turn consumers

65
into customers. It would empower those receiving the services to obtain a sensitive and effective response when they are dissatisfied with them.
I suggest two things. First, the Government's Citizen's Charter provides that:
"It is fundamental to the Citizen's Charter that all public services, including local authorities, should have clear and well-publicised complaints procedures".
That of course is entirely right, but at the moment the Bill makes no such provision.
The amendment seeks to ensure that there is a proper complaints procedure on the face of the Bill, one that is based on consultations with the ombudsman who has been talking to local government associations on the issue. Accepting the amendment would tap into a series of discussions currently under way and acceptable to all parties. The second purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any such complaints procedure is monitored as part of the Audit Commission's assessment of a local authority's meeting of its performance standards. It would align the ombudsman's complaints procedure with the Audit Commission's attempts to help local authorities monitor their standards of performance. It is more important because one presumes that some of the quality tests of performance that the Audit Commission will seek to apply to value-for-money criteria—for example, standards of refuse collection—may well embody a number of complaints that the local authority receives, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said earlier, from the public about missing collections, spilt rubbish or gates left open.
I have the confidence to move such an amendment because there are already good precedents in many local authorities. I am sure that the Committee is aware that many local authorities have a complaints procedure. Harlow, for example, has its own local ombudsman; Islington has a central complaints service in the chief executive's office; Norwich—my authority—has a complaints procedure under its senior solicitor; Leicester has a departmental complaints structure; and Basildon has a well-established and well-publicised complaints procedure in various local offices. Many voluntary organisations such as, for example, Age Concern in the advice arcade in Norwich, have developed a complaints procedure.
A good complaints procedure ensures that individual citizens and customers have their grievances addressed speedily, sensitively and flexibly and allows local authorities to monitor the quality of service delivered so that complaints can be looped back into the development of the quality of local authority services. I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendment is transparently virtuous and will support it. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I certainly would not disagree with the general principle that local authorities should establish effective procedures to deal with complaints. Indeed the Commission for Local Administration has recently revised its guidance note for local authorities on the setting up of complaints procedures. Ministers have seen that commendable document on which the
66
commission is now consulting the local authority associations. The final version will then act as an aide memoire for local authorities setting up their own system for handling complaints and a checklist for those whose system is already established.
The commission has reported a trend by local authorities towards instituting well-run complaints procedures, but how they do it must remain a matter for individual authorities. The whole thrust of the Bill is designed to see the people as customers. I cannot accept that the amendment, apart from being a bureaucratic way of setting about things, deals with complaints procedures in the right way. It amounts to interference with the independence of local authorities.
There are in any case technical faults in the amendment. It is all very well to encourage local authorities, the Commission for Local Administration and consumers' representatives to consult on a code of practice, but can the law demand that those bodies "shall agree" that code? I am more than doubtful that such a requirement would be enforceable. Furthermore, the Committee will note that there is no attempt to define "complaints" or "complaints procedures" in the clause.
Those are matters for which individual authorities must take responsibility. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not know about the technicalities of the amendment: it may well be that it is technically incorrect, but I should have thought that the Government would have welcomed the ideas behind it. However, it might sound bureaucratic to say to local authorities that they should ensure that their ratepayers, charge payers or poll tax payers—call them what we will—can make their views and complaints heard. I always remember Mr. Darlow, who was the town clerk—they were called town clerks then, and they were very good administrators—of Reading saying that the two most important members of his staff were the telephonist and the town hall doorkeeper because they were the people who had the first contact with the electors and the ratepayers. He always believed it was most important that the ratepayers should have a proper means by which they could express their views and particularly their complaints over the way the local authority was running the town's affairs.
I have to say that we did not have a formal complaints procedure, as is suggested here, and, frankly, I think the town would have been better run if we had had such a procedure. Indeed, had we been able to have guidance and to learn from other areas we might have been able to ensure that the ratepayers of Reading had a better service than they did have. Of course they certainly had a very good service, but there was not a formally laid down way by which ratepayers could get through to the chief officers or their various departments, and indeed very often they were not able to get through to their councillors either.
The range of services is so diverse and the importance of the services is such that there must be a way in which local people can feel part of the administration and not apart from it. All too often we

