Sitting of 25 February 1992

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

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 27 February.

  ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Education, Northumberland
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about education in Northumberland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): We have received a number of representations, and on Tuesday 11 February I met a deputation which included the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
    Mr. Beith: Has the Minister accepted the argument which was put strongly to him and to which he listened carefully that day, that it makes no sense for Northumberland to be forced by Government spending restrictions to cut £3·5 million from its education budget when it spends less per pupil than most other authorities? Will the Minister respond urgently to the constructive plea that was put to him for help through which Northumberland could ease those budgetary restrictions this year and, of course, for an eventual change in that system?
    Mr. Fallon: I am looking at the specific points that were made by the delegation to me earlier this month. However, Northumberland's education spending allocation has increased by 24 per cent. over the past two years, and I see no need for any of the cuts that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    Mr. Amos: Does not my hon. Friend find it outrageous that Labour-controlled Northumberland county council has refused to accept economies of nearly £1·5 million, as identified by the Conservative and Liberal groups, and has refused to take enough money out of balances to avoid any education cuts, but at the same time it can find thousands of pounds to issue supplements in the Hexham Courant for party political propaganda to promote the leader of the
    796
    county council, who happens to be a prospective Labour party candidate? Moreover, Labour councillors do not defend their actions; they put the county treasurer up to do it and then give him a £4,000 salary increase.
    Mr. Fallon: Yes. Northumberland's Labour council leader appears to be trying to use parents and governors to further his prospective parliamentary career in Hexham by frightening people into thinking that those cuts are necessary. I repeat that there is no need for any school budget in Northumberland to be cut. The council's overall spending can rise by 5·4 per cent. in April before Northumberland risks charge capping.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is the Minister aware that due to the cuts that he has imposed on Northumberland county council—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 200 teachers are about to lose their jobs, with the result that class sizes in Northumberland will increase and under this Government the education service will take a dip?
    Mr. Fallon: I think that it is now obvious to the whole House that Northumberland is playing politics with its education budget. I repeat that there is no need for any school budget in Northumberland to be cut at a time when its overall expenditure can increase by 5·4 per cent. before it risks charge capping.

    Surplus School Places
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to intervene where local education authorities fail to take action to reduce surplus school places.
    Mr. Fallon: The Government continue to press local education authorities to remove surplus places, since only they can make proposals for reorganisation. Our latest survey of school capacity shows that Wolverhampton has nearly 12,000 surplus places. We estimate that it will cost Wolverhampton more than £2 million a year to keep them empty.
    Mrs. Hicks: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Pressing is not enough. Unfortunately, the Labour-controlled council in Wolverhampton continues to ignore our pressing. Does my hon. Friend agree that that money should be intended for pupils? Will he please come to the rescue of Wolverhampton parents and, if need be, intervene to ensure that Wolverhampton council manages education and does not waste money?
    Mr. Fallon: I shall consider that point. Wolverhampton has the fifth highest overheads of any education authority in England. Its administration consumes more than 5 per cent. of its schools budget. Its education bureaucracy appears to cost £100 per pupil, compared with £30 next door in Solihull. At present Wolverhampton appears to employ more non-teaching staff than teachers under its education budget.
    Mr. Straw: Does the Under-Secretary understand that if the Government had not embarked on the wholly cynical and two-faced policy of enticing schools with surplus places to opt out, the children at Stratford school would not now face chaos? Given that the Secretary of State's own appointed governor, the former chief inspector, Eric Bolton, said that the situation at the school

    797
    is "unsatisfactory" and that the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers said that pupils and staff at Stratford school are "disturbed", does the Minister recognise that the Secretary of State's statement last week that Stratford school was "operating satisfactorily" had no basis in fact and could come only from a Secretary of State who sought to evade, rather than take, the responsibility which was plainly his?
    Mr. Fallon: Let me give the hon. Gentleman some facts. Of the 143 grant-maintained schools to which he referred and which have been approved so far, only 23 were named in reorganisation or closure proposals. As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the grant-maintained school policy might be paralysing the production of reorganisation proposals, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that in the past 12 months 150 proposals for school reorganisations were received and some 93 have so far been approved. No such proposals have been made by Wolverhampton.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the state of affairs to which he referred in Wolverhampton has continued for about 10 years now? Has not the Labour-controlled local authority frequently made proposals for reorganisations, knowing that they would be rejected because they were highly partisan? Would it not be a good thing if the Government explained to the people of Wolverhampton, perhaps even by taking an advertisement in the Express and Star, that the gross overspending has continued year after year because Wolverhampton council has seen education in terms of employing people in schools, not in terms of providing good education?
    Mr. Fallon: I can tell my hon. Friend that 17 of Wolverhampton's 18 secondary schools have surplus places. It is high time that Wolverhampton got round to proposing some reorganisations. As for Wolverhampton's budget, there was a serious overrun last year of some £2 million, including on the operation of something called the Jennie Lee centre. The working party's report said that the overrun on that centre
    "generally reflected policy instructions that no additional cost should be involved but in specifics turned out not to be manageable".
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Exceptionally, in terms of balance, I call Mr. Dennis Turner.
    Mr. Turner: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. All the interventions from the Conservative Front Bench will not save the seat of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks).
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member deal with education in Wolverhampton?
    Mr. Turner: Yes, I definitely want to do that. First, I want to draw the attention of the House—[Interruption.] I want to ask the Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Come on.
    Mr. Turner: I want to ask the Minister why his two Back-Bench colleagues from Wolverhampton did not nominate the schools which they would wish to see closed or from which they would like to have surplus places taken away. In addition, I accept that the Minister is new to his
    798
    Front-Bench position. Wolverhampton has already submitted two proposals for surplus places and they have been rejected by the Government.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question was not out of order. It provided a balance.
    Mr. Fallon: It is clear to the House from that sort of defence that Wolverhampton, even by the standards of Labour councils, is a pretty dreadful education authority, with the fifth highest overheads in England. Parents in Wolverhampton will want to know why the paperwork cost is £100 per pupil there, compared with only £30 per pupil down the road in Solihull.
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) wants to raise the matter, she could raise it on the Adjournment.
    Mrs. Hicks: Yes; thank you, Mr. Speaker.

    Science
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much his Department plans to spend on science in 1992–93.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): In 1992–93 the science budget will total £1,050 million.
    Mr. Strang: I direct the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the Government's overall spending on research and development. Will he address himself to the fact that no less than 44 per cent. of all Government-funded research and development has a military purpose and next year that figure is due to rise to 48 per cent? How can that be right?
    Mr. Clarke: Obviously, military research is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I am sure that he would argue, as I would, that there is considerable civilian spin-off from all the advances made in the development of military equipment, and that includes the consequences for the electronics industry and others. I have just described the level of the science budget in my Department, which is spent for civil research purposes on environmental, medical, scientific, engineering, economic and social research. That amount has just passed £1 billion per annum for the first time, representing a real terms increase of 2·5 per cent. this year, and we have given the research councils a rising profile for expenditure in future years. We are also expanding our efforts in civil science. The defence expenditure to which the hon. Gentleman referred has considerable benefits for the scientific world and for British industry.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, no matter how large the science budget of his Department may be, it will be a great waste of money in the future if there are no young people interested in science? Does he agree that when Kent County Engineering Society recently held a seminar for primary school heads and local businesses, it turned out that not a single local business had thought of trying to interest

    799
    primary school children in science and engineering. Surely, it is at that age that interest has to be aroused because later those subjects will fall on the other side of the divide.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have to interest more young people in scientific and engineering education and training. The development of the national curriculum will do a great deal to stimulate more interest in science because more pupils will have to sustain well-judged scientific programmes of study until at least the age of 16. Although we have now developed good links between business and secondary schools where companies try to interest pupils, we do not yet have enough tie-ups between primary schools and local businesses. I agree that more businesses should contemplate approaching younger children and at an early stage arousing their interest in what science or engineering may hold for them.
    Dr. Bray: Will the Secretary of State keep in this country what James Watson, the discoverer of the DNA basis of the genetic code, has described as the jewel in the crown of British science? Will he authorise the Medical Research Council to plan on the basis that the funding needed by Dr. John Sulston of the laboratory of molecular biology of Cambridge will be available to keep in this country work on the nematode project, as that work is the foundation of the human genome project which is the foundation of the future of medical research and biotechnology? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the United States has made a bid for that work? If funding is not available, and it cannot be found within the present budget, the Secretary of State will be guilty of the loss of that work?
    Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, it would be a pathetic science policy that suggested that the Secretary of State of the day should intervene to give funds to named scientists—whose names, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman picked up from cuttings in the learned journals. Science nowadays is an international community and British science is pre-eminent in the world. We are one of the leading science nations and we attract many more talented people to this country than we lose. It is no good citing one or two cases. The Medical Research Council will no doubt consider particular claims on scientific merits to counter the fact that Britain has achieved great success in science because of the increasing sums that the Government have made available for that purpose.
    Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the best universities in the United Kingdom for scientific research is Southampton university? It is second to none and it is grateful that the figures that have been released today show that it will receive 10·2 per cent. of its budget for research. I am sure that that money will be used with the utmost effect to promote more and more scientific developments at Southampton university.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that the Universities Funding Council has considerable funds which it receives from the Government and distributes partially for research-based purposes. This year, the funds have been allocated very much according to the UFC's grading of the quality of research carried out at each university. I congratulate Southampton university on its
    800
    success in obtaining funds way ahead of the rate of inflation in order to sustain and increase the work that it carries out.

    Further Education Programmes
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to improve access, facilities and learning programmes in the further education service for people with disabilities and/or learning difficulties.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Further and Higher Education Bill currently before Parliament will ensure that a wide range of educational provision for students with disabilities and learning difficulties is maintained and developed in the new further education sector.
    Mr. McMaster: Does the Minister agree that life-long education is a right, not a privilege, and that it should not be any less of a right just because a person happens to be disabled? Is the Minister aware that many disabled people are concerned that their rights will be reduced if further education colleges are taken out of local authority control? Does the Minister agree with the almost unanimous view of the disability lobby that the best way to protect the rights of disabled people would be to introduce anti-discrimination legislation now?
    Mr. Howarth: I can offer the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks. The Bill places clear duties on the further education funding councils to cater for people with learning difficulties and those councils will be required to allocate resources to discharge those duties. It is for the councils to determine how they distribute funding, but the Bill gives the councils wide powers to be used in support of students with special education needs. The Government will ensure that no less than the existing level of resources will continue to be available in the new further education structure and that funding will be apportioned between local education authorities and the funding councils in line with their responsibilities for securing the provision of further education.

    Binary Divide
    Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the consequences for research funding of ending the binary divide.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: The new framework for higher education will require funding for basic and strategic research in each subject to be allocated selectively to high-quality departments. All institutions will be free to compete for selective research funding.
    Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to the Minister, but is there not a danger that there could be an unfair distribution of funding research between the new universities, which will be formed from polytechnics, and the traditional universities? Is there not concern that there could be inequity in the distribution of research funding to Welsh and English institutions? What will the Minister do to ensure that Wales gets a fair deal in research?
    Mr. Howarth: The Government's policy remains as set out in the White Paper on higher education. Funding will be based on an assessment of individual departments. Some departments in an institution will do well, while others will do less well, according to the assessment of their research quality. But institutions right across the new unified higher education sector will be free to compete on fair terms, and the same will apply in Wales.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that universities with a strong research base need fear nothing from the end of the binary divide? Does he further accept that the Universities Funding Council has acknowledged the excellence of research at Lancaster university by giving it a 10·9 per cent. increase in funding for the coming year?
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. The Universities Funding Council is carrying out the policy, in response to the White Paper, of distributing funding according to assessments of research quality department by department. I share my hon. Friend's pleasure and offer my congratulations to Lancaster university on achieving a 10·9 per cent. increase in research funding for the forthcoming year.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Does the Minister appreciate that, with the phasing out of the student-related element of university research funding, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is actively canvassing the introduction of top-up fees? I understand that Birmingham university council is due to consider the matter tomorrow. Will the Government take action to stop the charging of top-up fees, or will they allow universities to go down the road of pay-as-you-learn?
    Mr. Howarth: I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would respect the principle of academic autonomy. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot profess, as he likes to do, his respect for the autonomy of academic institutions and at the same time seek to limit their management discretion. I emphasise that we believe, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said, that top-up fees should be unnecessary because we have planned, and continue to plan, to provide sufficient public funding to support the expansion of high-quality teaching in our universities. Moreover, we regard such fees as undesirable because we are keen that there should be no avoidable barriers to access on the part of people who have not traditionally had the opportunity to go into higher education.

    Technical Education
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in the promotion of technical education.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the building and equipment needs for technical education.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): The Government are promoting technical and vocational education through a wide range of measures. They include the introduction of technology as a subject for all pupils from the age of five to 16 and of an improved range of vocational qualifications; the
    802
    establishment of city technology colleges and of a network of technology schools; and new freedom and flexibility for our further education colleges.
    Mr. Stevens: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the £25 million technology schools initiative to further technical education in schools. Does he agree that such initiatives help to give young people a better start and help to provide the type of recruits needed by industry? Does he further agree that Labour Members' knee-jerk opposition to city technology colleges shows their obsession with standardisation rather than with improving the quality of education in schools?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend about the widespread support for the technology schools initiative, with 89 local education authorities having submitted bids. In addition, in a number of LEA areas where it had been decided, mainly for doctrinaire reasons, not to submit bids, we have received individual bids from schools.
    Further to my hon. Friend's final remarks, it should come as no surprise to him or to anybody else that Labour Members are opposed to choice. They are committed to abolishing city technology schools, grammar schools and the assisted places scheme, and they have no time for parental choice.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend share with me some anger that 19 Labour authorities still have not even bothered to bid for the funds that are available? Does he agree that that contrasts with the breath of fresh air that is now flowing through our universities and polytechnics? The universities have attracted large sums—more than £700 million of additional funding—for the current year, and our polytechnics likewise, now that they are independent of the stifling hand of Labour authorities— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be brief.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the Minister pledge total support for the Nottingham city technology college for doing just what our young people and the nation need?
    Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I visited the Djanogly college and was impressed with the quality of education offered to so many young people. It was interesting to note that so many heads of secondary schools, in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere, are coming to see what has been achieved at Djanogly college and to learn the lessons from it. With regard to bids to become technology schools, my hon. Friend will be heartened by the quality of the bids that we have received from individual schools, including some exceptionally good schools in Labour-controlled areas.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister accept that, as there are now 50 different definitions of a professional engineer, it is unrealistic for the Minister's Department to tell Newcastle council, which put in two bids for technology schools, that it should have submitted only one. Does the Minister agree that, to tackle such antique snobbery, two bids from one city should be allowed?
    Mr. Eggar: I shall look into the matter because I recognise that Newcastle is a Labour authority that has put aside its doctrinaire opposition to technology schools. So far as I am aware, Newcastle local education authority

    803
    is as free to submit two bids to the Department as any other local education authority. I assure the hon. Gentleman that those bids, when received, will be evaluated in comparison with other bids. If he is genuinely concerned that Newcastle has been prevented from putting in more than one bid, I shall look into the matter for him.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister not think it unfair to spend £7 million on a city technology college in Bradford, when that amount equals the sum spent on the nearly 300 publicly owned schools in Bradford? As the Minister should know, those schools are very much in need of large-scale capital expenditure. Many of them are of a Victorian standard and need considerable investment. Does he agree that the schools in Bradford provide a perfectly good technical education and that they need to be built on and improved, rather than being attacked by diverting public funds into city technology colleges?
    Mr. Eggar: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has visited the city technology college in Bradford. Indeed, he has refused invitations to do so. That college provides an excellent education to many pupils in Bradford. Parents are extremely keen to have their children admitted to the college because they want them to take advantage of the excellent education that it offers. The hon. Gentleman should take more time to encourage schools in Bradford to learn the lessons from the city technology college to improve the quality of technology education in Bradford. He should also have words with his colleague, Councillor John Ryan, who needs to improve the quality of his submissions to my Department for funding from central Government.
    Mrs. Currie rose—
    Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the finest technical education in Europe is given to the 7,000 students of the Derbyshire college of higher education? Its bid to become a polytechnic has been supported for many years by Conservative Members from Derbyshire. Is my hon. Friend aware that, as polytechnics are to disappear, we now support its bid to become a university? Will he ensure that everything possible is done so that Derbyshire can have its first opportunity to have a university, in contrast with Nottingham which will have two, Leicester which will have three, and Loughborough which will have one? At present, Derbyshire has none.
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the strong support from my hon. Friend and other Derbyshire Members for that development. The position has been clearly explained to the college in Derby and I am sure that it will pursue the opportunities.

    Primary Education
    Mr. Bidwell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has arising out of the report on primary education by Alexander, Rose and Woodhead.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I commissioned the report to stimulate debate within the teaching profession and in primary schools about how best to deliver the national
    804
    curriculum and to raise standards. The effective introduction of the national curriculum will require changes in practice in many schools and the report will assist the teachers concerned in planning the necessary changes.
    Mr. Bidwell: I welcome the right and learned Gentleman to the Dispatch Box—I did not think that he was going to answer this question as he looked a bit tired sitting on the Bench there. I am glad that he did answer it, as I wanted to ask him this: has he learnt any lessons from the report, particularly those related to ability streaming? He is known to have favoured that, but it is rejected by the report as a
    "a crude device which cannot do justice to the different abilities a pupil may show in different subjects and contexts".
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has read the report. If he were to read it with a less selective eye, he would benefit considerably. He would discover that the report advocates the grouping of pupils according to ability in many circumstances, in order to place the pupil in a specific ability group for a particular purpose as that is a more flexible device for teaching older children in a number of subjects. I hope that he and other members of the Labour party will eventually be talked out of their past commitment to mixed ability teaching at all levels, for, as the three wise men have confirmed, that is not suitable for delivering the broad and balanced curriculum at which the Government are aiming.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Conservative Members welcome the report of the three wise men? Does he further agree that the report condemns the trendy, discredited methods put forward by Labour and calls for a return to traditional teaching? What plans does my right hon. and learned Friend have to implement the report, and what is the time scale likely to be?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. The report stated that the progress of primary pupils had been hampered by the influence of highly questionable dogmas, which had led to excessively complex classroom practices and devalued the place of subjects in the curriculum.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that the Labour party has been closely associated with the development of those dogmas over many years. We are circulating the report to all primary schools so that primary school teachers can benefit from its advice. The National Curriculum Council will take account of the report in monitoring and reviewing the manageability of the national curriculum. The Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education is to advise me on the implications of the report for primary initial teacher training in future. I intend to use the report to review the present arrangements for the induction of newly qualified teachers and in-service training. Considerable changes are required in classroom practice in many of our primary schools if we are to raise standards to the levels demanded by today's society and parents. The Government are determined to raise those standards, and the report will be a valuable instrument to enable us to do so.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is now evidence that standards in the basics, which the report identified as the key skills on which other learning depends, have fallen? Does he further accept that

    805
    the report identifies that there has been serious disturbance in primary schools in recent years? Will he abandon his ideological dictation from the centre and work with teachers to bring in the changes in the curriculum for which the report calls?
    Mr. Clarke: First, I personally do not accept that there is any evidence such as the hon. Lady describes. I find it odd that the position has so changed compared with 15 months ago when I became Secretary of State, when some Conservative Members were alleging that standards had declined and Opposition Members were denying those allegations. The recent report of the National Foundation for Educational Research did not attribute any decline to the national curriculum; the interpretation placed on it by the hon. Lady and her hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) is based on a deliberate misreading of the report.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Secretary of State explain how he was able to commission a review of teaching methods in a matter of a few weeks, although his minimum standards—first laid down in 1981—were not met in the 10 years that the Government allowed themselves, and the current review will not now report until the autumn? Is it fair to assume that, in this general election year, the right hon. and learned Gentleman expects the review to lead to a cut in the Government's minimum standards for education facilities, designed to meet the requirements of the national curriculum?
    Mr. Clarke: Most of the minimum standards have been met. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the review will go ahead in the autumn.
    The reason why the "three wise men" report was produced so quickly is that the three people whom I invited to deliver it—Mr. Alexander, Mr. Rose and Mr. Woodhead—had behind them a lifetime of experience and close involvement with primary schools, and they were able to distil that lifetime's knowledge very rapidly. As far as I am aware, no one has criticised my choice of those three experts, or challenged their conclusions. It is slightly absurd for people to pretend that the "three wise men" report is anything other than a valuable contribution to the raising of standards in our schools.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils attend city technology colleges.
    Mr. Eggar: Currently, we estimate that there are some 8,000 pupils benefiting from a CTC education.
    Mr. Bowden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that city technology colleges provide a real alternative education for children in the inner city? Is he aware that in south-east London—and serving my Dulwich constituency—is Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college, which has received more than 800 applications for 180 places? Is that not proof positive that CTCs are popular both with parents and with pupils?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree. The popularity of all the CTCs is beyond challenge. Despite deep and unremitting opposition from, in particular, the Labour-controlled councils of Lewisham and Southwark, Haberdashers' Aske's CTC has
    806
    succeeded in attracting an overwhelming amount of interest from parents. My only regret is that the college is not able to take more of my hon. Friend's constituents.
    Mr. Flannery: Surely the Minister—and all the other Ministers and other Tory Members—know that the CTCs are really private schools, siphoning off millions of pounds of public money. Is it not true—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) pointed out—that as much public money goes to one CTC, to which parents who have not gone through the normal process will have access, as to all the other schools in the area, and that it goes there at the same rate? The other schools have to share little or nothing while the city technology college gets the lot—and it is public money.
    Mr. Eggar: I imagine that this may well be the hon. Gentleman's last contribution to Education Question Time. I note that his question was as full of ideological claptrap as all the others that he has asked during his career in the House.

    Further Education
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made with plans to give further education and sixth-form colleges more independence.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Excellent progress is being made with our plans, which are the subject of the Further and Higher Education Bill currently before Parliament, to give colleges independence from local authority control.
    Mr. Amess: Following the visit of our hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) to Basildon last Friday, will my right hon. and learned Friend endorse our hon. Friend's statement that the independence that we are offering colleges of further education and sixth-form colleges such as Basildon's will enable them to be more effective, efficient and flexible than they can be at present? Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree to visit Basildon this year to observe the excellent education standards enjoyed by my constituents?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Minister of State was very impressed by his visit to Basildon, and I should certainly be interested in visiting it myself if and when my diary allowed it.
    I have visited sixth-form colleges in Thurrock and Boston this year, and I recently addressed the annual meeting of the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education. I agree that the colleges are looking forward to their independence and to expanding the opportunities for further education available to our young people. I find that they bitterly regret the Labour party's dogmatic commitment to repeal, contrary to the wishes of the college principals, the Bill going through the House precisely because the Opposition Front Bench are acting at the behest of a few backwoodsmen Labour county councillors throughout the country.
    Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State will be aware that further education colleges charge their students for certain activities related to the curriculum—not tuition fees, but other activities. When the Bill goes through, if it does, sixth-form colleges will have the same freedom. Will the Secretary of State now give a guarantee that no sixth-form

    807
    college student will be charged for activities in relation to the school curriculum, or is this to be yet another example of pay-as-you-learn under the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Clarke: I know of no realistic reason for expecting any sixth-form college to introduce charges of the kind described. Sixth-form colleges will be funded on the basis that they carry on with their present practice. I have not met a college principal who intends to change that practice. The hon. Gentleman is merely trying to raise obscure scares about our proposals when he knows from his own visit to the association that the policy is extremely popular with all the principals and that his statement—that the colleges would be given back to his friends in Labour councils—was greeted with widespread dismay there.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The Prime Minister recently told the House that the British economy had grown faster than any other in Europe, when it has not; he said that the Japanese economy was in recession, when it is not; and he said that German unemployment was over 3 million, when it is not. Given that series of gaffes, will he now compound his confusion and tell us that he bears no personal responsibility for the appalling slump that is devastating Britain today?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a recession in a number of countries. I quote from what Sir Allen Sheppard of Grand Met said yesterday:
    "One thing which no one could predict a year ago was exactly how long the recession would last … This recession has not been an exclusively British phenomenon—as some people would have us believe. It is a worldwide problem; only last week we heard the news that Europe's strongest economy, Germany, had slowed down."
    Those are not my words, but those of Sir Allen Sheppard of Grand Met.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the attempt being made to steal the emblem of the duchy? Is he aware that on a previous occasion when such an attempt was made, the miscreant —an imposter named Lambert Simnel, who attempted to steal the red rose from King Henry VII wasnot only defeated but sentenced to serve as a scullion in the royal kitchens? What does my right hon. Friend think would be the appropriate sentence now?
    The Prime Minister: It is difficult to find anything entirely appropriate. Perhaps continuous service as Leader of the Opposition would do.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall saying a short time ago in his personal statement—in this document from the Conservative party—that "if" Government
    "borrowing takes the strain, taxes … have to go up"
    808
    Does he still take that view?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was Chief Secretary for two years and Chancellor for one year. Because of the repayments that were made of borrowing during that period, in the midst of a recession we are now in a better position to borrow prudently—[Interruption.] than we have been at any stage in the past: to borrow prudently and to maintain our commitment to a balanced budget in the medium term. Before the right hon. Gentleman reflects further, he may recall that the borrowing requirement was 91 per cent. of GDP under the last Labour Government—the equivalent to borrowing today £55 billion.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is now borrowing billions to try to finance a pre-election tax cut, so will he tell us exactly which other taxes he would raise to pay for the bribe?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend's Budget, and I have no intention of doing so. He should also realise that tax is levied on people's own money: it does not belong to the Government; it is their money that the Government compulsorily take away from them in taxation. Taxation levels determine how much. We know that the right hon. Gentleman would add to taxation, for he needs to in order to sustain his promises.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister said a very short time ago that "If" Government
    "borrowing takes the strain, taxes—not just our taxes"—
    [HON. MEMBERS: "We have heard this before."] And you are going to hear it again: "If" Government
    "borrowing takes the strain, taxes—not just our taxes but the next generation's too—have to go up."
    Does not the Prime Minister think that he owes it to the country to say exactly which other taxes he would put up to pay for his bribe?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should have done a little more research. If he had done a little more research and had seen the evidence that I gave to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in 1987, he would have seen then—when we had a fiscal surplus of many billions—that I indicated that it would be right, in a downturn, to borrow money in a recession. Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer to do what Labour last did —cut the hospital building programme and cut the other programmes? That is what it did before.
    Mr. William Powell: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Corby last Friday to open the magnificent Brooke city technology college. Does he agree that this type of secondary school has a substantial part to play in the future education of our children in the secondary sector, and will he encourage the development of further city technology colleges in our country?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly enjoyed my visit to the Brooke city technology college last week. It is an excellent establishment and has attracted a good deal of support and resources from the private sector. I think that that is the sort of choice that parents want for their children, and it widens the opportunities in education. It is inexplicable to me that the Labour party would wish to stop this continuing and successful experiment.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tueday 25 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Ewing: As the Prime Minister has now had time to appreciate the significance that Scots attach to the phrase "taking stock", will he elaborate on what that means in the Scottish constitutional set-up? Is it an affirmation of what his junior energy Minister says: that it will be acceptable for the Scottish Office to be staffed by Members from constituencies south of the border, or of what his Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland have said in the past 24 hours: that nothing will happen, or is he considering the possibility of affording the Scottish people the right to determine their own future in a democratic fashion'? Will there be a referendum or any other mechanism to establish a Scottish Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady's party seeks isolation for Scotland. I do not believe that that prescription is in the interests of Scotland or of the rest of the United Kingdom. I said that we would be taking stock, and I meant precisely that—taking stock on the basis of an increased vote in Scotland, on the basis of more Members of Parliament for Scotland and on ways of seeking to increase the strength of the Union. That is what I mean by taking stock.
    Mr. Dover: Is the Prime Minister aware that millions of people are fed up with having to pay extra community charge to cover those who do not pay? Will he encourage all local authorities to ensure that people pay their bills promptly and will he ensure that future charges are reduced when that money comes into council coffers?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we need to pursue those who do not pay the community charge and, in particular, we should pursue those Members of the House who do not pay the community charge and set a bad example to everyone else.
    Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with the proposition that it is entirely sensible for a Government to borrow prudently in order to fund capital investment to build economic recovery but that it is sheer folly for a Government to borrow in order to buy votes for an election'? Would that not be fiscal philandering of the worst kind?
    The Prime Minister: Without in any way prejudging what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will do in the Budget, I seem to recall that the last Labour Government —on the back of a huge borrowing requirement—cut taxes just in advance of the 1979 election. But if the hon. Gentleman wants to know about investment, let me give him some information about investment. We now have the largest investment programme of capital investment in the national health service that we have ever had. Next year hospital spending in capital terms will be 75 per cent. up on the last year of the Labour Government. Those are the fruits of an improved economy over the last 10 years.
    Mr. Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend restate his commitment to the assisted places scheme in our schools, which is an extremely cost-effective way of sending children of high ability to good schools? Is it not short-sighted for both Opposition parties to be pledged to the abolition of this scheme?
    The Prime Minister: It is an extremely popular scheme, as my hon. Friend knows. We will sustain that scheme in the next Parliament. The Opposition parties would abolish it, given the chance.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Williams: Having been Chief Secretary to the Treasury before becoming Chancellor, and Chancellor before becoming Prime Minister, is the Prime Minister really trying to tell us that he bears no responsibility whatever for the recession? Why is the Prime Minister continually trying to blame everyone else when it is his own errors of judgment, mistakes and economic incompetence that have produced the current recession?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman builds too much on too little. I made it clear on a number of occasions over recent years that there was, in retrospect, one change that I wish we had not made at the time, but it was one that was urged on us by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. That was the reduction of interest rates immediately on the back of the stock exchange crash, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we were urged to cut them even more by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). What responsibility will they accept for that?
    Mr. Butcher: Can my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that he will never propose the introduction of unnecessary and expensive regional assemblies in England and Wales? Does he agree that when Opposition parties advocate such bodies they do so with the entirely cynical objective of maintaining the over-representation of Scotland in this House in the aftermath of the dog's breakfast called devolution?
    The Prime Minister: Such assemblies are neither wanted nor needed, and we will not propose them.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Is the Prime Minister aware that since 1979 the crime figures in England and Wales have gone up by 102 per cent., that in the north of England they have gone up by 123 per cent. and that in the Northumbria police force area—my area—robberies have gone up by 240 per cent. and criminal damage by 238 per cent? The Home Office is advising the police to increase the number of officers while at the same time the Department of the Environment is capping local authorities' spending. How does the Prime Minister square that circle?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about law and order, perhaps he could explain to me why his party refuses to support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, which was introduced initially by a Labour Government and is now opposed by a Labour Opposition. He might also have mentioned in his remarks that spending on law and order
    812
    is up by 80 per cent. in real terms and that there are 15,500 more police officers, whereas Labour left the police force under establishment by 7,000 when it left office. Labour has opposed our measures which have led to stiffer sentences, it would shackle the police with political controls and its answer to rising crime is to blame everyone except the criminal.

Offending on Bail
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The number of those who commit an offence while on bail has risen. We estimate that, of the nearly 500,000 people granted court bail last year, about 50,000 were convicted of an offence committed while on bail. Five years ago, the figure was about 35,000. That represents a serious problem, especially for the police.
The offender who commits an offence while on bail is likely to be a male aged between 17 and 20, and charged with property crime, usually car crime and burglary. We must crack down on those bail bandits.
The Government are determined that the courts and the police should have the powers that they need. I am, therefore, announcing a package of six measures today.
We intend to change the law in two ways. First, it is right that a person who commits an offence while on bail should normally receive a more severe penalty. We will introduce legislation to require courts to consider offending on bail as an aggravating factor when passing sentence. Secondly, the police need clear statutory power to arrest people immediately who breach police bail. We will introduce legislation to secure that.
Those measures taken together represent a considerable toughening of the existing law, but we intend to go further to deal with the hard core who persistently reoffend.
Our third measure, therefore, is to ensure that people who are granted bail are left in no doubt of the risks that they run if they break their bail conditions or offend while on bail. We are asking all magistrates courts to ensure that the bail notices issued to all defendants make it crystal clear that if they fail to answer bail, or fail to comply with the conditions imposed, or if they commit an offence while on bail, they risk being remanded in custody. The courts have extensive powers to impose stringent conditions on bail. I am confident that they will make full use of them and that they will tighten up the arrangements for supervision.
Fourthly, we need to ensure that the courts have the fullest information when they decide whether to grant bail so that they can pick out more accurately the bad risks. We therefore intend this year to set up in selected local areas —including the inner cities—bail information projects which will ensure that information from the police, from the Crown prosecution service and from the probation service is collated and available to the courts. That builds on the bail information schemes which we have in 113 courts and 13 prisons, and which in due course will be backed up by a new computerised criminal record system.
Fifthly, magistrates have the difficult task of taking decisions each day of the week in this complex area of risk assessment. The Judicial Studies Board has therefore agreed to review the training of magistrates in the criteria set out in the Bail Act 1976.
Sixthly, experience shows that some defendants will behave on bail if, and only if, they are properly supervised. We will provide £8 million over the next three years for bail accommodation and support.
Well-run bail hostels reduce the risk of offending. There are 29 such hostels with 600 places, and a further 82 approved probation bail hostels providing 1,800 places.
814
An additional 800 places will be provided by April 1995. This programme will also include innovative schemes aimed at keeping defendants out of crime.
I am grateful for the efforts police forces have made to bring information to bear on this subject. We shall work closely with them to provide regular and reliable information about offending on bail.
I am asking my officials as a matter of urgency to consult fully with the police, the Crown prosecution service, the magistrates courts service, the social services departments and the probation service to implement the steps I have announced this afternoon. Together they will make a direct impact on the problem of offending while on bail.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: In order to put his statement in perspective, will the Home Secretary confirm that the document prepared by his Department a month ago made clear that 82 per cent. of all offenders remanded on bail do not commit a second offence, and that the essential requirement for reforming the system is better ways of selecting those who should receive bail and those who should not? It would be helpful if the Home Secretary endorsed the view of his Department that errors are made in both directions.
There is much in the Home Secretary's statement which we are glad to welcome. It is right that the courts should be helped to distinguish between good and bad risks, and that defendants granted bail should be left in no doubt of the risk they take if they offend a second time or break their bail conditions. It is equally right that the police be provided with a statutory right to arrest offenders who are in breach of their bail conditions.
We also welcome the announcement of additional bail hostel places. Indeed, we have been advocating that for some time. We note with particular pleasure the introduction of what the Home Secretary called
"innovative schemes aimed at keeping defendants out of crime".
Such schemes have been advocated in Labour party policy documents and have previously been dismissed by Government spokesmen as an indication that we are soft on crime.
Before I ask the Home Secretary specific questions about the legislation, may we be told why the Government have belatedly changed their mind on the issue? Last August, in Sunderland, the Minister of State said that he doubted very much
"that an additional prosecution for having committed an offence while on bail would have any deterrent effect at all."
What has happened to change the Secretary of State's mind?
While the Home Secretary ponders that, I will ask him two specific questions on legislation. First, if a defendant is charged while on bail, has he committed an aggravated offence even if he is found not guilty on the original charge? Secondly, will a defendant who is charged with a second offence have to wait for sentencing on the first offence until the trial for the other offence has been completed? Would it not have been much simpler in every way if the Home Secretary had taken action to ensure that offences committed while on bail simply attracted more severe sentences?
Why have the Government waited so long, and until so late, to introduce these measures? What we see today is another attempt—wholly characteristic of the Home Secretary—to influence headlines rather than to reduce

815
crime. Had he been serious about the task, he would have announced today the implementation of the Morgan report, his own report prepared for him and presented to him, giving ways in which crime could be reduced. He has chosen not to take action on that report because he does not regard it as sufficiently publicity worthy. That is no way for a Home Secretary to behave.
Mr. Baker: On the last point, the Morgan report is out for consultation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have searched carefully for references in the right hon. Gentleman's recent speeches urging me to take action on reoffending on bail, and I cannot find anything at all.
The right hon. Gentleman began by referring to research. I see that, in his remarks this morning, he intimated that some of the research might have been exaggerated. I can only say to him that, only a fortnight ago, I had a meeting with northern Labour Members led by the Labour Chief Whip, who urged me to take on board the research—the 40 per cent. figure that the right hon. Gentleman condemned utterly this morning—and to introduce measures. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to his Chief Whip and that they will sort out exactly what their combined approach is.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me some specific questions. As regards sentencing for the aggravated offence, the law will have to be changed. The courts will have available to them the possibility of imposing a further and higher sentence as a result of the changes that we are making. I repeat that that will require a change in the law. The extra sentence will be added, as it were, when the second offence has been clarified; if the defendant is found not guilty of the second offence, there clearly cannot be an additional sentence.
The right hon. Gentleman's other question was about sentencing.
Mr. Hattersley: Why has the Minister of State changed his mind?
Mr. Baker: We have not changed our minds. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to remind himself of what we have said today. What we have done is to bring forward a series of measures to identify those who have the greatest risk of reoffending on bail. It has always been our intention under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to ensure that society is protected from those who reoffend. As I have said, 50,000 defendants reoffend while on bail. That represents a substantial increase in recent years, and the measures announced today address that problem. I do not believe that, if the right hon. Gentleman had responsibility for my office, he would have introduced such measures at all. As I have said, he has a capacity to talk strongly and act weakly.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we will be subject to a timetable motion later this afternoon. I will allow questions to continue until 4.15 pm, then there will be a ten-minute Bill and then we must move on to the main debate. May I ask for questions that are brief and to the point?
Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend is quite right to respond to the genuine concern of the police about reoffending on bail because the true number of people who offend on bail is unknown. My
816
right hon. Freind's commitment to bail hostels and bail information schemes is particularly important because that will enable the magistrates, who have the most difficult administrative duty to perform in making the decision, to be better informed in deciding who should be held in custody and who on remand.
Mr. Baker: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend who, in his previous responsibilities, had direct experience of the matter. The important impact of the measures that I have announced is that the information available to the courts will be improved considerably, and that includes information from the Crown prosecution service, the police, the probation service and social workers, so that those most likely to reoffend and those who have a record of reoffending can be identified and action can be taken. They can be remanded in custody certainly but they can also be remanded in bail hostels. That is an important alternative because offenders who are likely to reoffend on bail will have some supervision if they are committed to a bail hostel.
The record of bail hostels is very successful. The rate of absconding or reoffending on the part of those committed to bail hostels is very low. I am glad that we are committed to a major programme of expansion—some 800 places over the next three years.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Although the measures announced by the Home Secretary are welcome, does he accept that they are also extremely modest and that their impact upon the 50,000 reoffenders is not likely in a year's time to attract the headline to the effect that the so-called crackdown on bail bandits has produced the result that the Home Secretary will no doubt wish to trumpet? The bail hostels programme that the right hon. Gentleman has described will provide only an additional 800 places, although he seeks to catch some 50,000 offenders. Is he satisfied that the magistrates will accept his views about how they should exercise their discretion? Has he in fact consulted magistrates at all?
Mr. Baker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are 600 bail hostel places, 1,800 probation bail places, and there will be a further 800 bail hostel places—a substantial increase. The measures that I announced this afternoon are not modest: they are a substantial change. It requires a change in the law, introducing the consideration of the court to take in as an aggravating circumstance the fact that someone has reoffended on bail. That is a substantial and significant change, and I have been pressed by the police forces for some time to introduce it.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by the federated ranks of the police, particularly the power to deal with those who breach police bail and the powers of the courts to award additional sentences? Will the tightening of the custody rules, for example, enable the police to detain a suspect in police cells and then bring that suspect forward at the first available court sitting? That problem has caused great concern within the police for many months. If that procedure could be arranged, it would be very welcome.
Will my right hon. Friend look at the problem of absconding from bail hostels at night? There is some

817
evidence to suggest that those who are confined in bail hostels are able to go out rather too easily after the hours of darkness and commit further offences.
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend's second point is a matter for the managers of bail hostels and the local probation committees. Certainly the ones that I have visited—and I have visited several in the country—are very well managed. As I have said, they have very little trouble with absconding or reoffending.
As to police bail, after arrest, if they do not give a defendant bail to appear before a court, the police may give him bail to return to a police station at a given date, after which he may be dealt with by charge, by formal caution, or there may be no further action. That is prior, of course, to the court bail. If he fails to return to the police station, it is an offence, but the police have no power to arrest him for it. We propose to bring in legislation so that the police have such a power, and the police have pressed us to do that.
Mr. Peter Archer: Are not the bail information provisions which the right hon. Gentleman has just announced a dismal confession of failure? If the probation service, the Crown prosecution service, the police and the courts were adequately resourced, would there be a problem of providing the courts with information?
Mr. Baker: There has been a substantial increase in the funding of courts and of the Crown prosecution service over the years. Indeed, we have appointed an additional 160 judges and opened more than 180 additional court rooms over the past 12 years. At the same time we have improved bail information schemes. As I have said, we have 113 such schemes, and 13 operating in prisons. I am keen to improve even further the flow of information and the exchange of information between the various agencies involved. That is why we are setting up projects, some in the inner cities, later this year.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Does my right hon. Friend regard the comments of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) as supportive of his proposals, or will the Opposition face both ways again on crime prevention? Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the time when I was practising in the magistrates courts? Magistrates then required sureties and recognisances from other people before a defendant was allowed bail, and if the defendant broke bail they were forfeited. Could my right hon. Friend extend that practice to those who break bail and deal with the problem in that way?
Mr. Baker: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I have said that the Judicial Studies Board will review the training of magistrates and the Bail Act 1976. Such points will be covered by the review.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Home Secretary accept that it is somewhat unrealistic to talk of remand in custody for people who commit further offences on bail when we have a massive shortage of accommodation and policies such as "Operation Container" and the problems associated with that? Do we not need to do more to ensure
818
that those who are remanded in custody are brought to trial much more quickly than they are at present, because they are innocent until proved guilty in court?
Mr. Baker: Yes. I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I am worried about court delays. A working group was set up by the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and myself to find ways of streamlining pre-trail procedures. The working group, which reported just before Christmas, recommended 200 or so changes in procedure. Some are fairly small, but cumulatively they will have a significant effect on court delays. They are being implemented now. I have in mind target time limits. Targets have been established by the Crown prosecution service for the various processes of a case.
Tomorrow the Lord Chancellor and I will publish a report on a White Paper which reviews the future management of magistrates court services. Pre-trial reviews are taking place on an experimental basis in selected magistrates courts. The introduction of remand for 28 days should reduce unnecessary court hearings and encourage effective case management.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to the law-abiding public, it flies in the face of all reason that someone who commits an offence while on bail does not receive a severe penalty? Given the facts that he has put to us today on the disturbing number of extra people who commit offences, will my right hon. Friend say roughly what percentage of those people did not incur another penalty?
Mr. Baker: It is difficult to give my hon. Friend the exact figure that he requires. But I agree entirely about people who are given bail and commit an offence. There is plenty of evidence from the police forces to show that that happens. We have had evidence from Northumbria police force and Avon and Somerset police force. The police become frustrated when they arrest someone, bring him to court—I say "he" because it is usually a young male—and find that he is released on bail.
The proposal that I have announced today will, first, improve the flow of information so that a bad risk can be more precisely identified. Secondly, there will be changes in the law so that people who offend on bail know that they could be subject to a longer sentence than would otherwise be the case. I believe that in many cases that will act as a deterrent to offending on bail. I am glad to say that the package that I have announced today has been widely discussed with the police and has their strongest support.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that if someone who is arrested, charged with an offence and granted bail commits an offence while on bail, the magistrates have the power to remand that person in custody? Perhaps they ought to be reminded that they have that power. But the other point, which is more important, is that when an offender comes to be sentenced by the court it will sentence for count 1, the first offence, and then for count 2, which happens to be consecutive and is therefore added on. The thrust behind all this is gently to remind the judiciary that it has the power to make consecutive sentences. We do not need any more legislation because the judges are capable of taking care of the situation anyway.
Mr. Baker: I noticed that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was nodding when the hon. Gentleman said that we did not need the measure. I assure him that we do. Again I have been pressed by the chief constables to bring in a change in the law about the aggravating offence. I believe that it will have an effect on the attitude of young men who are likely to reoffend on hail. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the present arrangements are satisfactory. He is in a small minority if he does.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: May I reassure my right hon. Friend that my constituents in Elworth in Sandbach will be reassured by the proposals that he has announced today? Can he tell us within what time scale they will be implemented? Will he say a little more about bail hostels? One is to be opened in Sandbach later this year. A vital matter to local residents is that the selection of those who are to stay in the hostel should ensure that they are the least likely to reoffend. Another is that the hostels should be run rigorously. That will reassure local people about the safety of themselves, their properties and their cars.
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I receive a fair amount of correspondence from both Conservative and Opposition Members about the location of bail hostels. They must be run properly and, indeed, effectively and strongly. That is what my hon. Friend was saying, and I accept it. She asked about the timing of the measures. The four measures that do not require legislation are already in hand. The two measures that require legislation will be introduced immediately after the election and we shall give them high priority. As I understand it, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, by nodding in approval of what his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said a moment ago, showed that he does not support one of the measures. So presumably the Labour party will not put that measure in its manifesto.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Home Secretary aware that what we needed today was not a statement but a confession as to why, after all the Government's massive spending on the police, courts and prisons, crime has doubled during the lifetime of the Government? People outside this place are not conned into thinking that the talk of toughening laws and filling up the prisons two weeks before an election will deal with the conditions that breed crime. What we need is a majority Labour Government with, at the very least, a programme of full employment.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to find every reason and excuse for crime other than the individual responsibility of the criminal. I do not agree. He says that we are producing tough measures at the end of this Parliament. We have introduced tougher penalties during our years in office and the Labour party has voted against them. When we introduced the Criminal Justice Bill in 1991 the Labour party voted against the proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, we did not."] Yes, the Labour party voted against proposals to take into account the record of convicted prisoners. It is on the record. It also put forward proposals to reduce the length of time served by serious criminals in prison. We shall put all that before the country during the next few weeks.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to compliment Avon and Somerset police, who were one of the first to identify the problem and the scale of the problem in Bristol and surrounding areas? Does he have any idea of where resources are likely to be allocated? If not, could some of those resources be directed towards Bristol, in Avon and Somerset?
Mr. Baker: I have heard what my hon. Friend has said about further resources in Bristol and I shall bear his request in mind when it comes to the bail information schemes. I pay tribute to the Avon and Somerset police. I met with them at the end of last week. They have done a great deal of work on reoffending while on bail, and the research which they produced has helped us considerably in formulating the package.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Home Secretary accept that his proposals mean that more people will be sent to prison and that many of Britain's prisons are a disgrace? Will he accept from someone who visited Brixton a few weeks ago that the number of mentally ill people in prison is unacceptable? Does he accept the view that Dr. Andrew Coyle—a distinguished governor, who is served by excellent staff in Brixton—said on the BBC documentary about what is going on there that those people should not be there? In a civilised society, what proposals does the Home Secretary have to deal with those important matters?
Mr. Baker: I agree that Dr. Coyle is a distinguished prison governor. The programme of refurbishment at Brixton is one of our largest refurbishment programmes and will extend to the hospital wing.
We do not expect a significant increase in the prison population as a result of the proposals. There will be a more accurate identification of those people who present a risk of reoffending while on bail. As a result of the better information services which will he available to the courts it may be possible to release some of the people remanded in custody, where the risk is much less, possibly to a bail hostel, or to tighter supervision within the community.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on the answer that he gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and explain how the Government have improved the flow of court cases, is planning to improve it further and therefore will diminish the number of people who fall into that category?
Mr. Baker: I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given by the Attorney-General before Christmas. A working party, involving officials from the Home Department, the Crown prosecution service and the Lord Chancellor's Department, has been established to find ways to speed court processes. As I have said, most of the changes are modest but cumulatively they make a great difference. For example, the Crown prosecution service can now state time limits on the progress of a case through the courts. That great improvement is now being implemented.
I attach great importance to this package of measures. They are not dramatic or headline stuff, but they represent good court administration. If we can speed up the court process and cut court delays, justice and efficiency will be served.
Mr. John Fraser: Does the Home Secretary accept that there has been an almighty row between the Lord Chancellor's Department and legal aid lawyers about the cost of representing people in cases of this sort? Will the Lord Chancellor take note of the extra work involved if there is a more thorough examination of people's antecedents before bail is granted? Will the Home Secretary tell us what will happen to a person who has been sentenced and convicted for a first offence after a second offence, which aggravates the first, is committed? How will the courts deal with that?
Mr. Baker: The person will be sentenced only after the second offence. That question would be more properly directed to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor because it refers to legal aid and green form aid. I hope that the solicitors representing defendants in such cases—it is important to recognise that they are defendants because they are not guilty until convicted—will benefit enormously from the improved flow of information. The solicitors may not incur extra costs, and they may welcome some of the cost savings that result.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: With regard to juvenile offenders, the courts often find that they are not given reports by social services and, therefore, they cannot provide secure accommodation. In such cases, cannot the courts decide, at their own discretion, whether the juvenile offender should be remanded?
Mr. Baker: Money has been secured for building more accommodation for juveniles. I attach priority to that. That responsibility is shared with the Department of Health. I want those proposals, which are shortly to be announced, to go ahead as quickly as possible.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is it not simpler and more constructive for the Government to create an economic climate in which jobs are available for the majority of the young men we have been discussing this afternoon?
Mr. Baker: When it comes to the causes of crime, it serves no purpose to blame anyone but the criminal. Criminals have individual responsibility. That point is important. We have taken initiatives which deal with the problem of young offenders in order to divert them from a life of crime. It is important that we do that and there are positive ideas in the proposals that I have announced this afternoon to achieve that.
Mr. John Watts: My right hon. Friend's package of measures will be warmly welcomed by the victims of crime and the police who find it difficult to recapture them as fast as the courts release them on bail. I urge my right hon. Friend to go further and remove the courts' discretion to allow further bail to those who commit offences when they are already on bail. Will he make it mandatory for such people to be remanded in custody or in bail hostels?
Mr. Baker: I do not wish to limit the discretion of the courts in that way. Judges and magistrates will be provided with additional powers to consider aggravated consequences. I do not wish to oblige them mandatorily to assign reoffenders on bail to custody automatically. Perhaps the best arrangement would be to send such offenders to bail hostels, or to put them under tighter supervision through
822
curfew orders, or to require them to attend police stations. However, it depends on the offender, and the court should continue to have that discretion.
Mr. Robert Litherland: The Government must accept some responsibility for creating the conditions in which crime can flourish. The right hon. Gentleman gloats about the increased amount of bail hostel accommodation. He must appreciate that the need for such accommodation was mentioned in the Woolf report. How can he claim that his policy has been successful when the number of people in detention continues to increase?
Mr. Baker: I am well aware of the problems of prisoners in police cells. That is one reason why I have decided to keep active in the prison estate six prisons that were scheduled to be closed, and why we have pressed ahead with our prison building programme. In the next 12 months, six new prisons will be opened, providing 4,500 new prison places. It represents the largest prison building programme this century.
Sir Donald Thompson: One part of my right hon. Friend's welcome statement will not need legislation, and that is the section dealing with magistrates courts. While not wishing to anticipate tomorrow's report, may I ask my right hon. Friend to persuade magistrates courts committees not to close smaller courts, as is being attempted in my constituency?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend raises what is, for the most part, a contentious local matter. Reviews of the administration of magistrates courts are taking place all the time. My hon. Friend will recall that, as from 1 April, the Lord Chancellor will take responsibility for magistrates courts. I regard it as a sensible transfer that the Lord Chancellor's Department should be responsible for Crown and magistrates courts, and I know that he will address the problem of which my hon. Friend has spoken. Indeed, I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to his attention.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing in his statement will allay the fears of my constituents? Is he further aware that it is no good tinkering at the edges and that we must look at the underlying causes of the escalation of crime? Considering the various policies that the Government have introduced but which have failed, may I ask him to consider establishing a royal commission to examine the underlying causes and to make recommendations?
Mr. Baker: No, I do not believe that we need a royal commission. I have set up a royal commission to look into the criminal justice system because I am sure that it needs that type of attention, but I do not believe that a royal commission would contribute to this issue. We need positive action to deal with the problem of reoffending, and I have this afternoon produced a positive package which many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, on reflection, will welcome.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Given that the incidence of offending while on bail is higher in places where delays and court adjournments are at their highest, would it not be more sensible to examine the distribution of stipendiary magistrates throughout the country? Is my

823
right hon. Friend aware that areas with the longest delays —such as Bristol, Teesside and Northumberland—do not have stipendiary magistrates?
Mr. Baker: I shall draw that proposal to the attention of the Lord Chancellor. The number of stipendiary magistrates has increased slightly since we came to power. An advantage of such a large prison building programme is that it has been possible in some cases to build courts alongside prisons. That has eased considerably the passage and process of justice. It has happened at Belmarsh, in London, for example. There is a tremendous movement every day from prisons to courts in respect of remand. That is why we have introduced the possibility of a 28-day remand. I believe that the Opposition oppose that, though it would be a sensible change. It would reduce the number of court appearances and would help to reduce court delays.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Home Secretary pay tribute to the Gwent police force, which has been highly efficient and has one of the highest clear-up rates in Britain? Will he show his appreciation by for once allowing that police force to have the number of constables it needs? Year after year the right hon. Gentleman denies the police authority and the chief constable the number of policemen the force requires. Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary stands at the Dispatch Box judged guilty as charged of 13 years of incompetence, of rising crime and of anarchy on the streets, and that his sentence should include political exile for a long time?
Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman intends to try to persuade the electorate that the Labour party has effective policies on law and order, he will be pushing a stone uphill. In the latest Gallup poll, the Conservatives had a 22 point lead over Labour on the issue of law and order. That is not surprising because when Labour Members were in office they cut the amount of money available to the police, to the courts, and to the prisons.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I remind him that half of all crimes in south Wales are car related and that approximately half those crimes are committed by a small number of young offenders, usually awaiting sentence for a first offence? Most appropriately, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made proposals for secure accommodation, which would be the best way to contain those offenders and stop them reoffending. Amazingly, however, Labour-controlled South Glamorgan council is trying to thwart that proposal. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will brook no such opposition, thereby demonstrating that the Government are on the side of the victim, not of the criminal?
Mr. Baker: What my hon. Friend says about South Glamorgan council is true and it does not surprise me. Too much attention is paid to the criminal and not enough is paid to the victim, which is why we now have the most generous system of criminal compensation in the western world, why we published the victims' charter some 18 months ago—and it is being implemented—and why we have a network of 7,500 volunteers to help victims. None of that would have happened had the Labour party been in office for the past few years.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Home Secretary agree that the guilty should be punished? Is he aware that in Greater Manchester now, two years after the Strangeways incident, more than 600 prisoners are being held in police cells, either convicted or on remand? On many weekends, because those people are being held in police cells, the police find it difficult to place prisoners anywhere within Greater Manchester, so the pressure on the police to give police bail is extremely high. As the Home Secretary is directly responsible for that appalling situation and is hamstringing the police in Greater Manchester, is not it time that he resigned?
Mr. Baker: I have given considerable support to the police in Manchester. Indeed, the increase in standard spending assessments for police forces across the country this coming year is between 15 per cent. and 17 per cent., which shows our commitment to police forces. It allows all police forces to recruit up to establishment, which they could not do when the Labour Government were in office because they left the police forces 8,000 under establishment.
I am aware of the problems in the Manchester area. The consequences of Strangeways still exist, but a substantial investment programme is going ahead in prisons in the north-west, and I hope that that problem will be contained in the coming months.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Each of the six measures that my right hon. Friend proposed is to be welcomed. Hopefully, this time the Labour party will support them. May I suggest a seventh measure? My right hon. Friend will remember that during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill in 1988 I proposed a new clause that provided that, for a serious indictable offence, a court would have to explain why it had given bail against police advice. Although the Home Office decided to accept the principle, it would not go as far as I wanted and implemented the measure only for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and attempted rape. Is not it about time that, for all serious indictable offences, the courts gave their reasons publicly for granting bail against police advice?
Mr. Baker: If a court decides to give bail against police advice, it owes it to the police to explain the reasons. It is statutorily required to do so, as my hon. Friend accurately described, in serious cases—in cases of murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, rape or attempted rape. We are continuing our discussions with the police and the other agencies, including the magistracy, in the coming months, and I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion. If a magistrate decides to give bail after considerable pressure from the police, it is fair to suggest that the reasons should be stated. With the growing co-operation between the agencies—the Crown prosecution service, the magistracy and the polic—that is the sort of spirit that we are trying to generate.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Home Secretary understand my surprise and disappointment that in his presentation he did not give credit to Northumbria police and the research carried out in Newcastle university which has played such an important part in highlighting the problem? Does that mean that he also intends to leave Newcastle and Northumbria out of his proposals on bail information and

825
extra bail hostels? Does he recognise that, throughout the recent difficult period, Newcastle police have been attending to many overflow prisoners in police cells, so they are less able to deal with good order on the streets as they are coping with bad order in prisons? Will he ensure that juvenile secure accommodation is made available to the Newcastle and Northumbria police and that they do not have to travel 20 to 25 miles to find it?
Mr. Baker: On the issue of juvenile secure accommodation, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson).
I pay tribute to the work done by Northumbria police. They prepared their figures on a different statistical basis from that used by other forces and the Home Office, but they identified many incidents of reoffending on bail, particularly in north Tyneside. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to be reminded of the fact that, this year, the Northumbrian police have benefited from the urban crime fund—an extra £3·6 million was made available to the Northumbrian police. There was also a substantial increase in standard spending assessment of 16 per cent. for that police force, and a substantial payment was made as a result of the riot damage last September.
Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend continue to give the measures urgent attention, particularly in relation to juvenile offenders? It is simply unacceptable for 16-year-olds to appear in court and plead guilty to as many as 20 offences, most of which were committed on bail after the offender had been arrested. One such offence involved killing a woman in Filey in an accident that involved a stolen vehicle. The young person had been released by Scarborough magistrates court only four days previously as there was no secure accommodation to which to send him. The public expect the Government to do something. The utterly disgraceful response of the Labour party shows that it is incapable of doing anything about the problem.
Mr. Baker: Of course, we are committed to increasing secure accommodation. The cumulative effect of the measures that I have announced this afternoon will help considerably in identifying the young men who pose a bad risk and are liable to reoffend on bail. Positive action must be taken to ensure that reoffending is curbed.
Dr. John Reid: Why has crime doubled under this Government?
Mr. Baker: I have answered various questions during the past few days on that subject. Since the war, the level of crime in Britain has increased regularly by about 5 per cent. a year. The increased spate of crime in the past 18 months is largely due to the rapid increase in car crime, which represents 30 per cent. of all crime. Many of the reoffenders of whom we are talking today are engaged in car crime. I hope that the measures that I have introduced today will have some impact on the level of car crime.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: In connection with this welcome statement and the serious level of shocking crime committed by offenders on bail in Norwich, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of the crime prevention panel in Norwich? Together with the police, that organisation has been calling for such
826
measures for some considerable time. Will my right hon. Friend address the issue of secure accommodation for young offenders in Norfolk and Suffolk, which also poses a serious problem?
Mr. Baker: I re-emphasise what I have said about secure accommodation. I met the crime prevention panel in Norwich when I visited the constabulary there, and know that it does valuable work. It does particularly important work in relation to protecting vulnerable women as they go around the city centre—an effective example of a crime prevention panel co-operating with the police.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is the Home Secretary aware that the men and women of this country desperately want the ability to live in peace and security in their own homes without fear of burglary, having their car stolen or smashed open and having the radio taken? Would those same men and women share with me, and police men and women up and down the country, a sense of cynicism that, today, the Home Secretary, like a latter-day Rip Van Winkle, has suddenly been woken up by the news that the Conservatives are likely to lose the next election, and so is now about to introduce a measure to do something about the crime wave in our country?
Opposition Members have always supported positive measures to combat crime, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said, we support most of the measures announced by the Home Secretary. We ask the Government, however, why they do not go further. Why did they not grasp the nettle and tackle the causes of crime years ago? There have been 13 wasted years. Why did the Government not act?
Mr. Baker: I am delighted to accept converts. Over the past year, the hon. Gentleman has not supported measures —tough measures—that we have introduced. He voted against the joyriding Bill—
Mr. Sheerman: I did not.
Mr. Baker: Oh yes, he did. He voted against the Committee stage—
Mr. Sheerman: That is a lie.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sheerman: The Home Secretary is a liar.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we cannot have that. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw it.
Mr. Sheerman: What does an hon. Member do, Mr. Speaker, when he has been slandered in the House? I did not not vote against that Bill, as the Home Secretary has alleged quite falsely. No Opposition Member voted against it. The Home Secretary has lied to the House. What am I supposed to do?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is compounding the problem. He must not ascribe—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Mr. Sheerman: I will withdraw what I said, but, as someone who has been slandered by the Home Secretary, I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has made his position clear. Now let us hear the Home Secretary.
Mr. Baker: I wanted to say—[Interruption.] May I just say exactly what happened with the joyriding Bill? In crucial votes during the Committee stage, Opposition Members voted against the principle of the Bill—
Mr. Sheerman: Weasel!
Mr. Baker: They were weasel words. In Committee, the Opposition voted against the principle of a Bill that extended culpability to all the passengers in a car. They voted against that, and they voted against the burden of proof. That is what they voted against. They have also voted against other measures. If the House wants an example of how soft they are on crime, let me point out that they voted against renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act last night.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am genuinely sorry that I have not been able to call all the hon. Members who wished to speak, but I shall certainly bear them in mind if and when we return to this subject.

Points of Order
4.22 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from any Minister to make a statement about the arrest of two British nationals in Switzerland for alleged Iranian-related crime? Apparently, it is the subject of a D-notice.
Mr. Speaker: I have not heard of that, and I have received no request for a statement.
Mr. John P. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Wales said that he will come to the House to make a statement about the virtual collapse of the public transport system in my constituency? One of the major companies has gone into receivership. As a result, ordinary people in my constituency cannot go about their business, because they cannot catch a bus.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no request for a statement. I think that it would be appropriate for the matter to be raised in an Adjournment debate.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    YOUNG PERSONS' RIGHTS
    Mr. Terry Fields, supported by Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Jimmy Wray and Mr. Ronnie Campbell, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the conditions regulating Government training schemes; to make further provision from the National Insurance Fund wth respect to social security benefits for young persons; to make further provision with respect to income support and housing benefit; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the three motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
That the Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.

Offences Against the Person (Amendment)
4.23 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Offences against the Person Act 1861 to provide for increased penalties for assaults upon members of the emergency services on duty; and for connected purposes.
The police are responsible for protecting us from disruptive and unlawful elements in our society. The Metropolitan police and the Surrey constabulary, which cover my constituency, do a wonderful job; so do the ambulance men and firemen who serve my county.
Every day throughout the country the emergency services display devotion to duty under pressure. The police are coping with five times as many crimes as there were 30 years ago, yet we have to ask whether the members of the emergency services are getting the protection that we, as citizens, expect.
We have all heard of and been appalled by the stories during last autumn's riots of attacks on members of the emergency services who were trying to protect citizens. We know from Police Federation reports and others of policemen and policewomen who have been assaulted while investigating an incident or trying to keep the peace. Let us not ponder on the sick mentality of those who carry out such attacks. Let us start by ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. These attacks are nasty, brutish and despicable, regardless of the extent of the injuries caused.
My Bill does not focus on the tragic murders or the sickening cases of grievous bodily harm which have recently been reported. Here the full force of the law is unleashed. What is often not noticed is that members of the emergency services are increasingly faced with routine violence which can inflict injuries on them while they are carrying out their duties. The courts do not seem to be imposing stiff sentences on offenders. In recognition of that fact, my Bill is specifically concerned with assault and threatening behaviour which impedes an officer from carrying out his or her duty to protect the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has raised these matters many times in the House. I pay tribute to him. Alan Eastwood, the chairman of the Police Federation, disclosed last year that close to 20,000 police officers were attacked, a figure which he claimed represents one in four of the force's operational strength. In Surrey, between January and December 1991, 238 officers were assaulted. In London, 3,725 attacks were recorded against police officers in the 12 months to October 1991.
The Government have reacted to the concern expressed by colleagues. I look forward to the publication of the Home Office's survey of statistical evidence of attacks and consequent sentencing. I hope that it will soon be available. It appears that not only is the number of incidents rising but the attacks are becoming more vicious. In Surrey alone, in the six months to October of last year, 18 officers were placed sick as a result of the assaults made on them, causing in total 211 days lost through attack-related sickness. The police also tell me that attacks on women police officers are increasingly sadistic.
The police rightly expect that the perpetrators of assaults should be severely punished. Unfortunately, that is not happening. In Surrey, between November 1990 and
830
October 1991, 140 incidents, involving 142 offenders, were concluded. Out of that number, only 11 offenders received a custodial sentence. More specifically, the deputy chief constable of Surrey tells me that on one morning last December, magistrates in Chertsey imposed the following penalties: holding a car boot sale in contravention of a planning notice, a fine of £1,400; no car insurance, a fine of £200; fishing in the Thames without a licence, a fine of £60; assault on a police officer, occasioning actual bodily harm, a fine of £50. Last year a Surrey police officer went before the Crown court to give evidence about the attack upon him by two men. The policeman had sustained a quite serious back injury and broken bones in his arm, and he was still having physiotherapy treatment nine months later. The thugs who administered that beating received only community service orders of between 180 and 200 hours respectively.
A sentencing policy of that nature is, frankly, laughable and displays no sense of proportion. What is even more demoralising from the point of view of the police is when a section 47 offence under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which might carry up to two or three years' imprisonment, is reduced to common assault, with a maximum of six months, or is dropped altogether, or only a warning is given. It is no wonder that the police are furious. That can only encourage the have-a-go mentality of idiots who will take a swing at the police because they know that they will get away with it.
The police are at the sharp end of tackling crime. As citizens, we can assist with communitywide involvement in neighbourhood watches or can become special constables, but, essentially, individual officers have to take the impact of increasing violence with little physical protection. They expect our support. They should take a dim view of how they would be protected by the Labour party's threats to extend political control over police and crime prevention, knowing how some socialists always have a soft spot for criminals and how the Labour party has voted against or tried to weaken every major piece of legislation that the Government have introduced to increase sentences.
I am not surprised that many police officers are buying their own body armour or considering American-style batons. Such batons could be a useful adjunct and should be part of the equipment of every police force in the country. However, they may be better for restraining than for straightforward defence.
We have to increase the penalties available in law and to encourage magistrates to impose them. I hope that magistrates pay attention to the criticism that is targeted on their sentencing policy by many hon. Members.
The criminal must be seen to pay for the assault. The police are not fair game, ready for a punch-up by any gang that feels that they can get away with it. An assault on a police officer should lead to immediate custody, even if the injury is relatively minor. The penalty should range up to a gaol sentence of two years, with or without hard labour —the phrase that appears in the original 1861 Act.
Other members of the emergency services are also vulnerable, as recent events have shown. Only yesterday, youths were reported to have thrown stones at firefighters who were trying to extinguish a blaze on a housing estate. Sadly, that was not an isolated incident. Stone throwers have made emergency calls to lure firemen into ambushes. Do those louts consider what would happen if the emergency services were stopped from attending a genuine

831
fire or the consequences for anyone trapped in the fire? Those are not minor incidents; it is a very worrying state of affairs.
In protecting our emergency services, particularly the police, we are protecting not only the individuals who wear uniforms but society. Police officers, firemen and ambulance men and women come to the aid of individuals. If they are deflected from their duty by mindless violence, we, as citizens, suffer.
Assaults on any citizen are serious. Assaults on the emergency services when they are trying to protect citizens are unforgivable and brutish. They must be stopped by the full imposition of the powers of law and I hope that my Bill will go some way towards toughening those provisions and that magistrates will then apply them.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian Taylor. Mrs. Maureen Hicks, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Robert Hayward, Mr. Michael Irvine, Mr. Tim Janman, Mr. Roger King and Mr. Graham Riddick.

Offences Against the Person (Amendment)
  OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Ian Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to provide for increased penalties for assaults upon members of the emergency services on duty, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March and to be printed. [Bill 88.].
Orders of the Day
  Local Government Bill [Lords]

    ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    4.35 pm
    Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this issue, but as a member of the Committee which discussed the Bill I seek your guidance. I notice from the amendments and new clauses to be discussed under the guillotine motion that the first part of the Bill will be given no consideration until we debate new clause 20. What was the procedure which ensured that there will be no debate on the first part of the Bill? It is vitally important that we have a debate on issues that were not properly dealt with in Committee. To judge from the selection of amendments, it seems highly unlikely that there will be any consideration of the major first part of the Bill. It is highly unacceptable to Back Benchers that an important part of the Bill is not to be debated on Report.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that new clauses and amendments are dealt with in the order in which they appear on the selection list. It is true that we shall not deal with the first part of the Bill until we debate new clause 20. If the hon. Member is suggesting that I was unable to select new clause 5, I am afraid that that is right because it was outside the scope of the Bill.

    New clause 3

      DUTIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION
      ' —(1) The Local Government Commission established under section 12(1) below shall have regard to the need—

      (a) to reflect the identities and interests of local communities;

      (b) to secure effective and convenient unitary local government;

      (c) to establish a structure which is comprehensible to electors;

      (d) to promote accountable local government;

      (e) to secure the most effective, efficient and economic use of local authorities' financial resources;

      (f) to ensure the cost-effective exercise of local authority functions and delivery of local authority services; and

      (g) to provide for the consideration of appropriate strategic issues at a regional level.'. —[Mr. Blunkett.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may consider the following:
      New clause 13—Environmental protection—
      '. The Local Government Commission shall, in making recommendations under this Part, have particular regard to the need to secure effective planning for environmental purposes.'.
      New clause 14—Local Government Commission:
      Objectives
      'The Local Government Commission shall be required to frame all its recommendations to the Secretary of State so as to take account of the following objectives:

      833

      (a) to identify areas within which people expect to obtain most of their everyday services;

      (b) to establish local government boundaries that facilitate the meeting of people's needs and the respecting of existing social organisation;

      (c) to enhance the representative role of local government and secure its long-term future; and

      (d) to ensure that all issues relating to the effective and efficient delivery of services can be addressed independently of defining local government territories.'.

      New clause 17—Arrangements for direct service delivery for new unitary authorities—
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order give power to the Audit Commission to—

      (a) consider the implications for functions of all changes proposed by the Local Government Commission under section 13(5) and section 14(5) and;

      (b) make proposals to the Secretary of State on a function by function basis for separate or combined (either jointly or by one or more councils on behalf of other councils) service delivery arrangements for those functions included in subsection (1)(a) above and for the territories in which such services are to be provided.

      (2) An order under subsection (1) above may give directions as to the exercise by the Audit Commission of any powers under this section and such directions may require that Commission to have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as respects matters to be taken into account.'.
      Mr. Blunkett: It is unfortunate that we are debating the Bill in this way. Effectively, we are debating only part II on a guillotine motion on Report and Third Reading, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said. We debated part II on the final day of the Committee proceedings on a guillotine motion, taking from 10.30 pm until midnight to deal with the issue of reorganisation. In one sense, we have reversed that process this afternoon because, despite the fact that the Committee's report to the House states that only one set of changes was made, in Government amendments to clause 8, it seems that we shall not be debating and scrutinising on Report that matter which was amended by the Government in Committee.
      It must therefore be put on record that the way in which the guillotine has been ordered and has fallen is less than helpful in terms of the proper scrutiny and debate of a major piece of legislation. Clearly, there is no point in pursuing the issue of selection at this stage, but it is important to put it on record that we are deeply opposed to the amendments made to clause 8 in Committee and that we shall continue to oppose those impositions.
      I regret that we are not dealing with this major issue —the reorganisation of local government in England—with unanimity and consensus. For agreement, certainty and stability to have been reached would have been a logical conclusion to the shambles consequent on previous reorganisations. For the lessons of 1972 not to be learnt in 1992 shows a deliberate and presumably intentional refusal to learn the lessons of history. If the Government have the opportunity of implementing their proposals, the nation will live to regret it.
      We could have reached a consensus about the nature of the reorganisation, and we could have had a degree of unanimity about its objectives, but we have not done so because the Government have chosen to continue on an
      834
      ideological path that they commenced some 13 years ago. Local government was seen as an obstacle to the economic and social reconstruction of Britain and was believed to be a block on the reorientation of our democratic structures so that the operation of the market place rather than the ballot box would be supreme. The Government substituted their market square for our family circle. Everything was subjected to the law of Mammon. The intention was to determine whether something was profitable and whether it could be put out to tender. The key values of centralisation and privatisation were placed above those of accountability and democratisation.
      Under new clause 3, we raise today the whole question of what local government is supposed to be about. What is the reorganisation intended to achieve? Is it driven by a desire to ensure that local people have a say over their lives in a pluralistic democracy in which they can choose for themselves the nature of the provision, the extent of the services delivered, and the quality that they wish to see, and in which they have the ability to raise and spend money to achieve those objectives? Alternatively, is the Bill about reorganising local government in the image of its makers in Westminster and Whitehall—namely, the majority party in the House? It is clear to us that the answer to the latter question is yes. The reorganisation is about the Government's ideological determination to ensure that local authorities are no more than a mouthpiece for a handful of people who manage to find civic office. It is not concerned with local government as a means of community expression and a part of government rather than merely local administration.
      It is important to raise a number of key questions today about the nature of local government and what we seek to obtain in reorganising its structure and functions. It is clear to us that local government should be just that—it should be local and it should be government. The Bill and the propositions for the operation of the local government commission will achieve the exact opposite. They take away the ability of local people to act loyally, and they order government only in the sense that it is centralised in the hands of Ministers and civil servants in Westminster and Whitehall. Such government is not local because local people will not be able to determine the way in which local government operates its services. The whole design and structure of the propositions are predicated on the belief that local services will be put out to tender, and will be privatised or centralised.
      The appendix to the guidance for the commission shows clearly how major services, which we expect to be dealt with by local government, are to be taken substantially away from the determination of locally elected representatives. The guidance is explicit, so it is worth repeating—as we did briefly in Committee—the way in which it is phrased.
      Housing is currently a key function for district authorities outside the metropolitan areas. The Government's decision is clear because the guidance talks about the way in which the housing function should continue. It says:
      "Authorities also own and manage some four million units of housing but Government policy is that they should adopt an enabling role, assessing needs in their area but relying on housing associations and the private sector for new provision."
      In other words, the function of a local authority in providing directly for the needs of its electorate will be

      835
      removed. The ability of a local authority to respond directly to the aspirations and the desperate needs of people will be diminished. Instead, the role of local authorities will be merely to monitor and to appeal to other people to provide for the desperate needs not only of the homeless but of the many people who seek rehousing at different times in their lives. They may need more suitable accommodation, such as sheltered provision in old age. They may need more appropriate dwellings as their families grow up or as their families are extended.
      It is clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will confirm, that the intention behind the Government's housing policy is to ensure that people no longer turn to their elected representatives to have their needs met. They will be expected to turn to the private sector and to housing associations alone. None of us says that a pluralistic approach cannot be applied to those issues.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in some instances the sheer size of local authority housing departments militates against good management? Does he acknowledge that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), a previous Front Bench spokesman on housing, said that Birmingham was trying to manage more than 100,000 properties which simply was not practical? Is it not right that we should now talk about local authorities being concerned more with enabling than with simply trying to manage bigger and bigger departments?
      Mr. Blunkett: The Bill deals with authorities outside the metropolitan areas. No one could describe the housing authorities in the non-metropolitan districts as gigantic. It is interesting to reflect that a recent report has shown that there is now grave concern about the size of housing associations, and about the way in which their operations can be more centralised and more at arm's length than those of local authorities. Local authorities have sought to decentralise their management and their facilities. Birmingham tried to parish the city, but was blocked in that endeavour. It attempted to ensure that there was devolved and decentralised management, which many good local authorities have sought to achieve.
      Many of us feel that direct involvement by tenants in the running and operation of housing and housing estates is a valuable contribution in ensuring that they have genuine democratic control over what is rightly theirs. Placing tenants outside the local authority sector disables that process and makes it far more difficult. Recent studies have shown that there is far less tenant control in other sectors of housing than there is in the good authorities which have carried out Labour party policy in devolving and decentralising not only housing offices, but the management and control of their housing stock.
      There are fundamental issues about the way in which facilities are taken away from the people for whom they are supposed to be intended. The same applies to education, in which the Government have also made their intentions clear. Much of the Bill is a hidden agenda. It is difficult for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to hide anything under a bushel, so the intentions for education have been made clear. We need to make them even clearer today. The guidance to the commission says:
      836
      "The number of schools operating as grant-maintained … is likely to rise significantly".
      [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] "Hear, hear", comes heavily from Conservative Members.
      Mr. Alun Michael: Only two of them.
      Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend points out that it comes heavily from two Conservative Members.
      The guidance continues:
      "grant-maintained status should become over time the natural organisational model for schools … It is also intended that the local authorities should lose their present responsibility for further education colleges and sixth-form colleges and for schools inspection."
      The Further and Higher Education Bill is in Committee today, under a guillotine, for the dismemberment of the further and adult education service.
      Authorities rightly look eagerly to the notion of unitary status and being able to bring together under one umbrella the provision of a number of key services so that they can integrate their social and economic policies for the locality as a whole. Unitary authorities would mean that people would have just one door to knock on. The authorities grasp in the air for the castles promised them, but find that they disintegrate into sand between their fingers because the functions that they would inherit bear no resemblance to local government as we have known it throughout the last century.
      Instead of authorities having the power to act directly to house their people or to ensure education for children from nursery schooling to post-16 comprehensive education, just as the authorities feel that they have the opportunity to deal in a co-ordinated and integrated fashion with the needs of their people, suddenly they find that those functions are being taken from them. The illusion of new power and new responsibility is therefore turning into disillusionment. The people find that central Government are centralising and neutralising the powers that local authorities believed that they would have. The Government will determine funding arrangements from the centre and will relate directly to local schools or colleges through funding agencies rather than through the local education authority; Ministers will be responsible but not accountable for what happens locally.
      Even in social services, we see the Government's intentions spelt out in the draft guidance to the commission. It says:
      "The Government's policy is that social services authorities should concentrate more on commissioning the procurement and assessment of services and less on direct provision themselves."
      It recognises that child care has to be an exception, given the Children Act 1989, and the fact that the Minister of State at the Department of Health, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), has constantly referred to her commitment and to the need for local authorities to be able to act.
      The logic of everything said, whether on housing, education, social services or the generality of provision, is that a local authority should no longer provide directly for its citizens but should become the enabling authority that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) used to describe, which would meet only once a year to let private sector contracts. The No Turning Back