67
hear people talk about "them"—meaning those in the town hall or in the civic offices—and all too often, when they feel abused by the decisions of the local authorities, they do not know where to go or how to complain. Certainly in the case of a large authority or of county-based authorities, where the administration may be very remote from the people the people feel completely frustrated and completely unable to make any impression at all on county hall and those who work there. I have had recent experiences of trying to get through to the highways department of Shire Hall in the county of Berkshire, but they simply will not listen and the reason is that they never hear you. You cannot get through to them. If there was a procedure whereby they had to listen, then ordinary people on the ground, the ratepayers who pay their salaries, would in fact be able to make their complaints heard; they would know how to do that. The local authority, too, would know that it had to respond.
Therefore I believe that the amendment which has been proposed by my noble friend, although it may be technically incorrect in some respects, has done a service by enabling us to discuss once again this problem of how people can make their voice heard, how they can get their complaint through to the people who can put the problem right, how we can make local government answerable to the people they are supposed to serve, and how local government can be made democratically accountable. Only in that way will local government become more efficient, which is what I believe we all want. As I have said, I hope the Government will consider what my noble friend has said, although I feel sure she will not press the amendment at this stage because it may be technically defective.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may just say to the noble Lord that I agree with the latter part of what he had to say, in that this amendment has provided a useful forum for discussing a most important subject. I did preface my remarks by saying that I fully accepted the general principle that proper and effective complaints procedures should be established by local authorities.
In practice, as we all know, most local authorities have informal complaints procedures which deal with the vast majority of shortcomings such as those mentioned just now by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. For formal complaints, the local government ombudsman is there as a long-stop. However, I feel that, in its general thrust, the amendment represents a bureaucratic overlay on what should be a natural procedure.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his charming reply. He offered three arguments for resisting the amendment: first, he believed that it would interfere with "the independence of local government"; secondly, that the complaints were difficult to define—I am not sure that he entirely convinced himself of his own argument on that—and, thirdly, that the amendment was defective. That point was picked up by my noble friend Lord Stoddart.
68
On the point that it was bureaucratic and interfered with the independence of local government, I find this apparent switch of roles and the reversal of language really very curious. What we on this side of the Committee do not want is independence of local government from its citizens or its electors. We want to make local government more dependent on its citizens and its electors, more sensitive to them and more steered by them. We want to seek the independence of local government from the prescriptive, arrogant and uniform, to quote a phrase, of the Secretary of State. I think it is that which perhaps marks the difference between us.
The Minister said that complaints were difficult to define and went on to say that most local authorities had an informal complaints procedure. Above that, he said—and of course he was entirely right—there was the formal structure of the ombudsman. We are seeking to put what I might call a formal and bureaucratic complaints procedure below that of the ombudsman—formal and bureaucratic in the best sense and not the worst—meaning that the procedure is known, publicised, porous and get-at-able. The problem is that too often informal complaints procedures rely on whether a person has the confidence to come forward, whether they know a councillor who will help them to take up a complaint, whether a person happens to know an individual officer in the department concerned, or "knows their way around" and knows how to reach "them" inside the corporation, as mentioned by my noble friend.
Therefore we are seeking a known and formalised complaints procedure which the most anonymous person can use in order to have complaints registered. The Government's own Citizen's Charter says that it is fundamental that all public services, including local authorities, should have a clear and well publicised complaints procedure. If the Minister accepts that, how does he propose to translate that statement in the Citizen's Charter on to the face of the Bill, given that this Bill is meant to embody the Citizen's Charter? I ask him to tell us how he proposes to do that. Given that he has said he is sympathetic to the principle behind this amendment—and of course I accept what he says about the amendment being technically defective—can we count on the Minister's support in drafting another amendment which is not technically defective, which would translate the spirit of the Citizen's Charter on to the face of the Bill, and which all Members of your Lordships' Chamber would be invited to support?
Earl Howe: I do not think this a matter for the face of the Bill: that is the first point. The second point is, yes indeed, the Citizen's Charter is very strong on complaints procedures but, as I said in my initial response, the guidance note that the Commission for Local Administration has just produced will act as a very strong motivator indeed to local authorities. It is by that means that we intend to achieve the objective we all share.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall withdraw the amendment, but I may wish to return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Duty to consider auditor's report or recommendation]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert:
("(1A) Before sending any report or document containing a written recommendation to which subsection (1) above applies, the auditor shall discuss with the body concerned which of the measures available to him would be most appropriate to be made applicable in the circumstances.").
The noble Baroness said: At the moment when an auditor's report is made to a local authority, the contents of that report are discussed in draft. That is quite right and sensible. As someone who has been at the receiving end of such discussions, I find that a useful and helpful exercise. The kind of report that the auditor can make can range from a qualification of the accounts to a report made in the public interest before the conclusion of an audit. It can be a report made in the public interest at the conclusion of an audit. It may take the form of a management letter or, least threatening of all, a conventional management letter about procedural arrangements. There is a variety or hierarchy of responses which the Audit Commission may make when responding to a local authority's accounts Its and when it seeks to suggest a change of practice.
The amendment acknowledges that the contents of the report are already discussed with a local authority but it seeks the support of the Government to suggest that the style in which an auditor brings forward his report should also be discussed. A council must discuss in public its response and it must publish that response. We are prescriptive about saying that the relevant meeting must be held within four months. We are also prescriptive about saying that a council must publish notice of that meeting. It must also publish the response once the outcome has been established.
A letter may be sent out that consists of a conventional management letter drawing attention to a changing pattern of rent arrears, for example. If a report in the public interest is being produced, it may be concerned with car parking moneys that have been handled less than fastidiously. If the report is a report made in the public interest during the process of an audit, it may concern a serious matter such as the Hammersmith and Fulham swaps, or it may, if they are worried about the financial arrangements for debt collection, be a qualified approval of accounts.
All those different styles of report send out different signals not just to a local authority but also to a local authority's electorate. That is quite correct. We are asking about the style that should be adopted. That affects the signals that are sent about about the gravity and nature of the auditor's response. Therefore we are asking that the style of the report should be first discussed with a local authority before the report is published in draft form. I do not believe the amendment compromises anyone's integrity but I believe it may aid clarity and mutual understanding. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I can see that bodies which may be in receipt of a report or recommendation would like to
70
influence the auditor as to the exact form in which he makes his views known to them. That is only natural, given that the procedural implications could be quite significant. However, I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to consider whether it is necessary to legislate for what, I am assured, already takes place in practice.
Under the legislation already on the statute book and under the Code of Audit Practice, auditors already have a number of options open to them: they can make a report in the public interest which may be either an immediate report or a report at the end of an audit; or they can make a recommendation. The Bill provides a further option; a recommendation requiring a formal response. I am convinced that we can leave matters, as now, to auditors guided by the Code of Audit Practice and, if it seemed that further guidance were needed, I am sure the Audit Commission (or Scottish Accounts Commission) would amend the Code of Audit Practice.
After consultation with local authorities, the style of a report should be a matter for the Audit Commission and not for the local authority. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the thrust of the amendment. I hope the Minister will take account of the sentiments expressed here. I regret that I cannot give the Committee more detail on this matter than that contained in my notes, which tell me that the existing hierarchy of reports is contained in the Code of Audit Practice, which was approved by Parliament in November 1990. If further approval or amendment is required to that code of practice to incorporate provisions in the spirit of this amendment, I hope the Minister will consider that in a favourable light.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness makes the point that it may well be timely for the Audit Commission to reconsider its code of practice in the light of the provisions of this Bill, if and when it reaches the statute book. The important point here is that it must be for the Audit Commission to determine how the report will be produced. It is not for a local authority to dictate in what form it should be produced. It is important that there is consultation with a local authority prior to a report being made.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I hope I have read Amendment No. 30 correctly. It states:
"Before sending any report or document containing a written recommendation to which subsection (1) above applies, the auditor shall discuss with the body concerned which of the measures available to him would be most appropriate to be made applicable in the circumstances".
I believe that the operative word in the amendment is "discuss". That measure would not give a local authority the right to dictate any provisions. All it gives the local authority is the right to engage in discussion about the most appropriate means by which the auditor's report is to be published and made available.
I thought the Minister was telling us earlier that she welcomed the widest possible range of discussion. I do not believe there is a wall between a district auditor

71
and a local authority. I thought they were supposed to be working together—not against each other—for the benefit of ratepayers, chargepayers or poll tax payers. I do not know what we are supposed to call those people. In this amendment we are merely asking for a discussion on this matter. What is wrong with that? Why is the Minister resisting an amendment which is merely asking for a discussion of an auditor's report before anything is published? Will the Minister say what is wrong with my reading of the amendment?
Baroness Blatch: What is important is that the discussions that are relevant between the Audit Commission and the local authority concern the content of the report; in other words, what the Audit Commission is making a report on. It is important that that happens. However, the Audit Commission must be left free to determine for itself the way in which that report shall be published. That is the distinction we are making. It is not appropriate to state on the face of the Bill that that view should be influenced by the local authority as regards the style in which the report is produced rather than its content.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Bearing in mind that a local authority will know the local circumstances and the best way in which a document may be publicised, would it not be desirable for that local authority at least to be able to put forward a point of view? The amendment only seeks a discussion on this matter. In the final analysis, the decision is for the Audit Commission to make.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sure the noble Lord is entirely correct. I wish to make it clear that in no sense does the amendment seek to compromise the integrity of the Audit Commission or the auditor's findings on the performance of individual services within the local authority. Those of us who have been involved in local government, including the Minister, know that when local auditors, or the auditor from the Audit Commission, are concerned about a matter, whether it be rent arrears, debt collection, car parking or the cost of modernisation in a particular authority, they discuss those matters with the local authority to try to establish why the patterns of one authority are deviant—or apparently deviant—from the patterns they might expect. They might say they are concerned that management and supervision procedures are not stringent enough to produce good value for money.
We are seeking recognition that the form in which the auditors publish their reports is part of the message or content of what they are saying. They have discussed with us a certain area of anxiety. The form in which they express that anxiety reflects the degree of seriousness they attach to it. That is why we seek to bring the form of the Audit Commission's response, together with the content of the auditors' response, into the discussions between local authorities and their auditors.
The Minister referred to discussion between the Audit Commission and the authority. We are talking about independent auditors and local authorities on the one hand and auditors and the commission on the
72
other. We seek to make it clear that the form in which auditors present their reports represents part of their statements concerning the seriousness of the contents of those reports and should be discussed with local authorities in precisely the same way as the contents of the draft report is currently discussed. That is why we have moved the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I have been using the term Audit Commission where I ought to have referred to the local authority's auditor. Paragraph 8(d) refers to the duties of an auditor and states that the auditor must be concerned for action. That is important. It is the nature of the exercise. It continues:
"The auditor's work must be characterised by a constructive attitude. His or her aim must be to assist members of authorities and their officers, but the auditor must not hesitate to pursue conclusions even to the point of qualification of the report in the public interest where necessary".
I do not believe that there is a great deal between us. The debate is important, but it is about the nature and content of the report and the reason for the report as opposed to the independent right of the auditor to publish in the way he or she thinks fit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: At this time of night it is probably appropriate to withdraw the amendment. However, I believe that the Government are trying to make a distinction which is not appropriate. However, in deference I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage should resume at 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Welsh Development Agency Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Order 1991
7.2 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draft order was approved in another place on 21st November 1991. Before the enactment of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 it was not usually possible to serve a summons arising from an oil pollution incident on the foreign owner of a ship. As he is generally outwith the jurisdiction of our courts it has not been possible to prosecute him and compel him to appear to answer charges. Consequently any prosecution has had to be directed at the master of the ship. That is unsatisfactory because it has resulted in penalties which do not properly reflect the seriousness of the offence and serve as a deterrent to others.
During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill last year a clause was added which enabled foreign owners to be prosecuted for pollution offences committed by their ships. The Act deals with that objective in two ways: first, by addressing pollution incidents in ports and harbours by amendment of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971, and, secondly, by allowing pollution incidents in United Kingdom waters to be similarly covered by an amendment to the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1983. The legislation dealing with ports and harbours has already come into force and it now remains to apply the provisions to offences committed within our territorial waters.
Under these amendments, a ship which has discharged oil into the waters of a port or harbour, or into the territorial seas of the United Kingdom, may be detained. It may be released on conclusion of the hearing and the payment of any penalties imposed or, in advance of the hearing, on the security of a bond of £55,000. A summons is deemed to have been properly served on the foreign owner of a ship if it is correctly served on the ship's master. The courts are already empowered to impose a penalty on a company which has been properly served with a summons even if it is not represented in court.
If any fine, costs or compensation ordered is not paid the ship may be sold to defray those charges. There are, of course, safeguards for the owner so that, for example, a ship must be released from its bond or detention if proceedings are not started within seven days. There is also provision to repay surplus funds remaining after any penalties, costs or compensation ordered have been paid. The court is also able to order that part or all of any fine imposed may be used to pay for the costs of cleaning up the pollution.
I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Earl Howe.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order briefly. I should like to pose one or two questions. It is an order which we welcome wholeheartedly. It has emerged from a very complicated backcloth of legislation. As the noble Earl said, there were a number of very serious gaps in terms of the ability to prosecute the foreign owner of a vessel allegedly responsible for oil pollution offences. One aspect of those lacunae has been the difficulty in prosecuting foreign owners in practice.
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 provided considerable help in enforcing penalties which were prescribed by the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1986 and by amending the principle Act, the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971. The provision that service on the master is proper service of proceedings on a foreign company as the owner of the vessel is desirable. So is the power to detain a vessel in certain circumstances and to confer powers on the harbour master to determine what security has to he provided.
A number of issues arise from the draft order, and I should like to concentrate on those. I have deliberately not mentioned all of the benefits which
74
flow from the legislation which precedes the order and upon which it is based. The most important are the service of documents, the power to detain the vessel, enforcement against the vessel and a contribution to the cost of repairing the damage. That is action which the international community should have been working towards with greater vigour than has been the case. Nonetheless, progress is now being registered.
The service of documents is extremely important. Measures to enable enforcement of the pollution regulations against the owners of the vessel are necessary. One of the problems in the past, as I understand it—and perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm it—has been the fact that it has only been possible to enforce action against the master. In most circumstances that has resulted in a smaller fine than was appropriate for the offence being imposed, because Section 35 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 requires the court to take into consideration the means of the accused. That has prevented full implementation of the Marpol requirement contained in Article 4(4) to the effect that the penalty specified under the law of the party pursuant to the convention shall be adequate in severity to discourage violations of the convention, which is in effect what the Minister said. In the case of John v. Wright, decided in 1980, a fine of £25,000 imposed on a master was held by the High Court of Justiciary to be harsh and oppressive and it was reduced to £750. If the court enforces against the owner, consideration of the means of the individual is less likely to restrict the award, so that is certainly to be welcomed.
As to the power to detain, there is a strong argument that the statutory limit of £50,000 for a summary fine should be replaced by a much higher limit in the circumstances that we are discussing, which are sui generis in a way and should therefore be treated separately, so that magistrates could impose a fine on an owner representing the true value of the loss or clean-up operations. In those circumstances, the vessel would not then be released until adequate security had been provided. Most cases will, after all, be dealt with by local magistrates in port areas who will have built up considerable expertise in that field and can be trusted to deal with the matter in a balanced way.
I pray in aid a similar argument to the next point; namely, the contribution to the cost of repairing the damage. Section 20(2) of the 1971 Act provides that the court may order the whole of part of a fine to be used to defray the expenses of making good the damage caused by the offence. It would be a good thing if that provision were reflected strongly in the regulations. The determination of the level of fine should be influenced by the cost of remedying the damage. Although I recognise that that involves an element of compensation, compensation is no longer unknown to the criminal law.
For those reasons, I do not think that the present limits represent the criterion that the Minister himself invoked; namely, that the fine should represent the severity of the offence or act as a deterrent to others. It is perfectly true that the Crown might decide to