      837
      group, of which the Minister of State remains an active supporter, spelt it out in its pamphlet, "Responsibility and Choice". It said:
      "Only public health, civil defence and local amenities need remain an integral part of local government."
      What a choice—what a level of responsibility that is for local authorities to take on.
      The Association of District Councils, eagerly awaiting the message that the commission is to set out on its travels to award councils new status, new power and new functions, finds in the end that they are to have none of them. Councils will end up with local government which is no more than a telephone box with a civic car outside. A mayor may be able to visit bazaars and give out largesse in the form of annual Christmas parcels or attend spring balls, without being able to meet the needs of the people in his community.
      The legislation would make a farce of local democracy and a mockery of any attempt to devolve power to local government. Clearly, the Government have no intention of decentralising or devolving anything. They are intent on retaining power in their own hands, and on determining directly what local government should be able to raise and spend. The financial and functioning structure of local government will result in disillusionment and in people being increasingly frustrated. There is a danger of democracy being nothing more than a charade.
      That is why we are against the way in which the commission is to operate. We do not agree with the Government's view of local government merely as an appendage to the central state rather than as a partner in a pluralistic democracy. We want to encourage people to partake in the delivery of local services and to stand for elected office so that they may take pride in the civic functions by contributing to the enhancement of the wellbeing of the people around them, and by being able to sustain and protect their environment. Instead, the financial system and the structure and functions proposed for local government would reduce it to a pale shadow of what we have understood it to be over the last 100 years.
      The proposed operation of the commission reflects the Government's contempt for local democracy. The Government intend that local authorities should be dealt with piecemeal, one by one, with Labour-controlled counties being tackled first. The Government intend to carry out the structural changes in a way which leads to the abolition of Humberside, Cleveland, Avon, Derbyshire and Lancashire, simply because they happen to be Labour authorities.
      The Government do not propose to act logically or to take a comprehensive look at England as a whole so as to ensure that the structure can be fitted together as a complete jigsaw. They mean to adopt a "hide and seek" version of making a jigsaw, where bits of the jigsaw emerge one at a time and people are expected to guess what the final picture will look like. That piecemeal approach will lead to blight. As local authorities are picked off one by one, they will lose their senior staff, who will seize the opportunity to move to other authorities. There will be a bonanza for the metropolitan and London areas which, in the key areas of education and social services, will be able to call on the expertise from the counties facing abolition before the district authorities, which are the aspirants to
      838
      take over those functions, can organise themselves logically to offer posts or provide a guarantee of quality of service.
      Mr. Paul Channon: I understand that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the Government about various activities of local government. If by some chance —or mischance, depending on one's point of view—he were to have responsibility for dealing with the legislation under a Labour Government, what would he do about the commission? There is a great deal of interest in that. The people want to know what would happen if Labour won. Would Labour go ahead with the legislation or repeal it? Would Labour change the commission or allow it to proceed so that the reform of local government, which most people accept is long overdue, may take place in a reasonable period of time?
      Mr. Blunkett: In the one day available to us under the guillotine in Committee, we made the position clear. We made it clear that we were in favour of a comprehensive approach to the reorganisation of local government, and that we wished the commission to operate through panels dealing with different parts of the country, being able to take consensus and agreement where they were offered, and being able to report back where there were difficulties, so that within a rapid time scale—two years would be the preferred operational time scale—we could see a pattern of local government emerging across the country. The commission could report its findings, enabling local government to be reorganised in a sane and rational fashion, providing stability for existing services prior to the final report and providing a sensible and rational means for the transfer of services to the new designated authorities. Finally, it could offer the kind of guarantees for whose provision the 1972 reorganisation, with all its failings, served as a useful model.
      Mr. Douglas French: Would that plan include the continuation of some two-tier authorities, or is what is being advocated a uniform single-tier system?
      5 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: It seems to us that there is little point in reorganising local government across the country if we end up with a shambles on our hands. Some counties will appeal to the Government to remain county councils, with their district councils continuing to act as they always have, while a neighbouring authority has unitary status having abolished its county and transferred what functions remain to the district. We illustrated that point in Committee: what is at issue is not whether one county should remain while others are removed, but the way in which authorities within a county would have to be dealt with if it was not clear that there should be a presumption of unitary status.
      We do not have to have the same uniform status across the country. We are talking about numerical parity or saying that authorities must be of similar size. We are aware of the need for diversity and sensitivity. Some authorities have an identity of community even though they are small numerically or geographically difficult to operate. We recognise that such factors will have to be taken into account.
      What we cannot countenance, however, is a shambles where one or two authorities claim unitary status within a county and the rest of the county has to be reorganised to

      839
      fit in with them. We cannot have a string of authorities across a major county—the example that we gave in Committee was Essex—claiming that they should have unitary status because of their identity of community, their sense of belonging and their urban nature, only to leave a rump of a county with a disgruntled population, which wanted not a third of the original county or half the original county but the whole county or unitary status. We shall be faced with a shambles whereby people claim that they want to retain the county but retain only part of it. The county will be a shadow of its previous self without its core identity, and in some cases with the prospect of being divided in two by unitary authorities which cut right across it.
      Mr. French: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that the local government commission would recommend unitary status for some authorities without paying any regard to what was left over?
      Mr. Blunkett: The consultation paper and the proposal before us would allow just that. That is why I say that we must choose between unitary and two-tier authorities. Once one begins the process of providing unitary authorities within a county area, one will have to decide what is to happen to the rest of the county. There is a logic to it.
      Mr. William O'Brien: Paragraph 5.
      Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend reminds me that paragraph 5 of the consultation paper deals with the matter, although we do not need the consultation paper—only intelligent and rational thinking—to realise that when some authorities press for unitary status they will affect the status of other authorities with which they have a relationship within the county shire area.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: The same is happening in education. For instance, competition between schools will mean that people will head for a school that is reputedly a good school with no thought for the one that they are leaving behind, which will become a sink school if the matter is left to the Conservatives.
      Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend has put his finger on it: "I'm all right, Jack, and the devil take the hindmost" is what the Government's policy is all about. Presumably they would say that, so long as some authorities get what they are after, everyone should be satisfied. We cannot have it both ways, however. We cannot have the existing county, with the existing county structure, if some districts within it become unitary authorities.
      Mr. Channon: I think that that is a bad analogy. In Essex, and in a great many other counties, there are districts which were old county boroughs, for example. It would be perfectly possible for those old county boroughs to become unitary authorities in their own right without affecting the rest of the county at all—if that was what people in the county wanted.
      Mr. Blunkett: It would affect the rest of the county which, at the moment, incorporates those former county boroughs. The minute one tries to reverse the arrangements and return to the county boroughs—and there is some dispute in some areas as to whether only the former county boroughs should claim unitary status—one affects the organisation of every key county service, which
      840
      then has to cope with the change. One must change the operation of education—in so far as it remains part of local government—of the social services, of highways and of everything else. The minute one makes a decision in repect of one authority, there will he a chain reaction.
      That is why we believe that there should he a comprehensive approach, rather than a piecemeal approach whereby some authorities are dealt with first arid others gradually over what the Minister of State has described as a likely five-year time scale. We should view these matters as a whole. We should review the arrangements throughout the country and come up with comprehensive proposals. We should announce them in two years' time, allowing for a period of consultation during which representations could be made and during which we could sort out disagreements.
      We could then move forward in a way which allows the existing authorities to transfer services in a stable and sensible way, maintaining the quality of those services while building up a new structure to enable those functions to be taken on. Unless we do that, we shall have a period of blight during which services in the existing authorities disintegrate and staff leave. The services will begin to fall apart before the new authorities have been established in a fashion that would allow those services and staff to transfer in an acceptable manner. That is why we shall be moving shortly on another matter—the staff commission —to which I shall come in a moment.
      In new clause 3 we advocate a sensible, logical and well-thought-out approach. We have the option of finding a solution that will provide us with a lasting settlement for local government for generations to come or of accepting a piecemeal and fragmented approach which will result in dissatisfaction and continued calls for reorganisation and which will lead to our having to go through the whole process all over again in a few years' time. That would be very foolish indeed and most unfortunate for the populations of areas facing that shambles and that failure to provide quality. The outcome in terms of cost and quality would be most unsatisfactory. Moreover, it would reflect badly on the operations of the House and the way in which it has served local government badly over the past 13 years—another example of an ideological, value-driven approach rather than a logical approach taking into account the needs of local communities and responding intelligently to the demand for reorganisation.
      We respect the demands for unitary authorities and for a return to the days when there was just one door on which to knock. We accept the need for accountability, which we applaud, to enable people to understand who is responsible for the services that they receive and who to hold to account for the results.
      We want a reorganisation that would be lasting but, above all, a reorganisation that would be able to respond to the changing needs and aspirations of the population towards the year 2000. Instead, we face a proposition which would take away services rather than provide them, which would denude local government rather than complement those services that it already carries out, which would remove functions rather than build on them and restore them, which would give a piecemeal structure rather than a coherence that people could understand and respond to, and which would result in local government becoming even more the poodle of Westminster and Whitehall than a living part of our democracy enabling people to express themselves clearly and to have an

      841
      alternative point of view to respond to the different political, economic and social needs of a diverse country and, above all, to be able to provide for the community that they serve the kind of services that that community wants rather than what central Government wants.
      It happens that the rest of Europe has moved in the direction that we are advocating—that is, devolving and decentralising, giving people power to decide for themselves, providing quality services by encouraging and enabling local authorities to act on behalf of their communities, and ensuring that people have genuine choice. There should be choice as to who should provide services, choice as to whether services should be in-house or privatised, and choice as to what kind of spending and on what local authorities should spend their money. Those are the choices—about ownership, responsibility and accountability—that people have had for the past century in respect of their education services, their social services, their housing, their local refuse collection and their local environment. Now we see a threat to take it away—the threat of a commission which, from its very inception, will be disabled by a Bill and by guidance which take away those powers and denude local government of those services.
      That is why we are opposed to the way in which the Government are operating under clause 2. That is why we are vehemently opposed to clause 1 and to the way in which the Government, particularly in clauses 8 and 9, are ensuring that reorganisation is complemented by privatisation and centralisation. That is why we believe that the Bill is flawed. An opportunity that has been missed and an agenda that could have carried us forward together have been set aside and replaced by dogma—by the values that were set out by the previous Prime Minister—and with a not-so-hidden agenda that carries those values and principles forward into the 1990s.
      We know that the present Bill will not be carried into fruition. We know that we shall have the opportunity to change the guidance to the commission and to change its operation, and to ensure that it can do the job as we have described—a welcoming of partnership in local government to ensure that people receive the services that they want and deserve. That is why we know that, in rejecting the Bill and putting forward the new clause, we shall be responsible for carrying through our propositions and not the ones that the Government have put before us.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the chance to speak in support of the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and the other new clauses that Mr. Speaker has selected. I shall be relatively brief and put one or two points that deserve to be put at this stage. I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to do so, as I was not a member of the Committee.
      On new clause 3, my hon. Friends and I believe that it is right that we should seek consensus on the structure for deciding the future of local government, and the more that that can be based on the views of the people, the better. One of the faults of the previous local government review was the artificial creation of structures of local government which did not do justice to the collective sense of belonging in very disparate parts of the country. As we travel around
      842
      the country, we realise the strength of people's commitment to certain areas and structures of government such as counties.
      The right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) referred to county boroughs. It is about time that we went back to a structure that reflected that view. I agree with the purport of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I disagree with the hon. Member for Brightside. It is quite wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) said, to prescribe that there can only ever be one form of local government. That would be to make the same mistakes as were made before.
      I cannot see why it is not possible for Essex to return to county boroughs for what is currently part of the county of Essex while the rest remains a shire county as a unitary authority. That is quite possible.
      5.15 pm
      Of course, we must make sure that the consultative process allows people to consider what the county would be like if we took out parts of it. However, county boundaries have changed. Counties such as Cambridgeshire have incorporated more than one county in the past. Therefore, the total geographical area of a county has changed over the years, and under that county structure we might find that people want district councils. It would be quite appropriate for the people of Cornwall to say that they want two tiers of government, a Cornish county council and five district councils. To say that they must have only one and that they must opt for a unitary authority flies directly against the wishes of many people throughout the country.
      From experience, I know that people in some parts of Britain would be happy to have a unitary authority. The people of Herefordshire resented greatly the amalgamation with Worcestershire. They would be happy for the county of Herefordshire as it now is to be a unitary authority. If, for example, we were discussing a Welsh authority such as Powys, which is a huge county, it would be entirely right for the people to say, "We want a two-tier government. We might be happy with the county of Powys, but we would also want the local district to be Brecknock or Breconshire." I do not see any incompatibility in having unitary authorities in some parts of the country and two-tier government in others. The Labour party is going down its traditional road of wanting everything in one-form terms. Britain is not a one-form society; it is much more pluralist and diverse. Regions and countries are different, and we should respect that and allow people to decide.
      Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, in describing the situation that he foresaw in Essex, inadvertently used the term "unitary" in relation to the remainder of the county. We have never said that we are against the idea that a part of a county or, in very exceptional circumstances, a county itself could not be the unitary authority. We have left our minds open. Nor would we be against an authority which, in our terms, would be described as a region with districts under it, such as the one that the hon. Gentleman described for the south-west peninsula, although we are against the district county and regional model with one tier on top of another

      843
      tier until everybody cries for mercy because of the number of elections that are held and the number of people who are held responsible.
      I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that our proposition ensures that we can retain parish and town councils, perhaps with enhanced status, which would satisfy the pluralism and diversity of which he spoke.
      Mr. Hughes: May I return to parish and town councils in a moment? They are a different debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and I, and many other hon. Members, are committed to the idea of parish, town and community councils and believe that they should continue.
      The debate is both technical and a much wider political debate. I may have inadvertently suggested that Essex minus unitary county boroughs would leave a shire which could not be other than unitary. That is not our view. There could be a two-tier structure. There could be the county of Essex, with its cricket, history and all the rest, and under it a local district authority reflecting the local community. The fact that the county had lost some of what is currently Essex does not mean that it would not be possible to have two-tier government.
      Let us take the south-west peninsula. The hon. Member for Brightside will not make his cause popular in the south-west. The people of Cornwall want to be Cornish. They want to be governed as Cornwall, not the south-west peninsula. They may be in favour of regional government devolved from Whitehall, but they certainly do not want to give up Cornwall for some greater south-west region with tiers only below that.
      Mr. Blunkett: I did not say that.
      Mr. Hughes: Well, the people of Cornwall do not want to belong to the south-west peninsula. They want to belong to Cornwall, not Devon and Cornwall. On many occasions that is the cause of their resentment.
      Mr. Blunkett: I will not keep the hon. Gentleman long, but I do not want an avalanche of letters from the south-west peninsula. I was referring to the possibility of regional government. I am happy to accept the Cornish wish to be Cornish. Indeed, many have written saying that they want a region with districts under it. That is different from being a county. They certainly do not want a west region that stretches from Wiltshire all the way down to Cornwall. Given that the hon. Gentleman's party is in favour of regions, perhaps he will enlighten me on whether he is also in favour of that.
      Mr. Hughes: I had David Penhaligon as a colleague for many years and now have his successor. There are many other strong Cornish voices in my party, including not only those who run our county council in Cornwall. So I assure the hon. Gentleman that if we ever dared to suggest a western region from Wiltshire to Cornwall we would be in considerable difficulty. We do not suggest that, and we never have.
      It is important that we should be clear about our respective positions. Both the Labour party and my party believe in regional government. In that context, the debate about smaller geographical units—Devon and Cornwall, or Cornwall on its own—is yet to be resolved. The aspirations of the Cornish are to their own nationality. They would put it as strongly as that. My point was that
      844
      for unitary local government anything larger than Cornwall would be unacceptable. I know that from my visits and conversations with people there.
      I wish to put in a strong plea to the Minister; I think that he will be sympathetic to it. It is about the wording of new clause 3 and other similar new clauses. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has tabled a new clause which I guess comes from the same thought process and idea. I make a strong plea for smaller communities, especially in metropolitan Britain. Greater London—the area which both the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and I represent—has suffered greatly as a result of the 1965 reorganisation of local government. So far the Government have resisted responding to voices in Greater London while they have not resisted voices elsewhere.
      In this debate I am not arguing about the need for a regional authority for London. The Minister knows that my party and the Labour party believe that there should be such an authority. I am arguing about the natural local tier of local government. If I understand new clauses 3 and 14 aright, the local government commission will be asked to take account of certain objectives. New clause 14 describes them as:

      "(a) to identify areas within which people expect to obtain most of their everyday services;

      (b) to establish local government boundaries that facilitate the meeting of people's needs and the respecting of existing social organisation".

      In London, that means areas smaller than boroughs of 215,000 people.
      I want to put this point simply to the Minister. I am sure that he understands it, because he is a London Member. In London there is no legitimate tier of democracy below the London borough. I do not know the exact figures for Enfield—the Minister's borough—but Southwark consists of about 215,000 people. So the lowest tier of local government represents a community of about a quarter of a million people.
      In London one is not allowed by any process to set up a parish or community council. Anomalously, London is the one part of Britain that is excluded by law from having such councils. I have sought to correct that by means of a London local government Bill in the past. I beseech the Minister to say in response to the debate that he and his colleagues are not against the commission recognising, as implied by the wording of the new clauses, that, for example, people in Southwark say loudly—as they do—that they want smaller borough councils and allowing them to have such councils. They want the size that they knew and could cope with, which was relatively small. If we are to allow district councils in the shires of England, we should allow smaller borough councils in the urban areas.
      Mr. O'Brien: Before the hon. Gentleman moves off the point about smaller local authorities, is he saying that the functions of unitary authorities in the shire areas should also be passed to the smaller authorities that he envisages in the metropolitan areas?
      Mr. Hughes: Our view is clear. The hon. Gentleman's party and mine agree that there should be a strategic authority for London to take on strategic planning, economic development and other functions. If we had such an authority, we should also have smaller borough councils, as we previously had, to administer matters such

      845
      as housing, social services and other provisions. Such a council is far more likely to deliver a user-friendly service. My local authority runs 60,000 properties. That is the housing stock of Southwark. That point has been made by other colleagues. It is effectively incapable of running that stock in a way that is responsive to the needs of the individual. People feel like numbers and are treated like numbers. I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that. People want a community service that is sufficiently close for them to feel that it is the same place. I will illustrate that simply.
      A local authority in an area such as inner London may say to someone on the housing waiting list, "You cannot have a house in the place where you have lived all your life. You will go seven or eight miles away to a community which is completely different." For example, a person may be sent from Rotherhithe to Dulwich or Sydenham. But that is like saying to people in Halesowen that they must move to a village in south Herefordshire. That is the difference that is involved. It is bad for communities and for building up communities to do that. It is also expensive for the public purse. If communities and families are separated, they become dependent on public authorities for social support and not on the family and community that they know and love.
      New clause 13 makes a simple proposition. It says:
      "The Local Government Commission shall, in making recommendations under this Part, have particular regard to the need to secure effective planning for environmental purposes."
      All of us who have taken part in the debate about how best one can plan for environmental purposes know that it is important to consider what is the best tier of local government for planning. It is no secret that the planners of Britain—bodies which are competent and respected, such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England —are worried that if unitary government were imposed or if the county councils disappeared, the best tier for planning would disappear.
      In certain subject areas we plan badly at present. For example, there are no coherent planning strategies for development planning along estuaries. When people are trying to protect wildlife, the countryside, fishing, birdlife or whatever, it is no answer to say that the county or local authority boundary goes up the middle of the estuary: on the right there is Essex and on the left there is Kent or on the right there is East Sussex and on the left West Sussex. There is often a need for coherent policy for coastal, marine and estuarial protection. I am aware that there is a specific new clause on estuarine and coastal areas. We will probably not reach it. I am using them as an example and I hope that the Minister accepts that. There is a good case for saying that one ought to consider that sort of issue together and consider environmental aspects.
      The commission ought to decide whether a boundary will allow for a structure that will take into account environmental, planning and demographic considerations. My hon. Friends and I ask the House and the Minister to accept that it would not be harmful for that obligation to be imposed on the commission. We are not saying that it should take precedence, but it should be added to its lists of objectives.
      I hope that the new clause will be acceptable, either in its existing form or in some other. My hon. Friends and I
      846
      dissent from the implied assertion of the hon. Member for Brightside. We expect that the Bill will become law before the general election, whenever that is. No doubt, the aim of the guillotine is to achieve that. On that basis, let us get it right as far as we can now. If the new clauses are acceptable and advantageous let us pass them. I hope that new clause 13 in particular, and new clauses 14 and 3—although I am not a signatory to the former—will be acceptable to the Government and will find their way into the Bill when we vote.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. David Wilshire: Both the previous speeches had a common theme—let us get it right this time. I shall be the third person to say that. We do not often get a chance to put right fundamental wrongs about local government. Whatever the outcome of the general election, the Bill is probably here to stay, in some form or other: for heaven's sake, let us get it right while we are about it.
      I shall comment briefly on new clauses 3 and 13 and speak to my two new clauses 14 and 17. Before I do so, I must make a couple of general remarks. First, I must thank two people. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) had the unenviable job in Committee of moving an amendment standing in my name which focused on the importance of local people to this debate, as distinct from councillors and council officers. My hon. Friend expressed my views accurately on that matter and I am grateful to him. It was a thankless task to try to work out what I was trying to say and he said all that needs saying—from my point of view—on the question of local people. If hon. Members wish to pursue the matter. I refer them to columns 521 and 522 of the Official Report of Standing Committee D on the Bill.
      I must also thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State who, from time to time, has said nice things about the influence that I seem to have had on parts of the Bill. I am grateful, but I think that he would expect me to say that I am sorry that he took on board only some of the things that I had to say. I shall make one last attempt to persuade him to accept the rest.
      The second general point is that I deliberately did not seek to intervene on the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) because I want to couch my remarks in non-party terms. That is why I did not take him up on arguments that I disagree with. I shall try to express my remarks in a way which will not excite him, although he will disagree with some of them. What I have to say could well raise a few eyebrows on both sides of the House. For example, I agree with much of what the Labour party has said today and previously, but I fundamentally disagree with some things which they have got wrong, and will say so. Also, the Government are correct in principle in what they are trying to do, but they have to get some of the detail right. Hopefully, there will be a bit of give-and-take on both sides of the House.
      I agree with five of the seven points which the Labour party lists in new clause 3, although one of the five is incomplete. The trouble with three of the aspects of the new clause that I agree with is that they do not define in clear terms exactly what they mean. Let me explain. First, the Labour party stresses in new clause 3 the importance of local communities, but does not say what they are and how it would establish them. However, it is right—local

      847
      communities are important. Secondly, the Labour party refers to the importance of local government, but does not define exactly what it means. Thirdly, it says that the Bill must be understood by electors. My only quarrel with that is that it must be understandable to electors, residents, users of services and everyone else—not merely to electors —but that is a small point. Fourthly, the clause states that the whole system needs to be accountable, but does not describe what that means. However, I agree in general terms.
      Where I fall out in a big way with Opposition Members is when they talk about service delivery. They seek to make that the same thing as defining local government when it is a separate issue. They also seek to draw into the new clause matters which I would describe as regional. They see them as part of strategic local government. For reasons that I shall explain, I do not believe that service delivery is the same thing as local government.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that he hoped that new clause 13 would commend itself. The sentiments in the clause are worthy and I support them entirely, but they have nothing to do with the Bill. If the new clause was tabled in a service delivery context, I would have no difficulty in supporting it.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that we must define natural local communities but then said that if they do not suit environmental protection we should draw up something else. He cannot have it both ways. He is right that we must have some way to deal with an entire estuary, to take his example—
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I did not say that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one must define natural communities. However, environmental considerations should be taken into account by the Boundary Commission. They should go into the balance.
      Mr. Wilshire: I shall pursue that later as it will become clear why I disagree and why that is not an issue when describing natural communities.
      New clauses 14 and 17 seek to set out additional detail, which the Labour party has left out, and I hope that it will find them acceptable. The clauses also seek to show why service delivery must be separated from this discussion.
      My new clauses seek to do five things. Paragraph (a) of new clause 14 seeks to define a local community for the purposes of the local government commission; (b) gives a definition of local government which is intended to make it clear to the commission what it is supposed to be setting up; (c) deals with the question of accountability and what the future of local government should be; and (d) seeks to separate out service delivery. New clause 17 explains how service delivery could then be dealt with differently.
      We all agree that we want to define local communities, but what do we really mean by them? Most discussions that I have been party to, or listened to, start with the assumption that there is one thing called a local community and that all we need to do is to discover what it is, draw boundaries round it and all will be well, and we will not have to come back in two years to try to put it right. The trouble with that analysis is that we all belong to several different sorts of local community. It is vital that we understand the differences between them.
      Let me give some examples of types of communities. We all belong to a household of some sort, we all come
      848
      from a village, a street or a housing estate; we all come from a town or a rural area, and from a county or a region. They are all local communities in one form or another.
      If the local government commission is to get it right it needs to know which of those local communities it is supposed to be focusing on. All those communities have two things in common, which is why they are often confused. They are all part of the natural way in which human society organises itself. There are households, villages, towns and counties and, whether we like it or not, they are there and do not rely on Government to define them. Secondly, they are all territorial. One has only to look at what happens on the beach when one tries to stake out one's territory to realise how desperately territorial we all are.
      Mr. McCartney: Who would risk lying on a beach under this Government?
      Mr. Wilshire: I expect that you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were to respond to that stupid intervention on beaches.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman should learn to be diplomatically deaf, as I am sometimes.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am practising that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you could give me some instruction on it at some other time.
      The point about natural communities is that they are territorial and part of human organisation, but when we define them none of them owes anything to service delivery. As well as the differences between them, another aspect has been overlooked in the debate. Each community has a particular focus.
      The household, for example, focuses on daily life. Anyone who does not consider that the household is part of social organisation should listen to those who argue for women's rights. They would then understand that there is a clear social organisation in the household, which women want to change. In the village, the street and housing estate the community focus is on self-help and in the town or area the focus of people is on the area within which their services will be delivered. When we consider counties or regions, we become locked into the issue of sub-cultural differences. I mention that because it is absolutely vital to note that, unlike the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I have not referred once to a sense of identity because each type of natural community has a sense of identity. It is no use appealing to a sense of identity when trying to establish local government because each community has it.
      If the household is a commune, its members will identify strongly with that community. If one asks a village resident in rural England, he will say that it is the place with which he identifies fiercely. If one speaks to the residents of the Falls road in Belfast, they will say that they identify strongly with that street.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): Brookside.
      Mr. Wilshire: Yes, one could take that example. If one speaks to the residents of the Broadwater Farm estate, one will understand how closely they identify with it. Consideration of the question of identity will get us nowhere. If one speaks to people from York, they will say

      849
      that they identify with that town, but they will then take a further leap and say that they identify with Yorkshire. We have awful trouble in pursuing the issue of a sense of identity to establish what we mean by natural community for the purposes of local government. We all identify with many different communities of different sizes and we have to be careful when we consider them.
      The second key issue that lies behind my new clauses is what we mean by local government. I broadly agree with the hon. Member for Brightside on what represents a good and secure future for local government. There are two definitions of local government. The first is that it is simply a vehicle for the delivery of local services; the second is that local government is part of the social fabric. The recent debate among Members on both sides of the House has tended to focus almost exclusively on local government as a vehicle for the delivery of services, which makes it an appendage of central Government. The hon. Member for Brightside said that it is increasingly being seen as an appendage. Conservative Members may have considered local government in that light, but Labour Members have also tended to do so.
      The local government commission must avoid that and see local government as part of the social fabric and as something that can neither be created nor got rid of. If we consider local government in that way, we shall arrive at its true role and see it as part of society's organisation.
      We arrive at local government's true role by my analysis of different types of community because each type focuses on something different. Each has a different role and that is their significance. The household may be informal, but it is an organisation. The village, street or housing estate has an organisation, which is typically the parish council. I support the view of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that that concept exists in the countryside in medium-sized towns and in the metropolitan areas. That is part of the natural fabric, but the snag is that that concept does not equate to local government. We delude ourselves if we start talking about local government structures needing parishes in London. Social organisation requires them, but not local government. That is the key to my argument.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that an anomaly exists in one part of Britain alone, Greater London, where there is no formal democratic structure through which people can get together on their estates or in their areas to discuss issues? That is wrong and it should be corrected.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: I support the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but I question whether there is no structure. When the House deprives people of a formal structure for debate, such structures develop on a self-help basis, for example, with the establishment of residents' associations. I accept that they are not the same as a formal structure, but such associations develop when there is no alternative. That reinforces my point about the natural development of certain structures. The House cannot deny such developments, but it can make them more democratic. However, parish councils, which have a role in the future, are not part of the issue.
      850
      It is clear that people expect most of their daily services to be delivered to them by their town or local area. It is that level of organisation which is known as local government. On regions, I accept that a useful purpose could be served by regional assemblies. However, before any Opposition Member writes that down for future use against me—
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is too late.
      Mr. Wilshire: No, it is not too late because we both mean something totally different.
      I dispute whether one can effectively divide England, in sub-cultural terms, into the type of artificial regions for which some argue. Regions, in common with parishes, are nothing to do with local government—they are entirely separate. It is perfectly possible, as has been demonstrated in this country for a long time, to organise things without regional assemblies. Although I accept the theoretical sense of that particular model, that does not mean that I agree with their establishment. Should Opposition Members seek to dig out my comments to throw them back at me in the future, I hope that the detailed record will demonstrate that I am not as supportive of their case as they would like to think.
      The other issue arising from my new clauses was mentioned several times in Committee by the hon. Member for Brightside—he hinted at it again today—and it relates to the need to enhance the role of local government. The interesting thing is that the whole House wants to do that. Various options for enhancing local government, including making it more accountable and democratic and improving its management, have been argued to and fro. The trouble with such an approach is that, unless one understands the role of local government, how in heaven's name can one enhance it? The new clauses will draw out for the local government commission exactly what the basic role of local government should be.
      It will come as no surprise to people to learn that my approach rests on the concept of natural communities, which represent different levels of organisation. The role of local government is revealed by an analysis of natural communities. Just as each natural community focuses on something different, so the necessary level of organisation, be it parish council, local council or even regional assembly, which represents people in the community focuses on something different.
      My analysis of communities has fundamental implications, which may, I fear, be unpalatable to both sides of the House. However, that analysis gives local government the opportunity to have a worthwhile, respected and secure future. Natural communities secure a healthy role for local government because the natural communities that we call local government—social territories, as I referred to them at the outset—are areas within which local people expect their needs to be met by local services.
      It is clear from talking to local people about their services that they do not mind who runs a particular service. If people say, "We need a new supermarket; we do not have a decent supermarket in our area", they could not care less whether the supermarket is owned by somebody who lives in the town or in London or Glasgow. They simply know that they want a local supermarket. The issue of who owns what and provides what does not fire up people, which is no doubt why Labour Members will not take kindly to my analysis of the situation. Some of my

      851
      hon. Friends may not take too kindly to it, because when one speaks to local people about their needs they do not differentiate between needs that are met by services provided by local government and those met by anybody else. When they say that they want their needs met by services, they mean services in general.
      If the role of local government means being involved in the provision of needs with services, local government must have a say in the provision and delivery of all services, not just those that it seeks to control for itself.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. My experience is that services provided by local government are better appreciated than are services provided by other bodies because locally provided services are identified with local people. They identify, for example, with local councillors or officials, rather than with a distant provider. To cite the example of a supermarket does not fit into this category because that is a straightforward shopping area. With services in general, particularly in small rural areas, people identify with services provided by their local authority.
      Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman seems not to have understood the point I was making, which is that local people do not distinguish between services in the way he describes. The hon. Gentleman may think that certain services are better delivered by local government. I do not dispute that. But people do not compare the health service with local government services, supermarkets, solicitors or the water supply. They look at all services, irrespective of who supplies them, and the only point I am making in that context is that nobody would expect local government to deliver every service that local people use. I am sure that we can agree on that, and certainly we can agree that local government should not provide supermarkets.
      The debate has focused almost exclusively on the services that local government controls. The hon. Gentleman's intervention made that point. But the real role of local government concerns all the needs of the people whom it represents and all the services that they require. So the role of local government is not the delivery of services but the addressing of needs. Hence the whole question of the enabling authority and meeting needs rather than delivering services. That is how the question arises because the real role of local government is to analyse the needs of all people, irrespective of the service, and to articulate the concerns and local priorities of all people.
      Having done all that, it seeks to provide, if that seems appropriate, or to persuade others to provide, or to criticise other providers, or to assist in the provision of whatever service may be in question. Such assistance occurs from time to time, for example, by allowing planning permissions which might be socially desirable whereas, in the context of planning policy, it might not necessarily be so kindly disposed to grant permission. Rate or rent breaks and similar issues are other examples.
      I argue that all of those activities are of equal worth. Yet for long we have been locked into a debate only about those services that local government itself delivers. That very debate brings local government into disrepute, not least when we say that it should not do it and Opposition Members say that provision is all that matters. In other words, local government has a role to play in all those service matters, but it makes no difference if the service
      852
      deliverer is private or voluntary sector or even central Government. Local government is involved in the whole process.
      Mr. O'Brien: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the private sector can provide a planning procedure equal to that currently provided by local government? Is he also saying that the first stage of local communities—the parish councils—are not interested in planning? Is he not aware that the first consideration is planning and that people are concerned in the planning of their communities, which means that planning cannot be left to the private sector?
      Mr. Wilshire: I did not say that the private sector could be left to deal with town and country planning. If the Official Report shows that I said that, the hon. Gentleman is right to criticise me. If he asks whether I believe parishes have a role in this whole process, the answer is that by saying that a community focuses on an issue as its prime concern does not mean that it must close its mind to everything else. It has a lesser role. I was identifying with the key or central role, and I appreciate that other interests come into this.
      I maintain that service delivery is fundamentally different from the whole question of local communities, and this bears on a point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. Local communities as I have described them are biological, social and stable; a natural community is natural whether it is big, small or of medium size.
      Mr. Eric Martlew: Did the hon. Gentleman vote in favour of the guillotine? Does he intend to talk out the Bill?
      Mr. Wilshire: If I wanted to learn how to waste time and make the debate on my new clause continue until 10 o'clock, I would only need to study the Standing Committee reports to have a wonderful example of how to filibuster. Such tactics were regularly adopted by Opposition Members. I have not spoken for nearly as long as some Labour Members spoke in Committee. I have at least another hour and a half to go before catching up with the sort of length at which they spoke. I do not intend to delay the House for that length of time, but I must develop the point I was making about local communities being social and stable entities.
      Service delivery depends greatly on technology and management and on being able to change the shape and size of things. That is the opposite of what a natural community is. The trouble is that both are territorial. Natural communities are territorial, as is service delivery, which is where the trouble starts. There is a temptation for people to try to make social territories and service delivery territories coincide. That is why we ended up in 1974 with artificial territories. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wants smaller territories. In fact, he wants natural territories, whether they are small or big. I should have thought that the Scilly Isles, with a population of 2,000 people, was a natural community. Birmingham, with I do not know how many people, is probably also natural.
      Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by social relationships and communities never coinciding with service delivery areas? That cannot be true for basic services such as waste disposal and collection. The development of household waste disposal services must relate to the houses from which the refuse is

      853
      collected, which means that the service must be based on the structure of the community, simply because the waste is collected from the community.
      Mr. Wilshire: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The key point about emptying dustbins is that they are emptied from the back doorstep or the end of the drive. That is the important point, not whether the person coming to empty them is organised from Glasgow, London or locally. The point at which such a service is organised is of no consequence to the concept of the social community. The dustbins are in exactly the same place wherever the management is located.
      6 pm
      Every organisation except local government—that specialised area about which Opposition Members are so concerned—fully understands that the delivery of services is best organised service by service, that the territories for each service are unique to it, and that the optimum size of a service territory depends on the service. For example, one has only to compare the areas in which the national health service operates with those in which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food operates to understand that Ministries do not have the same service delivery areas. If we consider quangos and agencies, we find that the driving territories of the vehicle licensing centre at Swansea are totally different from the territories of the National Rivers Authority because they provide different services. In the voluntary sector, the Royal National Institute for the Blind organises its service delivery entirely differently from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; they offer different services with different optimum territories. In the private sector, no one would expect the regional organisation of Marks and Spencer to be the same as that of Tesco.
      If everywhere else there is a clear understanding that service delivery territories should be determined on a service-by-service basis, why do we desperately try to force local government service territories to fit social territories? That is where all the trouble comes from.
      If my analysis is correct and the Government are to separate the defining of social territories from service delivery territories, how are we to deal with the anxieties that have been expressed about the chaos that might follow? The hon. Member for Brightside expressed that anxiety and asked whether the measure would lead to the decimation of service delivery. New clause 17 seeks to deal with that. It says that the local government commission should define social territories and look for natural community areas in which people expect to receive services. Once those new unitary authorities have been set up, they will take over the functions of the existing district. There would be no difficulty with that because it would be a small change.
      A possible approach would be to place the services provided by the county councils under the care of a "service trust", which would handle the services that county councils deliver now. They would take over the running of those services in the short term, while the unitary authorities work out ways to handle these services. Thus the service would continue, service trusts would be set up and, once the unitary authorities had found their feet, they would either draw up contracts with the service
      854
      trusts or they would ask a body like the Audit Commission whether they could take over a service themselves. In a separate process, the Audit Commission would then judge the best service delivery territories.
      I support five sevenths of new clause 3. I would support new clause 13 if it were relevant, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State should think seriously about new clauses 14 and 17. I hope that he will accept them, but I suspect that he cannot at this late stage. In that case, I hope that he will think seriously about the guidelines that have been issued because I find it difficult to support them as they stand. If the Bill cannot take on board the points that I have made, the guidelines must do so. Otherwise, we shall not get it right and, whoever is next in government, we shall find ourselves in this same position again and again.
      Mr. McCartney: Before the guillotine falls, I wish to make a brief contribution about the duties of the local government boundary commission. I expressed my concern on Second Reading, in Committee and during the debate on the guillotine motion, about the commission's role in taking evidence locally and its procedures for making recommendations.
      I am worried about how the Government have set up the local government boundary commission's role in the Bill, because they have left out a unique and important part of it. The Local Government Act 1972 obliged the commission to seek the views of local authorities, local representatives and local community groups. It also made it clear that local people, having looked at the first draft of the boundary commission's recommendations, could make representations before a final decision was made. I have listened carefully to the Minister during previous debates, but I am unclear whether an appropriate appeals procedure will exist in respect of local investigations. That is important, although I do not see it as a party-political issue in the sense that the Government are controlling and managing the commission. A Secretary of State of any political party will be able to manipulate the commission's decisions if an appeals procedure is not set down in the Bill so that local people can have a real say in determining the final decision to be made, via the commission, by the Secretary of State.
      The local government boundary commission is currently reviewing the position in England and Wales, and has made recommendations in my area and the neighbouring area of Knowsley. The initial decision would remove Knowsley borough council from the political and administrative map of England. Its services and geographical area would be added to various other local authorities in Lancashire and Merseyside, such as Liverpool local authority. However, through the appeals procedure more than 70,000 local objections were registered with the boundary commission. That weight of objection determined the outcome, and the boundary commission changed its recommendation.
      The Bill will not give local people the ability to register an objection before a final decision is made by the Secretary of State if the local government boundary commission suggests either a partial change or total abolition of an authority. Furthermore, voluntary organisations cannot make proposals about the nature of the local authority, its geographical spread or its management. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been involved in all forms of activity in the voluntary sector, working with youth, children, housing