75
pursue the matter on indictment in the Crown Court. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us how many such cases have been dealt with in the Crown Court in the past year or so. Perhaps he will have to write to me about that matter unless help is available from some unknown quarter.
As I said, we welcome the fact that the Government have at long last moved against irresponsible owners, no longer confining their concentration to the acts of irresponsible masters and officers. That is right because owners rather than masters are responsible in so many ways for damage that is caused, whether to the environment or to life or limb. They are responsible for enabling geriatric ships to go to sea which should not be at sea at all and which might escape the rigours of port-state control. Owners rather than masters are responsible for poor crewing conditions, and owners as well as masters allow poor safety conditions to prevail on board. I hope and expect that, as a result of the regulations, a much more dynamic and effective series of actions will be taken to deal with those owners who, by what they do or often by what they do not do through inertia, should shoulder responsibility for acts of pollution, oil and chemical, as they have not done in the past.
It is extraordinary that in about the past six years some 1,136 incidents have been discovered of ships being in breach of regulations, yet only two prosecutions have resulted, one ship has been detained in port and one prohibition order or improvement notice issued. Why has there been such a poor record of prosecution? It is simply not enough to say, as the junior Minister did in another place on 21st November, that some of the 1,290 reported incidents that occurred between 1985 and recently have been small. I cannot accept that out of those 1,290 cases only two prosecutions should have resulted and the other consequences followed in two other cases. It is simply not good enough.
To achieve the purpose that the order sets out, I want to know from the Minister whether there is an adequate number of inspectors to ensure that the law is properly enforced. Will he tell us what is the number of inspectors available to deal with the matter? If there is an inadequate number, do the Government plan to recruit any more inspectors; and, if not, why not? Having raised those points, the Opposition wish to associate themselves with the purposes behind the order.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of the measure. Perhaps I may take his points in turn, in so far as I am able at present.
The noble Lord mentioned first the difficulty in practice of prosecuting offenders and polluters. That is perfectly true. The difficulty is a practical one which surrounds obtaining adequate evidence to demonstrate that pollution has occurred. If a prosecution for an illegal operational discharge is to succeed, two forms of evidence may be presented. The first is to obtain a sample of the oil from both the vessel concerned and the polluted area so they can be analysed and shown to match. Alternatively, clear photographs of the area supported by a statement
76
from the photographers, or ultraviolet or infra-red imagery can now be put to the court. At times, for obvious reasons, it may be difficult to obtain acceptable evidence.
The noble Lord said that there has been a poor record of prosecutions given that, as he rightly said, 1,290 reports of pollution have been made to the Marine Pollution Control Unit since January 1985. Admittedly, many of those incidents are minor, but the trend is not a healthy one. The reason for so few prosecutions is partly, as I said, the difficulty of obtaining evidence. The other reason is that often the pollution incident does not occur within our territorial waters. In those cases we refer the ship to the flag state under the oil pollution convention. Since January 1985, 49 foreign ships have been referred to flag states for alleged pollution offences in British territorial waters. Of those, 16 were fined in the flag states and the remainder were either found not guilty or there was insufficient evidence to instigate proceedings. Once again, it is a question of difficulty in obtaining evidence.
The noble Lord also mentioned the difficulty in the past of serving a writ on the master of the ship. He is right. For reasons that we can appreciate, the master of the ship is often of limited means and, on conviction, the courts are usually reluctant to impose a substantial penalty on him. That in turn does not persuade the owner of the ship to ensure that pollution of ports and harbours should be avoided. Often, even if a substantial fine is imposed, it is reduced on appeal, so that is one of the strongest reasons for introducing a measure of this nature.
The noble Lord went on to say that the magistrates should have powers to charge higher fines than the £50,000 which is the maximum fine that a magistrates' court can impose. It is possible for magistrates to refer cases of that kind to the Crown Court. They are triable either way. Nevertheless £50,000 is a very high amount for magistrates to impose as a fine. The problem usually is to get them to impose the maximum and not that the maximum is too low. Some offences relate to pollution and some to safety. For those offences where £50,000 can be imposed it is rare for the maximum to be imposed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. Perhaps he will write to me on this matter. The point I made was not that the fine is inadequate in relation to the master, but in relation to the owner. A £50,000 fine on a master can be a heavy burden taking into account the means of the defendant. However, when we talk of the owner, we enter a totally different situation.
Perhaps the noble Earl will also comment on this point. It is difficult in the circumstances to order a trial on indictment. There are difficulties of getting people before the court. Will he be kind enough to write to me about the generality of the fining process in relation to the new ideas that the Government have generated in the order?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord on the latter point. However, it is not the

77
intention of this measure to criminalise masters of ships The measure seeks to get behind the master to the owner.
The noble Lord asked how many cases there have been in our courts. Since January 1985 no UK ships have been prosecuted for pollution offences in UK territorial waters. Three UK ships have been prosecuted and fined for pollution offences outside UK waters. Unfortunately, no statistics are available to me on the prosecution of UK ships within UK ports and harbours.
The noble Lord asked about the number of inspectors. The percentage of PSC inspections carried out by the department surveyors has consistently exceeded the 25 per cent. level prescribed for visiting ships by the memorandum of understanding. In 1990 that percentage went up to 34.4 per cent. after falling slightly in the previous two years. During 1988 and 1989 a number of department marine surveyors reached retirement age and new personnel had to be recruited and trained. In addition, there was a change in emphasis from simple volume targets to a greater attention to the quality and thoroughness of each inspection. That change has helped to identify deficiencies which might otherwise have gone undetected. In addition, the department expects to reach international agreement shortly which will enable greater coverage of operational practices and procedures. Priority is already being given to those aspects of the inspection programme. I shall write to the noble Lord on the precise number of inspectors.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, again I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. Perhaps when he writes to me he will indicate the numbers in each of the years over the past five years. Will he also indicate whether the Government propose to recruit more?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall be happy to do so. With that information, I trust that we may conclude the debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord. The thrust of the measure is to give the law some additional teeth. I hope, as I am sure does the noble Lord, that it will be successful in that respect. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) (No. 2) Order 1991
7.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) (No. 2) Order 1991 be approved. The purpose of the order is to amend the Building Societies Act 1986 in one respect to bring it into line with present company law.
Section 110 of the Building Societies Act makes void any provision in the rules of a building society or in any contract which exempts any director, other
78
officer or auditor of a building society from liability to the society in respect of negligence and other defaults. It is very similar to Section 310 of the Companies Act 1985 but in present circumstances this can bear very heavily upon directors of building societies, as in the case of companies, and could well inhibit suitably qualified people from accepting appointment as building society directors.
The corresponding provision in the Companies Act 1985 was changed by the Companies Act 1989, Section 137, which permits companies to purchase and maintain insurance against the relevant liabilities for directors and auditors of companies and it was desired to make a similar change for building societies.
Section 104 of the Building Societies Act enables the Treasury by order to make modifications of certain provisions of the Act, called the relevant provisions, for the purpose of assimilating those provisions to corresponding provisions of the Companies Acts where those are modified by subsequent legislation. The relevant provisions, however, did not include Section 110 of the Building Societies Act, but that section has now been added to the relevant provisions in Section 104 by Section 211(1) of the Companies Act 1989, which has now been brought into force by the Companies Act 1989 (Commencement No. 12 and Transitional Provision) Order 1991. Accordingly the way is now clear, subject to approval of this Motion, for an order in the terms of the draft before the House to enable building societies to effect insurance to cover their directors against the heavy liabilities which they may incur by negligence or other forms of inadvertence in the same way as has been done for company directors. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee] —(Lord Henley.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston has spoken to me on the matter. Having studied the order with care, we on this side of the Chamber have no objection to it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful for the care which the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Peston, have given to the order. I am glad that they welcome it. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.27 until 8 p.m.]