      855
      and the disabled. More than 600 types of voluntary organisation operate on a daily basis, directly or in conjunction with local authorities, in the delivery or preparation of services. Yet the Bill gives no idea how the voluntary sector can be involved in the consultation procedure as to the nature of the local authorities to be set up and the type of service that they will provide.
      It is important that the Minister states clearly what he intends to place in the Bill or in regulations. Local organisations and, more importantly, community groups should have a statutory right of appeal when the boundary commission first makes proposals to the Secretary of State. They should be able to object to the proposals, and hearings should be held locally and not just at the commission's or the Department of the Environment's headquarters at Marsham street.
      What guidelines will the Secretary of State lay down for the commission on setting out the procedures for local authorities and on the consideration of amendments to be put forward by the commission? The Bill is seriously flawed because it does not show how the commission will proceed in considering local areas of administration. The Secretary of State has already recommended the abolition of certain local authority units in north-east England and the midlands. Given that he has already intervened, how will the commission proceed in relation to the rest of England?
      The Minister has not made it clear in the Bill or in discussions in Committee whether a statutory period of consultation will be set down, to be publicised locally through newspapers and other means, whereby the commissioner has to follow a strict timetable for the consideration of evidence sent in by local communities. The commissioner should publish his views on that evidence and set down another strict timetable within which those views should be considered and recommendations made.
      The Minister owes it to the House to give a clear sign as to what input there will be from local communities. If the commission is to work and to be accepted as a non-political organisation which will not be manipulated by Government, we must have those safeguards. More importantly, local communities must have the ability to influence the commission's decisions.
      Mr. Michael Alison: I wish to make a brief point about the financial constraints latent in new clause 3, which are not so specific as I would wish. There is an important need to assess the economic cost of change in the local government review process. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading that considerable weight had been placed in the draft guidance on the need to demonstrate that there is an economic case for change.
      Paragraph 14 of the draft guidance states that
      "change to the structure of local government should be worthwhile and cost effective."
      Given the inevitable upheaval and cost involved in reorganisation, I warmly support the Government's emphasis on the need for proper justification in cost terms. In that connection, I welcome the issue on 11 February of the so-called CSL report, which the Government commissioned to advise both on costs and benefits relevant to the work of the commission and on a consistent methodology against which the commission can judge
      856
      proposals for change. That is a reassuring recognition by my right hon. Friend of the central importance of assessing costs and benefits in the forthcoming review.
      I believe that the report is currently out for consultation with local authority associations. It is a useful starting point, and effectively dispels any notion that a blank cheque approach will be taken to that aspect of reorganisation. However, it was not always thus. The cost of the last major local government reorganisation, in 1974, was not evaluated at the time and I believe that it has never been fully costed. An estimate of £280 million has been made for the cost of the 1974 reorganisation, but the figure is likely to have been far higher, particularly when one recalls the early retirement pensions of town clerks, borough treasurers and the like, which would continue for some time. I am glad that my right hon. Friend's approach to the present proposals for change is more pragmatic and flexible. Economic cost and cost benefit factors must be properly monitored and measured. I am glad that the adage of the late President Harry Truman, "If it ain't bust, don't fix it", is to be allowed some influence and recognition.
      6.15 pm
      To return to a theme that I touched on when we last debated the Bill, a case can be made—at least for my own county of North Yorkshire—for keeping a second tier in operation, albeit in an attenuated form, where huge tracts of territory exist in local government terms as in the case of the premier county, the largest in the country.
      I wish to put in a good word for the counties which, by and large, have proved themselves prudent arid economical units of government. For 1992–93, counties' spending variation from the grant-related expenditure-standard spending assessment formula, before use of reserves, is minus 0·1 per cent., compared with the districts' variation of plus 11·6 per cent. Although they are main service providers, counties will add a mere £5 on average to each charge bill in 1992–93. In the past 11 years, average county spending, which approaches one half of all local government spending, has been just £80 million above the Government's desired level, compared with spending by other authorities taken together of £1·3 billion above the Government's desired level. I hope that the local government commission will not disregard a system which produces such budget-conscious authorities.
      Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend is quoting from the voluminous paperwork of the Association of County Councils. Everything that he is saying relates to service delivery. The trouble is that some of the natural communities which exist do not conform to the big, centralised form of service delivery approach argued by the ACC.
      Mr. Alison: I fully appreciate that the ACC has deposited on us a voluminous amount of facts and figures, and I have worked hard to boil them down to a five or 10-minute speech, as I believe that they are valid.
      I shall open up the cost benefit analysis in more detail. The initial assessment of the Associaiton of County Councils is that the creation of unitary authorities based on present districts would cost more than £300 million per year for management and administration, compared with the present system, which is a substantial net addition to local government costs. Those costs represent the cost of breaking up 39 counties with 88 per cent. of the

      857
      expenditure, as against abolishing 296 districts with 12 per cent. of the expenditure. We must recognise that a district takeover of the county councils would lead to twice as many management structures, chief officers, and so forth.
      Mr. Martlew: The second tier of officers within the county council structure is often organised on a district level, so could we not cut off the top tier and make the second tier the chiefs of the new districts, thus saving money?
      Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am not saying that the case is proven that the counties—even my own county of North Yorkshire—should stay as they are, or that the districts are too small and numerous to be the order of the day. I am saying that we need to evaluate the costs involved. I am not saying that those rather startling cost figures should be decisive. I fully support the argument that weight should be given to community identity and loyalties—as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) strikingly brought out in his speech—if we are to have effective and convenient local government as set out in the commission's brief.
      We all know and accept that democracy can be costly, just as justice under the rule of law cannot be had on the cheap. The notion of effective and convenient local government, however, includes the idea of economical and stable local government. We must not lose sight of the fact that small authorities might not be viable in terms either of the unit cost of their services, or of the stability and robustness of their finances—and some districts are very small.
      Services in 250 districts account for less than £15 million per year. County council services on average account for £500 million per year. The idea of course is that the district minnows should grow a bit and the county Titans should decline a bit. But let no one imagine that an Alice-in-Wonderland medicine, simply labelled "Take Me", as in the famous story, will produce the changes in size, as it did for Alice, with no prescription charge payable for the medicine. The change will cost money.
      The recent publication of the CSL report and the Government's intention to issue detailed guidance to the commission on the way to assess the costs and benefits of structural change are timely, essential and welcome. This time we must cost the menu in advance. Together, the criteria set out in the Bill and the proposed guidance to the commission will help to give us a durable and sensible basis for decision-making about future local government structure and the extent to which change is needed. I hope that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will give continuing attention to the validity of the cost evaluating structure which they have reasonably and sensibly built into the system of the commission's review.
      Mr. Gordon Oakes: I shall be very brief, although, like many other hon. Members, I wanted to say a good deal. We are governed by a guillotine motion and I must defer to my hon. Friends—indeed, to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We want to vote fairly quickly, if vote there be.
      I consider it shameful for the House to be deprived of an interesting debate on the whole future of local government by the imposition of a guillotine on what is
      858
      essentially a constitutional Bill—as has been revealed by every contribution to this interesting debate that we have heard so far.
      I agree with nearly all of what was said by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). Let me issue a plea on behalf of county councils. As I told the House on Second Reading, I am an honorary vice-president—completely unpaid—of the Association of County Councils. Let there be no "oohs" and "aahs"; I do not get a penny for it.
      I am proud of what county councils do. They are responsible for 88 per cent. of local government expenditure and, of the vast number who are employed by them-1·25 million—only six in 100 are employed centrally in administration. That means that the counties are giving service to the community.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) should consider these points carefully. County councils meet every one of the criteria specified in new clause 3 and this is our last chance to tell the local government commission exactly what we want it to do. That is the purpose of the debate.
      Mr. Wilshire: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Oakes: I am sorry, but I cannot give way, because of the time constraint.
      In my view, all the new clauses point to county councils being the most suitable structure to deal with—for example—environment and planning matters, which must be dealt with on a wider basis. That is particularly true of new clause 13, tabled by Liberal Democrats and presented very ably by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      I thought at the beginning of the speech by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that he was on my side: I went along with what he said about the need for a diversity of authorities. However, when he began to talk about the establishment of a services commission on behalf of unitary authorities, I realised very quickly that he was descending into the undemocratic shambles described by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside.
      If we want effective and convenient unitary authority local government, we should look to the county councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside said that, in exceptional cases, the existing county council might be the proper authority; in my view, that might be the norm, although it is possible that exceptions would evolve from such circumstances.
      Winding up the Second Reading debate, the Minister of State said that the county councils might exist, but not necessarily for administrative purposes. I certainly do not agree with that: it would create a sort of Lord Lieutenancy, and county councils would have nothing specific to do.
      I am strongly in favour of new clause 13. We cannot have 296 unitary authorities deciding on environmental planning matters, whether they involve a region, the Government, Parliament or any other body. When dealing with the environment, we should start on a world basis and work down, rather than starting on a unitary basis and working up. The environment affects us all.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey rightly mentioned estuaries and the way in which they divide counties. I have encountered a good many problems in regard to the Mersey estuary, because two counties are involved. If responsibility for such matters spread to

      859
      include unitary authorities, the shambles referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside would unquestionably result. That applies not only to water, but to air—pollution and the action of CFCs, for example. Such matters must be dealt with initially on a world basis, then on a European basis, and finally—at the lowest level—on a county basis.
      I promised to be brief and I have put in my word for county councils. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Selby said about the efficiency of county councils and I strongly urge the local government commission, when considering the future structure of local government—which is so important to democracy—to take into account the historic role that counties have played for 1,000 years. I ask the commission to consider the clear identity that they are given in the minds of individual residents, and the efficiency of county government in this country.
      As the right hon. Member for Selby pointed out, the cost of transferring government from county to unitary authorities would be considerable and would greatly disrupt the work of staff. The setting up of a staff commission should be considered, because the Bill will place many jobs in jeopardy, and confusion will result. I urge the commission to give serious consideration to the establishment of county councils as the norm.
      Mr. French: I shall detain the House for only a few moments. I wish to highlight the fundamentally illogical position adopted by Labour Members.
      In his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) spoke of the need to enhance local decision making, to ensure that people obtained the services that they wanted and deserved. He referred to the need to give people choice. Those are noble and worthy sentiments, but the hon. Gentleman went on to adopt a position that, in my view, would make it impossible for Labour to fulfil such sentiments. As my intervention elicited reasonably clearly—I hope—the hon. Gentleman would not allow the exercising of choice to extend to a decision by local people that they would prefer two-tier to one-tier authorities.
      The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either he is deciding to give people proper and meaningful local choice or he is not. If he is, that choice must, by definition, extend to allowing them to opt for two-tier authorities and not imposing unitary authorities on them.
      Mr. Derek Enright: Would the hon. Gentleman also give a vote to allowing locally accountable people to decide whether they wanted regional civil servants to be sent out to govern their lives and make decisions for them? That is what happens at present, but it could easily be dispensed with if they were involved more closely with county councils or with other forms of regional government.
      Mr. French: With respect, I do not think that that is the issue that we are discussing. We are discussing unitary authorities. That brings me to what was said by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). He, too, seemed to adopt a fundamentally illogical position He seems astonished to hear me say that; let me explain.
      The hon. Gentleman entered what was, in many ways, an understandable plea for appeal procedures to be written on the face of the Bill, so that local objections could be aired and a local hearing could take fully into account the position of local people. That is perfectly reasonable as far
      860
      as it goes. However, the hon. Gentleman did not go on to explain what would be his position if such an appeal favoured the retention of two-tier authorities. As his party apparently does not believe in allowing such an option, the hon. Gentleman would automatically have to refuse an appeal based on such grounds—and that, surely, is an untenable position.
      The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) put in a strong plea for county councils to become the norm. His speech revealed again the divisions that clearly exist within the Labour party in regard to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman starts with the preconception that the county councils have so much merit that only in very exceptional circumstances would they be dismantled in favour of a district authority.
      The Labour party's approach would force a preconceived formula on to local people, notwithstanding the fact that they may have expressed disagreement about the proposed change, or that they may have expressed a strong preference—possibly as strong as that expressed by residents in the area represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison)—or that they may have said that they would prefer the two-tier arrangement to be retained. The Labour party would deny them that choice and force the single-tier authority upon them. The Labour party cannot claim on the one hand to he the champion of local democracy and on the other to adopt the formula that it has adopted here.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Martlew: My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) has, I believe, argued the wrong case. If one wants to argue the case for county councils, the right case to put forward is that made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) for a two-tier system. No case can be made out for a unitary authority to be based on the county council of Cumbria. I speak as a former chairman of that county council.
      Cumbria is the second largest county, North Yorkshire being the largest. I am appalled by the idea that the county council should have responsibility for housing. It would be impossible to administer. Carlisle and Barrow, the two centres of population, are 90 miles apart. The Association of County Councils ought to have tried instead to keep the two-tier system. I am in favour of the unitary system, as are my Front-Bench colleagues.
      New clause 13 deals with environmental protection. I have already asked questions about the future of the national parks. At the end of January the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, referred to the need for new legislation to cover the national parks. I understand that the proposal is that all national parks should be based on the Lake District and Peak district model.
      I am concerned about the funding of the national parks by any local government structure. The Government pay 75 per cent. towards the funding of the Lake District national park. The county council raises a precept for the other 25 per cent. The people of Cumbria, therefore, have to pay £750,000 towards the running of the national park. My constituents have to pay £150,000 towards that total sum of £750,000. No part of the national park, however, forms part of my constituency.
      If the national parks are to be affected by any change in local government, we shall have to think again about their

      861
      funding. It is not right that the local population should have to pay towards the cost of running national parks. They are provided for the benefit of the whole nation, not just the local community. National parks lead to local communities having to put up with inconveniences that people who live in other parts of the country do not encounter.
      When the Government consider the funding of national parks, they should decide that the local community ought not to be burdened with the precept. If they decide otherwise, may I suggest to them that it is only right that those communities who face the precept should have the right of representation. At present, my local authority has no representatives on the board of the Lake District national park. I hope that the Minister will clarify the role of the local government commission in terms of the national parks.
      The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I notice a certain restlessness on the Opposition Benches, as though Opposition Members are keen to get to the Division. I shall speak for no longer than is strictly necessary, but I must reply to the points raised in the debate.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is concerned about smaller communities in London. I am familiar with that question. My own borough, like so many other London boroughs, was previously three different boroughs, so I understand his concern. We have to decide where it would be beneficial to bring about unitary government in England. We are not adamant about its introduction everywhere. Given, however, that that is one of our considerations and given also that London and the metropolitan authorities already have unitary government, we do not propose that the local government commission should look at the structure of local government in London. That will be a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman.
      The local government commission will be in existence for a long time. Different views may be taken at different times. The commission will be empowered to look at boundaries in London. That might mean the re-emergence of an historic county that lies mainly within London today—Middlesex. The local government commission might want to consider that issue.
      The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) seems to have misunderstood the position. I have taken no view about whether we should have unitary authorities in some places based upon counties or upon districts. I have not said that counties would be reduced to historic, non-administrative counties. What I have said is that in some places, whatever the result may be regarding the administration of local government, it could be that, when looking at the boundaries, the local government commission might wish to recommend the re-emergence of historic counties on account of the fact that in some places the historic county, in which somebody is deemed to live, is a matter of great concern and consequence.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the point, but will he confirm that there is nothing to preclude, according to the precise wording of the Bill, smaller boroughs—unitary by nature in terms of their powers in London—from being a possible
      862
      consequence of the commission's recommendations? Furthermore, will the Minister confirm that, separately from the Bill, he will get rid of the issue of the parish, at community council level, which is not governed by the Bill but which is an anomaly because London cannot have that, lowest tier of democratic responsibility and accountability?
      Mr. Portillo: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that because boundaries are included in the Bill, that makes it possible to look at boroughs of different sizes. However, I do not want to mislead him. It is not the Government's intention to look towards changing the boundaries of the current boroughs in London. However, I have said that boundary issues can certainly arise in London, both between boroughs and in terms of boundaries that concern historic counties which we might wish to have considered at some point. However, there is nothing in the Bill to exclude the local government commission from considering boundaries and arriving at different arrangements, so long as they remain unitary and do not change the structure of local government in London.
      We continue to think about parishes. We may want to publish a consultation paper in due course. That does not commit me to any course of action in London, but it certainly means that the parishes continue to be on our mind.
      On the subject of estuaries, when the local government commission reports to the Secretary of State, it may recommend that joint arrangements are necessary. It may even recommend to the Secretary of State that he must impose joint arrangements. The Secretary of State has the power to impose joint arrangements. Therefore, a joint arrangement could be used in the case of estuaries, or in the case of important coastline issues.
      Mr. Martlew: Can the Minister deal with the Solway Firth, part of which is in England and part in Scotland? Could joint arrangements be made for the estuary there?
      Mr. Portillo: I hope that it will be possible to reach voluntary agreement. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this part of the Bill deals only with England. I recognise that such cross-boundary problems arise, but I hope that they will be dealt with by voluntary arrangements.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made an interesting and intelligent speech. He has been influential in the drafting of the Bill and the draft guidance that, ultimately, will be considered by the local government commission. He powerfully made the point that there are two different sorts of territory—areas where people expect their needs to be met and areas across which it may be efficient to deliver services to people. I think that he has helped members of the Committee, and now hon. Members, to understand that such differences exist.
      The question has always been how much we include in the Bill. I believe that we should include the essense of the local government commission and not try to include every nuance and consideration because it would become extremely unwieldy.
      In Committee, the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). On reflection, I have decided that we do not need to amend the Bill. There are two tasks at the heart of the job that we are asking the local government commission to do—it should

      863
      reflect the identities and interests of local communities and it should look out for effective and convenient local government.
      On the second point, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne expressed a fear that is not well placed. Perhaps because that phrase is drawn from previous legislation, he has drawn the conclusion that effective and convenient local government means other than effective and convenient for local people. To me, it means convenient and effective for local people, not convenient and effective for local government; nor does it mean convenient and effective to existing institutions of local government. I believe that the consumer comes first.
      I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has made an important point. I do not agree to amend the Bill, but I agree that we need to reflect some of those points in the guidance that we give the commission. My hon. Friend reasonably said that if I was not able to accept his new clauses he would seek an assurance that I would reconsider the guidance. I give him that assurance.
      The Bill goes some way to meeting some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made. If one considers together the two needs of reflecting the interests and identities of local communities and of effective local government, it omits the householder in the street but retains the town and county as possibilities. It is extremely important that the commission should listen to local people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne knows, I intend shortly to issue draft procedural guidance that will set out the stages through which I expect the local government commission to proceed in establishing the interests and identities of local communities and the means by which it consults and draws its information.
      6.45 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will be interested in that and in the studies of communities that I shall publish at the beginning of next week. Those studies have considered how communities identify themselves and the geographical data that might help us to identify communities. His comments on that work would be extremely welcome.
      The CSL report was welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a different context from the welcome given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is studying that report, and he will have seen in the list of intangible benefits a first attempt to establish a community index, which, among other things, seeks to identify what people regard as important in their local community.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby was concerned about structural change. I confirm that that is an important matter, although, as the CSL report says, the costs and benefits that are tangible and easily quantified must eventually be set against the costs and benefits that are intangible and which constitute the community index that I have just described.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) began by regretting that our debate was guillotined. That is his party's fault. Unfortunately, it decided to waste a lot of time in debates Upstairs. I cannot regret that we are giving a fair amount of time to consideration of part II, which is an important part of the Bill. This evening, we have had one of our most serious
      864
      and effective debates on the subject. If the hon. Member for Brightside wants to get on to part I, that is in his hands rather than mine.
      The hon. Member for Brightside expressed regret that there is no consensus on the subject. It took a real effort by the Labour party for there to be no consensus on the structural reform of local government. The initial reaction of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was to welcome the establishment of the local government commission and the moves being made by the Government. It took an incredible hand-stand—an incredible fixing and changing of the hon. Gentleman's mind—to manufacture some disagreement with the Government.
      Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the Minister will confirm that, on the final day of the Committee stage, I told him that we would be willing to co-operate in the establishment of the commission and its work in return for his being willing to consult us about a balanced and reasonable membership—an offer that was rejected by the Minister.
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is not being entirely accurate. I reassured him that the membership will be balanced. He wished to be consulted not on ballots but on its membership, which is a matter for the Government and will remain so.
      There is a danger that, in all this nit-picking by the Labour party, we may miss the importance of part II, which is a remarkable opportunity and a most unusual piece of legislation. It establishes a local government commission to discover how people view themselves and their communities and how they wish to be governed.
      The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) wanted to know about the procedures by which the local government commission would proceed. He wrongly thought that there was an appeal procedure under the local government boundary commission. I propose that the local government commission should move in line with the local government boundary commission procedures. It will start a review with publicity and consultation, will take into account the representations that it receives in drawing up draft recommendations, will publish and consult on its draft recommendations, will take account again of representations in preparing final recommendations and will publish and submit its final recommendations to the Secretary of State. There will then be a further opportunity for public comment to the Secretary of State before he makes an order giving effect to the commission's recommendation, which will then be debated in Parliament. It is a process of many stages, which proves that we wish to be reasonable and to take the opinions of local people with us at all times.
      What is remarkable about part II is that it enables different structures to emerge in different places. That diversity, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) paid tribute, offends the Labour party. It complains that local people will not be able to shape events, so what does it propose? It proposes unitary authorities everywhere, whether or not people want them. It proposes annual elections everywhere, whether or not people want them. It also proposes a big bang solution with everything done on one day as in the 1970s, even though members of all parties believe that that is not the correct approach.

      865
      On top of that, the Labour party proposes that we should impose regional government although there is no evidence that most people in England have any wish for it whatsoever. Because of a possible untidiness that might arise in Essex under one of the plans which the hon. Member for Brightside has in mind, it is important to him that the people of North Yorkshire represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby should have no opportunity to argue for two tiers of local government if that is what suits them. The Labour party puts forward its usual solution—everything must be standardised and socialist and, inevitably, short lived.
      The hon. Member for Brightside argues about the removal of functions from local authorities. Whenever we discuss finance in the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman complains about the enormous burdens thrust on to local government, but when he wants to argue about structure, he says that all their functions have been removed from them. He does not even blush at the obvious inconsistency between those two positions.
      The hon. Gentleman says that he is concerned about satisfying local people, but he has never understood that the case for local government—for people taking decisions about their own lives and what happens in their communities—is not necessarily the same as that for local authorities. He always argues for local authorities, but never argues for local people.
      The hon. Member for Brightside also talks about the need for choice in housing and education. All the people who have been living under Labour authorities will have let out a belly laugh when they heard that. The first opportunities in housing and education that have been given to many people have been given under this Government's reforms, a point recently recognised in an article in The Sunday Times by two American authors who rightly said:
      "The Conservatives are now building an unbreakable bridge between the Government of this country and the underprivileged who demand better services in education and better services in housing and have suffered from poor services from Labour local government for far too long."
      We are offering the House a truly remarkable piece of legislation. It is unusually enlightened in wishing to identify the true aspirations of local people and to translate them into a system of local government with which people can identify. In return, the Labour party can offer only a system of local government devised in Whitehall and imposed on local people all in one go in one big bang, a system which is standardised and socialist in outlook. Hon. Members will no doubt join me in rejecting the new clause and accepting the spirit of part II of the Bill which is a truly remarkable step forward in identifying the interests of local people.
      Mr. Michael: It is very disappointing to hear the Minister merely playing to his own Back Benches. In his final paragraphs he threw reason to the wind and ranted through a Conservative central office brief in a way that insulted hon. Members' intelligence. He had to find two Americans to give purported support to the Government's approach to local government. The only bridge between the Conservative party and the underprivileged is the fact that the Government have created the underprivileged and
      866
      have caused pain and misery to people, not least in the way in which they have attacked local government and the services that people need.
      The Minister thought that he detected agitation among the Opposition. What he detected was anger because he and the Conservative party are frustrating debate on important issues affecting the lives of ordinary people. This debate has demonstrated clearly how a guillotine stimulates long speeches from Conservative hon. Members in order to mop up the time available for debate without changing or improving the legislation. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) about the Conservative party's outrageous disrespect for constitutional issues as illustrated by tonight's guillotine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, when the Minister says, "It is not our fault", he is merely parroting a ministerial cry which, after 13 years, comes a bit thick.
      I shall not be drawn into the debate about counties and districts because I hesitate to be drawn into any argument about local government in England. However, I shall say what I have said to colleagues in Wales. It is a question not of county or district but of the appropriate element of local government for a given area. What is important, and what the Government have run away from, is the setting of the right criteria on which the unit of local government will be decided.
      The Minister's reply to the debate gave soft words but no substance. It gave commitments to nothing and reassurance to no one except perhaps to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)—which is hardly reassuring to us—about the way in which the Minister will give direction to the local government commission. That worries us because we know that there is a hidden agenda to be drawn out after the election were the Conservative party—God forbid that it should be so—again to be in control of this country.
      The trouble is that the Minister does not understand the arguments about local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham welcomed the idea of a local government commission, if it were to be done properly. That was also set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and by those of us who speak on these matters in Scotland and Wales, those of us who care about and who understand local government.
      The Minister says that membership of the commission is a matter for Government. We have seen what that means—we have seen it in Wales. I see the Minister of State, Welsh Office, hovering in the background. This is the first time that we have seen a Welsh Office Minister throughout our consideration of the Bill. In Wales, quangos have been appointed and packed with people who have failed to be elected to office in Wales. It is they who run Wales rather than people who have been elected. That is also the future that the Minister wants to impose on the people of England. The Conservative party does not want democracy to obstruct the way in which it runs the country.
      The elements of the new clause set out a number of important functions. We might ask why only England will have a local government commission and why, if it is such a good idea, it has been omitted for Wales and Scotland. What is important in each of the three countries is the principles on which local government is reorganised, but that is what the Government have run away from in their approach to the commission.

      867
      My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) rightly reminded us about the commission which considered the boundaries in the 1973 reorganisation. There was a great deal wrong with that reorganisation, but one of the few things that it got right was that it used as building blocks the most local areas with which people identified and of which they felt a part in order to build the units of local government. The new clause, too, seeks to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure the correct units for a structure that is comprehensible to the electors. People care about the unit of government which deals with local affairs, but the Government are not interested in these issues.
      In response to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), let me say that we believe that there can be a variety of types of local government which suit different local areas, but the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) got into the county versus district argument instead of considering the unit appropriate for an individual area. It is that consideration which the new clause seeks to impose on the local government commission as the criterion on which decisions are taken.
      We talk about promoting accountable local government, but the Government are certainly not interested in that. We also talk about cost effectiveness. The hon. Member for Spelthorne was right to say that it is usually a thankless task to work out what he is getting at. It was fine when he told us that he agreed with five of the seven points in the new clause, but he thinks that it could be better drafted. Unfortunately, he does not know the difference between refuse collection and refuse disposal, and he is clueless about the inter-relation of services appropriate to a local authority.
      In the half-baked lecture on sociology to which he treated us, the hon. Member for Spelthorne complained that the new clause does not define what local government is. That is hardly fair because the Labour party, above all, has published documents and has gone into detail about the quality commission. We have said exactly what we think. We have clearly and well defined the nature and functions of quality local government to which we and local government aspire. The hon. Gentleman has criticised precisely what the Government are doing now—failing to define the functions that they consider should be exercised by local government.
      7 pm
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) referred to the size of local government units dealing with housing. The Welsh Office commissioned a report which was published in 1989. It examined housing management in the local authority sector and in the housing association sector. The report was intended to say, "Housing association good; local authority bad." Surprise, surprise! It was an objective report which said that there were strengths and weaknesses in both styles of management. The report was quickly forgotten and buried by the Welsh Office because it was not interested in good practice and it was not interested in the right way to develop housing.
      The problem is that the Government's policies have pushed housing associations into becoming too large to deliver the best quality management, which used to be their forte. We need to go back to providing the appropriate service, whether from the housing association
      868
      sector or from the local authority sector. We do not want the Conservative dogmatism which tries to wipe out one sector so that it cannot make a useful contribution.
      The Government approach education by taking matters out of the hands of locally elected representatives. They are killing off the development towards tertiary education which has made such a positive contribution to the lives of many of our young people aged between 16 arid 19. They have placed a planning blight on our colleges.
      If the Conservative party has its way, local government will be so damaged that there will not be a mechanism for the delivery of community care services. Community care is already a disaster which is being left for us to inherit when the Government go the way that they must before long.
      Let us consider services for the mentally handicapped, for the mentally ill and for adults with learning difficulties. The Government have no interest in or understanding of the issues, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister's appalling answer in December. We need local government services to be provided on a basis which understands the local needs of people and which delivers that service in the way that is required by those hidden people.
      Economic development, education, child care, transport, housing and planning affect the daily lives of ordinary people and that has not come out of the speeches by Ministers or by Conservative Members. That is why the local government structures that provide those services need to be right, and that is why the Minister and Conservative Members appear to have no interest in and no care for the local government structures that we shall have in future.

      I could go on with the list of functions that are important to all of us. Local government cannot exist in a vacuum. It is about people and communities, which the Minister does not seem to understand.
      The new clause contains a proposal to provide for the consideration of appropriate strategic issues at a regional level, which is important. It was tragic that today at the Dispatch Box the Prime Minister appeared to rule that out for the people of England, Wales and Scotland. The Prime Minister, Ministers and Conservative Members who will stand for election throughout the country will be held accountable for that. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, it is an issue that needs to be addressed in detail. If the proposal in the new clause is not accepted, it will not be addressed in detail. We know what direction would be given by the Minister to the local government commission.
      In answer to one of my questions recently, the Prime Minister said that he was in favour of subsidiarity. The problem is that the Prime Minister and Conservative Members do not understand the term. The Government are against subsidiarity because they are against passing power and decision making down to the most local level that is capable of dealing with issues and with the delivery of services. The Government are against subsidiarity within the United Kingdom, just as they are against democracy within the United Kingdom.
      The Government have failed to accept the simple, healthy, democratic principles which are set out in the new clause. That exposes the Conservative party's aim to kill off local government in the United Kingdom and to dictate to local people what they shall do and what they shall get. It is outrageous for the Minister to accuse the Labour

      869
      party of the things of which he and his party are guilty. It is Labour which understands and respects the principles on which local government should be based.
      On the Government's hidden agenda, I warn the Minister and the Government that local contract-placing bodies would not constitute local government. The job of local government is to build communities, not just houses. Co-ordination of inter-agency work is important. Law and order, to return to another item that has been abandoned by the Government, is not just a police job; it demands proper local authorities delivering integrated services.
      We see today the nonsense of a Government who are out of step with European and worldwide moves to local democracy and the local determination of policies and priorities. We have heard the nonsense of Conservative Members who want to sort out the bit that suits them. They have jumped up to talk about their particular bits of Essex, or wherever, and they are not interested in the whole picture or in the development of integrated local government services, based on the right type of areas to serve local people and to meet the aspirations of local people.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside has rightly exposed the Conservative party's outrageous intention to undermine local democracy in the United Kingdom. If the Government, as they appear to intend to do, vote against the new clause, they will demonstrate that they are not serious about the work of the local government commission. Even worse, they will demonstrate that they are not serious and do not care about local government at all. They will be condemned by their votes as surely as they stand condemned by their words and policies.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 276.

      Division No. 94]

      [7.07 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Clelland, David

      Allen, Graham

      Cohen, Harry

      Alton, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Corbett, Robin

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ashton, Joe

      Cousins, Jim

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cryer, Bob

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Cunlitfe, Lawrence

      Barron, Kevin

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Battle, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Beckett, Margaret

      Darling, Alistair

      Beith, A. J.

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bell, Stuart

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bellotti, David

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

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dewar, Donald

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Dixon, Don

      Benton, Joseph

      Doran, Frank

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Blair, Tony

      Eadie, Alexander

      Blunkett, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Boyes, Roland

      Enright, Derek

      Bradley, Keith

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Caborn, Richard

      Fearn, Ronald

      Callaghan, Jim

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Fisher, Mark

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Flannery, Martin

      Carr, Michael

      FIynn, Paul

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Foster, Derek

      870

      Foulkes, George

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fraser, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mullin, Chris

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Murphy, Paul

      George, Bruce

      Nellist, Dave

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      O'Brien, William

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      O'Hara, Edward

      Gould, Bryan

      Parry, Robert

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Patchett, Terry

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pendry, Tom

      Hain, Peter

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hardy, Peter

      Prescott, John

      Haynes, Frank

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Radice, Giles

      Henderson, Doug

      Randall, Stuart

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Redmond, Martin

      Home Robertson, John

      Reid, Dr John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Robertson, George

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Rogers, Allan

      Howells, Geraint

      Rooney, Terence

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hoyle, Doug

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Short, Clare

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Snape, Peter

      Lambie, David

      Soley, Clive

      Lamond, James

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lewis, Terry

      Stephen, Nicol

      Litherland, Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Straw, Jack

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McAllion, John

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      McCartney, Ian

      Turner, Dennis

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Vaz, Keith

      McFall, John

      Wallace, James

      McLeish, Henry

      Walley, Joan

      McMaster, Gordon

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Madden, Max

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Marek, Dr John

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wilson, Brian

      Martlew, Eric

      Winnick, David

      Maxton, John

      Worthington, Tony

      Meacher, Michael

      Wray, Jimmy

      Meale, Alan

      Michael, Alun

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Mr. Eric Illsey and

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      Morley, Elliot

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Alexander, Richard

      Bendall, Vivian

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Amess, David

      Benyon, W.

      Amos, Alan

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Arbuthnot, James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Body, Sir Richard

      Atkinson, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Baldry, Tony

      Boswell, Tim

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Batiste, Spencer

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      871

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hayward, Robert

      Bowis, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Brazier, Julian

      Hill, James

      Bright, Graham

      Hind, Kenneth

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Buck, Sir Antony

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

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Burns, Simon

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Butcher, John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hunter, Andrew

      Carttiss, Michael

      Irvine, Michael

      Cartwright, John

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Cash, William

      Jack, Michael

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Jackson, Robert

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jessel, Toby

      Chapman, Sydney

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Chope, Christopher

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Churchill, Mr

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Key, Robert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Kilfedder, James

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Couchman, James

      Knapman, Roger

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Day, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knox, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Latham, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dover, Den

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lightbown, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lillley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evennett, David

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Farr, Sir John

      Lord, Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Forman, Nigel

      Mans, Keith

      Forth, Eric

      Maples, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Marland, Paul

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Freeman, Roger

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      French, Douglas

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Fry, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

      Gale, Roger

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gill, Christopher

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Moate, Roger

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Gorst, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mudd, David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gregory, Conal

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Grist, Ian

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hague, William

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Page, Richard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Paice, James

      Hannam, Sir John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Harris, David

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Pawsey, James

      Hayes, Jerry

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      872

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Portillo, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Price, Sir David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Thorne, Neil

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Thurnham, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Tracey, Richard

      Rost, Peter

      Tredinnick, David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Trippier, David

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Trotter, Neville

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Walden, George

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Waller, Gary

      Shelton, Sir William

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shersby, Michael

      Warren, Kenneth

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Watts, John

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wells, Bowen

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Whitney, Ray

      Speller, Tony

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wilkinson, John

      Squire, Robin

      Wilshire, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Steen, Anthony

      Wood, Timothy

      Stern, Michael

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Stevens, Lewis

      Yeo, Tim

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Tellers for the Noes

      Stokes, Sir John

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Sumberg, David

      Mr. David Davies.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 4

      ESTABLISHMENT OF STAFF COMMISSION
      '.—

      (1) The Secretary of State, after consulting such bodies representative of existing local authorities or of staff employed by such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned, shall by order establish one or more staff commissions and such a commission may be established either for the whole or any part of England.

      (2) An order made under this section may contain provisions as to the transfer of any person who is, on such date as may be specified in relation to him in the order, the holder of any office or employment and who is affected by any provision of, or of any instrument made under, this Act and shall contain provision for the protection of the interests of such persons.'.—[Mr. Blunkett]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 18— Establishment of Staff Commission (No. 2)—

      '.—(1) The Secretary of State, after consulting such bodies representative of existing local authorities or of staff employed by such local authorities as appear to him to be

      873
      concerned, shall by order establish one or more staff commissions and such a commission may be established either for the whole or any part of England.

      (2) Such a commission shall have the purpose of—

      (a) considering and keeping under review the arrangements for the recruitment of staff by local authorities affected by orders under this Part and for the transfer, in consequence of the provisions of any such order, of staff employed by such authorities;

      (b) considering such staffing problems arising in consequence of such an order, and such other matters relating to staff employed by any such authority, as may be referred to the staff commission by the Secretary of State; and

      (c) advising the Secretary of State on the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of such staff.

      (3) An order made under this section may contain provisions as to the transfer of any person who is, on such date as may be specified in relation to him in the order, the holder of any office or employment and who is affected by any provision of, or of any instrument made under, this Act and shall contain provision for the protection of the interests of such persons.'