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 6, line 7, after ("above") insert:
("(aa) to any magistrates' court committee).
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 33. Amendment No. 32 is modest and straightforward. There should be no difficulty in taking it on board. The Bill provides that auditor's reports be scrutinised by the council of the local authority. That is entirely right and correct. However, the issues which the auditor's report raises may, first, touch on the administration or personnel and financing of magistrates' courts, 25 per cent. of the costs of which come from local authorities. Secondly, they may touch equally on the competence and capacity of individual schools and FE colleges to handle their cash budgets under LMS. However, the Bill contains no provision for the magistrates' courts committees or the governors of local schools and FE colleges to consider an auditor's report which may directly affect them. Would it not be sensible that they too should receive and respond to the reports, especially if the reports are critical of their performance? We suggest that the discipline of receiving and discussing the auditor's reports should apply to all bodies under his purview. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: There is a good point underlying Amendment No. 32. Under the present law the Audit Commission has no right of access to the accounts of magistrates' courts committees, although its auditors as part of their routine work audit the accounts of local authorities, which in accordance with the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 are responsible for paying magistrates' courts committees' expenses. The position of magistrates' courts committees is therefore different from that of probation committees, which are within the value for money scrutiny of the Audit Commission and its auditors. It is not easy to see the reasons for this difference or why the magistrates' courts service should not have the full benefits of Audit Commission review and advice.
The difficulty with this amendment is that it would go too far in the other direction. It would equate magistrates' courts committees with local authorities even though probation committees are outside the scope of Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. The two committees have specialised management responsibilities and are not elected by the general public. As regards the independent and non-political administration of justice, there are good reasons why the normal requirements of accountability to local government electors, and hence the provision of Clauses 5 and 6, should not apply in that case.
There remains the question of whether the Audit Commission should have a greater role in relation to the magistrates' courts service than it now has. Members of the Committee will be aware that the Government have had under consideration for some time the recommendations of a scrutiny of the service to the effect that it should be reconstituted on a national basis as an executive agency of the Home Office. There have been extensive consultations on the scrutiny report with interested bodies and the Government hope to announce their conclusions shortly. The involvement of the Audit Commission is of course bound up with the outcome, which I cannot anticipate today. I should, however, like to take
80
careful note of the points made by the noble Baroness and to draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary with a view to considering the possibility of a government amendment at a later stage in relation to the remit of the Audit Commission in this area.
As regards Amendment No. 33, auditors' reports on local authorities may already cover schools and colleges. However, I think I understand what Members of the Committee opposite have in mind—that the local education authority will not be in a position to answer at open meetings for spending decisions taken in schools and colleges, because the discretion over that spending has been delegated to the governing bodies of those institutions.
But when it comes to matters of audit the duties of local authority chief finance officers are unchanged by local management. Schemes of local management specifically allow the chief finance officer access to any information in those institutions which is needed for audit purposes; and ultimately, if institutions fail to spend the money put at their discretion satisfactorily, the local education authority may withdraw delegation under the Education Reform Act. Consequently it is right to make the local authority answerable in open meetings for the probity of public funds spent in these institutions, just as elsewhere within the authority. The right way of so doing is through the mechanism set out in this Bill.
Perhaps I should say a few words about value for money rather than audit. Members of the Committee may be wondering how the local authority can properly comment on the value for money and the quality of service delivered in schools and colleges when the discretion over the spending decisions rests with the governors. The solution is that governors should be answerable for this—and that is just what we have already done. Under the Education (No.2) Act 1986, governors have to publish annual reports on their schools which, among other items, give details of how the schools' money is spent. The governors must then hold a public meeting for parents at which the report can be discussed. Before long, Members of the Committee will have the opportunity to debate a Bill, currently in another place, which reforms the arrangements for school inspections. School governors will have to publish inspection reports and will be held to account by parents and the local community for the quality of education which has been delivered in their school.
As regards colleges of further education, Members of the Committee will know that another Bill which is currently before this House takes these colleges out of the local authority sector and establishes them as independent institutions, funded by further education funding councils. The Further and Higher Education Bill provides for the quality of education provided in the colleges to be assessed and for the establishment of a quality assessment committee. We should leave the discussion on those detailed arrangements for the Committee stage on that Bill, which will begin shortly. I have no doubt that this Chamber will address them with its usual vigour. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, in particular her response to the point about magistrates' courts. I hope that after consulting the legal draftsmen we can both return to the matter at a later stage. I take her point that perhaps a more appropriate way to deal with the LMS and FE colleges is in other education Bills. It is pleasant to acknowledge even so late in the day that we share the common perspective of making public moneys publicly accountable through the auditing procedure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Publication of information by the Audit Commission]:
[Amendment Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Application of competitive tendering to professional services etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 12, leave out from ("make") to second ("for") in line 24 and insert ("provision applicable on a common basis to any defined activity within the meaning of Part I of the 1988 Act").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we come to the second part of Part I—Clauses 8 to 11, which are concerned with compulsory competitive tendering. I shall not repeat the arguments which we had on Second Reading and when we considered the instruction to the Committee about the propriety of including those clauses at all.
In speaking to this amendment I wish to concentrate on one aspect to which I referred in the debate on the Queen's Speech but which has not received much attention since; that is, the provision at the beginning of Clause 8 that:
"The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications of Part I of the 1988 Act … as he thinks fit",
for various purposes.
It seems to me that that is a classic example of an issue which has recently concerned Members of this Chamber; that is, what is called the Henry VIII provision. I am not sure why it is called that. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will complete my extremely inadequate legal education on this matter. However, for me its impact is the power given to a Secretary of State by order, by secondary legislation, to amend primary legislation. Every time that that has been attempted, there has been forceful protest in this Chamber. There have been occasions when such a protest has resulted in action.
Clause 8(1) gives power by order to amend Part I of the Local Government Act as the Secretary of State thinks fit for the purpose of adding professional advice or services or other services to the list subject to compulsory competitive tendering under that Act. We cannot know, because it is left to secondary legislation, what services will be added even after the current consultation period which ends on 31st January 1992. In addition to the complaints which we have already made about the unsatisfactory nature of
82
those four clauses and the fact that the consultation is simultaneous with, and will outlive, the consideration of the Bill in this Chamber, there is the additional objection that this clause gives the Secretary of State power by order to amend primary legislation.
We shall not be impressed by arguments that the powers given are relatively restricted. That is not the point. The point is that primary legislation should not be amended except by primary legislation. There should be no provision to make that possible.
Our amendment takes out from "make" in line 12 to the second "for" in line 24; that is, it takes out the part up to the introduction to Clause 8(2). In case there is any confusion about this, I should say that a later amendment, Amendment No. 83, purports to take out a section from the first "for" in line 24. That is a misprint. It is intended that it should be butted on to Amendment No. 37 and not to the first "for" in line 24. I believe that we tabled the amendment without realising to which "for" it was intended to apply. I apologise for that but when we reach Amendment No. 83 we shall see that it makes sense only if applied to the second "for" and not to the first "for".
The amendment takes out a part of Clause 8(1) and a part of Clause 8(2). However, it does not take out the whole purpose of Clause 8. It removes the parts which are most offensive to Parliament. It remodels the clause giving the effect that the Secretary of State still has powers by order to make provision but he can make common provision applicable to any existing service under the 1988 Act for the purpose of evaluating quality and financial terms.
I hope that that explanation is sufficiently clear to enable Members of the Committee to realise that this amendment addresses an extremely important issue in legislation. It is not a wrecking amendment. It leaves powers in the Bill which are consistent with existing legislation. If the Government are not satisfied with what is done in this amendment, they can bring back such amendments as they think fit at a later stage or in another place. However, it is vital that the Committee should now agree that Henry VIII legislation is not acceptable to this Chamber and must be resisted at all costs. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I must argue not only as regards the generality, because clearly it does not apply in every case, but if secondary legislation were not to be accepted in this Chamber, we should not be able to cope with the minutiae which would appear on the face of Bills. I believe that that is what the noble Lord said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I never suggested that there should be no secondary legislation. No party which intends to take part in government could ever say that. I said that secondary legislation should not be allowed to amend primary legislation at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Baroness Blatch: I assume that the intended effect of the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to provide by order that CCT for the work already subject to CCT under the Local Government Act 1988

83
should involve a two-stage tendering procedure in which the quality of tenders should be evaluated first and the evaluation of costs should take place subsequently.
It is important that quality should be safeguarded in the provision of services such as refuse collection and street cleaning which are already subject to CCT under the 1988 Act. There are many in local government who will readily agree that the identification and improvement of the quality of service provision has been one of the most significant results of CCT, because of the need for local authorities to prepare detailed specifications of the work involved as a basis for the tendering exercise. Research carried out for us by the Institute of Local Government Studies at Birmingham has shown that even as cost savings have come through from CCT so the standards of service have generally been upheld and, in some cases, raised. In the light of that experience, we see no need to import separate evaluation of quality and cost into the tendering procedures for the work already subject to CCT.
The quality of all services, whether manual or professional, is important. However, we recognise that the nature of the work carried out by professional employees is different from the manual services, not least because of the intellectual content of professional services. We have not said that we shall definitely specify a two-stage tendering procedure for all professional services subject to CCT. In our consultation paper we have said that we are prepared to consider modifying the existing CCT requirements in this way, but we intend to listen carefully to the points made by respondents to our paper before making up our minds.
As Members of the Committee have been reminded a number of times, both Houses will have an opportunity to decide whether or not they like the regulations when they are brought before Parliament. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has clearly identified, having spotted it on Second Reading, a constitutional objection to the clause. With all respect, the noble Baroness has not met the point he made at all. As the noble Lord said, this is a Henry VIII provision. It is so called because it is a power similar to that given to Henry VIII by the Statute of Proclamations to amend by ministerial decree an Act of Parliament. That is what this provision does. That became a matter of contention between Parliament and the Executive for 150 years.
The right of Parliament to legislate was, in a famous phrase, the cause for which Hampden died in the field and Sidney on the scaffold. It was by their efforts and the efforts of others that the matter was resolved in favour of Parliament in 1688 and 1689.
For the best part of two centuries there was no further attempt by the Executive to usurp the function of Parliament and to govern by decree—ministerial order. It was tried again innocuously at the end of the 19th Century in an Act that will be well known to those noble Lords who are experts on local government. It was the Act which set up the county
84
councils as the administrative governors of the counties in place of the justices sitting at Quarter Sessions. For that to be done there had to be elections to the county council and a date fixed for those elections. However, it was not certain whether the machinery would be ready in time. The Secretary of State, the Minister, was therefore given power to alter the date if it was inconvenient, indeed impossible, to carry through the machinery by the date specified in the Act of Parliament.
That is a good example of the circumstances in which a Henry VIII provision is excusable. It was not merely convenient to the Executive; it was necessary that the Secretary of State should be given that power. Inevitably, since such is the nature of power, to aggrandise power—that is the corrupting element in the exercise of power—what was used innocuously was afterwards used in a way that was open to objection.
Up till around 1930 and increasingly, the Henry VIII provision was inserted into Acts of Parliament to mounting alarm, so much so that at the beginning of the 1930s an extremely powerful committee—the Donoughmore Committee—was set up to review the whole question of delegated legislation. What it said in regard to the Henry VIII provision—calling it by that name—was that it was a serious inroad on parliamentary prerogatives: that it should be used only when it was not merely convenient but necessary. That was accepted. Until quite recently, from 1932 onwards, except for one isolated example at the beginning of the 1970s, there was no attempt to resuscitate this unconstitutional power.
Around five Sessions ago, simultaneously in one Session, in three Bills there were attempts to revive this ministerial power by decree; to amend, to terminate and to add to an Act of Parliament. It came under specific attention in the Children Act. It did so partly because a constitutional lawyer, the late Lord Elwyn-Jones, was leading in criticism of that measure and partly because my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was in charge of it. My noble and learned friend was asked specifically on that occasion, and again in the following year in the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill, whether the Government accepted the recommendation of the Donoughmore Committee. He said that in general they did. He said that on more than one occasion.
The alarming point is that in the next Session his assurance was disregarded, and disregarded in a startling way. It occurred during the passage of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. The Executive sought to take power to amend an Act of Parliament in such a way that it altered a fiscal charge on the individual citizen and thereby a charge on public funds. What is more, it made such decree only subject to the negative resolution procedure. That was objected to in the other place and the Government then undertook that it should be the affirmative resolution procedure. However, that was not good enough for your Lordships, quite rightly, as the watchdogs of the constitution. Your Lordships insisted, in a Division against the Government, in expunging that Henry

85
VIII provision from the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. That was accepted and everybody hoped that it would be the end of that particular business.
However, it has again been sought recently to re-infiltrate those provisions. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, rightly said that it is narrowly defined in the Bill. That merely means that it can be easily amended—made the subject of amendment by primary legislation. There is no call for a Henry VIII provision at all. The noble Baroness, who has done so valiantly on the Bill, fortunately has an easy task in answering the points made on the provision; that is, to say that the provision is not merely convenient—of course it is convenient for the Executive—but that it is necessary, and why it is necessary.
I have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It seems to me to be a shameful thing that this matter should be debated late at night in an empty Chamber. That denies your Lordships your position as watchdogs of the constitution and detailed scrutineers of the Bills presented to Parliament. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: It is with some trepidation that I rise to take issue with both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble and learned Lord said that he saw no need for the provision and invited me to give good reason for the use of this specific power.
First, I do not accept that it is a Henry VIII provision. The provision cannot allow the Secretary of State to govern by decree, as the noble and learned Lord claims. Any order made under Clause 8 will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses. Furthermore, we set out clearly the outlines of how we propose to use the power in the consultation document.
It is known that the Secretary of State has the power vested in him by the 1988 Act to extend compulsory competitive tendering. However, given the extension to some of the more professional services that we have outlined during the course of today, it is necessary to provide regulations which recognise both the complexity of establishing tendering arrangements for professional services and the sensitivity of those services in such a way that allows more effective implementation of those measures. Without that power the Secretary of State would have the power to extend compulsory competitive tendering but he would be left with no mechanism—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will the noble Baroness say what she means by flexibility in that connection?
Baroness Blatch: If one takes either architectural services, advice or legal advice and so forth, where competitive tendering applies, the Government have made it clear that there would be two considerations: one about the quality threshold for the services and another on cost. The consultation document is still very much in play. It is also possible that perhaps even accounting arrangements may have to be modified in
86
such a way that makes sense of implementing those provisions. I am saying that merely having the power to extend to those areas leaves the Secretary of State with absolutely no flexibility other than the sort of crudity of power that he had to implement a straightforward service which does not require the more sensitive and real recognition of the complexity of some of the more professional services.
All we are asking in this part of the Bill is to acknowledge the Secretary of State's existing power vested in him by the 1988 Act to extend compulsory competitive tendering to other areas. Where those other areas require more complex arrangements for establishing tendering processes which make more sense and more effective implementation possible, then we shall need that flexibility. That is the intended use of it. It is well trailed in the documents and certainly in the consultation documents. There is really nothing more sinister in it than that. I ask for the Committee's understanding for what I believe is a degree of flexibility for sensible implementation of a policy.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has given one reply which I expected. It is that the matter is not really all that important, which confirms the question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. If the matter is not all that important then it is certainly not necessary in the sense that exceptions to the Henry VIII provision should be permitted.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I hope that I did not imply that the matter was not important. I understand the import of taking a power which has the effect of modifying primary legislation in this way. I was saying that this degree of flexibility to bring about sensible implementation of this power is necessary. The case was made very eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It was a very dramatic illustration of the worst abuse of that kind of power. I believe that I have set out good reasons for using it. It is only about a minor modification. I am not suggesting that it is not important.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that. I yield to the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the cases where there could be exceptions to the general prohibition of the Donoughmore Committee as regards Henry VIII legislation. In the Minister's reply I was surprised to hear that she sought to rely on two arguments to condone the use of Henry VIII legislation on this occasion. She said first that it was all right because there is an affirmative resolution in subsection (4). It is true that that literally comes back to Parliament. However, as is well known when resolutions come back to Parliament for approval they cannot be amended. It is a well-hallowed tradition in this Chamber with which I totally agree, that we should not actually vote against resolutions as regards this kind of secondary legislation.
The second argument that she used was even more surprising. She said that the Government had set out