      Amendment No. 6, in page 21, line 14, leave out clause 23.
      Mr. Blunkett: The greatest asset that any service has is the people who work for it. The idea that to promote the interests of the public service and to be concerned about the quality of the staff who work in it is somehow to be committed to the interests of the provider as against those of the consumer or user is a great mistake.
      In the years ahead, we need to restore a commitment to, and faith in, the whole concept of public service. We need people who are willing to serve their local communities and who can give more than simply what is expected of them in exchange for the remuneration that they receive in their wage packet. We need to stimulate and motivate people and make them want to do a good job and provide something for the community, not simply because they are paid but out of a desire to serve.
      That is why I make no apology for saying that, if we are to reorganise local government and to ensure a satisfactory transfer of employees from one authority to another, we must establish a mandatory staff commission. The retention of high-quality staff is a prerequisite of high-quality services. If we are to put the interests of users and consumers of the services at the top of the agenda, those who deliver those services and provide for those users and consumers must be considered a key priority.
      The establishment of a staff commission is not only about the interests of staff but about the interests of those who use the services. The Government have made a great mistake in believing that, if one privatises essential local services, one can retain the commitment to the job of staff who related to those whom they served and to the communities and neighbourhoods in which they worked. Much has been lost in the scrabble to disentangle local services and their providers from local authorities and the community. The most obvious examples are the village and neighbourhood schools, where the contractorisation of services has meant that, instead of the staff being part of a team—part of an integrated whole—they are merely the servants of a company or organisation that has placed them there to do a job. Another example is the cleaning of buildings. Anyone who has experienced the transition from an in-house service, made up of people who were part
      874
      of the organisation and who felt some affinity with it, to a service provided by a private company will have discovered to his cost and peril that the staff are no longer committed to the job and the provision of the service but merely to finishing the task as fast as possible and getting off their shift and out of the building.
      We live in a society in which motivation depends on bonuses and pay, rather than on commitment to doing a good job on behalf of the people. The Opposition will seek to restore that commitment to public service and the morale and motivation that existed 20 or 30 years ago in local government when the approach was completely different. People took pride in what they were doing. They cared enough to stay on after their normal hours of work were over. They gave a damn about the people with whom they were dealing and would put themselves out in the evenings and weekends to help them. They had an affinity with the neighbourhood and knew what people's needs were.
      That approach has been lost, but we believe that the establishment of a staff commission would be one small step towards restoring it. It would reflect the need to ensure that the interests of the community were served by an orderly and sensible transfer of employees from one authority to another. We could thus ensure a degree of stability so that people stayed in their employment long enough to be able to be transferred to the successor authority and did not simply leave the sinking ship while the going was good, taking whatever opportunity arose for them—perhaps in another part of the country.
      High-quality staff at every level—from chief officers and senior white-collar staff to those at the sharp end in the delivery of public services—would feel that it was worth their while staying on, keeping the quality of service going in the existing authorities and being willing to transfer in an orderly fashion to the new authority.
      The mistake that may have been made back in the early 1970s when the mandatory staff commission was established was that the need to provide quality to the consumer was not set alongside the needs of the provider. The commission was rightly given the clear instruction that it was to look after the interests of those who worked in the service, and the 1974 transfer and compensation package was very fair to staff. That fairness to the staff needed merely to be seen to be complemented by fairness to customers and users.
      Taken together, the two priorities make sense; one cannot have one without the other. Users cannot be served without decent, highly qualified and motivated staff and staff cannot be provided with employment or with a task worth undertaking unless quality is a key word on their agenda. Perhaps we have not engaged local government staff enough in debate and discussion about their role in the quality development of services. We have regarded them as pawns who can either be transferred to new employers or replaced with people who have been taken on at a lower cost and for lower wages. Perhaps it is time to ensure that the staff are engaged in the debate and feel that their task and future are bound up with the service that they provide.
      It is in that spirit that we wish to promote the concept of a mandatory staff commission, which will not just deal on a piecemeal basis with individual localities but will be seen as essential to the arrangements for the country as a whole. Staff could then feel a continuity of service in the neighbourhood in which they worked and in the work that

      875
      they were undertaking, but would also know that there was a wider context in which their service could be valued and that their transfer to another authority could be acquired if that were more appropriate.
      It is in acceptance of their role and the ability to enable people to continue doing the job and to be able to transfer to that job within the new framework that we believe that the smooth handover—the transition—can best be maintained by ensuring that everyone is committed to it. If they are not, people will he afraid of the change. Change in this country has always been seen as a threat. In one sense, that has led to a conservatism that would otherwise not be present. That can be avoided in the way that I have described, and with the staff commission working alongside the reorganisation to be undertaken by the local government commission.
      That is why we are committed to the notion of the staff commission. We are committed to undertaking it in a more positive way than in the early 1970s. However, there was a commitment by all sides to making it work, and there was success in managing the operation, the compensation regulations and the fair treatment of staff.
      7.30 pm
      Not all staff will be required to remain in the service. Their severance is important to them and, in terms of good industrial relations, it is important to the wider community. We want the matter to be handled smoothly. In that case, we need it to be done without a backlash or a negative reaction and without the danger of a dispute arising, which would dislocate the new authorities before they started and, of course, would undermine the continuance of the quality of service.
      We know that past Ministers have agreed with that—from Sir Keith Joseph, as he was at the time of the reorganisation of local government in London, and his successors under the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in the early 1970s. They understood then and we should understand today the importance of ensuring that the regulations are enforced, that people's fears are put aside and that people can be seen to work together to ensure that the new changes are not a threat to individuals working in a service, but are a promise of better things to come for those who receive the service.
      For those reasons, we have moved new clause 4 and are promoting the idea of a smooth and sensible transfer from one set of authorities, from one set of employees to new circumstances, and protecting staff, pensions and the things that matter to the local community, and ensuring that that can be done in a way that would make sense to anyone outside who was asked what he would do if he were in charge of the process.
      Mr. David Bellotti: I hope that the Government will be persuaded to accept the new clause because the House should send a message of support, concern and understanding to all the people who serve our local authorities. That message will be crucial, because those people will have to face a tremendous amount of change. It is important at this stage that we say to them that we have not only valued the contribution that they have made in the past but that we expect the easiest possible transition to whatever lies ahead and that if the local government commission does its work properly,
      876
      whatever the change and whatever the future is, we value their work now and we will value it in future. Nothing can quantify in monetary terms that message of support.
      We have had a decade in which the Government have been sending different messages to those who work in our local authorities, and we have an opportunity tonight of sending a message of support to them.
      I shall demonstrate why that message is so important. This morning, I was speaking at a full meeting of East Sussex county council, when the information was given that the county council, in trying to position itself in advance of the local government commission going to Sussex, has taken an extraordinary decision. It will probably conclude at the end of that debate that the agency agreements with four districts within East Sussex for highway matters should be abandoned and that it should take back into the centre of the county council what has run very successfully since 1974—responsibility for employing all staff and undertaking all agency agreements. In other words, it will be a centralisation of the county.
      It is obvious why the council is doing that. It hopes that one of the strong cases for devolution to districts will be that they were already successfully undertaking highway matters. One can see the tactic involved. Unfortunately, the pawns are the people who are doing such good work in maintaining our roads and pavements in East Sussex through agency agreements.
      I do not know whether the Minister could even intervene. If local authorities throughout the country are to change the supervision of the staff in such programmes in advance of the local government commission being set up, perhaps the Minister should consider whether he has the power to stop local authorities changing their existing arrangements in advance of the commission's work. It seems high-handed of East Sussex county council that it should do so. Having had the matter drawn to his attention, the Minister will want to look at it carefully indeed.
      I raise that issue because it is linked with the staff commission. If we have a staff commission and send a message of support to the staff in our local authorities, at least it would be a message of encouragement, whereas the county council's action is a message of complete disruption to the lives and work of people in highways departments.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) asked me to convey Tweeddale district council's concern that the proposals will lead to not only a reduction in the influence of local authorities but a disruption of staff. That council—my right hon. Friend says that he concurs with it—condemns the Government's continued interference in the affairs of local authorities and their continual and unjustified assertion that local authorities are inefficient. Those are commonly held views. They are held not only by Tweeddale county council and my right hon. Friend, but by many people in England, Wales and Scotland. The Government must do something to change that perception.
      I shall give one or two more examples of why a statement in favour of a staff commission would send the right messages. The wrong messages are going out at the moment, not just from central Government but from local government. Again, in my own county council, we are aware that the Association of County Councils has already

      877
      spent £0.5 million on lobbying about the Bill. The Association of District Councils has spent a considerable sum, and the staff are observing what is going on. They want the Government to give some reassurances.
      My own county council has spent £30,000 on redesigning its logo. The difference between the old and the new logos is the addition of the two words "county council". Local people who work for the county council, trying to deliver a cost-effective service, are saving money left, right and centre and are very concerned when they see their employer wasting £30,000 on a new logo just to add the words "county council". The county council formed a consortium with five other Conservative county councils in the south-east to make representations to the Government.
      Those things are happening all the time. We must say to the thousands of loyal, hardworking local government staff who have been with us for years that that nonsense will stop and that the Minister will give a reassurance that their jobs will not go as a result of the profligate lobbying which is going on nationally and by some local authorities.
      For those reasons, I warmly commend for serious consideration the idea that the staff commission should be supported.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I support the new clause and I hope that the Government will also do so. It is common sense to include a staff commission when considering the reorganisation of local government. I went through several reorganisations, both at the receiving and reorganising ends, while working for the National Coal Board and I appreciate the feelings of the people affected. Not only their jobs but their livelihood and that of their families are affected. People may also be worried about their pensions. Some people may have to retire early and may be worried about the pension that they are likely to receive. Those are just some of the points that a staff commission would take on board.
      In Committee I argued for some considerable time that architect services, for example, should not go out to tender. Architects are a classic example of people who work in local government not because of the money but because, first, they like the job that they do; secondly, they believe that the service that they provide is a public service; thirdly, they get a great deal of satisfaction from their job. Such people are looking around at present because they know full well that they could obtain a much better salary by going private. Many private firms are eager to pick up local government architects because of their expertise. A staff commission would help to allay the fears of people such as architects and stop them from moving prematurely, and perhaps unnecessarily, because they would at least have some assurance that all their problems would be taken care of during the reorganisation.
      A staff commission is also needed because the local government commission will not just examine local government structure for a few weeks and then give up. Its examination of local government will be an on-going process. Indeed, when the Minister was asked to give an end date for the reorganisation, he said that no end date could be envisaged. I think that that is wise. We do not yet know what will be the terms of reference of the commission. If we do not know what it is to do or what it
      878
      will examine, there can be no end date. The sheer length of time the commission will deliberate on local government is even more reason to create a staff commission.
      Another reason for a staff commission should endear itself to the Government. The 1972 reorganisation of local government was a costly business. No one could believe the amount of money that was spent on officers' salaries in that reorganisation. The cost of local government increased tremendously. It took a long time to find the right balance. All of a sudden, chief officers in local authorities found themselves on the second or third tier of larger authorities. They were happy because their salaries increased to four or five times more than what they received on the old urban authorities. The reorganisation was costly because it was based on the chief officers' salaries. Salaries were enhanced because the area for which the authority was responsible was enlarged and all salary levels increased accordingly. The staff commission could also deal with salaries. It is a question of protecting ratepayers' money.
      Local government and therefore local government officials have been under pressure since 1979. There has been a continual battle between central and local government on many aspects. Central Government have squeezed local authority finances and have sought to streamline local authorities. All sorts of pressures have been brought to bear on local government officers. How local government finance officers have stood, and still stand, the problems which the poll tax brought and which the new council tax is bringing, I do not know. Their loyalty to their local authorities has been stretched beyond believable limits. Yet they have coped.
      There is great expertise in the finance divisions of local authorities. Finance officers could move out to private enterprise easily and earn lucrative salaries. If those people moved out, the difficulties for local government would be severe. They are the people who spearheaded the financial changes that have taken place recently in local government.
      In Committee I also spoke about housing in my area. I cannot comprehend some of the views on housing management expressed both in Committee and in the House today. Why it is not possible for a local authority to manage 60,000 houses, I do not know. No one tells ICI that it is too big to manage. No one tells international firms that they are too big to manage. They are managed. It is effective management that counts.
      In my area, all our housing management is devolved to the bottom. Only policy is formulated in the town hall. Once policy is formulated, the tiers below are expected to carry out that policy. Only in overstaffed areas of housing management are town hall officials needed. But people in all the tiers of that management structure will wonder what is to happen to the jobs that they had just settled into.
      7.45 pm
      If we send out from the House the message that we acknowledge the work that local government staff do and the strains that they are under, that we recognise what will happen in the reorganisation of local government and that some of the fears of staff could be put at rest by creating a staff commission to examine the problems that are bound to arise in the reorganisation, we could keep the loyalty of staff to local government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, it seems inconceivable that people of the calibre of local

      879
      government officials have stood the pressures for so long for the salaries that they receive when they could obtain much more outside. They have done it because they like local government, but central Government are stretching local government credibility too far and some officers are beginning to wince under the strain.
      Some local government officers have left for other areas or other jobs simply because they could see no future in their existing jobs. I do not agree with them. I believe that there is a great future in local government. But if the reorganisation goes wrong, we shall have failed local government staff again, as we failed them in 1972.
      The Minister should accept that while the local government commission goes ahead with the reorganisation, a staff commission should be working alongside. The staff commission should be akin to the local government commission. Through those two commissions we could bring local government reorganisation to a successful conclusion.
      Neither in Committee nor in the House today did anyone say, "We must get it right this time—we have been too wrong too many times before, and it has been costly in money and staff, and costly in local government work". We now have the chance to get it right. A staff commission will help us to get it right, and that is why we need one.
      Mr. McCartney: Not for the first time in the past decade or so, the question of the career structure of local government staff has come before the House. In 1972 the reorganisation of local government caused a major upheaval and there was a redistribution of staff in local authorities. When I talk about staff, I do not mean only chief executives. I am talking about a range of people from the highest to the lowest paid. There is no local authority area in Britain where local government staff do not make a major contribution to the local economy. Therefore, changes in the distribution and size of local authority staff has a direct consequence on local economies as well as on the size of the local authority itself.
      The reorganisation is not merely an academic exercise of redistributing jobs in local government from one tier to another or between tiers of local government. In 1972 and 1973 the Government made a commitment to redistribute and protect jobs in the transfer from urban and rural district councils to the new metropolitan county and borough councils and the non-metropolitan county and district councils. There was a mainly smooth transition.
      In 1985 we had a reorganisation of metropolitan areas. County councils such as Greater Manchester, Merseyside and West Midlands were abolished. A major disruption took place. In that reorganisation services at county level were completely removed. Local authorities were left with the job of running previously county services. It was up to them to make decisions about the staff that were to be transferred. Luckily, in the mid-1980s local authorities still had the financial and resource base to absorb much, if not all, of the redistribution of staff that had to take place when the metropolitan counties and associated organisations were abolished. That is not the case with this reorganisation. In the past six years there has been a major disruption in the levels of service provided by local authorities and the resources provided to finance them.
      Local authority workers not only fear that their jobs will be redistributed out of existence but that, at the end of that redistribution, their jobs could be subject to compulsory competitive tendering, which is extended in
      880
      the Bill. That adds to the worries and fears of thousands of local government workers for their future in local government. Will their jobs remain in local government in the sense that there will be an orderly transfer and protection of salary levels and pension rights? Will the number of years that they have worked for the authority be considered in connection with holiday and other entitlements? On transfer, will they lose entitlements because they are not transferred to the new authority? Having been transferred, will workers find themselves competing for their own jobs because of the introduction of compulsive competitive tendering'?
      We have already witnessed the consequences of compulsory competitive tendering for local government workers, and as a result many workers fear that their jobs will be redistributed under the proposed reorganisation.
      The Government have refused to accept the concept of the transfer of undertakings. Local government workers whose jobs were transferred to the private sector as a result of the Local Government Finance Act 1988—whose provisions will be extended by this Act—have no right to protection for the hours that they work, for hourly pay rates, time off and holidays. In Committee, we heard many examples of what happens when there is no protection when employment is transferred from a local authority to a new employer—weeks have been cut from annual holidays and there have been cuts of up to 50 per cent. in hourly rates of pay and cuts in pension entitlement. In many instances, workers have been transferred out of the local authority pension scheme into a new scheme, with no rights. While they work for the new employer they will have pension rights only if they can pay for a private pension plan. In reality, the right to purchase a private plan does not exist for many low-paid workers.
      Compulsory competitive tendering has dragged down local authority workers' conditions of employment and has denied them rights that they previously enjoyed when they worked for the authority.
      Given that that is the Government's history, what guarantee do we have that they will not use this redistribution to attempt to undermine the rights of masses of workers in local government? Members of Parliament who have worked for local authorities, as I did for many years, believe that that is precisely what will happen. The Government will use the local government review as a massive shake-up of the numbers of people employed in local authorities, of how much they are paid, and of their conditions of service.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) is right to say that the proposed staff commissions are important in trying to improve the morale of local authority workers, which is at its lowest, and to reassure them. However, in reality, the Government will not accept the establishment of staff commissions. In the long term, only the return of a Labour Government will help local government workers to maintain their levels of pay and conditions. That is the bottom line.
      Given that the Government want the House to approve this legislation, it is important for them to set out precisely their intentions for the transfer of jobs between county councils and unitary authorities, or from former county borough areas to new unitary authorities in the non-metropolitan areas. Will the Government give clear guidelines on the protection of salaries, conditions of employment and pensions'?

      881
      In Committee, I twice mentioned pensions and Government policy on them. The response from the Minister was unsympathetic, to say the least. If his pension rights were involved, he would not be so unsympathetic. Our pensions are protected. The Government have failed lamentably to protect the pension rights of tens of thousands of local authority workers. This review will affect not merely tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands of local government workers. Will the Minister give a clear sign that the huge reserves in local authority pension schemes will be maintained? Will employees have an absolute right in law to remain in schemes, or, if they have to be wound down because the local authority unit of organisation is removed, will those rights be transferred into a new scheme so that irrespective of whom the employee works for after the decision to amalgamate or to eradicate their previous employer, at vesting day when the new authority takes over, their pension rights will be maintained? That would mean that people who had worked for a local authority for 25 years and had paid into the pension scheme would be able to take their contributions with them to the new employer. It is vital that we are given a clear understanding that that will be the case.
      What will be the Government's policy on the protection of salaries? I do not argue that people should maintain the same salaries throughout their working lives. I accept that salaries may go up or down. I am at a period in my career when my salary is increasing considerably. I do not suggest that local government workers should be absolutely cushioned, but it would be wholly wrong both in principle and in practice if, by virtue of a change in local government boundaries and therefore a change of employer, a worker found himself substantially worse off overnight, having been transferred to a job with a lower salary. That means a salary reduction, not merely for the worker but for the family unit, with all the consequences. Will there be rules and regulations to protect salaries? They should be protected at least for a few years so that there is no cut-off point and local authority workers are not forced to transfer into new employment and to accept a major cut in their salary.
      I hope that the Minister can give us some satisfactory replies. If he can, some local government workers may feel more reassured than they do at present.
      Mr. Key: I must start by saying something which I think will be deeply unpopular on the Opposition Benches. I have great faith in local government. I have a high respect for local government staff, whether senior officers or people who have worked for years and often decades in lowly positions to make local authority services work. Far from local authorities suffering the death of a thousand cuts, which I suspect Opposition Members would like us to believe in, local government has a bright future. I envisage local government having an enhanced status, the like of which has not been seen this side of 1945. As a result of measures that have been difficult and unpopular in local government—including the operation of compulsory competitive tendering, changing local authorities to an enabling role, and crucial areas of change such as the city challenge—in the future there will be more responsibility for officers and staff at all levels. They will have more
      882
      influence over the communities we all seek to serve and there will be more status for people who work in local authorities. That is how I see the future.
      Mr. O'Brien: While the Minister is completing his vision of the future for people employed in local government, will he assure us that he will not countenance the discrimination that currently takes place? Officers in local government suffer political discrimination, but officers who work for private-sector organisations or consultancies, which will take over the duties and management of local authority services, will not be politically disfranchised. If the Minister believes in local government, will he remove such discrimination?
      Mr. Key: It is always a pleasure to spar with the hon. Gentleman and I give him the same answer that I gave in Committee. We are talking about two entirely different types of provision of services. There can be no question of private-sector contractors being subject to the same political constraints. As I tried to demonstrate in Committee—and the Committee agreed with me—local government officers give policy advice to elected politicians; therefore, they operate under a completely different set of circumstances.
      Mr. McCartney rose—
      Mr. Key: I do not wish to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but if I do not I know that the debate will begin to break up.
      8 pm
      Mr. McCartney: The Minister is so kind. Will the Minister tell us about the position of a private solicitor who is employed when compulsory competitive tendering occurs and is asked to give policy advice on legal matters? He would be allowed to stand in an election for whatever party he wished. However, a local government solicitor who works for the same or another authority, but does not give such advice, is prevented from even putting up a poster at election time.
      Mr. Key: The private-sector solicitor would be operating under a specific contract, for a specific job and for a specific period. The local government officer, who has qualified to be a solicitor, is in a completely different position.
      I wish to reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I accept that, perhaps, one of the things that has beeen lacking in local government has been the opportunity to pursue a proper career. I have seen that for myself. In the first weeks of becoming a Minister in the Department of the Environment when I was responsible for housing, I was shocked to discover the lack of training available for people in housing management. The Government are now dealing with that problem. Motivation is a crucial factor. If staff do not have motivation because they do not see a career ahead, they will inevitably and understandably not give of their best.
      In order to dispel another myth, it is important to recognise that the number of staff employed by local authorities is almost the same now as it was 10 years ago. The number of local authority personnel has not massively withered away. The figures for local authorities bear that out. Pensions and salaries will be dealt with by clause 26 (5)(b).

      883
      The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) made a typically telling comment. He is right that local government officers and their families form part of the community. Their children go to school with our children, and so on. I recognise that they are part of the fabric of the community which they serve, in the same way that the hon. Gentleman and I are members of the community that we represent.
      It is true that local government officials have experienced considerable pressure in the past decade. I recognise that, but that is a good thing. As a result of what has happened over the past 10 years, we have a vigorous local government service that has a quite different standing in the eyes of the people who pay for and receive the services that it provides. I pay tribute to local government staff who have responded robustly and with vitality over the past 10 years. That is why I was so robust in my opening remarks. I care about local government staff and acknowledge their fears, but local government has a great future.
      The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) said that we should send out a message of support, concern and understanding. I unreservedly join him in that. Over the years we have not heard Conservative Ministers castigating local authority employees. We may have been rude about local councillors because they direct and make the policy that their officers carry out. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about East Sussex county council and I shall consider that. He said that the work force tend to be the pawns and I recognise his concern. I listened to the comments that the hon. Gentleman relayed to us from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on the problems of Tweeddale district council. He said that his right hon. Friend was worried about interference in local government. I ask him to convey to his right hon. Friend my belief in the future of local government and how 1 think that it has a strong future with a high status in our community.
      I believe that the relationship between central Government officials and local government officers is perhaps better than we have any right to deserve. They work closely together. We at the Department of the Environment are anxious that such co-operation should be improved still further. We have a programme of secondment between the Department and local authorities which is valuable, and chief officers of local authorities meet permanent secretaries and other senior officials on a regular basis.
      In common with the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I am concerned about what he described as profligate lobbying about the future of local government. I have had something to say about that in the past. I do not believe that glossy publications and brochures should be produced by different councils. They have a right, of course, to consult their local people and to explain what is going on, but I suspect that the local government commission will not be swayed by glossy brochures and flashy publicity.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that the greatest asset a service has is the people who work for it and I say "Hear, hear" to that.
      Mr. Blunkett: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Key: We are in stereo.
      884
      We mean to restore commitment to and faith in the public services, but our vision is fundamentally different from the hon. Gentleman's provider vision. I believe that there is a desire to serve among local government staff and officers at all levels. The status of local authorities is different from that perceived many years ago when the hon. Gentleman and I were children. Then, there was a somewhat cosy atmosphere in local government that did not necessarily mean that the best standards were always adhered to.
      The hon. Member for Brightside also said that a prerequisite of any good service was the retention of high-quality staff. That is true, but my approach is slightly different from that of the hon. Gentleman. I want exchanges to take place between the private and public sectors. I do not want to lock local government officers to their particular jobs. It is entirely healthy that there should be such exchanges. Sometimes people leave local government service to work in the private sector. Sometimes they go back to local government work when they discover that the bright lights of London and the London weighting that went with them were not what they should be. We in central Government have also learnt that lesson, because more of our jobs are being moved from London to the country.
      The hon. Member for Brightside also spoke about career development and the importance of in-service management and training, with which I agree. However, we have a long way to go. I believe that local authorities should be examples of the very best management practice. It has always struck me as astonishing that anyone should be prepared to accept that what is good for the best private-sector companies, such as ICI, which has been mentioned today, should not be equally applicable to local government. I want local government to bear fine testimony to best management practice.
      We already have a high standard of management in local authorities and that standard is constantly improving. That is one reason why there is such a strong exchange programme between some local authorities and the emerging democracies of eastern Europe. That is why their local government Ministers come here to discuss with us the problems that we face and the programmes for change that we are instituting.
      I hope that I can demonstrate that there is no wide gulf between us on the issue of staff commissions—it is a matter of different emphasis. Any such commission would have three duties. First, it would be required to consider the arrangements for the recruitment or transfer of staff by the relevant authorities affected by the orders under part II of the Bill. Secondly, it would have to consider any staffing issue referred to it by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, it would advise the Secretary of State on the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of the staff.
      The clause also provides for the Secretary of State to issue directions to any relevant authority affected by an order under that part of the measure about the implementation of any advice given by a staff commission. There is a separate provision, to which I have referred, in clause 26(5)(b) which would allow the Secretary of State to make orders for the transfer of staff, compensation for loss of office, pensions and other staffing matters.
      I do not doubt that staff commissions have been important in the past. We shall not hesitate to establish one or more should that prove necessary. But the practice in the past has been for a major reorganisation to be put

      885
      into effect on a single day—what has often been referred to as the big bang approach. We have learned from the lessons of 1972, to which the hon. Member for Brightside referred. That single vesting day inevitably caused considerable upheaval, and an important task of the staff commission was to try to lessen the impact on the interests of the staff.
      On this occasion it is different. The local government commission will review local government in England on an area-by-area basis. We do not know what the commission's recommendations will be, nor how extensive a reorganisation of local government will eventually result from the review in each area. So where the Secretary of State decides to make orders following recommendations from the commission, the changes will be implemented in stages.
      I accept that there will be a significant period of uncertainty for staff. Whereas some people have maintained that the single vesting day led to considerable upheaval and uncertainty, the opposite case is now being made out—that a piecemeal approach would lead to even greater uncertainty. As I said in Committee, I recall well —I was a teacher of economics—what happened in 1972.
      Mr. Alan Amos: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Key: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend agreeing with me. I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) came on teaching practice and took over my sixth form for a happy term. The A-level students benefited enormously from that experience. I was grateful to him at the time for taking a load off my shoulders for a term. Now he is doing the same as he sits on the Bench behind me.
      The area-by-area approach that the Government are proposing should reduce the amount of uncertainty that the staff will have to put up with. We believe that the process of review of the whole country will take at least five years. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said he recognised that it was unlikely that we would seek a definite end date for the process. I believe that it will be at least five years. If there were a big bang approach, we would have to specify that after two, three, five or however many years there would be a single changeover.
      The need for a staff commission will depend on the scale of the changes proposed in any one area. In some areas, the changes are likely to be minor, and I believe that it would be unnecessary to set up a staff commission to deal with relatively minor problems which local authorities are perfectly competent to cope with among themselves. But we accept that where there are major structural changes, we may need to establish one or more staff commissions.
      I have given an assurance that we will establish a staff commission where necessary. I have explained that we take on board the need to keep in mind issues of pensions, salaries and so on. As proof of my good faith, I can report to the House that I had a good discussion with NALGO last week. The union asked to see me about the matter and I was happy to oblige. I appreciate that it is not affiliated to the Labour party—I shall not fall into the trap of saying otherwise—even though NALGO may be spending a lot of money promoting the interests of my political opponents.
      I had a good meeting with a number of NALGO officials, including Alison Mitchell, the deputy national
      886
      officer in the local government section, and I asked whether the union would help us by submitting some proposals on how a staff commission should work. It has agreed to do so. We hope that proposals will come out of discussions between the local government associations and local government unions, based on our legislation. I hope we can agree that there is not a wide gulf between us and that we recognise the problems. I hope that I have managed to lay to rest once and for all the unwarranted belief that in some way we do not see anything other than a bright future for local government.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: There is nothing between us, except whether we believe a word of what the Minister has been saying.
      Mr. Key: That is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Blunkett: Is it? I remind hon. Members that the Minister said that he had an undying commitment to local government, which he claimed had a brighter future than at any time since 1945. He said that far from detracting from and constraining local government—by capping, regulating or in some cases diverting parts of it to the private sector—the Government were fully in favour of local government. He reminded me of the man who said that he liked little lambs and their fleece, and above all he liked eating them. I thought of the Minister in that light when he spoke about how much he liked local government. He was almost drooling as he said it, as though holding a cleaver in one hand and a microwave in the other.
      The truth is that whether there is a piecemeal or comprehensive approach to reorganisation, if there is good staff at any level, we must ensure that they are transferred in a reasonable fashion. But if unitary district authorities are established and the county in that area is abolished, there is a danger that the highest quality staff at the county level in some of the most key services will find themselves excluded. That would be tremendously detrimental to local government. Indeed, the whole issue of transferring politicians will prove a major problem if we wish to ensure quality of service and the highest possible functioning of local government.
      For those reasons, we regard the issue as important enough to press to a Division. I look the Minister in the eye as he smiles unwaveringly and assures me that local government has an unending future under his knife.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 247.

      Division No. 95]

      [8.17 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Alton, David

      Benton, Joseph

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Blunkett, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Boyes, Roland

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Bradley, Keith

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Barron, Kevin

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Battle, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Beckett, Margaret

      Callaghan, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

      Bellotti, David

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      887

      Canavan, Dennis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Carr, Michael

      McCartney, Ian

      Cartwright, John

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McFall, John

      Clelland, David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cohen, Harry

      McLeish, Henry

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Madden, Max

      Corbett, Robin

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cousins, Jim

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cryer, Bob

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Martlew, Eric

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Maxton, John

      Darling, Alistair

      Meacher, Michael

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Meale, Alan

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Michael, Alun

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

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dewar, Donald

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dixon, Don

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Morley, Elliot

      Eadie, Alexander

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Edwards, Huw

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Enright, Derek

      Mullin, Chris

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Murphy, Paul

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Nellist, Dave

      Fatchett, Derek

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Faulds, Andrew

      O'Brien, William

      Fearn, Ronald

      O'Hara, Edward

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Parry, Robert

      Fields, Terry (L 'pool B G 'n)

      Patched, Terry

      Fisher, Mark

      Pendry, Tom

      Flannery, Martin

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Flynn, Paul

      Prescott, John

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Foster, Derek

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Foulkes, George

      Randall, Stuart

      Fraser, John

      Redmond, Martin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Reid, Dr John

      Galbraith, Sam

      Robertson, George

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Rogers, Allan

      George, Bruce

      Rooney, Terence

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Gould, Bryan

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Grocott, Bruce

      Short, Clare

      Hain, Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hardy, Peter

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Haynes, Frank

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Henderson, Doug

      Snape, Peter

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Soley, Clive

      Home Robertson, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hood, Jimmy

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Stephen, Nicol

      Howells, Geraint

      Strang, Gavin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Straw, Jack

      Hoyle, Doug

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Turner, Dennis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Vaz, Keith

      Illsley, Eric

      Wallace, James

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Walley, Joan

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Lambie, David

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Lamond, James

      Wilson, Brian

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Winnick, David

      Lewis, Terry

      Worthington, Tony

      Litherland, Robert

      Wray, Jimmy

      Livingstone, Ken

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Loyden, Eddie

      Mr. Jack Thompson.

      McAllion, John

      888

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fry, Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Amess, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Amos, Alan

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Arbuthnot, James

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Green way, John (Ryedale)

      Atkinson, David

      Gregory, Conal

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Baldry, Tony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Grist, Ian

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Hague, William

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Bendall, Vivian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Benyon, W.

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Harris, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hill, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourno)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bright, Graham

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Irvine, Michael

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Jack, Michael

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Jackson, Robert

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Jessel, Toby

      Burns, Simon

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Butcher, John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Carttiss, Michael

      Key, Robert

      Cash, William

      Kilfedder, James

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knapman, Roger

      Chope, Christopher

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Knox, David

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Couchman, James

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Day, Stephen

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Devlin, Tim

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dicks, Terry

      Lord, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Dover, Den

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Dunn, Bob

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Eggar, Tim

      Mans, Keith

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Maples, John

      Evennett, David

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fallon, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Farr, Sir John

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Moate, Roger

      Forman, Nigel

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Forth, Eric

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Moss, Malcolm

      Freeman, Roger

      Mudd, David

      French, Douglas

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      889

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stevens, Lewis

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Norris, Steve

      Stokes, Sir John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Sumberg, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Summerson, Hugo

      Page, Richard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Paice, James

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thorne, Neil

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Portillo, Michael

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Tracey, Richard

      Price, Sir David

      Tredinnick, David

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Trippier, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Riddick, Graham

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Walden, George

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Waller, Gary

      Rost, Peter

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Watts, John

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Whitney, Ray

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wilkinson, John

      Shelton, Sir William

      Wilshire, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Shersby, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wood, Timothy

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Yeo, Tim

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Speller, Tony

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 6

      PUBLIC INFORMATION
      '(1) This section shall have effect for the purposes of securing proper public information about and involvement in the procedure established under Part II of this Act.

      (2) Before making any order under section 17 (1) below, the Secretary of State shall by a date not later than two months before the laying of any such order—

      (a) publish any relevant recommendation of the Commission;

      (b) ensure that persons interested in the review are enabled to make comments on the relevant recommendations; and

      (c) publish a statement of his response to the recommendations of the Commission.'.—[Mr. O'Brien.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Due to lack of time, we have not moved new clause 1. New clause 6 is a significant and important amendment to clause 17. It is significant that so far in this debate we have discussed only part II of the Bill. The new clause will ensure that a proper public information exercise takes
      890
      place and that people interested in the legislation will be allowed information about and involvement in any procedure established under part II of the Bill.
      The new clause states:
      "Before making any order under section 17 (1) below, the Secretary of State shall by a date not later than two months before the laying of any such order—
      (a) publish any relevant recommendations of the Commission".
      That means that the people who could be affected by the commission's recommendations should be made fully aware of any effects that the recommendations may have.
      8.30 pm
      If we are to be fully democratic in our approach to the reorganisation of local government, everyone involved must have the right to know about the changes. They are entitled to make comments and recommendations. The Secretary of State should ensure that people interested in the review are able to comment on the recommendations that affect them. The Secretary of State should also publish a statement of his response to the commission's recommendations. There must be a full public relations exercise so that the commission's recommendations are made fully available.
      We have outlined in detail, in Committee and to some extent in the House today, how the public could be involved in the commission's recommendations. They could be involved in questions of boundaries, local representation, housing or other services. We therefore believe that those people should have the opportunity to comment on the report. When the Secretary of State considers the representations and publishes his report, that should also be made available to those involved.
      That policy should apply not only to local government customers, but to people involved in local government. If we are to be fair and honest with all the people who could be involved, ensuring that information is made available to them is of paramount importance. If there is any reason why the public should not be informed of the commission's work and decisions, and the recommendations of the Secretary of State, the Minister should spell that out to the House. If there is no reason why people should not be advised or have the opportunity to make observations and comments on the response of the Secretary of State, the new clause should be accepted today.
      We have tabled the new clause as we consider that it is constructive and will strengthen the Bill. Although we do not agree with many aspects of the Bill, we believe that it should be strengthened in this way. It is against that backcloth that I commend the new clause for consideration by the House, and ask the House to accept it.
      Mr. Portillo: I have no particular disagreement with the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about the desirability of publicity being given to the recommendations made by the local government commission, but I think that the new clause is unnecessary. He should consider clause 15 of the Bill.
      Clause 15(1) provides that people who may be interested in the review should be informed of the review's existence. Clause 15(2) provides that steps should be taken to inform people who have an interest of the fact that the commission is conducting a review and the period in which representations may be made. Clause 15(3) states that the

      891
      local government commission is bound to take into account any representations, to prepare draft recornmendations and to deposit those
      "recommendations at the principal office of any principal council appearing to that Commission to be likely to be affected by them; and take into consideration any representations made to that Commission".
      Under clause 15(4) the local government commission is obliged to submit to the Secretary of State a report and to
      "take such steps as it considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the recommendations are informed of them."
      Clause 15(5) contains a requirement that copies of any draft recommendations should be
      "deposited at the principal office of a principal council"
      and should be kept available for inspection so that representations in respect of them can be made. Clause 15(7) states that
      "The Secretary of State may give directions as to the exercise by the Local Government Commission of any functions under"
      clause 15.
      Therefore, the process that we foresee is that the commission will start a review with publicity and consultation to take into account the representations received in drawing up draft recommendations. The public should be consulted on the draft recommendations and account should be taken of those representations when preparing the final recommendations. The final representations should be submitted to the Secretary of State and there should be a further opportunity for the public to comment, this time to the Secretary of State, before he makes an order and brings it to Parliament to give effect to the commission's recommendations.
      Therefore, there are ample opportunities for publicity to be given to the commission's work and to the report laid before the Secretary of State, and for representations to be made to the Secretary of State himself.
      We intend to issue procedural guidance to organisations that could be consulted at each stage, as well as a general requirement that the commission should make the existence of the review made known widely and should consider all the views that come forward, whether solicited or not.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: When ensuring that people have access to information, will the Minister take into account people with specific difficulties such as the blind and the deaf? Will he oblige local authorities to make sure that people with disabilities have access to the information to which, as citizens, they are entitled?
      Mr. Portillo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman followed our deliberations in Committee carefully, when we discussed an amendment to that effect. I hope that the local government commission will make information available on request in the form described by the hon. Gentleman. I am reluctant to make it an obligation on the local government commission that it should automatically produce material, not least because the various forms in which it may be published are different for people with different disabilities, but I shall ask the local government commission to bear in mind the needs of people who are partially sighted or blind, and people with other disabilities or language difficulties who might otherwise be denied access to the important information.
      892
      I must correct myself: our debate in Committee was not on the local government commission, but on a different part of the Bill. However, it was related to the same subject and my response is generally the same. I think that the information should be considered carefully by the local government commission if a request is made. It would not be right to demand of the local government commission that it automatically produces its recommendations in various forms.
      The guidance that the Government will issue will also stress the importance of gauging the views of people living in the district, and others who might be affected, and will set out ways of achieving that.
      I have no particular disagreement with the view of the hon. Member for Normanton that it is important at every stage to publicise recommendations and that people's views should be taken into account. There will, of course, be bodies that it will be considered right for the commission to consult; it will also be considered right for it to take into account representations made by anyone, regardless of whether that person has been invited to make representations.
      Now that I have explained to the hon. Gentleman how clause 15 will operate, and given him an indication of the way in which I intend the procedural guidance to be drafted, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. O'Brien: Clearly, as the Minister says, there is not much to divide us on the issue. However, clause 15 does not deal with the points that are giving rise to concern —hence new clause 6. Under clause 15,
      "the Local Government Commission shall…take into consideration any representations made to it within the period mentioned in subsection (1)(c) or (2)(c) above…draft recommendations and take such steps as it considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the recommendations are informed of them and of the period within which recommendations with respect to them may be made".
      We are saying that, in the interests of greater public awareness, the recommendations should be published and made public—that they should be deposited in the library or in some other public office.
      We ask not only for the commission's recommendations to be made available to those involved and to the wider public, but for the Secretary of State's response to those recommendations to be publicised. Clause 15 makes no such provision. Subsection (7) provides:
      "The Secretary of State may give directions as to the exercise by the Local Government Commission of any functions under this section; and such directions may require that Commission to have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as respects matters to be taken into account."
      We do not think that that is sufficient assurance that the information will be made available. We want firmer provisions to be included in the Bill, and we are disappointed to learn that the Government cannot accept our proposal.
      The issue should be given further consideration. People need to be fully informed of both the commission's decisions and the Secretary of State's response. Although, as I have said, our positions do not differ greatly, I ask the Minister to think carefully about the matter.
      Mr. Portillo: Let me make two points. First, I assure the hon. Gentleman that—as with local government boundary decisions now—there will always be a period after the Secretary of State receives a report during which he can

      893
      receive public comments that may be submitted to him. The second, obvious point is that the Secretary of State must bring an order to Parliament in regard to structural changes; such orders will he subject to affirmative resolution. The final decision must be taken in Parliament.
      Mr. O'Brien: That demonstrates again that there is not a great deal between our thinking and that of the Minister. Both sides accept the importance of the availability of public information about any recommendation from the commission, and about the Secretary of State's response. We merely ask for a public information exercise to be undertaken, both in the House and outside. If the Minister gives further consideration to the principles and the merits of the new clause, I am sure that he could respond more fully.
      Although I do not intend to press the motion to a Division, I feel that we should be able to return to the new clause if necessary.
      Question put and negatived.

    New clause 10

      PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN DELIVERY OF LOCAL SERVICES
      '.—(1) The Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission shall, before issuing directions under this Part, have regard to the need for involving the public in setting and monitoring standards of performance.

      (2) The Secretary of State, in making any order under this Part relating to competitive tendering, shall ensure that any directions contained in the Order shall take into account the importance of involving the public in any decision making.'. —[Mr. Bellotli]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Bellotti: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause goes to the crux of local service provision. It is really a question of whether we believe that central Government should direct local services, or whether we should now take the opportunity of putting local people—the local electorate—back in charge of those services.
      In a sense, this is about whether the people should be the final arbiter in regard to how services are delivered and monitored. In our view, it is not for a commission or for the Secretary of State to dictate to local authorities how their services should be delivered. Of course, both the commission and the Secretary of State will have important roles in providing advice, information and guidelines on good practice, but neither should be the final arbiter.
      The commission could have a role in encouraging the development of a new form of local government structure. The Secretary of State can encourage local authorities to go for competitive tendering to obtain quality at an affordable cost. There are advantages, however, in making the people the final arbiter again—in ensuring that the public not only understand the services that are provided, but are consulted fully about their quality.
      Many local authorities already test public opinion about the delivery of services in their area. Richmond council, for example, regularly runs surveys to determine whether local people consider the quality of service
      894
      important. Recently, Tower Hamlets council conducted a referendum on what the local poll tax level should be. It received a 28 per cent. return of questionnaires, and 45 per cent. of respondents opted for the highest of four offered poll tax levels—which showed, I think, that local people wanted a high-quality service and were prepared to pay for it, but it also showed that they were prepared to enter into a dialogue with the local authority about what they thought of the services provided. I might add that the survey was carried out at mininum cost and has provided the council with useful information.
      The choice is this: should there be central guidelines and blueprints, or should local people be left to enjoy services and then comment on them in a way which could lead to improvements? The question whether the Secretary of State should have power to dictate to councils about compulsory competitive tendering is at the core of the current arrangements, but I propose to change that by putting the people back in power. If a local authority and the public are satisfied with the cost and quality of an in-house service, why should the local authority be forced to put that service out to the private sector? If local people are happy and are prepared to pay, central Government should not interfere.
      It is also important that, if a tender is undertaken, some customer reaction is obtained. After all, anyone can put a service out to tender at the lowest possible cost, but no one may be pleased with the way in which the service is delivered. According to recent statistics, 28 per cent. of people in the Dorset county council area are unhappy with the services delivered by that council. If more than one in four people who live in the Dorset county council area are unhappy with the services delivered, it says something about those services. Changes ought to be made.
      The new clause is about turning the Bill into one which puts local people back in charge. I hope that I have said enough to enable the Minister to tell me why he wants central Government to be put in the driving seat and why he does not intend to allow local people to take decisions which affect their local communities.
      Mr. Portillo: I shall try to emulate the commendable brevity of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti). However, the way that he has drafted new clause 10 shows that he has misunderstood the Government's intentions. The first part of it calls upon the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission to have regard to the need, before issuing directions, to involve the public in setting and monitoring standards of performance. However, we do not propose that the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission shall set standards. What we are asking them to do is to provide objective measurements by which all local authorities can measure the standards that they have set and the service that they are providing to the electors.
      It is absolutely central to our proposals that the public will be able to make judgments as to whether they are satisfied with the services that their local authorities are providing for them. Their local authorities will account to them for the standards of service that they are delivering, measured objectively. They will use measurements that are common to all other local authorities. It will be possible, therefore, for people to make comparisons between what the local authority promised and what it has delivered, and also between what one local authority delivers and what another local authority delivers. It will all be measured in

      895
      exactly the same terms. The first part of new clause 10 shows that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood our intentions. What we intend puts the public very much in the driving seat. It provides the public with the information, objectively derived, that they need in order to be able to judge their council.
      The second part of the proposal in new clause 10 once again shows that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. In setting out the specification for anything that is to be the subject of competitive tendering, it is for the local authority to determine for itself the standard at which it wishes its services to be delivered. The local authority should be concerned if subsequently it finds that people are not satisfied with the services delivered. That could only be for one of two reasons: either the specification was wrong, in terms of what local people expected, or the tenderer had under-performed against the specification. If the tenderer has under-performed against the specification, because he is working under contract to the local authority it has redress against the contractor —a redress that it would not normally have against a directly employed labour force operating outside the competitive tendering process.
      I have no quarrel with the hon. Gentleman that local people should be able democratically to deliver their judgment about the standard of service that the local authority delivers, whether or not it be a service for which there has been competitive tendering. However, local authorities will have a greater opportunity both to set the specification and to call a contractor to book where the compulsory competitive tendering process has been gone through than would otherwise be the case.
      Mr. Bellotti: We debated this subject fairly fully in Committee, when I put forward a range of opportunities by means of which local authorities could consult people and identify customer care. Having listened to the Minister's reply, I do not think that he has moved any further forward since the Committee debate. It is a little late to suggest that a local authority will have redress if a contract is not fulfilled. At the point of redress, local people will have lost the service that they were supposedly going to get. It will be a little late for the local authority to reinstate services that the tenderer failed to deliver.
      Before a local authority considers awarding another contract to a private tenderer who was awarded a contract for which there ought to be redress and under which the contract has not been delivered to the standard required, it ought to think carefully about what it is doing The contractor will have clearly demonstrated that he is unable to deliver a service to a certain level of quality. That argument was put forward throughout the whole of the Committee proceedings. It was clear there that cost is the Government's first concern and that quality comes second. In my view, quality is as important as cost. I would not consider awarding anybody a contract if that person had not fulfilled a previous contract to the necessary level of quality.
      For those reasons, it appears that the Minister has not moved any further forward since Committee. I believe that the Government are not putting people and quality of service first but are following a cost-led policy. I therefore intend to press the new clause to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 241.

      Division No. 96]

      [8.56 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Allen, Graham

      Illsley, Eric

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Kennedy, Charles

      Ashton, Joe

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Lamond, James

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Barron, Kevin

      Lewis, Terry

      Beckett, Margaret

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Bellotti, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      McAllion, John

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Benton, Joseph

      McCartney, Ian

      Bermingham, Gerald

      McLeish, Henry

      Bidwell, Sydney

      McNamara, Kevin

      Blunkett, David

      Madden, Max

      Boyes, Roland

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Bradley, Keith

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Martlew, Eric

      Caborn, Richard

      Meacher, Michael

      Callaghan, Jim

      Meale, Alan

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Canavan, Dennis

      Morley, Elliot

      Carr, Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Cartwright, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Mullin, Chris

      Cohen, Harry

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      O'Brien, William

      Cryer, Bob

      O'Hara, Edward

      Darling, Alistair

      Patchett, Terry

      Dixon, Don

      Prescott, John

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Eadie, Alexander

      Radice, Giles

      Edwards, Huw

      Randall, Stuart

      Fatchett, Derek

      Rooney, Terence

      Faulds, Andrew

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Fearn, Ronald

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Flannery, Martin

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Flynn, Paul

      Short, Clare

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foulkes, George

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Fraser, John

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Gould, Bryan

      Stephen, Nicol

      Grocott, Bruce

      Stott, Roger

      Hardy, Peter

      Strang, Gavin

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Haynes, Frank

      Turner, Dennis

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Vaz, Keith

      Home Robertson, John

      Walley, Joan

      Hood, Jimmy

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Winnick, David

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Howells, Geraint

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hoyle, Doug

      Mr. Arcby Kirkwood and

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Mr. James Wallace.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Benyon, W.

      Amess, David

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Amos, Alan

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Body, Sir Richard

      Atkinson, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Baldry, Tony

      Boswell, Tim

      Batiste, Spencer

      Bottomley, Peter

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      897

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Bright, Graham

      Hunter, Andrew

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Irvine, Michael

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Jack, Michael

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Jackson, Robert

      Burns, Simon

      Jessel, Toby

      Butcher, John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Carttiss, Michael

      Key, Robert

      Cash, William

      Kilfedder, James

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Chope, Christopher

      Knapman, Roger

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knox, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Couchman, James

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Davies, Q. (Stamfd & Spald'g)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Day, Stephen

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Devlin, Tim

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Dicks, Terry

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Dover, Den

      Lord, Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Dykes, Hugh

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Evennett, David

      Mans, Keith

      Fallon, Michael

      Maples, John

      Farr, Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Forman, Nigel

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Forth, Eric

      Moate, Roger

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Roger

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      French, Douglas

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fry, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Gale, Roger

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gill, Christopher

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Norris, Steve

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Page, Richard

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Paice, James

      Gregory, Conal

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Pawsey, James

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Grist, Ian

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hague, William

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Portillo, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Price, Sir David

      Hannam, Sir John

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Rathbone, Tim

      Harris, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hill, James

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Hind, Kenneth

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      898

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Tracey, Richard

      Shelton, Sir William

      Tredinnick, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Trippier, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Walden, George

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Speller, Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Watts, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wells, Bowen

      Stern, Michael

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wilkinson, John

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Wilshire, David

      Stokes, Sir John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Sumberg, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wood, Timothy

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mr. Irvine Patnick.

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 16

      CHARTER TRUSTEES
      '(1) Where an order under section 17 above makes provision respecting the constitution of an area for which a body of charter trustees acts, a body of charter trustees may resolve that the area for which such charter trustees act shall be constituted a parish and thereupon those district councillors who are such charter trustees shall become the councillors of the parish so constituted and such councillors shall hold office until the next ordinary election of parish councillors pursuant to the 1972 Act.

      (2) Upon the constitution of a parish as provided in this section the body corporate of charter trustees shall cease to exist and thereupon all of the powers, functions and traditions of the former body of charter trustees shall vest in and be discharged by the council of the new parish hereby constituted which shall be styled a town council or a city council (as the case may be).'.-/Mr. Anthony Coombs.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider the following amendments:
      No. 3, in clause 17, page 17, line 19, leave out from 'make' to end of line 21 and insert
      'provision for the area for which a body of charter trustees acts to be constituted as a parish under the terms of section (Charter trustees) below'.
      No. 4, in page 17, line 21, at end add
      'after consulting such representatives of charter trustees as he thinks fit'.
      Mr. Coombs: This gives me the opportunity to extol the virtues of charter trustees with which the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), is familiar as the charter trustees of, I think, New Sarum are in his constituency, and his colleagues the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, our hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) also has charter trustees in his constituency. The matter has been brought to my attention

      899
      not only by the charter trustees in Kidderminster but by the Association of Charter Trustees and Urban Parish Councils.
      Charter trustees were set up under the Local Government Act 1972 and the Charter Trustees Order of 20 February 1974 to allow existing communities to retain their ancient identity and heritage when they had generally been amalgamated into larger boroughs or district councils as a result of reorganisation. Therefore, it is no small wonder that it is ancient towns such as Salisbury, Banbury, Leamington Spa and Kidderminster which retain their charter trustees. There are about 23 such towns, 21 of which are members of the Association of Charter Trustees and Urban Parish Councils.
      It must be emphasised that the charter trustees' functions are primarily ceremonial. They act as a focus of civic identity for the people of the district, as in Kidderminster, and they have no specific executive powers. However, as clause 13(5)(a) of the Bill states that in its considerations the local government commission should
      "reflect the identities and interests of local communities",
      I should have thought that that was in line with the purpose of charter trustees in view of their local and historic traditions.
      Charter trustees are important in my constituency. Although Wyre Forest district council may be the executive body for local government Acts and for the majority of services for which district councils are responsible, it does not inspire much loyalty among the local population. If one were to ask the vast majority of people in my constituency where Wyre Forest was, they would refer to Kidderminster, Stourport and Bewdley. Given the fact that Stourport and Bewdley have ancient town councils whereas Kidderminster has charter trustees, the people of Kidderminster are understandably jealous about retaining their charter trustees under any future local government reorganisation. Although charter trustees may sound anachronistic and may not be functional as executives, they are important as a focus of loyalty.
      The charter trustees are concerned because, although subsections (3) and (4) of clause 14 give wide powers to the Secretary of State and to the local government commission when considering changes in local government, they mention parishes as the most local denominator of local government and do not mention charter trustees. Charter trustees are mentioned only in clause 17(5) where, almost as an afterthought, as the charter trustees believe, they are referred to when the Bill describes the powers that the Secretary of State can exercise on receiving recommendations from the local government commission.
      My fear is that because the local government commission does not have a specific remit to consider charter trustees when it considers the structure of local government, their case may go by default. The Secretary of State may act accordingly when he puts the commission's recommendations into operation.
      The new clause gives charter trustees the right to change themselves into parish councils with all the responsibilities and opportunities for direct election which that would involve. That would ensure that they would be considered by the local government commission and that their future would, therefore, be assured. I hope that the Minister can
      900
      give me some reassurance about the importance that the local government commission will give charter trustees when it considers these important matters.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: I detain the House briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and to refer to a matter that is obviously dear to the hearts of charter trustees and to my own heart. The matter is the subject of amendment No. 1 which we will not have a chance to debate, although I was the first hon. Member to table an amendment to the Bill on Report.
      I know that my hon. Friend the Minister shares my concern about archives. There can be nothing more important to charter trustees than the proper preservation of their archives and records. One point that has given many of us cause—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The matter does not arise under the new clause. There is a later amendment, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We should not seek to pre-empt that debate now.
      Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suggest that what I am saying is entirely relevant to the—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to question my ruling. My ruling is correct. We do not discuss archives when debating new clause 16.
      Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre for raising the subject and to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) to whom I will write. I will conclude the matter in that way, which will be more acceptable to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre—
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: Wyre Forest.
      Mr. Key: I beg the pardon of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs).
      I remember well that when I had been in the House for only about a year my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) started on a path that led him to introduce the Charter Trustees Bill, which was enacted in 1985. I was a supporter on that occasion and I believe that my hon. Friend did us all a great service.
      My charter trustees go back a long way. Charter trustees are an important part of the heritage of any of our ancient cities.
      The mayor of New Sarum, currently Mrs. Gloria Tudhope, is a figure of great importance in the life of the community, as is the mayor of any city, such as Kidderminster or elsewhere. Because we were concerned that mayors and charter trustees might not continue into succeeding centuries, the Charter Trustees Act 1985 was passed. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes for that.
      9.15 pm
      I hope that I can put the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest at rest. Under clause 17, where charter trustees were constituted under the Local Government Act 1972 for an area which is altered under this clause, the Secretary of State may make such provision with respect to those trustees as he thinks appropriate.

      901
      Amendment No. 4, which would require the Secretary of State to consult representatives of charter trustees before making such provisions, is not necessary. There will be plenty of opportunity for local representatives of charter trustees to make representations to the local government commission when it comes to review their area. We should expect the commission to take account of those views in drawing up its recommendations to the Secretary of State about what should happen in each area.
      Amendment No. 3 would remove the Secretary of State's discretion under clause 17 to make provision, as he sees appropriate, for charter trustees and would permit him only to create a parish for these areas under the terms of new clause 16. His discretion under the Bill as drafted is wide enough to cover the creation of parishes for these areas, but we have no reason to believe at this stage that this will necessarily be the solution to suit local circumstances everywhere. There will be plenty of opportunity for local people to make their views known to the commission about this issue. I assure my hon. Friend that I do not wish to see charter trustees disappear from our heritage.
      I do not want to start ruling options out at this stage. It is important to leave that discretion in. I fear that my hon. Friend's amendments would have the reverse effect. The principle is there. We want to ensure that charter trustees continue to exist, just as we want to maintain the other functions of local authorities, such as the preservation of archives.
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: The Minister has said that he wishes to see charter trustees prosper. Given what we have on the record, I hope that the local government commission, although not obliged to do so under clause 14, will take into consideration representations made by people who are charter trustees or who speak on their behalf.
      I am satisfied with what the Minister said. He made my case for me to a certain extent when he called my constituency Wyre rather than Wyre Forest. Although constituencies like Banbury, Leamington Spa and Dover do not have anonymity, Wyre Forest enjoys anonymity not only in the House but also, sadly, in Wyre Forest. I accept the assurance which the Minister has given. As a result, I hope that charter trustees can gain parish status under local government reorganisation and that they will prosper.
      It is a pity that we could not discuss the matter of archives because they are integral to the function of charter trustees—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not question my ruling either.
      Mr. Coombs: I hope that they will prosper as well.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek the leave of the House to withdraw the new clause?
      Mr. Coombs: No.
      Question put and negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that new clause 19 is not being moved. We now come to new clause 20.
      Mr. David Atkinson: I wish to move amendment No. 2, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If new clause 19 is not moved, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we reach that amendment, which refers to a later part of the Bill. We cannot discuss it now.

    New clause 20

      CRITERIA FOR A NEW TENDERING REGIME (No. 2)
      '.—

      (1) This section has effect for the purposes of specifying criteria which shall be fulfilled before the introduction of any new regime of compulsory competitive tendering under the provisions of this Act.

      (2) No order shall be made under section 8 below unless the Secretary of State is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the following criteria will be fulfilled by any such order—

      (a) that the tendering procedures introduced under any such order arc consistent with any Directive of the European Community and that no liability will arise in respect of any local authority under any such directive as a result of any difference between the provisions; and

      (b) that the quality of local authority services to which any such order applies will be improved as a result of the order, and that any procedure to be established enables local authorities to balance considerations of quality and cost in the most effective and efficient manner.'—[Mr. O'Brien].

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Labour Members consider part I of the Bill to be as important as part II, as we showed in Committee when we expressed our deep concern about compulsory competitive tendering and its extension by the Bill. We wish to draw attention now to the fact that there are other factors that the House should bear in mind when considering the extension of CCT.
      The new criteria for tendering are worthy of further consideration. The new clause states:
      "This section has effect for the purpose of specifying criteria which shall be fulfilled before the introduction of any new regime of compulsory competitive tendering under the provisions of this Act."
      It is intended to give safeguards to local authorities in connection with the new CCT clauses. It continues:
      "(2) No order shall be made under section 8 below unless the Secretary of State is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the following criteria will be fulfilled by any such order—

      (a) that the tendering procedures introduced under any such order are consistent with any Directive of the European Community and that no liability will arise in respect of any local authority under any such directive as a result of any difference between the provisions; and

      (b) that the quality of local authority services to which any such order applies will be improved as a result of the order, and that any procedure to be established enables local authorities to balance considerations of quality and cost in the most effective and efficient manner."

      The difference between the proposal that we put forward in Committee and the present proposal is that the new clause provides that the EC directive can influence the way in which tendering arrangements and contracts are adhered to under any new procedures, following its introduction later this year.
      Clauses 8 to 11 enable the Secretary of State to extend CCT to other council services and to change the existing rules and regulations for CCT. We are fully aware that local authorities are already compelled to invite tenders for

      903
      building and maintenance work and for other blue collar services such as school cleaning, school meals, refuse collection, and so on.
      The document, "Competing for Quality", is divided into two parts. The first, "A clearer framework for compulsory competitive tendering", deals with the changes to the tendering rules to tighten up procedures and give the Secretary of State additional policing powers. For example, the Government will be able to take quicker and more effective action against local authorities which appear to the Secretary of State not to be complying with the CCT requirements. That is one reason why the Minister should favourably consider the new clause. If the Secretary of State is to receive new policing powers, we must ensure that there are safeguards for local authorities in the tendering procedure as compared with the EC directive.
      Also, in regard to "Competing for Quality", the extension of CCT details the Government's plans for further CCT of police support services, for example, the maintenance of vehicles and home-to-school transport. Those issues were referred to in Committee. We also drew attention to our concern about library services and other managerial services such as engineering, architecture, legal services, and so on.
      In Committee, when we outlined our concerns about the extension of CCT in respect of managerial services, we requested information on why the Government were so intent on including those services in the powers that they already possess in the 1980 and 1988 Acts. Why did they want to extend compulsory competitive tendering to other managerial services? The Government implied that no service should be provided by the public sector. That is significant. The Minister of State has made it clear that the Government intend to ensure that no services shall be provided by local authorities and that they will enable other organisations to provide them. Why do the Government dislike local government providing services? Perhaps the Minister will explain.
      The Government's policies infer that the management of services provided by and on behalf of local government should be provided by people in business whose only purpose is to make money. New clause 20 safeguards the interests of local government and of those who rely on and work in local government, including legal services and the quality and cost of those services covered by the tendering exercise. In addition to safeguarding the interests of people who rely on and work in local government, we want to ensure that the quality and cost of the provision of services are also safeguarded in any tendering exercise. The new clause states
      "that the tendering procedures introduced under any such order are consistent with any Directive of the European Community and that no liability will arise in respect of any local authority under any such directive as a result of any difference between the provisions".
      Local councils should continue to be able to balance cost and quality considerations in the most effective way when considering tenders, and the quality of local authority services should be improved. That is the basis of the new clause. We want to ensure that cost and quality are balanced in any tendering exercise and that if there is to be compulsory tendering the quality of services is improved.
      In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) outlined what would be the impact of the forthcoming EC directive after it is
      904
      introduced in July 1993, with particular reference to stage 1, which covers the fitness of the contractor in any tendering procedure. The Minister concentrated on stage 2 of the directive, conveniently overlooking stage 1. In the United Kingdom the provisions of stage 1 of the EC directive should be given consideration. As that was not considered in Committee, we ask the Minister favourably to consider our request today and to respond to our anxiety about what will develop as a result of stage 1 of the directive.
      9.30 pm
      There is case law in which it is held that public authorities are under an obligation to give effect to Community law even when it conflicts with national law. I draw attention to the fact that it is on record in case law that EC directives which supersede the national law on tendering procedures apply to public authority contracts, as they do to contracts for local government services.
      We have seen how the Government act towards local authorities which try to defend the laws of the land. We saw how the Government acted on shop opening hours. Local authorities were trying to uphold the law of the land. When the matter was raised in the House, the Government did not wish to take part or intervene in the matter. I have tabled the new clause because we can see that there will be difficulties in interpreting the obligations of local authorities under Community law when it conflicts with our national laws. We ask the House to accept new clause 20 to safeguard the interests of local government.
      We have the impression, and I am sure that people outside also have the impression, that the Government just do not want to know when the pressure is on to help local government. New clause 20 will safeguard the interests of local government and should be included in the Bill. Local authorities must uphold Community law. We would act wrongly if we did not include a safeguard for local authorities in the Bill.
      In Committee we defended the decision taken in another place on the future of compulsory competitive tendering because it was in the best interests of the provision of services under the compulsory tendering procedure which applies at present. We consider that it would be in the best interests of local government to extend that decision to the new provisions in the Bill. The Government negated the change made to the Bill in the other place and reintroduced clause 8 to reinstate the double envelope procedure, which was dealt with at length by the Minister of State. It means that the quality threshold is designated and contracts are thereafter awarded to the lowest bidder. So the Secretary of State will set the quality threshold for services which are to be put out to tender. The contract will then be awarded to the lowest bidder. We are concerned about that level of quality threshold. It is not in the best interests of people who rely on local government services for the quality of those services to be set here in Westminster when they will be provided in local authority areas.
      The Lords amendment unified cost and quality considerations. In the best interests of providing services and ensuring that they meet customer demand, there should be a unified cost and quality involvement in tendering. That principle should not merely apply to the new legislation but should also extend to tendering which applies to the blue collar worker sections of present legislation.

      905
      Another reason why we are asking for safeguards against European Community legislation is the experience of the past. The London borough of Wandsworth accepted tenders from two companies—Initial and Exclusive—which supposedly competed to win contracts to clean housing estates. When they obtained the contracts they immediately merged with two multinationals, BET and the Hawley Group, which controlled 60 per cent. of all local government refuse collection and street cleaning contracts at the time. Experience shows that there have to be built-in safeguards for local government. Another example is the Merseyside development corporation, which was condemned for poor management. The Committee cited the letting of the Liverpool garden festival site to a company which went into liquidation, leaving debts of £5·5 million. The affair reflected badly on MDC's management and the Department of Environment's monitoring. If that can happen under CCT, there must be some safeguards for local authorities when they are involved in such tendering.
      In Committee, we referred to the involvement of compulsory competitive tendering in housing. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) referred to the need for a cost evaluation of compulsory competitive tendering when considering reorganisation.I suggest to the Minister that Conservative Members have the same concerns that we have about the cost and evaluation of quality in CCT under any tendering system. If it is right for Conservative Members to ask for a cost evaluation in the reorganisation of local government, it is right for us to ask for cost and quality evaluations when awarding contracts under the CCT procedure. The Minister of State referred to "an unbreakable bridge" between Government and people—I think that that was the phrase.
      We considered the question of compulsory competitive tendering for housing on more than one occasion in Committee. We asked for the details of the survey that was carried out under the consultation procedures. That survey should have been published in January, but we have not received it. The survey should contain provisions for tenant and co-operative rights under the CCT procedures. We were assured that consideration would be given to tenants and to tenants associations. They are protected by current legislation and I seek the assurance that that protection will continue under CTT procedures. If the existing laws are breached, and the new regulations under the European Community directive do not come into force until after July 1993, I hope that suitable provision will be made for housing. That is important because our communities are short of houses for rent, there is a record number of repossessions and a shortage of housing in rural areas. The CCT and housing management procedures will not solve those problems.
      Clause 8 requires the Secretary of State to make orders only if he is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the criteria outlined in the clause have been fulfilled and that the orders contained in the clause have been adhered to. That is important when we consider that as a result of the EC directive no liabilities on local authorities will arise from the tendering procedures. Again, our aim is to safeguard the services and the interests of local authorities.
      Against that background, it is clear that the new clause will benefit everyone involved. If the Government have any intention of defending and safeguarding the interests of local government, they should accept the new clause.
      Mr. Portillo: I honestly do not feel that we have broken much new ground since we debated these matters in Committee.
      The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked about the European Community draft directive. As I said in Committee, we are satisfied that there can and will be no conflict between our proposals for the structure of compulsory competitive tendering procedures for professional and technical services and the relevant EC directives. The draft EC directive on public services contracts provides that, subject to the provisions of national law, public authorities can choose between the lowest price tender evaluation procedure or the economically most advantageous tender evaluation procedure.
      Under the terms of the EC directive, the double envelope tendering procedure described in our consultation paper is a method of structuring the economically most advantageous tender evaluation procedure. It will allow local authorities in constructing a quality threshold to take account of the type of non-price criteria referred to in the EC directive—quality, technical merit, aesthetic and functional characteristics, technical assistance, service, delivery date, and period of completion.
      Subsection (2)(a) of the new clause seeks to import into the Bill considerations which are implicit, the expression of which would suggest a conflict where none can exist. In any case, no Government can act contrary to an EC directive that is in force and nor can any local authority.
      Mr. Blunkett: There is a conflict between what is meant by "economically advantageous" and the double envelope involving a tendering list followed by lowest cost. The Treasury put out a directive relating to procurement policy and Department of the Environment circular 16/90 interpreted that by saying:
      "There are only two alternative criteria: 'lowest price' and `most economically advantageous tender'. The criterion chosen should normally be the latter as, if the lowest price is chosen, contracting authorities will not necessarily obtain value for money as defined in the Government's consolidated guidelines or public purchasing policy."
      That shows that there is a clear choice between what is economically advantageous and the lowest tendering price, reflected in the EC regulation and recommended in the Treasury's works directive.
      Mr. Portillo: I see no conflict between what the hon. Gentleman said and what I said. I told him that there were two alternatives—the lowest price tender and the economically most advantageous tender. "Lowest price tender" speaks for itself. "Advantageous tender" evaluation takes into account other factors, beyond price, and I referred to some of them—quality, technical merit, aesthetic and functional characteristics and so on.
      Evaluating a bid which first passes a quality threshold and then wins on price is a way of structuring the economically most advantageous tender evaluation procedure. An economically most advantageous tender evaluation procedure must contain within it factors both of quality and of price. What is being proposed in the double envelope technique is that the two should be structured. I shall come shortly to why the Opposition were so keen that those two factors should not be separated.
      Mr. Blunkett: The Opposition are keen that the two are combined so that price and quality are weighed in

      907
      conjunction with each other, not separated out to make them exclusive in the way that the double envelope would do.
      Mr. Portillo: The Opposition are keen to fudge compulsory competitive tendering. Labour Members have always been keen to do that. They are afraid that we shall have two sets of objective criteria, first a threshold of quality which is defined and which tenderers will or will not pass, and a second stage which they must pass on price and provide the lowest price.
      The Labour party objects to that because it makes the competition absolutely overt and clear, and it cannot fudge that in favour of the direct supply organisation. On the other hand, if Labour can wrap the two together so that it all becomes a matter of subjectivity about quality —so that it can take not the lowest price but possibly the highest—it can be fudged in favour of the DSO.
      The purpose of Labour Members in all of this was apparent throughout the speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). He talked about safeguarding the interests of local authorities. We are concerned about local government and local authorities, but we are primarily concerned about safeguarding the interests of local people, and providing them with services of the best possible value.
      The hon. Member for Normanton said that we were taking new powers to extend compulsory competitive tendering. That is not so. The 1988 Act already provides that we may extend compulsory competitive tendering into new areas. Clause 8 of this Bill is designed to enable us to evaluate separately cost and quality, and that is anathema to Labour, for the reasons I have given.
      We did not imply, as the hon. Member for Normanton said, that it was inappropriate for no services to be provided directly by local authorities in the future. Our consultation document makes it clear that, as we move gradually into the area of core services, we acknowledge that local authorities will wish to provide some services directly. That is why we have set out, within that consultation document, a possible technique by which we can judge that part of the core services of a local authority that it would be appropriate for it to continue to provide in house, while ensuring that part of its services is contracted out so that it can he the subject of competition.
      The hon. Member for Normanton frequently referred to the need for quality and price to be balanced. That is a euphemism. He simply wishes to confuse the choice so that it will always be possible for local authorities that are so inclined to choose the direct service organisation and, in the process, deny local people the opportunity of the best value for money.
      Mr. Blunkett: If that is a Labour party invention, why did the Audit Commission, commenting on "Competing for Quality", say about design services:
      "A 'second envelope' decision based solely on price could lead to lesser quality buildings"?
      In other words, the Audit Commission considers the double envelope scheme to be a flawed way of proceeding on competitive tendering, even if the Government do not accept that.
      Mr. Portillo: Throughout the Committee proceedings I said that I was willing to listen to different ways of structuring that. I said that I did not necessarily stand by a double envelope technique as the be all and end all. But

      908
      I strongly believe that we need to consider the questions of quality and price separately. We put in the consultation document one way in which that could be done. If there are other ways, I have always said that I would benefit from the advice of professional bodies, and we have been looking forward to receiving that advice and considering it carefully. However, we shall not return to the system that the hon. Gentleman favours, of simply rolling quality and price into one amorphous ball so that any subjective judgment can be made by any local authority and it can award all the contracts to its own direct service organisation.
      We are keen on that because we know the game that the Labour party is up to. We know about its dogged opposition to compulsive competitive tendering since it was first introduced. We know that it has fought tooth and nail to ensure that direct service organisations can keep the contracts, whatever the cost to local people. Some Labour politicians over the years have been honest enough to admit what is going on. Keva Coombes, the former leader of Liverpool council, said:
      "Frankly, we've put the interests of the providers of the service, the work force, above the interests of the tenants".
      He also said:
      "'The Council's problems are not down to resources', rather inefficiency. 'It costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas'".
      He then said:
      "We are the worst landlord in Liverpool, probably in the country. All the new building has taken place and been run by a central unit and all despite the housing department. It takes genius—voids gone up, rent arrears soared, and the breaking of the law on racial equality".
      That is the nightmare of local government under the Labour party where compulsory competitive tendering has not been brought to bear.
      Mr. Blunkett: Why should not compulsory competitive tendering apply where the private sector is involved and direct service organisations are excluded? In Committee, just before the closure motion on clause 8 was moved, the Minister said that if no direct service organisation was involved
      "Compulsory competitive tendering provisions would not then apply: they apply only where a local authority is considering using its direct service organisation"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 February 1992; c. 305.]
      Why, if the private sector alone is involved, does compulsory competitive tendering not apply and the proper comparisons of cost do not apply? Why do they apply only if the local authority chooses to involve its own direct service organisation in tendering?
      Mr. Portillo: If a local authority has chosen to go out to the private sector for a piece of work, it stands to reason that there is no advantage to that local authority in awarding the work to a particular contractor as none of them works for it. Subject to the views of its auditors, who may review what it does subsequently, the local authority awards the contract where it will obtain the highest quality work for the lowest price. Only where the authority wishes to use its own in-house work force to compete does the compulsory competitive tendering regime apply.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) comes over all innocent as though wondering why that should be. I refer him back to the quotes from Keva Coombes, the former leader of Liverpool council. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the devious steps taken by Labour authorities up and down the

      909
      country to fix competition in favour of in-house direct service organisations. That is the answer to his question, and it is a perfectly obvious one.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under the present regime, Lancashire county council lost the citizens of Lancashire about £600,000 by giving way to an in-house tender—I believe that it was for school meals? We want to do away with such practices.
      Mr. Portillo: I am sorry to hear what my hon. Friend says.
      The Bill will not only extend the compulsory competitive tendering regime through the possibility of considering quality and cost separately in relation to new ranges of services, but will enable the Secretary of State to specify a series of practices that he considers to be uncompetitive. Therefore, the practices that have been taking place in a number of local authorities to fix the competition in favour of the direct service organisation can be ruled out in future by order of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We shall be able to specify a series of practices, of which we now have a growing number of examples, which until now have been used in order to distort the competition, not only in favour of the direct service organisation, but against the benefit and interests of the consumer. That is what the debate is all about.
      The legislation is about providing services to local people for the best possible value for money, recognising that that money has to come from local taxpayers and that the best value services can be provided through competition. Just this week, we have had another example of the advantages of compulsory competitive tendering. A recent survey on the cleanest cities in Europe gave the lie to the Labour party's denigration of our capital, as London came second in the table.
      The part of London surveyed in order to show that it was the second in the league in Europe was not, surprisingly enough, Hackney, Lambeth, Southwark or Haringey, but Westminster—the very heart of our capital, where the services were put out to tender some time ago.
      Mr. Bellotti: If the Minister is so convinced that compulsory competitive tendering is finding favour, where is it doing so? It is not finding favour with any of the local authority associations. The Royal Institute of British Architects and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations are both opposed to it. Everyone outside the House is opposed to it. From where does the support come?
      Mr. Portillo: I think that the hon. Gentleman must keep his head under a bushel. Local authorities up and down the country are ahead of the Government. The Bill merely brings up the rear. Compulsory competitive tendering will simply bring into line those local authorities which have not taken up voluntary competitive tendering. If the hon. Gentleman has contacts in local authorities, he should know that local authorities throughout Britain are seizing the opportunity of competitive tendering as a good chance to manage their resources more efficiently and to find the best value for money for their local taxpayers. I make no claim that the legislation will influence the best
      910
      authorities in the country, which are already far ahead of us and are showing the limits of what can be achieved by putting their services out to competitive tendering.
      The new clause constitutes a naked attempt by the Labour party once more to resist the process of competitive tendering; once more to resist the introduction of competition in local services; once more to defend the unions in local government, because they are in hock to those unions; and once more to deny decent services to local taxpayers. We will have none of it, and that is why we reject the new clause.
      Mr. Bellotti: Compulsory competitive tendering is a subject of wide concern outside the House. I have already said that the local authority associations are opposed to it. Of course the best local authorities want competitive tendering, but they do not want it to be made compulsory: they want choice, because they are nearest to the people. Let us look, for example, at the quality of our architecture. It is no wonder that the Royal Institute of British Architects is opposed to compulsory competitive tendering—
      It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [17 February], put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 275.

      Division No. 97]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Allen, Graham

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Anderson, Donald

      Dalyell, Tam

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Darling, Alistair

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Ashton, Joe

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dewar, Donald

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dixon, Don

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Dobson, Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Battle, John

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Beckett, Margaret

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bell, Stuart

      Eadie, Alexander

      Bellotti, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Enright, Derek

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Benton, Joseph

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Faulds, Andrew

      Blunkett, David

      Fearn, Ronald

      Boateng, Paul

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Boyes, Roland

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Bradley, Keith

      Fisher, Mark

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Flannery, Martin

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foster, Derek

      Caborn, Richard

      Foulkes, George

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fraser, John

      Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Carr, Michael

      George, Bruce

      Cartwright, John

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clelland, David

      Gould, Bryan

      Cohen, Harry

      Graham, Thomas

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Corbett, Robin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cousins, Jim

      Hain, Peter

      Cryer, Bob

      Hardy, Peter

      911

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Nellist, Dave

      Haynes, Frank

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      O'Brien, William

      Henderson, Doug

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Home Robertson, John

      Parry, Robert

      Hood, Jimmy

      Patchett, Terry

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Prescott, John

      Howells, Geraint

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hoyle, Doug

      Radice, Giles

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Randall, Stuart

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Redmond, Martin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Reid, Dr John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Robertson, George

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Rogers, Allan

      Kennedy, Charles

      Rooney, Terence

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lambie, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lamond, James

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Short, Clare

      Lewis, Terry

      Skinner, Dennis

      Litherland, Robert

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      Livsey, Richard

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Snape, Peter

      Loyden, Eddie

      Soley, Clive

      McAllion, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McCartney, Ian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Stephen, Nicol

      McFall, John

      Stott, Roger

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Strang, Gavin

      McLeish, Henry

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Madden, Max

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Marek, Dr John

      Turner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Vaz, Keith

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Wallace, James

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Walley, Joan

      Martlew, Eric

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Maxton, John

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Meacher, Michael

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Meale, Alan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Michael, Alun

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wilson, Brian

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Winnick, David

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Worthington, Tony

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wray, Jimmy

      Morley, Elliot

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Mr. Ray Powell and

      Mullin, Chris

      Mr. Eric Illsley.

      Murphy, Paul

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bendall, Vivian

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Alexander, Richard

      Benyon, W.

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Allason, Rupert

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Amess, David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Amos, Alan

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Arbuthnot, James

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Bottomley, Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Atkinson, David

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Baldry, Tony

      Bowis, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Bellingham, Henry

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      912

      Brazier, Julian

      Hill, James

      Bright, Graham

      Hind, Kenneth

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Buck, Sir Antony

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

      Burns, Simon

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Butcher, John

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cash, William

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Irvine, Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jack, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jackson, Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Jessel, Toby

      Churchill, Mr

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Key, Robert

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kilfedder, James

      Cormack, Patrick

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Couchman, James

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knapman, Roger

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Day, Stephen

      Knox, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Dicks, Terry

      Latham, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dover, Den

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dunn, Bob

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Evennett, David

      Lord, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Farr, Sir John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Mans, Keith

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Maples, John

      Forman, Nigel

      Marland, Paul

      Forth, Eric

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Freeman, Roger

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      French, Douglas

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Fry, Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gale, Roger

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Moate, Roger

      Gill, Christopher

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Moss, Malcolm

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Mudd, David

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gregory, Conal

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Grist, Ian

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Ground, Patrick

      Norris, Steve

      Hague, William

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Page, Richard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Paice, James

      Hannam, Sir John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Harris, David

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Pawsey, James

      Hayes, Jerry

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hayward, Robert

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Price, Sir David

      913

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Rathbone, Tim

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Thorne, Neil

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rost, Peter

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Tracey, Richard

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Tredinnick, David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Trippier, David

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Walden, George

      Shelton, Sir William

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Waller, Gary

      Shersby, Michael

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Watts, John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wells, Bowen

      Speller, Tony

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Whitney, Ray

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Squire, Robin

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wilshire, David

      Stern, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Yeo, Tim

      Stokes, Sir John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sumberg, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Speaker then put forthwith the remaining Questions which he was directed to put at that hour.
      Question put, That the remaining amendment standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill:—
      The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 202.

      Division No. 98]

      [10.15 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Boswell, Tim

      Alexander, Richard

      Bottomley, Peter

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Allason, Rupert

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Amess, David

      Bowis, John

      Amos, Alan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Arbuthnot, James

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Brazier, Julian

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bright, Graham

      Atkinson, David

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Baldry, Tony

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Batiste, Spencer

      Burns, Simon

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Butcher, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Benyon, W.