87
their position in the consultation paper. It is unfortunate to go back to that argument because it is, after all, only a consultation paper. It does not have even the status of the Government's response to the results of the consultation. As a consultation paper it has no force of any kind with which the Committee can be properly concerned. Therefore, on this single issue with which we are concerned on this occasion is it proper for the Bill to give powers to the Secretary of State to modify, amend, alter, extend or whatever the word may be, primary legislation in the 1988 Act? I believe that we must rely on the mature judgment of the noble and learned Lord. We must say no, that it is not proper and the Committee should agree to Amendment No. 37.
Baroness Hamwee: I have no wish to detain the Committee for more than one sentence. I support the amendment. I am extremely glad that it was the Minister and not I who followed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I could not possibly have emulated him. He gave me the key to what I want to say which is about the use of the term "flexibility". On a question of such constitutional importance it is a term which should make us all think extremely hard about what we are being asked to do. I support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may intervene very shortly again. The noble Baroness's answer seems to me to be particularly dangerous. I can conceive of no circumstances where a complex situation cannot be spelt out where the use of the Henry VIII clause is not, on her argument, permissible. That is driving a coach and horses through the Donoughmore Report and my noble and learned friend's acceptance of it. Whatever happens I hope that the Committee will put on record that the justification for this unconstitutional power is not to be accepted for a moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that I can add anything to that. The Committee should take a view on the matter.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): Before the Question is put I draw to the attention of the Committee that, should Amendment No. 37 be agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 38 to 83 inclusive due to pre-emption.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Deputy Chairman of Committees puts the Question I point out that I have indicated that there is an error in Amendment No. 83. I shall put down a manuscript amendment to that effect while the Division is taking place to make sure that Amendment No. 83 is not pre-empted by this amendment.
8.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 55.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

Judd, L.

Barnett, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mulley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rea, L.

Donoughue, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hollick, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Howe, E.

Annaly, L.

Lawrence, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Mills, V.

Balfour, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Belstead, L.

Morris, L.

Blatch, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Boardman, L.

Norrie, L.

Borthwick, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Carnock, L.

Pym, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Reay, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Rees, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Renton, L.

Cross, V.

Seccombe, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L.

Strange, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Flather, B.

Sudeley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Torrington, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vivian, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Waddington, L.

Hives, L.

Wynford, L.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: On the basis of the Division that has just taken place, perhaps I may suggest that it would be a good idea if we adjourn the Committee for five minutes for the usual channels to discuss further proceedings in your Lordships' Committee this evening. On the basis of that, I beg to move that the Committee do adjourn for five minutes.
Moved, That the Committee do adjourn for five minutes—(Lord Hesketh.)
Baroness Seear: May I ask the noble Lord why he has moved the Motion?
Lord Hesketh: In answer to the question of the noble Baroness, it has been agreed by the usual channels, including her own party's Chief Whip, whose suggestion it was. On that basis, I hope that she will accept the Motion that I have just moved.
On Question, Motion agreed.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.49 to 8.53 p.m.]
Lord Hesketh: In the light of fruitful and rewarding discussions through the usual channels—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hesketh: In the light of earlier agreements and understandings it has been decided that it would be better to complete our deliberations at this point. On that basis, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Question is put, the Government Chief Whip does not mean "complete our deliberations" but that he intends that the Committee should stand adjourned until tomorrow.
Lord Hesketh: When the Deputy Chairman has moved back to the Woolsack I shall of course attend to the adjournment. At the same time I accept entirely the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I was foolhardy to refer to the entire Committee proceedings rather than to the part of it that has taken place this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at four minutes before nine o'clock.

  ECGD: SALE OF SHORT-TERM BUSINESS
  ECGD: SALE OF SHORT-TERM BUSINESS
  EQUINE PHYSIOTHERAPISTS: QUALIFICATIONS
  EQUINE PHYSIOTHERAPISTS: QUALIFICATIONS
  TOBACCO GROWING: REFORM OF EC REGIME
  TOBACCO GROWING: REFORM OF EC REGIME
  MUSIC IN SCHOOLS: RESPONSE TO WORKING GROUP REPORT
  MUSIC IN SCHOOLS: RESPONSE TO WORKING GROUP REPORT
  MINISTERS' PAY
  MINISTERS' PAY
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UNIT FINE STUDY
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UNIT FINE STUDY