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Cash, William

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Body, Sir Richard

      Churchill, Mr

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      914

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclitfe)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Key, Robert

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kilfedder, James

      Cormack, Patrick

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Couchman, James

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Knapman, Roger

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Day, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knox, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Latham, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dover, Den

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lightbown, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evennett, David

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fallon, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Farr, Sir John

      Lord, Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Mans, Keith

      Forman, Nigel

      Maples, John

      Forth, Eric

      Marland, Paul

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Freeman, Roger

      Maude, Hon Francis

      French, Douglas

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Fry, Peter

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Gill, Christopher

      Moate, Roger

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mudd, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Gregory, Conal

      Nelson, Anthony

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Grist, Ian

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Ground, Patrick

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hague, William

      Norris, Steve

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Page, Richard

      Hannam, Sir John

      Paice, James

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Patnick, Irvine

      Harris, David

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Pawsey, James

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hayward, Robert

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hill, James

      Price, Sir David

      Hind, Kenneth

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Rhodes James, Sir Robert

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

      Riddick, Graham

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Rost, Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Irvine, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Jack, Michael

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Jackson, Robert

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jessel, Toby

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      915

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Tracey, Richard

      Shelton, Sir William

      Tredinnick, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Trippier, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Speller, Tony

      Walden, George

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Waller, Gary

      Squire, Robin

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stern, Michael

      Watts, John

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wells, Bowen

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stokes, Sir John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sumberg, David

      Wilkinson, John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wilshire, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wood, Timothy

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Thorne, Neil

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Allason, Rupert

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Allen, Graham

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Anderson, Donald

      Darling, Alistair

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Dewar, Donald

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dixon, Don

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Dobson, Frank

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Doran, Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Battle, John

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Beckett, Margaret

      Eadie, Alexander

      Bell, Stuart

      Edwards, Huw

      Bellotti, David

      Enright, Derek

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Benton, Joseph

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fearn, Ronald

      Blunkett, David

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Boateng, Paul

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Boyes, Roland

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradley, Keith

      Flannery, Martin

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Foster, Derek

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Foulkes, George

      Caborn, Richard

      Fraser, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Canavan, Dennis

      George, Bruce

      Carr, Michael

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Cartwright, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Gould, Bryan

      Clelland, David

      Graham, Thomas

      Cohen, Harry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Corbett, Robin

      Hain, Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      Hardy, Peter

      Cryer, Bob

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      916

      Haynes, Frank

      Nellist, Dave

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Henderson, Doug

      O'Brien, William

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Parry, Robert

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Patchett, Terry

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Pendry, Tom

      Howells, Geraint

      Prescott, John

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hoyle, Doug

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Radice, Giles

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Randall, Stuart

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Redmond, Martin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Robertson, George

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Kennedy, Charles

      Rogers, Allan

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rooney, Terence

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lambie, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lamond, James

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Lewis, Terry

      Short, Clare

      Litherland, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Livingstone, Ken

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Livsey, Richard

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Snape, Peter

      McAllion, John

      Soley, Clive

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Spearing, Nigel

      McCartney, Ian

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McFall, John

      Stephen, Nicol

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Stott, Roger

      McLeish, Henry

      Strang, Gavin

      McMaster, Gordon

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Madden, Max

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Marek, Dr John

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Turner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Vaz, Keith

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Wallace, James

      Martlew, Eric

      Walley, Joan

      Maxton, John

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Meacher, Michael

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Meale, Alan

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Michael, Alun

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Winnick, David

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Worthington, Tony

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wray, Jimmy

      Morley, Elliot

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Mr. Ray Powell and

      Murphy, Paul

      Mr. Eric Illsley.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment No. 5, in clause 1—Publication of information as to standards of performance—page 2, line 11, at end insert—
      '(2A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument vary the period for the time being specified in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above so as to fix the latest time for the publication of information in accordance with that paragraph at any such time, within the period of nine months after the end of the financial year in question, as may be specified in the order; and a statutory instrument containing an order under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'
      —accordingly made.
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent signified.]
      Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Portillo.]
      The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 201.

      Division No. 99]

      [10.27 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Alexander, Richard

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Forman, Nigel

      Amess, David

      Forth, Eric

      Amos, Alan

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      French, Douglas

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fry, Peter

      Atkinson, David

      Gale, Roger

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Baldry, Tony

      Gill, Christopher

      Batiste, Spencer

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bendall, Vivian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Benyon, W.

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gregory, Conal

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Grist, Ian

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Ground, Patrick

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hague, William

      Boswell, Tim

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Bowis, John

      Harris, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Brazier, Julian

      Hayward, Robert

      Bright, Graham

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hill, James

      Burns, Simon

      Hind, Kenneth

      Butcher, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

      Carrington, Matthew

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cash, William

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hunter, Andrew

      Chope, Christopher

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Churchill, Mr

      Irvine, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jack, Michael

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Jackson, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jessel, Toby

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Couchman, James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Key, Robert

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Kilfedder, James

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Day, Stephen

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Devlin, Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dicks, Terry

      Knapman, Roger

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Dover, Den

      Knox, David

      Dunn, Bob

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Latham, Michael

      Eggar, Tim

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Evennett, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fallon, Michael

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Farr, Sir John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      918

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lord, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Speller, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mans, Keith

      Squire, Robin

      Maples, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marland, Paul

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stern, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stokes, Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Sumberg, David

      Moate, Roger

      Summerson, Hugo

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thorne, Neil

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Tracey, Richard

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Tredinnick, David

      Page, Richard

      Trippier, David

      Paice, James

      Trotter, Neville

      Patnick, Irvine

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Pawsey, James

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Walden, George

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Portillo, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Price, Sir David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Warren, Kenneth

      Rathbone, Tim

      Watts, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Wells, Bowen

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Whitney, Ray

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rost, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Wood, Timothy

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Shelton, Sir William

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Shersby, Michael

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Allason, Rupert

      Benton, Joseph

      Allen, Graham

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Anderson, Donald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Blunkett, David

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Boateng, Paul

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Boyes, Roland

      Ashton, Joe

      Bradley, Keith

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Barron, Kevin

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Battle, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Beckett, Margaret

      Callaghan, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Bellotti, David

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Canavan, Dennis

      919

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Carr, Michael

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Cartwright, John

      Gould, Bryan

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Graham, Thomas

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cohen, Harry

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hain, Peter

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hardy, Peter

      Corbett, Robin

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Cousins, Jim

      Haynes, Frank

      Cryer, Bob

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Henderson, Doug

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Home Robertson, John

      Darling, Alistair

      Hood, Jimmy

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

      Howells, Geraint

      Dewar, Donald

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Dixon, Don

      Hoyle, Doug

      Dobson, Frank

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Doran, Frank

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Enright, Derek

      Kennedy, Charles

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fatchett, Derek

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Fearn, Ronald

      Lambie, David

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lamond, James

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Fisher, Mark

      Lewis, Terry

      Flannery, Martin

      Litherland, Robert

      Flynn, Paul

      Livingstone, Ken

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Livsey, Richard

      Foster, Derek

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Foulkes, George

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Fraser, John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Fyfe, Maria

      McAllion, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      George, Bruce

      McCartney, Ian

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      920

      McFall, John

      Rooney, Terence

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Rowlands, Ted

      McLeish, Henry

      Ruddock, Joan

      McMaster, Gordon

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Madden, Max

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Marek, Dr John

      Short, Clare

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

      Maxton, John

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Meacher, Michael

      Snape, Peter

      Meale, Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Michael, Alun

      Spearing, Nigel

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Stephen, Nicol

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Stott, Roger

      Morley, Elliot

      Strang, Gavin

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Murphy, Paul

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Nellist, Dave

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Turner, Dennis

      O'Brien, William

      Vaz, Keith

      O'Hara, Edward

      Wallace, James

      O'Neill, Martin

      Walley, Joan

      Parry, Robert

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Patchett, Terry

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Pendry, Tom

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Prescott, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Winnick, David

      Radice, Giles

      Worthington, Tony

      Randall, Stuart

      Wray, Jimmy

      Redmond, Martin

      Reid, Dr John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robertson, George

      Mr. Ray Powell and

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Mr. Eric Illsley.

      Rogers, Allan

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation)
10.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.
The regulations will be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. The purpose of the regulations is to increase by 5 per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1 April 1992.
The 1979 Act set up a scheme to provide lump sum payments to sufferers from dust-related diseases or, when the sufferers have died, to their dependants. In law, the remedy for people suffering from those diseases is to sue the employer concerned for damages. But, because of the time it takes for the disease to develop, diagnosis may not be made for 20 to 30 years or more after exposure and the employer or employers responsible may no longer exist. The aim of the scheme, therefore, is to provide a measure of compensation to those who cannot claim it in the normal way through the courts. I must stress, however, that it has never been the intention of the Act to provide an alternative to taking civil action in the courts.
There are three basic conditions of entitlement which must be satisfied before a payment is made to a claimant: that there is no relevant employer who can be sued; that no court action has been brought and no compensation has been received in respect of the disease; and that disablement benefits have been awarded.
The conditions of the Act are interpreted by my Department as sympathetically as the Act will allow, but we must ensure that the payment conditions are met.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am sorry to interrupt but does the Department's interpretation cover Scots law? Will the Minister look sympathetically on a ten-minute Bill —it is the only way that one can raise the matter—on 17 March? The reason for its introduction is a report of the Law Commission due on 5 March, which will seek to remedy the anomaly that estates in Scotland cannot claim in the same way as estates in England. That disadvantages some thousands of people, particularly those who worked with asbestos and suffer from mesothelioma in some way, who worked in the construction industry and in particular the shipyards.
Mr. Forth: As the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter on a previous occasion, I am aware of his continuing interest in it. As he said, the report has yet to be published. We are not yet aware of what it will recommend, but I am confident that whatever recommendations it makes will be considered sympathetically in the light of the facts that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I will certainly ensure that the point that he raised is brought to the attention of my colleagues in the Scottish Office in order that weight is added to his request for it to be considered in the light of the matter that we are debating this evening.
The Government have given an undertaking to Parliament to review the amounts regularly to maintain the value of the payments under the terms of the regulations. Last year, Parliament approved an increase of
922
9 per cent. from April to take account of the movement in the index of retail prices during the preceding 12 months. The proposed increase this year is 5 per cent., the aim, again, being to keep the payments in line with inflation. I wish to re-emphasise that my Department does all that it can to administer the Act in a sympathetic way. We recognise that each case is an individual disaster and we are as generous as the statute will allow.
Dr. Kim Howells: But does the Minister recognise that the rationalisation of hospital provision in coalfields which no longer have any coal mines or, like south Wales, have few coal mines has created a deep fear among men who are still in the industry that expertise in diagnosing pneumoconiosis contracted, for example, in the past decade simply will not be available in future? Has he anything to say about that? It is a great worry to people currently working in the industry.
Mr. Forth: I understand the basis for such misgivings, but they are misplaced. I am confident that the machinery available through both the Department of Social Security procedures necessary to establish the claim to benefit and the medical boards which are called in wherever necessary will be available on a permanent basis. Although I recognise the developments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I see no reason to believe that they will reduce the level of expertise that is available to make a fair and proper assessment of claims. I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance.
Mr. Allan Rogers: I thank the Minister for saying that, and I hope that he will put pressure on his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health to maintain the facilities available within the South Glamorgan area to service the coal mining communities that we represent. However, it is not as simple as that. There are outstanding instances throughout the south Wales coalfield of, for example, miners who are diagnosed as 100 per cent. in life and receive a disability pension and benefits relating to the disease, but on death at the post mortem they are excluded from the lump sum benefit outlined in the regulations.
It is not simple. We have had to face distressing situations with families who suddenly find themselves destitute because no compensation is payable after death, although the miner or ex-miner had received compensation for a considerable period when alive.
Mr. Forth: I confess that I have not been aware of the problem that hon. Members have mentioned. They should write to me with the appropriate background and details to the cases. If a problem arises from the administration of the regulations I shall certainly want to consider it. I have already given an undertaking that our concern is to ensure that we give the maximum allowable under the regulations because, by definition, they are designed to deal with real human distress. If there is an inhibition in the regulations I would want to ensure that it was dealt with, as far as possible.
Mr. William O'Brien: I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Minister, but, following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), it is usually found on post mortem that the deceased was suffering from emphysema. May I draw the Minister's attention to the report of the Institute

923
of Occupational Medicine at Edinburgh university, which discusses the causes of disability in coal miners. I shall pass the report to the Minister. A passage in it states:
"There was a clear association between the occurrence of … emphysema and the amount of dust to which a man had been exposed during life, allowing for the effect of age and smoking. This association was more definite in men showing some dust-related fibrosis and emphysema was more likely the greater the coal contact of the dust exposure."
In other words, there is evidence to show that emphysema in coal miners has been caused through the conditions that they were working in. That concern is expressed by many families of former mine workers. Therefore, will the Minister consider the situation carefully and try to impart to his colleagues at the Department of Health that compensation should be paid to coal miners with emphysema because of the evidence available, according to the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh? Perhaps the Minister would take note of that and a copy of the report could be obtained, in the interests of miners and their dependants.
Mr. Forth: I am advised that in January 1990 the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council—the independent body which advises the Secretary of State for Social Services on the prescription of industrial diseases—announced a further study of bronchitis and emphysema in workers in the metal-producing industries. A further IIAC study on bronchitis and emphysema in coal miners was also announced in October 1991 and the results of both studies should be published later this year. I think that that shows that the problem that the hon. Member mentioned has been recognised in the sense that it is being looked into. Although such studies always take longer than many hon. Members would wish, I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point. It is being actively considered and will be reported on later this year.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister appears to believe that the study commenced in 1991. If he checks the record, he will find that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has presented a Bill to deal with this problem on at least half a dozen times in the past decade. Surely we do not need to consider further research at this stage, given that a great deal of research was carried out more than 10 years ago.
Mr. Forth: The problem is that we are dealing with an issue that is subject to contention and judgment. We are talking about the attribution of particular conditions to particular working environments. The issue involves the payment of compensation and the judgment of eligibility for such payments. I hope that the Opposition accept that we must get matters right, in fairness to the sufferers and, if I may dare say in this context—I hope that hon. Members will not take this amiss—the taxpayers. It is a tax-funded scheme which is designed to compensate.
I believe that the study that I have mentioned is a step in the right direction. I ask hon. Members to be patient for just a little longer until its results are available. If it shows that the connections mentioned by the Opposition exist, I am confident that the appropriate action will be taken. However tempting it might be, a private Member's Bill is not necessarily the right means by which to pursue the matter.
Mr. Rogers: Part of the problem is obtaining the correct diagnosis in life. Pneumoconiosis is caused by the scarring
924
of the lung tissue by silicates that are inhaled. That ailment is often obscured by other associated diseases, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (M r. O'Brien). With the use of electron microscopy one can detect pneumoconiosis, but, unless such sophisticated equipment is used, the proper diagnosis is not obtained. Therefore, many people who should receive benefit do not and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has pushed his Bill. It would clear up such areas of doubt.
Mr. Forth: The studies that I have mentioned should cover that problem. If hon. Members are not satisfied that my comments cover the issue raised, they should take the matter up with me so that I can do my best to ensure that their concerns are met. If necessary, we shall reconsider the issue in another study. That is the way in which to proceed.
No one wants to conceal matters or to delay their resolution. Opposition Members are expert in this problem and deal with many constituency cases and I am sure that they understand that progress must be steady and undertaken on a proper basis. We are dealing with complex, often contentious, matters. However, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) suggested, many of the problems can be overcome with advanced technology.
Given the background, it is right that we should identify the areas of difficulty and then identify how to resolve them. If hon. Members are not satisfied with my proposals, they should raise the matter with me in the normal way.
Mr. Andy Stewart: I welcome my hon. Friend's guarantee to address immediately any recommendations that the report may make. There are just as many Conservative Members as Labour Members who are anxious that this matter should be addressed.
Mr. Forth: I would not like to dispute whether my hon. Friend is numerically accurate, but I would not dispute my hon. Friend's commitment to his constituents, which is at least the equal of that of any Opposition Member.
I hope that there is no contention about this issue. All hon. Members with constituents affected by pneumoconiosis deal with matters that involve issues of great tragedy and family and human deprivation. I hope that my Department always handles such cases sensitively and positively within the terms of the existing regulations. We are talking here about the somewhat different issue of any definition or redefinition of the boundaries within which the regulations operate. We need not be divided on that, and I hope that we can move forward on it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: We are nearing a general election. Sensitive to their election prospects, the Government have in recent weeks been saying and doing things that have not been unhelpful to our constituents. Tonight, on the eve of the election, Opposition Members are offering the Minister a chance to win some glory. Recognising the correlation between emphysema and pneumoconiosis and the fact that payments are made according to certain guidelines, we invite the Minister to say that the Government will make a positive recommendation to the body examining the whole issue to the effect that the link between emphysema and pneumoconiosis should be strengthened to the point at which private Member's legislation on the subject is acceptable. That would mean it becoming law tomorrow.

925
We simply want a commitment from the Minister, on behalf of the Government, that they will support our case. That might result in the Conservatives pinching another vote. Or we might pinch another 20,000 votes. It is election time. The Minister should do the right thing and say that the Government support us in principle.
Mr. Forth: It is with some trepidation that I tell the hon. Gentleman, in view of his experience in this place, that were he to find himself a Minister in a future Labour Government, which might surprise him more than it would surprise me—but one never knows—he would find that what he seeks is not as simple as he suggests. Given the nature of the area that we are discussing, it is not just a question of a Minister waving a wand and saying, "Because I wish it to be so, it shall be so." If it were that easy, Opposition Members would be suspicious, and rightly so.
I have said that there is an ongoing study into the point that Opposition Members have raised. That will report later this year. I have no doubt that if that report found what they believe it will find, the appropriate action would follow. That is the right course, rather than Ministers giving instant responses, tempted though they might be by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
We recognise each case on its merits and deal with it as generously as possible. I emphasise that the purpose of the Act has never been to take on the liabilities of employers, and we must be satisfied that there is no employer against whom a single claim for damages could be made. It is a long-standing measure which the House debates each year. I hope that, having heard my remarks, hon. Members will support the regulations.
10.57 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: We must place in context the fact that every one of those who benefit under the regulations and all those about whom my hon. Friends are talking have suffered considerably because of the actions of their former, and in some cases their continuing, employers. They have given their health for the nation's economy.
The regulations do not deal directly with the coal industry, in which a superior compensation scheme is already in existence. Even so, the experience of my hon. Friends and the testimony that they bring before the House about the difficulties of claiming under British Coal's scheme and the scheme under the regulations are relevant, because much frustration exists. People who have been diagnosed by their GPs, and having had that diagnosis confirmed by a consultant, still find themselves refused compensation under either scheme because they are considered to have insufficient disability to benefit.
The Minister said that his Department always tries to treat each case sympathetically, but we are talking about an extremely vulnerable group of people and time is often of the essence. The overwhelming bulk of people who benefit under the pneumoconiosis regulations are former asbestos workers. As I am one of those former asbestos workers, I have a certain vested interest in the regulations. The pattern of ages at which people begin to be seriously affected by the impact of asbestos shows that it happens many years after they have worked in that industry.
926
For example, of those assessed as suffering from asbestososis in 1990, the overwhelming majority were in their late 50s or older before their condition was diagnosed. At that stage in life, people often feel that they cannot wait for a prolonged review on whether the regulations can be extended. The matter is therefore urgent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) raised an associated matter. He rightly pointed out that the full impact of those conditions is often visible only at an autopsy.
Mr. Rogers: To illustrate that point, my brother-in-law left a colliery in south Wales in 1945 and went to live in Newark, where he worked in Ransome and Marles until he had another industrial accident. Only about 10 years ago, when he was 70 or 73, he was diagnosed—as a result of action by the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, which helped him, from its Nottingham office, to have a proper medical examination —as having pneumoconiosis. That was almost 40 years after he had left the industry, but he had been insidiously ill all the time.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend's point is valid. Of the 24 asbestos workers who were considered to be between 80 and 100 per cent. disabled in 1990, all but four were in their 60s. They had been exposed to asbestos early in their working lives and the full impact of that exposure had been diagnosed only at that late stage.
Although the Minister is right to say that compensation is funded by direct taxation, we are not talking about vast sums of taxpayers' money in relative terms, but of some £1·5 million in the current financial year. Neither are we talking about massive pay-offs to a lucky—I use that word hesitantly—minority who benefit under the scheme. A typical payment this year will be about £10,000. One must go down the different scales of assessment to see who will qualify for a payment of £10,000. Specifically, for someone suffering 30 per cent. disability to receive £10,000, he or she must be at least 60 years of age. The Minister must appreciate that people will receive relatively little compensation towards the end of their lives, even though they may have suffered for many years.
I hope that the Minister will consider other issues sympathetically, because the Government have the power to look afresh at the defects in the scheme. They should consider in particular the relative advantages in the coal industry scheme, an important feature of which is the opportunity for reassessment. One of the problems with pneumoconiosis and asbestosis is that they are progressive and the compensation is awarded according to the level of disability when the initial diagnosis takes place. Under the coal board scheme—I checked this information today with the National Union of Mineworkers, which has more experience of it than anybody—in the most recent year for which figures are available, although some 300 new pneumoconiosis cases were placed on the books, about 150 people returned for reassessment because their condition had deteriorated.
We know that, in any given year, half of those presenting themselves could be replicated by people who should go back for re-examination. Under the coal board scheme, that is possible, but it is not possible under the regulations. Somebody who, at the age of 50, is assessed as being 10 per cent. disabled will receive the grand sum of a

927
little more than £10,000. In another two or three years, he might have become 50 per cent. disabled so he will have forgone the extra £20,000 that he would have received if he had been—I say this hesitantly—lucky enough to be patient and to wait until he was diagnosed as having severe pneumoconiosis. That does not seem to be a fair and acceptable way to run a scheme, as it appears to be a lottery as to when one is first taken on to the doctor's books.
Another advantage of the coal industry scheme is that allowance is made for people who can continue to work, albeit on reduced earnings. It is recognised that someone who cannot do the work that he was once capable of doing is still given some allowance to make up his earnings to guarantee an acceptable standard of living. No such facility exists in the regulations. Those two changes would transform the regulations and the position of the many victims of past industrial practices.
The bulk of claimants under the regulations are former asbestos workers. The Minister may or may not be aware of it, but it is far from being beyond living memory that while management in industries such as the asbestos industry knew very well of the dangers of asbestos—that it was a major cause of cancer and that asbestosis was a particularly unpleasant way of killing employees—the safety practices of that industry were outrageous. That is not an abstract observation; I have seen and breathed the conditions in those factories at the time. Some people of my generation will be recipients of the scheme in years to come, and will doubtless be grateful for any change that the Minister can make.
I should like to place on record my appreciation of the continuing interest in the regulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond). He would have been with us tonight but, unfortunately, he had to chair a Committee in another part of the House. Over the years, he has taken a keen interest in the problems of his constituents who have suffered from a condition prevalent in the textile industry: byssinosis.
My hon. Friend repeatedly asked Ministers to reconsider the position in that industry. The common practice, particularly among women workers, was to spend a lifetime moving from one firm to another, with short stays at each firm. Therefore, it becomes almost
928
impossible to identify the specific time and firm responsible for the byssinosis suffered by the women later in life. The Minister has already outlined the difficulty that they face. As some firms may still trade and, theoretically, the women may have a claim for compensation against a firm, they cannot claim under the regulations.
According to the Employment Gazette of September 1991, the number of people presenting themselves as sufferers of byssinosis is low; it is literally fewer than three dozen. If we were to consider making the scheme a little more liberal in its interpretation, we could do something significant, at little cost to the scheme's funding, for those who are suffering in a particularly unpleasant way.
The total funding for this financial year will be about £1·5 million. The Minister will be able to conform that, in recent years, the overall number of claimants coming forward and the total financial liability of the scheme have both dropped. Next year's budget for the scheme is £1·4 million—less in both cash and real terms than this year's expenditure. I trust that the budget is based on the recognition that the number of people coming forward is diminishing. I hope, however, that the Minister can assure us that, if there is a shortfall next year, no attempt will be made to limit the number of people who can benefit under the scheme.
As I have said, every one of the people concerned is a victim of the industrial practices of our society. They are our common responsibility, because they gave their health for the sake of industrial production. We are in debt to them, and the last Labour Government recognised that by introducing the regulations: they were one of the last pieces of legislation that they introduced, and they are particularly important to the victims to whom I have referred.
The Minister has announced an uprating of around 5 per cent., in line with the retail prices index. In the light of that, my hon. Friends and I will not oppose the motion. However, there are a number of ways in which the victims' lives could be made at least a little easier in what are, in many cases, their final years, given some easement in the interpretation of the scheme. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully what has been said, and will assure us that he will at least examine in detail whether such easement is possible.
11.10 pm
Mr. Barry Field: I wish to address my few remarks to the provision for victims of the consequences of working with asbestos. I pay tribute to the Isle of Wight County Press, which has constantly reported the number of cases of mesothelioma among workers who were employed in the shipyard industries on the Isle of Wight and worked in a heavy asbestos environment. Articles and letters in our local paper describe the atmosphere as being like a white snowstorm. Recently, an article spoke of apprentices engaging in "snowball fights" with asbestos.
I understand that one of the problems with the disease is that it does not always show up on an ordinary chest X-ray. I have sought the advice of our director of public health, Dr. Brian Keeble, and have asked whether, now that the island has raised the money for its own scanner, it would be possible to organise a programme of screening for the island's population in view of the large number of people employed in our shipyard industry in the past.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Jimmy Reid, who did the programme for Channel 4, revealed in that excellent programme that the asbestos danger had first been suspected as long ago as 1898? He has seen documents relating to the 1930s which warned shipbuilding employers about the dangers of asbestos. On the programme, however, we saw John Rannie saying how wonderful it was that his great Queens liners built on Clydeside—I am sure that the same is true of the Isle of Wight—were covered in asbestos, because it would prevent fire. That was all done when, apparently, it was known how dangerous asbestos was to human beings.
Mr. Field: I did not see the programme. Perhaps I could borrow a tape of it from the hon. Gentleman.
I particularly wish to raise the case of Eric Frederick Bolan, who died at the age of 61. Unusually for one of my constituents, he was not, so far as his relatives are aware, employed in the shipyard industry; he was a self-employed painter. From what his family has been able to ascertain, it seems that he worked on a contract with Sandown and Shanklin urban district council, where he was involved in asbestos removal. His son, Mike Bolan, came to see me recently at my surgery on behalf of his mother and I have their permission to raise this case today.
The problem is that it is very difficult for a widow to undertake litigation when a disease is diagnosed only very late or, as has occurred in a number of cases, at the coroner's inquest—a point alluded to by a number of Opposition Members. The Isle of Wight coroner, on account of the high level of employment in the industry, is meticulous about ensuring that the disease is properly diagnosed.
The order provides some financial help, but I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the problems involved in proving a connection with a previous employer. I see that in the Third Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. which considered these regulations on 14 March 1991 the Minister said, as reported at column 6 of Hansard, that if evidence was brought before him as to the way the regulations were operating he would examine it very carefully. I know that it would be a great comfort to all my constituents, as well as to the Bolan family and others who have worked in the shipbuilding industry, if my
930
hon. Friend could reaffirm again today that he will give careful consideration to these concerns when they are drawn to his attention.
11.15 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Many of the pneumoconiosis sufferers who will benefit from the measure suffer also from another disease, emphysema. However, they will receive no compensation for that disease if the pneumoconiosis from which they suffer amounts to no more than 50 per cent. If Conservative Members who do not represent mining community constituencies could see the condition of those who are suffering from 50 per cent. pneumoconiosis as well as emphysema, they would appreciate what suffering these men experience.
On five or six occasions I have introduced Bills to highlight the problems faced by these unfortunate mineworkers. The Minister said earlier that to introduce Bills is not the right way to address the problem, but I can think of no other way in which I could have highlighted it. I believe that the first Bills that I introduced persuaded the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, under the chairmanship at that time of Professor Lowe, to undertake studies of the problem.
During the research that I undertook before introducing my Bills I presented 19 learned papers to the House. I have caused articles to be published in The Lancet, all of which supported the view that mineworkers' emphysema was caused by working underground in coal mines. I was given the opportunity to give both written and oral evidence to the council when it conducted its last inquiry. I challenged the council to refute the learned medical evidence and research papers that I relied upon. I said that if it could do so I would understand if it found against my case. At no time was the council able to refute the medical evidence and research that I had presented. It was strong research, much of it headed by Dr. Anne Cockroft, a chest consultant who was previously at St. Thomas's hospital.
Many of the men who would have benefited from the regulations have died during the last 10 years. They never received the compensation that was rightfully theirs. Fewer people are suffering now than when I began introducing Bills because, first, improvements have been made in dust suppression and, secondly, there are fewer pits. However, the problem is as great for the widows who have been left behind.
One must see such men to understand their problems. Only a fortnight ago, I saw men in Pontefract general infirmary—previously strong, hard-working miners—who rely on oxygen masks for their existence. They were suffering from emphysema and pneumoconiosis. Emphysema is a far more disabling disease than pneumoconiosis. Men who are suffering from it cannot walk a yard or lift a cup to their lips to drink tea, and they contracted the disease because of their work in the mining industry.
I was encouraged by the Minister saying that he expects a further report from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council at the end of the year. Has it recently conducted a further investigation of the problem? If so, I am not aware of it.
I do not want to end my few remarks on a sour note, but the last time that the Industrial Injuries Advisory

931
Council rejected such evidence many people thought that it had been influenced by the Government. I never said that and I have no evidence to suggest that that was true. Professor Harrington, who became chairman of the council, assured me that it was not true. I know that many men have been denied the compensation to which they were entitled for the disease that they contracted from their employment.
I can hope only that the council will advise the Minister that this disease should be prescribed. If it fails to do so, it will ignore all the evidence that has been presented to it. I stand by my remarks to the council: prove that the evidence of the 19 learned papers that I have presented is wrong and I shall have no case. So far, the council has not been able to refute that evidence.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) rightly mentioned one of his constituents, but I assure him that I could mention hundreds of people in my area who have died an early death because of this disease. I welcome any improvement in the regulations, but I hope that the Minister, who said that he is prepared to listen—and I believe him—will influence the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and refer it to the evidence that is available and the work that has been done, because many senior members of the medical profession have assured me that no more evidence can be advanced to prove that these men are suffering from an industrial disease. The only way that it can be done, other than on the basis of the present evidence, is after a man has died. That is too late. I hope that the Minister will take that on board, give us his sympathy and—if this is the correct word—pressurise the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. If the council's fear was the high costs involved because there were hundreds and probably thousands of such men, the Minister can tell the council that many are now dead. Will it please try to help those who are left?
11.24 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) illustrates, alas, the need for what has become virtually an annual debate. I should have hoped that we could have passed an uprating motion on the nod or wish it godspeed with a few words. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend has shown, we have mixed feelings about the motion. He has had the misfortune not to have properly drafted private Members' Bills on the issue passed. I have had the good fortune to have one become law.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) mentioned the shipyards on the Isle of Wight and a particular case. If what he said is true of the Isle of Wight, I leave it to the House to imagine what has, alas, been true of the Thameside and east London areas and of the whole port of London area where, for the past 20 years or so, asbestosis caused by asbestos inhalation has been a scourge. We know of the miners' problems. This is a matter related to the boilers of ships and power stations and to the insulation and equipment of the same, to refrigeration and cold stores, where insulation is also important, and to the lagging of pipes.
For many years the port of London was—and still is in some respects—the biggest port in the country. I need hardly say that in such a dockland area contractors 'were thick on the ground. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight
932
said, dockers unloaded unaware of the risks. The problem has existed in east London for a long time and I wish to draw the House's attention to the struggle I had to help one man. The example illustrates something to which many hon. Gentlemen do not give credence—the opportunity that we have to introduce private Members' Bills.
A man came to my advice service one morning, leaning on a stick, wheezing and coughing. He said that his name was Archie Morton and that he was dying. He had been working in dust and asbestos and had tried to get compensation through court action. He was backed by his union and was glad that the case had been settled out of court for £25,000, with which he had purchased a motor car to get around and which he intended to use to give his family a good time, as he said, "before I go".
With the redoutable Mrs. Nancy Tait of the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases, we plotted what should be done. Mr. Morton was convinced that a post mortem would show that the panel before which he had appeared and which had turned him down had made an incorrect diagnosis. Alas, through a quirk of legislation, Archie Morton never had a post mortem, so the truth of his condition was never known.
As a result, I had the honour and privilege of introducing in the House in 1981 the Industrial Diseases (Notification) Bill, which was then enacted. Under the Bill, if a general practitioner or hospital surgeon had cause to think that a person's occupation might have been a contributory factor to his death, he could mark the death certificate accordingly and so cause a post mortem to be held. We cannot identify the accuracy of tribunals and panels, to which my hon. Friends have referred, unless checking can be done by such means.
The Act is also, I hope, a tool for detecting industrial or occupational diseases hitherto unknown. It is only by backtracking through medical investigation of people whose lives may have been foreshortened by virtue of their occupation that we can uncover hitherto unknown industrial risks.
Mr. Barry Field: I do not wish to sound unnecessarily contentious, but when the hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of Archie Morton on an earlier occasion he stated that the post mortem showed that Archie Morton
"was justified in going to the panel, which turned him down time after time."—[Official Report, 5 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 692.]
The report says that a post mortem was indeed carried out.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That may have been the case. It is two years since I made that speech and my memory may be at fault. The point is valid either way. When that case happened, post mortems were not so general as they are now. The point of principle is clearly there. The fact that my local newspaper, the Newham Recorder, lists cases year after year in which the Walthamstow coroner certifies death from asbestosis shows that man after man and family after family are in that unhappy position.
In that area, for some reason that I do not understand, there still appears to be official resistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford mentioned the report that has been sent to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. According to what he said—I am sure that he is right—there is a good deal of medical evidence to back up a case for compensation, but so far it has been

933
officially refused. I presume that the council says that positive evidence cannot be found to prove that, among other matters which may be involved, there is a positive link between the occupation and, in the case that my hon. Friend mentioned, emphysema.
In this area, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the family and to the person who has suffered an early death. In the case of the existing panel, it is not a matter of proving a link, because the link has already been proved for miners, slate quarry workers and asbestosis victims. My experience of cases about which constituents have written to me is that there is still some dissatisfaction among Members of Parliament and among the families who write to us about the procedures of the panel.
I do not want to go into individual cases or to go into scientific detail at this point—I do not think that that would be right or reasonable—but if the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases or any of my hon. Friends can put particular matters to the Minister, will he undertake to consider them seriously?
It is unfortunate that we have to have this debate annually or biennially to uprate what is due to sufferers. It should not be necessary. My constituents look around and see great expenditure on public works, some useful and some not so useful. Nearly £1,000 million is being spent on roads and railways, with some not yet being developed in the docklands. Yet in pneumoconiosis cases, which would not involve much public expenditure, there is still a need for much letter-writing to establish proof. We have to be more careful about what we do.
I hope that the Minister will consider the procedures carefully so that there will be no suspicion of Victorian penny-pinching and we may give these unfortunate people and their families what they should have.
11.35 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: I will be brief. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the struggle that we had to establish pneumoconiosis as an industrial disease and the problems and difficulties that many of us have since faced in our constituencies to get just rewards for sufferers not only of pneumoconiosis but of asbestosis. It still is a struggle. We should not allow the Minister to feel that we are happy with the uprating and with the scheme. However good the scheme is, our constituents have enormous difficulty in getting into it.
In the history of pneumoconiosis, the dread of widows was that it would be below heart attack, hypertension and emphysema as a cause of death. Although it might be obvious that the other illnesses were a consequence of the pneumoconiosis, because that was not the primary cause of death—in other words, because it was not at the top of the list, because the doctor had been careless—compensation might not be paid. Fortunately, the scheme now says that if pneumoconiosis is a contributory factor to death, compensation can be paid. That was a substantial step forward.
There is still a problem about the mobility allowance. Constituents who live in a valley have only two options —to go up or down. When the person goes for a medical examination for the mobility allowance, ease of perambulation on a flat surface is the criterion for the award. However much one tries to point out to doctors
934
that constituents cannot go to a shop without going downhill and then back uphill, or vice versa, the regulations do not allow that to be taken into account. There is a constant battle to get compensation.
With pneumoconiosis there is also the problem of diagnosis in life; often it can be proven only by a post mortem. A person will suffer for a long time when the pneumoconiosis is shrouded by associated illnesses such as emphysema.
I mentioned one of my family. I could have mentioned others who went through life being diagnosed as having emphysema. Only in death was pneumoconiosis discovered. For 30 or 40 years, the compensation that should have been paid to them was not paid. When the Minister receives the report—from yet another body that is looking into the matter—he should consider carefully not just the framework of the scheme but access to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned the problems of asbestosis, as did the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). Asbestosis is a problem which, oddly enough, does not arise particularly often in mining valleys, but one of my constituents had been working in the dismantling of the power station at Aberthaw and landed up with asbestosis. One of the problems with that disease—as opposed to pneumoconiosis—is that the asbestos fibres that get into the lung do not merely scar the tissue, which is then more readily identified in normal X-rays; the fibres are shrouded by carcinogenic growths and one cannot even diagnose asbestosis because of the growths. It requires a specialist in quite a narrow field to identify the problem.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, I pay tribute to Nancy Tait of the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases for the enormous amount of work that she has done. One constituent of mine had come to the end of his tether. He had struggled to get compensation. He was dying of cancer of the lung as a result of asbestos fibres. He had been offered the derisory figure of about £2,500. Hon. Members know what it is like with some cases: one has to be a lawyer; one has to bone up on medical knowledge to fight the case and slog away at it. After two years of hard work, my constituent received £75,000. Two or three years before, he had been told, "It is £2,500 or nothing."
The attitude of employers in the industry who are not prepared to compensate even though they are not taking the proper safety precautions to protect people handling these known death-giving substances also needs to be looked at again. It is only with the development of electromicroscopy that asbestosis can be properly identified, because of the shrouding of the fibres by what are often carcinogenic growths.
I reiterate that we can create the most fantastic schemes, with the most fantastic amounts of compensation but unless we facilitate access to the schemes to enable people to obtain that compensation, the schemes might as well not be there in the first place. I plead with the Minister to look carefully at the report when it is published so that our constituents and his—I am sure that he has the same problems—can receive the benefit to which they are justly entitled.
11.43 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I cannot pretend that I can speak on this matter with anything like the personal authority of my hon. Friends the Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I do, however, speak with sincere passion. I became a Member of Parliament partly through an act of the now defunct Shale Miners Union and with the support, at the selection conference, of the National Union of Mineworkers. As a non-miner, I have always felt a special obligation and during my first 10 years in the House that obligation very often took the form of going to constituents' homes and finding oneself talking to men of 50 or 55 who could not climb their own stairs for lack of breath. To a non-miner, that leaves a lasting effect.
Peggy Herbison and others struggled to have chronic bronchitis, emphysema and pneumoconiosis scheduled as industrial diseases. It was a long, hard struggle because the truth of the matter is that the price of coal is too often pneumoconiosis and, frankly, life itself. If anybody asks questions about my strident support for nuclear power, it is partly that I have attended far too many funerals of middle-aged and young miners to think that if there is an alternative we should make use of it. But I digress.
I wish to direct the Minister's attention to this urgent, special Scottish problem and to express my good fortune that this morning, after queuing from half past six, if that is good fortune, I was able to table a motion for a ten-minute Bill for 17 March entitled "The Effect of Death on Damages (Scotland) Bill". The motion states:
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in Scotland similar to that in England and Wales in respect of the effect of the death of a person upon any claim by or on behalf of that person for compensation or damages; to make specific provision for the making of claims in respect of asbestosis, mesothelioma and other industrial diseases and conditions; and for connected purposes."
Normally, ten-minute Bills, unfortunately, are tilting at windmills. We all know that a ten-minute Bill hardly ever becomes law. However, I make a special case to the Minister on this occasion. On 5 March, the Scottish Law Commission will report on this very subject, as indeed the Minister has acknowledged. There is every reason to believe that the Law Commission will come down, as every other expert has, on the side of the argument for bringing Scottish law into line with English law in this respect. I am not one of those who think that Scottish law is in any way inferior to English law—often it is better—but, bluntly, in this case it is a jolly sight worse.
I refer the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) to a remarkably powerful Channel 4 documentary called "The Cost of a Ship", which was done by my old friend Jimmy Reid, and produced by Bill Thomson. It makes the point that, along with many Scots, we are ashamed of ourselves in this matter of our law. I shall tell the House of Commons precisely what has been happening.
Lawyers acting on behalf of their clients have used delay as a tactic. In England, estates can pursue legal proceedings. In Scotland, once death takes place, the level of compensation is very much less and the estate cannot operate in the same way as in England. The sum and substance of that is that the west of Scotland has the highest rate of mesothelioma among any white population anywhere in the world. That is because of the history of the shipyards. On that film, we saw the late John Rannie—he was a considerable man in many ways and I do not decry
936
him—boasting that, as manager of the yard which produced the enormous Queens liners, he was extremely proud that they had been working on asbestos and spraying it to cut down the risk of fire.
I have gone through the agony of a school, Linlithgow Academy, with asbestos problems—the whole place has to be evacuated. The relevant Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), was very generous about the matter and we had an extremely good interview with him from Lothian region. I have to say in the same breath that the Scottish Office itself now has to move out of new St. Andrews house for precisely the same problems. The Minister knows the agony that his Scottish colleagues are going through.
The truth of the matter is that asbestos is a very dangerous substance. I wish to ask the Government a particular and precise question arising out of Jimmy Reid's film. I did not know this, although I have been immersed in the subject with a constituency case—the cause célèbre of Alec Horne—but in that programme Jimmy Reid and his researchers asserted that the danger of asbestos was first suspected in 1898. They further asserted that they had seen papers which showed that in the 1930s massive amounts of paper was submitted to the shipyard owners stating that asbestos was dangerous.
I do not pretend that the evidence has the same precision as that now produced by the electromicroscopes to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Rhondda referred. Nevertheless, the direct question is this: in the view of the Department of Employment, in what year or group of years did it first become evident that asbestos was so dangerous? The answer to that question is obviously important because of the interpretation in the courts. It is one thing if the employers had evidence that what they were doing was dangerous for their employees. That is a huge question mark, for compensation.
The change in the law is urgent. I must be frank with the Minister. Our worry is that, whoever wins the election, the matter will somehow be relegated down the list to 1993. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford knows exactly the history of legislation such as this being pushed down the list. I do not pretend that if my right hon. and hon. Friends come to power the first, second or third Bill will be on this subject. Equally, if there is a new Conservative Government I doubt that the matter will be high on the list. Parliament will find other, more pressing matters.
I am told, however, that there is such a degree of agreement among officials and Ministers that with good will a Bill could be put through. I do not suggest that a ten-minute Bill, let alone my Bill, is the way to do it. I believe that such measures should be introduced by the Government with the aid of the departmental lawyers and not with the resources available to private Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford nods in assent because he knows the difficulty.
The Department of Employment would have the unanimous support of my Scottish Labour colleagues—I have talked to almost all, if not all, those concerned—if it introduced a Bill as soon as the Law Commission reported. I gather that that would not be difficult and that the Scottish Office knows exactly what has to be done to synchronise the law between Scotland and England. I plead with it to take action, for the sake of sufferers who are getting older, more desperate and in greater need, and in view of the fact that it is asserted by Jimmy Reid and Bill

937
Thomson who have gone into the matter that mesothelioma has not yet peaked. As my hon. Friends have said, it is a delayed action.
I do not want to take up any more time. The House has been patient with me. I make an impassioned plea to cut through the red tape and to get hold of the Scottish Office, which I believe has good will in this matter. I believe that the Department of Employment also has good will. I plead with the Government to do something before this Parliament ends its own life.
11.54 pm
Mr. Forth: I shall try to answer the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) immediately because he is tempting me—an English Minister—on to Scottish territory. He has rightly taken the opportunity to raise a matter which is germane to the debate but which unfortunately is complicated by the fact that it is a Scottish Office matter.
The best that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I shall ensure that the matters that he has raised are placed before my colleagues in the Scottish Office. However, I must point out something that must be obvious to the House: if the report is published on 5 March, one can immediately envisage the great difficulties that would arise, in terms of the need for parliamentary counsel to draft the necessary legislation and for the means to be found by which both Houses of Parliament could deal with such a measure, however much good will and support there was for it, before the dissolution of the House. I am not prejudging when that might be; I do not know. But, even with the best will in the world, I suspect that it might be difficult to achieve what he is asking of the House.
Having said that—and it is only fair to point it out—I shall ensure that my Scottish Office colleagues are well aware of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and shall see what response we can give. I see no reason why my Department cannot be as sympathetic and helpful as possible in that regard.
In replying to this brief debate, I shall re-emphasise a number of matters so that we know where we stand. The regulations deal specifically with cases where there is no longer an employer available or extant against whom someone with one of the conditions in question can take action. That was the closely defined aim of the regulations when they were first promulgated by the last Labour Government in their dying moments. We must remember that because it answers some of the questions asked by hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
We are talking about cases of defined industrial disease —those which qualify for disablement benefit under the Social Security Acts—so the intention of the Pneunoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 and the regulations flowing from it were closely defined from the start. That is why it is relatively difficult for those who would seek to extend the scope or the intention of the Act. We have to return to the Act, as we always have to do in the House, to remind ourselves of its original intention.
In reply to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), let me say that if someone's case is rejected by the medical board in the first place he has the right to appeal to the medical appeals tribunal. In case anyone thinks that that is some sort of facile arrangement, I must say that 38 per
938
cent. of such appeals are successful. It is a genuine appeal mechanism. The answer to many people who find themselves frustrated by the fact that the board will not recognise their condition, as is required by the regulations, is that the appeal tribunal route is open to them. I always tell my constituents to use the appeal process if it is there, and if 38 per cent. of applicants are successful that demonstrates that it is a proper appeals route.
The hon. Member for Stretford asked me whether there was a cash limit. The answer is no. My Department will meet all claims in full if they fulfil the conditions laid down by the regulations. There is not, has not been and, as far as I am concerned, never will be any suggestion of a cash limitation. I hope that I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest on that.
In answer to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), I confirm that a further study into emphysema commenced in October 1991. We expect the results some time later this year. I cannot, and would not in any circumstances, undertake to seek to lean on or influence the body carrying out the study. It is an independent statutory body, set up precisely to be independent of people such as myself, and if the hon. Gentleman were to reflect on it he would not want such a body to be unduly influenced by Ministers. Although that influence might well be benign in some cases, I am sure that he can imagine others in which it might not be so benign. However, I shall undertake to ensure that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which is carrying out the study, is aware of this debate so that it can take into account the points made by the hon. Member for Castleford and Pontefract and by his colleagues, especially the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). In that way hon. Members' deliberations will be taken into account by those conducting the study. That is the best I can do and I do not want to go further by even implying that there would be any ministerial influence on a statutory independent body.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) who raised similar points should be assured that we will study them closely.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned mesothelioma. Could the Department of Employment ensure that the total knowledge that resides in the Department of Health and the MRC is taken into account? When I made inquiries before I put forward the Effect of Death on Damages (Scotland) Bill, I learnt that there is a great deal of knowledge in various parts of Britain and in the Government machine. However, that knowledge has not been brought together. A proper assessment should be made of the consequences of the disease over a long period. The incidence of that disease has not yet peaked, and that relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said about delay. I hope that the Minister can assure me that a serious study of the disease will be made.
Mr. Forth: I give that assurance gladly. The object of this debate is not just to consider the regulations, but to enable hon. Members to express their views. Officials in my Department and others can then study what has been said and follow that up. Where a reply is necessary, I shall give one. I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr.

939
Dalyell) can confirm that I do that—I hope unfailingly. We shall consider any request for matters to be reviewed to see what can be done under the terms of the regulations.
Mr. Dalyell: Could any further study also include the work of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Mr. Bill Spiers? The STUC has a great deal of case history at its headquarters in Woodland drive, in Glasgow, which is within the keeping of Bill Spiers. That case history would be extremely valuable, because the STUC, of all organisations, has campaigned, to its credit, for a long time on this issue.
Mr. Forth: It matters not whether that case history is made available as a result of a request from the hon. Gentleman or my officials. I see no reason why such contact should not be possible.
Mr. Rogers: Given that some special pleadings have been made, will the Minister ensure that work of SPAID and Nancy Tait, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and me, is also taken into account? When the Minister and I were colleagues in the European Parliament we passed regulations relating to the use of asbestos in productive processes in order to combat asbestosis. At that time I discovered that SPAID and Nancy Tait had the best body of clinical and case history anywhere in the world. That lady needs to be consulted.
Mr. Forth: I will ask my officials to consider the best sources of information and the best way in which to utilise them.
Mr. Spearing rose—
Mr. Forth: I shall give way once more, but I sense a growing impatience around me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I am sure that hon. Members will understand if I ask that the hon. Gentleman's intervention should be the last.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister, especially given what he has just said. I would not have thought that there was any question of a vote on the regulations. I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about SPAID and Nancy Tait, but we regret that that good lady, whose husband, a post office engineer, died from asbestosis, has had to do something. Irrespective of party, we believe that such action should have been the responsibility of the Department of Employment, the Minister of Health and the Minister for Social Security. Great though the work of SPAID is, alas, it should not have had to have been undertaken by that great and good lady through that voluntary organisation.
Mr. Forth: That could be said of so much in public life. The hon. Gentleman may wish that all good things flowed from Government. That is not so and, I suspect, never will be so. We rely, rightly, in many ways on individuals and bodies, voluntary groups and others, to carry matters forward, and I regard that as a healthy sign. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to anyone, including the lady in question, doing similar work. They deserve our recognition and praise.
I hope that I have answered the points raised in the debate and persuaded the House to support the regulations. I shall be looking to my Department and others to follow up the various points made by hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.

PETITION

  Redmire Quarry, Wensleydale
  12.5 am
  Mr. William Hague: I have the honour to present a humble but weighty petition signed in a two-week period by 7,049 people principally from in and around Wensleydale in my constituency. The petition is supported by eight local organisations, being the Wensleydale Environmental Supporters, the Wensleydale Railway Association, the Wensleydale Rotary Club, the Wensleydale and Swaledale branches of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Cleveland and North Yorkshire branches of Transport 2000 and the Yorkshire Dales Society.
  It relates to the intention of British Steel to transport 1,400 tonnes of limestone daily from Redmire quarry in Wensleydale to the British Steel Teesside works by road rather than by rail, as at present, and it expresses concern about road safety, traffic congestion and the future of the environment. It states the opposition of the local community to the planned transfer from rail to road of the freight.
  The petition adds:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State to make representations to British Steel that it shall not proceed with its declared intention to transfer limestone shipments between Redmire and Redcar from rail to road transport and to ensure that British Rail actively promotes the use of the railway from Northallerton to Redmire for both freight and passenger traffic.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Mr. John Hall
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
12.7 am
Mr. Keith Vaz: I feel privileged tonight to raise in the House the case of my constituent, John Hall, of Shetland road, Leicester. I have known John Hall for seven years. He was among the first people I met when I moved to Leicester. I would never have believed that one day I would be standing in the House of Commons, telling the forum of the nation about his case.
John Hall is a brave man. Like millions of his fellow citizens, he has served the nation as a member of our armed forces. He comes from an ordinary family, the kind of family that is the backbone of this country. His wife, Marilyn, is a local justice of the peace and has stood by him during the last few difficult years. She is a woman of courage and I admire her greatly. He has three sons, Colin, Ian and Mark. He and his family have served the people of Leicester well with their various civic duties and the city of Leicester is with them tonight.
For any person to take on the might of the Ministry of Defence is a daunting task, but John Hall is not alone. As a nuclear test veteran, he stands in the shoes of about 22,000 other veterans and their families. He is seen as a test case for the veterans' cause.
The failure of the Ministry of Defence to satisfy the veterans' plea for justice is a stain on the good name of the British armed forces. To make people who were prepared to give their lives for this country campaign for what should be a voluntary act by a grateful nation shows the contempt, spitefulness and wilful neglect of those who have closed the door on compensation.
To treat our veterans in a worse way than the veterans of America, Australia or New Zealand is outrageous. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the matter on many occasions. I particularly wish to acknowledge the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), as well as the efforts of Conservative Members, including the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) is in the Chamber tonight. Each of those and many more hon. Members have a constituency interest in the issue.
I also commend the tireless work of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, Ken McGinley, its chairman, and its committees. Many feature articles have highlighted the veterans' plight in newspapers as different as The People and The Independent.
John Hall's campaign has been remarkable by any standards. It has included numerous meetings with Defence Ministers and shadow Ministers, including the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition. A year ago I met the Prime Minister in his room in this House, and my hon. Friends and I have raised the matter during Prime Minister's Question Time and at other times. Numerous early-day motions have been signed by hundreds of hon. Members and last week I presented a petition with some 10,000 signatures in
942
support of the veterans' cause. Tonight, we bring the campaign back to the House and ask the Minister to act now, before more veterans die.
John Hall is 53 years old. He was born in Burnhope in county Durham and moved to Leicester in 1961. He joined the Royal Air Force in 1956. He was an electrical mechanic and served with 76 squadron of the RAF, which did all the sampling in all the tests in the 1950s. The squadron was responsible for flying through the bomb clouds picking up samples of radiated particles.
John Hall was employed as an aircraft electrician serving the Canberra bombers used in that process. He served at RAF Edinburgh Field from 8 October 1957 until 19 August 1958, during which time he was detached with the squadron to Christmas island in the Pacific ocean from 3 March until 19 May 1958 for Operation Grapple Y. It had gone there for the H-bomb test that took place on 28 April 1958.
John Hall is currently being treated for high-grade, B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of the centribalistic type. It was orginally diagnosed as hairy-cell leukaemia. He worked on aircraft immediately after they returned to the airfield. He was given gloves and a cotton overall to wear, but no other protective clothing. On Christmas island, most of the aircraft that he worked on had flown through the nuclear cloud several times. Once, he worked on a plane that had not been through a decontamination centre to be washed off.
In 1984, John Hall's wife read in the Leicester Mercury of a meeting of service men who had taken part in the nuclear tests of the 1950s. John and Marilyn Hall decided to go because they felt that it was important that there should be a thorough investigation into the servicemen's health problems.
In 1989, John Hall found that he was losing weight and suffering from a shortage of energy. He went to the doctor, who said that he was anaemic and he was then sent to the Royal Infirmary, where he was given blood tests and transfusions. He was put on interferon injections every day for the first six months, then every other day and, until April 1991, three times a week. He now receives chemotherapy and is on drugs known in the trade as "pace bombs" and "chops", That consists of three or four large and painful injections in his arm. I pay tribute to the care and professionalism of the doctors and nurses, and other workers who look after John Hall when he goes to the Royal Infirmary for treatment.
He left work in 1989 as he found that he did not have the energy to do physical work. He needed pain-killing pills, which caused him great problems. Not only could he no longer work, but he could no longer dig his garden or repair his car. He used to love going on walking holidays, but he was unable to walk far without becoming very tired. His appearance has changed dramatically in the past seven years.
When the Ministry of Defence looks into cases that have been brought to its attention by hon. Members, it should take direct evidence from the participants. That has not happened in John Hall's case, or in any other case. At the very least, the Minister should arrange for John Hall to meet MOD officials so that they can take direct evidence from him. They have, to date, relied on written submissions and, as the Minister knows, the delay has been intolerable.
The Minister will rely in his reply on a report that was prepared for the Prime Minister when he wrote to me on

943
6 February 1992. The report states that the ground crew of 76 squadron were not subject to radiation. How is it, then, that Air Vice Marshal Wilfred Oulton, the task force commander, could write in his book, "The Christmas Island Cracker":
"No personnel, other than the air and ground crews of the Canberra sampling aircraft, should ever be exposed to any radiation."
On pages 130 and 131 of the book he adds:
"The aircraft used for Mosaic and Buffalo might still be too hot to use safely in Grapple or even to stage through international airports like Nandi. Likewise, some of the crews of both air and ground might have reached or be near to their safe limit of exposure to radiation."
How can the MOD ask an independent consultant, as it did in John Hall's case, to make a decision if that consultant is told in the first place that there is no exposure to radiation? One has the conclusions before the evidence is examined.
The report went on to state that there was a 48-hour delay to allow the radioactive material to decay, there being no exception to the rule. But John Hall is emphatic that the men were never told to restrict repairs to maintenance schedules. If a fault occurred which required replacement of an unscheduled component, it would be carried out immediately. He remembers the decontamination centre to have been 50 yards from the 76 lines.
When I met the Prime Minister on 12 March 1991, he demonstrated great concern and sympathy for the plight of John Hall. The Minister of State will recall that the Prime Minister told me of his own knowledge of the suffering of cancer victims as his brother-in-law had died of cancer. I showed him a letter from the son of a nuclear test veteran who had died of cancer, who himself had the illness. In my view, the Prime Minister was clearly moved by that. I told him that the second National Radiological Protection Board report was to be published and I urged his intervention to ensure that that was done speedily. He asked the Minister to do that.
The Prime Minister had already written to me on 29 January 1991 saying:
"We hope that its results will be available by the end of the year."
That was in 1991, and the report has still not been published. Can the Minister say when it will be published? We should also like all the reports that were prepared on operation Grapple Y to be placed in the Library of the House, including those that have hitherto not been published.
While we wait, nuclear test veterans continue to die. It is not just them who suffer, but their families. Last week, I received a letter from Mavis Gardner, the widow's representative for the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association. She writes of the anxiety, hardship and distress caused by delay. She says:
"I do feel that the widows should be remembered when our veterans' cases are brought up, as they are the ones who are suffering after their loss. We have nearly 300 widows on our books, but there must be many more that we do not know about. Even some of the widows have died, but what has happened to their families? We shall never know."
Four weeks ago, the Government announced that the special provision already made for those with haemophilia and HIV would be extended to those who had been infected with HIV as a result of national health service transfusions or tissue transfer in the United Kingdom. The
944
payments will also apply to any of their spouses, partners and children to whom their infection may have been passed on.
The Secretary of State for Health, in a written reply, spoke of compensation being granted because of those people's very special circumstances. Three weeks ago, we read of proposals to compensate people suffering from cancer because of their work on Britain's nuclear submarines and the nuclear deterrent. That was to be on a no-fault basis. Yesterday, in a written answer, the Secretary of State for Defence presented what he described as radical and imaginative proposals to give service men and ex-service men—despite the mobility required of them —new and impressive housing opportunities.
All those announcements show that, where there is a political will, there is a way. On 28 February 1991, the Prime Minister made the following comments about the performance of our armed forces during the Gulf conflict:
"Our forces deserve the highest praise for the courage and professionalism that they have displayed—in the air, on land and at sea … Here in our country we may be justifiably proud of our British forces and their commanders … The whole nation is proud of them, proud of their families and proud that, through their valour, freedom and justice have prevailed. It has, on this occasion, been a victory for what is right."—[Official Report, 28 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1118.]
Are we proud of John Hall, and of what he and others did in the service of this country? Is the Minister proud of him? I spoke to him tonight. He has just come out of hospital after being there for three days. His spirits are high: he is eager to continue his civic duties. He is sorry, and I am sorry, that he is not well enough to be here to watch the debate.
It is in the nature of Governments to say no, and in the nature of Oppositions to demand everything yesterday, but this is not a campaign founded on ideology—this is a campaign born out of principle, of men and women who have right on their side, and who claimed and reached the moral high ground far too long ago. The Prime Minister's words show that we must be proud of people like John Hall, and the thousands of other nuclear test veterans in this country. They, indeed, have right on their side. Tonight, the Minister could right a great wrong, and award John Hall and the other nuclear test veterans the compensation that they so richly deserve.
12.22 am
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on securing the debate. He has, over the years, campaigned—along with other hon. Members—for compensation for those personnel who participated in the United Kingdom's nuclear test programme; now, more specifically, he has raised the sad case of his constituent John Hall.
The question of the nuclear test participants is not a new one; it has been discussed in the House at length. The hon. Member is well aware that the principal difficulty here is that of establishing a causal link between participation in the programme and any subsequent illness. I must emphasise at the outset that there is no such evidence, either in the test participants generally or, more specifically, in the hon. Gentleman's constituent's case.
Considerable concern has been expressed by those who participated in the nuclear test programme, their relatives and hon. Members about the nuclear weapons test

945
programme conducted in the south Pacific in the 1950s, and the suggestion that those who took part in the tests have now developed illnesses as a result of their participation. The concern is understandable, especially in the light of the widespread publicity given to the sometimes misleading and unfounded allegations that have been made in the past.
The House will be aware that cancer is a common cause of death in the developed world, with some 20 per cent. of deaths being attributed to the disease. Tragically—and it is a sad and inescapable fact—there are over 100,000 cancer-related deaths a year in this country alone. It has been estimated, as I have said in the House before, that some 1,000 of these deaths may be caused by the various natural sources of radiation present all around us. Many participants in the test programme, therefore, would by now be suffering from cancer, or would have died, if they had spent their service entirely in this country and had never gone to the south Pacific.
Before I address the points raised by the hon. Member, I should like to remind the House that the general nuclear safety standards of the tests were in accordance with the standards in force in the nuclear industry today. All individuals who were liable to be exposed to radiation were issued with dosimeters to record the radiation experienced, and those records were kept. The safety regulations in force were consistent with the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and advice from the Medical Research Council. Safety precautions were properly monitored and stringently implemented.
While we remain confident that the safety precautions were adequate and that participants were not subjected to any significant health hazards, we have been anxious to alleviate the fears expressed by some of those who participated. Bearing in mind the difficulties in determining causation, it was decided that there should be a study to provide up-to-date and reliable information to show if a problem existed and, if so, its extent. In October 1983, the independent and internationally respected institution, the National Radiological Protection Board, was commissioned to undertake a study of the participants and investigate any correlation with radiation exposure. The study, as the House is aware, compared the mortality and cancer incidence of more than 22,000 men who participated in the tests with a similar group of service men and civilians who were not involved in the tests.
The study, the results of which were published in the British Medical Journal, concluded that participation in the tests had had no detectable effect on the participants' life expectancy. Nor did the study establish a causal relationship between the incidence of cancer and participation. In particular, there was no evidence of increased radiation dose, contrary to what might have been expected if those cancers were radiation induced. The study did indicate a small but statistically significant increase in the incidence of certain leukaemias and multiple myeloma in test participants compared with the control group. The control group, however, exhibited an extraordinarily low incidence of these two cancers compared with the average for England and Wales. The NRPB concluded that these differences were likely to be due to chance. Internationally accepted estimates of risk
946
from radiation predict that not one person would be expected to die as a result of exposure to radiation from the United Kingdom's test programme.
I must emphasise that the NRPB study shows no correlation in the incidence of the cancer—high-grade, B cell, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma—from which Mr. Hall is suffering and participation in the test programme.
The Government regard the result of the NRPB study as vindicating their view that the safety precautions adopted during the test programme were effective.
Mr. Vaz: When does the Minister expect that the second report that is currently being investigated will be published? He will recall the meeting with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's letter to me. May we be told when the second report is likely to be published?
Mr. Hamilton: I am just coming to that question.
The NRPB did, however, recommend that observations on the groups of participants and controls should be maintained for a further 10 years. The Government gladly accepted the suggestion. The NRPB has, therefore, continued to monitor the cancer and mortality incidence of the participants and will publish an updated study this year covering the first five years of this 10-year extension. I know that the hon. Member for Leicester, East wants a more accurate forecast of when the five-year study will come out. I shall write to him about that.
The hon. Gentleman said that he has taken up the case with a number of Members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition. I should be interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman undertook, if he became Prime Minister, to pay compensation to the nuclear test veterans. I should be more than happy to give way to the hon. Member for Leicester, East if he would like to enlighten the House on that important point. I see that the hon. Gentleman is silent and I can tell him why: it is because, of the 22,000 test veterans, one would expect, I am afraid, some 20 per cent. to die of cancer. Therefore, by the law of averages, more than 4,000 nuclear test veterans may suffer from cancer. If all of them are to be paid compensation, the bill will be substantial.
Mr. Vaz: The Leader of the Opposition is not the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence and therefore does not have responsibility. We shall seek the same pledge from the next Labour Government as we are seeking from this Government.
Mr. Hamilton: That is the most unutterable nonsense that I have heard in my life. Why has not the hon. Gentleman obtained a pledge from the Leader of the Opposition? He can say that if he takes office he will fulfil the pledge to compensate all the nuclear test veterans, and he can make that pledge today. The hon. Member for Leicester, East well knows that the right hon. Gentleman cannot make that pledge because the cost to the taxpayer would be unbelievable. It would open the door to compensation to many people who may have cancer through natural causes, and I am afraid that the reality is that a large percentage of people die from cancer and nobody knows the causes. As I have said, there is no causal link between Mr. Hall and the tests on Christmas island in the 1950s.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of compensation for his constituent, Mr. John Hall, with the Prime Minister last year, and he referred to that in his remarks.

947
At the Prime Minister's request, the Ministry undertook to investigate Mr. Hall's case. The hon. Member for Leicester, East is aware from the Prime Minister's reply of 6 February and from the report attached to it that the initial difficulty in Mr. Hall's case, as with so many others who participated in the test programme, is that there is simply no evidence of his having been exposed to any radiation.
Mr. Hall served with the Royal Air Force as an electrical mechanic. He was not a member of the active handling flight whose task it was to carry out the aircraft decontamination process. There are no records of film badges having been issued to him, nor is there any record of him being exposed to radiation—and we do not expect there to be. By radiation, I mean occupational radiation. As a member of the public, Mr. Hall will have received natural background radiation amounting to 100 mSv or more over his lifetime.
In the absence of recorded levels of exposure to occupational radiation, only through the statistical studies of the NRPB can we determine whether there is an elevated incidence of radiation-linked diseases among the test participants involving the possibility of a causal link. That is not to say, however, that we shall consider no claims without dosimeter records. It has been repeatedly made clear that we shall consider any claim where any evidence of exposure to ionising radiation can be adduced.
Mr. Vaz: The Minister says that the door is still open provided evidence can be submitted and examined. One of the problems that I highlighted in my speech is that Mr. Hall has never been interviewed by his officials. Will the Minister please agree to allow Mr. Hall to meet officials so that these questions can be put directly to him? One of the problems is that it took a long time to get a reply from the Prime Minister because we relied on written submissions. If he will agree to Mr. Hall being interviewed by officials, many of the problems of the case could be solved. Will he agree to that?
Mr. Hamilton: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that. I do not understand how an interview could help because we are talking about the types of cancer from which Mr. Hall suffers. The point is that the NRPB report did not identify Mr. Hall's cancer as being caused by the tests, but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that.
As the report given to the hon. Gentleman makes clear, Mr. Hall has produced no such evidence and, indeed, the only specific claims that have been made were to The Independent newspaper, which reported on the case on 24 January 1990. Nevertheless, Mr. Hall's case was looked at in considerable depth and a detailed report was
948
forwarded by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Gentleman. From the report he will have seen that, although there was no evidence of exposure to radiation, it was necessary to postulate various situations —based on Mr. Hall's allegations in The Independent—from which hypothetical dose levels, together with Mr. Hall's medical records, it was possible, using the internationally accepted methodology, to calculate the radiation-induced risk—called the probability of causation—to determine the likelihood of Mr. Hall's cancer being caused by doses at those hypothetical levels.
The report to which I refer is, of necessity, rather lengthy and technical and I therefore do not intend to go into great detail during this debate as it will mean little to those who have not seen it. I can assure the House, however, that all possible hypothetical scenarios were investigated and the probability of causation assessed. In each hypothetical case, the dose levels were so low that there could be no reasonable inference of a causal link and therefore no basis for awarding compensation.
Mr. Hall, like many ex-servicemen, has been awarded a war pension by the Department of Social Security. This was from 5 October 1989, on the basis of a diagnosis of leukaemia, as the hon. Gentleman said. That is one of the varieties of leukaemia of which the NRPB report showed a small increase of incidence among test participants compared with the control group. Proof is not essential for a claim to succeed under the war pension scheme and the claimant is given the benefit of any reasonable doubt concerning attribution to service.
As I mentioned earlier, the control group itself had an unusually low incidence of these particular diseases, the differences probably being due to chance, according to the NRPB. Certainly the NRPB found no evidence of a link with radiation. However, it is not necessary to show any such link to receive a war pension. Subsequently, Mr. Hall's diagnosis has, after the issue of a war pension, been revised to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Department of Social Security, however, has no wish to review Mr. Hall's award of a war pension now that the diagnosis has been revised.
In conclusion, I must emhasise that the Government are ready to pay compensation wherever their legal liability is established and where there is firm evidence to show, on balance of probabilities, that ill health is being suffered as a result of participation in the test programme.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increase in fire service manpower he will require to deal with the obligations of the new building regulations and the removal of Crown immunity from health service bodies for initial fire inspection and ongoing monitoring; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government take account of additional burdens on local authorities in the revenue support grant settlement each year, but it is for fire authorities to determine their manpower establishments in the light of their statutory duties under the Fire Services Act 1947 and the Fire Precautions Act 1971. My Department is discussing with the local authority associations the additional resources required by fire authorities as a result of the removal of Crown immunity from health service bodies. Those associations have the opportunity to inform the Government of their views on local authority expenditure needs through the annual consultations on the local government finance settlement.

  International Crime Surveys
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the position of the United Kingdom in the figures produced for European countries in the international crime surveys for rape, robberies, assaults and murder.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The 1989 international crime survey, measuring crime in 1988, suggests that the robbery rate in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland was lower than the western European average. The same was true of assaults. The survey provides no reliable figures for rape, but for sexual assaults generally the position of the United Kingdom was again low. The results of the survey are published in "Experience of Crime across the World: Key Findings from the 1989 International Crime Survey'" which is in the Library.

  The survey cannot by its nature cover murder, but in 1988 rates of homicide, and attempted homicide, recorded by the police were lower in England and Wales than in 10 other of the EC countries. Rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were higher than elsewhere except Luxembourg.

  Crime, Leicestershire
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what number, and by what percentage, reported(a) criminal offences and (b) crimes of violence have increased in Leicestershire since May 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information compares the 12 months to June 1979 with the 12 months to June 422
  1991. Between these periods, the total of notifiable offences in Leicestershire increased by 52,906—29,481 to 82,387 —offences and crimes of violence increased by 2,245 offences—1,823 to 4,068.

  Safer Cities Programme
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will add Oxford to the areas covered by the safer cities programme.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no plans at present to extend the safer cities programme beyond the current 20 projects. The objectives of the Home Office-funded safer cities programme are to reduce crime; lessen the fear of crime and create safer cities where economic enterprise and community life can flourish. We have now reached our target of 20 projects and there are no plans or resources at present to extend the programme any further.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria for areas eligible for funding for crime research under the safer cities programme.

  Mr. John Patten
  Safer cities is a crime prevention initiative and not primarily a research programme. Areas were eligible for consideration for inclusion in the safer cities programme if they: (i) were districts, metropolitan districts or London boroughs within the urban programme; (ii) had serious crime and other social problems; (iii) were already the focus for Government action, and; (iv) were willing to participate. All 20 project areas in the current programme have been selected.

  Oxfordshire Motor Project
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to take a decision on the application for funding by the Oxfordshire motor project.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We will announce a decision shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to respond to the letters of 4 November 1991 and 3 January 1992 from the hon. Member for Bradford, North concerning Mr. P. M. B. Fell of Lister Gardens, Bradford BD8 7AG.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It appears that the hon. Member's letters were not received in the Home Office. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply which went to Mr. Fell on 28 November 1991.

  Low-Energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  It is the policy to install low-energy lighting and other energy-saving devices where practicable into all Home Office buildings.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the poll tax cases which resulted in imprisonment, where evidence had been used of the kind ruled out by the High Court on 20 February.

  Mr. John Patten
  No.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what authority a magistrate can adjourn a case in anticipation of Parliament amending a law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Magistrates courts have general powers to adjourn in both criminal and civil proceedings under the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to magistrates and clerks of the court regarding the use of computer evidence in poll tax cases following the High Court decision of 20 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I do not think that any further guidance is necessary following this case.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated additional police expenditure associated with the War Crimes Act 1991 for each of the next three financial years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Additional police expenditure associated with the War Crimes Act is estimated as follows:

  £million

  1992–93

  1·5

  1993–94

  1·7

  1994–95

  1·65

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rabies
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that quarantine will continue to be a requirement in regard to the import of those species which are vulnerable to rabies until the rest of the European Community is declared to be free of rabies.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to end rabies quarantine for dogs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply of 24 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill).

  Low-Energy lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.
  424
  Mr. Curry
  It is the existing policy of the Department to carry out in its buildings all energy-saving measures which can be shown to be worthwhile. As a result of this, a substantial investment has already been made in energy-efficient lighting; this will be extended to other buildings wherever practicable and as resources allow.

  East Anglia
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy for the East Anglian farming industry in general and the livestock, dairy, cereals and poultry sectors in particular in the light of the single market opening.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government's policy for the United Kingdom farming industry as a whole is set out in the policy statement "Our Farming Future" launched by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 15 November.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his departmental plant pathologists have made of results for agriculture of changes in the ozone layer.

  Mr. Curry
  Against the background of the Department of the Environment's continuing programme of work on the effects of ozone depletion on plants, this Department is considering advertising for a research proposal on this matter.

ENVIRONMENT

  Norman Shaw Buildings
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the power failed in the Norman Shaw buildings at 2.35 pm on 13 February; and what steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence.

  Mr. Yeo
  The power failure in the Norman Shaw buildings on 13 February which lasted for less than two seconds, was caused by a fault within the London Electricity supply network. There was insufficient time for the back-up generator system to be activated.

  Business Property Values
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what mechanisms exist or are planned for review of rateable values for the uniform business rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  All rateable values, including those currently prescribed by my right hon. Friend, will be reassessed in 1995. We have announced that the proposed valuation date for the revaluation is 1 April 1993. In preparation, a committee is also reviewing the rating of plant and machinery.

  All assessments in current rating lists are based on a common valuation date of 1 April 1988. Any changes in relative values since that date will be taken into account at the next revaluation. All ratepayers had the right to challenge their individual assessments during the first six months of the current lists. They continue to have rights of challenge where there is a change of circumstances affecting a property and in certain other prescribed cases.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under which Act the regulations in the poll tax reduction schemes were made.

  Mr. Key
  Section 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, as inserted by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated revenue that will be received in 1991–92 from those who are required to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: The potential revenue in 1991–92 in Great Britain from those on maximum community charge benefit is £200 million and from students £34 million. Whilst information is held centrally on overall rates of collection by local authorities, no separate information is held on collection from those making the 20 per cent. contribution.

  Nature Conservancy
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the recommendation from the former Nature Conservancy Council that a number of non-native species should be added to schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  Following recommendations made by the former Nature Conservancy Council and consultation with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and other bodies, I have decided that we should add the following species to schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981:

  Animals

  Noble crayfish

  Signal crayfish

  Turkish crayfish

  Sika deer

  New Zealand flatworm

  Italian crested newt

  Aesculapian snake

  Plants

  3 species of Giant kelp

  macrocystis angustifolia

  macrocystis integrifolia

  macrocystis laevis

  Japanese kelp

  Green seafingers

  Californian red seaweed

  Hooked asparagus seaweed

  All non-native laver seaweeds

  Wakame

  I have placed an order before Parliament today which will bring these additions into effect on 16 March.

  Tyre Tread Depths
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision is being made in landfill sites for the tipping of extra tyres as a result of the increase in minimum legal tyre tread depth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are making no specific provision although the United Kingdom is participating in an EC waste management study group which is considering 426
  means of achieving higher scrap tyre retreading and recycling rates across the community. Whole tyres are difficult to deal with on landfill sites, and an increasing number are now being shredded before disposal, but disposal in landfill is currently a matter for local authority regulators, site operators and producers of waste tyres. It would be for these parties to consider any immediate consequences of changes in tread depth requirements.

  Cleaning Contract, Waveney
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce a decision on the inquiries into the way Waveney district council assigned their buildings cleaning work contract to its own direct services organisation in March 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Waveney district council's response to the notice served under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 is being considered. My right hon. Friend expects to announce his decision shortly.

  Electronic Equipment (Recycling)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the recently published report, "End-of-Life Electronic Equipment: The Case for Recycling", prepared by the Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Library has a copy on order.

  Low-Energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department's policy relating to the installation of low-energy lighting is to replace all standard luminaires, both tungsten and fluorescent, with low-energy consuming equivalents, wherever this is practicable and cost-effective. A programme of lighting replacement is in progress and low-energy lighting has already been installed in six major buildings representing about 60 per cent. of my Department's office estate.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if advice on access arrangements for disabled people will be included in the published version of Planning Policy Guidance Note 1; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We want to encourage the design and construction of new buildings that provide adequately for the needs of disabled people. Development control policy note 16, published in 1985, set out the role of local planning authorities in seeking to achieve that objective. It emphasised the need for the local planning authority and the developer to discuss the arrangements proposed for meeting the needs of disabled people, as one aspect of negotiation over planning applications. It also made clear that the role of the planning system in this context is limited. This is because the internal layout and design of buildings are not normally material to planning applications.
  427
  Part M of the building regulations imposes requirements on the design and construction of new non-domestic buildings, so that reasonable access and facilities for disabled people can be secured. Where the requirements of part M apply, planning legislation should not normally be used to impose separate requirements. This is because the internal standards of building construction are best regulated by means of a national code, so that developers know what to expect irrespective of the local authority area in which they are building. The building regulations do not yet extend to internal requirements for disabled people in new buildings. My Department is currently assessing the scope and timing of such an extension, which it hopes to implement next year.

  In the interim, we welcome action by local authorities to bring the needs of disabled people in new housing development to the attention of developers, but it would not be right for individual authorities to spend time designing alternative standards, and seeking to impose these through local or unitary development plans, or through planning conditions. However, where there is clear evidence of local need, a local planning authority could include in a local plan a policy indicating that it would seek to negotiate elements of housing accessible to the disabled on suitable sites.

  The Government consulted on new guidance on access and the planning system in an annex to the draft Planning Policy Guidance Note 1, issued for public consultation on 1 October 1991. In view of the current work on part M of the building regulations, we have concluded that it would not be appropriate to include detailed guidance which would be soon out of date in the final version of PPG' to be published shortly. Instead, we propose to issue a circular in due course on access requirements which will take account of progress on this issue.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the actual or estimated total of all debt charges by the charging authorities receiving revenue support grant; and if he will state the reasons for the difference between this sum and the sum of £2,469,200,000 ascribed to debts charges in Annex B of HC 190 of 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: Charging authorities budgeted for debt charges of £2,328 million in 1991–92. This is not comparable with the sum of £2,469,200,000 shown in annex B of HC 190, which relates to both charging and precepting authorities, and represents the net provision for debt charges in 1992–93 after capital financing grants have been taken into account.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to monitor the ecological suspension of plutonium in the environment arising from the atmospheric distribution of plutonium in the accident at Sellafield on 19 June 1961.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: Details of this incident were provided to the Windscale inquiry in 1977 and in information supplied to Sir Douglas Black's independent advisory group's investigations in 1984 into the incident of leukaemias. Monitoring of radionuclides in the environment was initiated in 1952 and their transfer from one environmental medium to another has been the subject of detailed investigation.

WALES

  Child Refugees
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial support he is providing to child refugees in Cardiff.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Refugee matters are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Services provided by health and local authorities are not in general differentiated by status of user and it is not possible separately to identify funding provided by the Department for services to child refugees from wider support for services for children. Urban programme funding of some £394,000 has however been approved in South Glamorgan since 1989–90 for projects directed towards the needs of refugees; it is likely that children will have benefited.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of resources have been allocated for speech therapy for children in Wales and in Gwent with a formal statement of needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available centrally. The provision of speech therapy services is primarily a matter for the individual health authority to deliver in light of competing demands on available resources.

  A predicted national shortage of trained speech therapists has been identified for which the Department has made funding of £62,000 available to the health authorities to sponsor ten speech therapy students placements. In addition, the Scientific Staffs Whitley Council has introduced a more flexible pay and grading structure to help overcome local problems of recruitment and retention.

  A48
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to make an announcement regarding his proposals to introduce a crawler lane for the A48 at Hardwick hill, Chepstow; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Gwent county council, as agent, is currently considering several options for the improvement of Hardwick Hill on its existing alignment. To confirm the feasibility of each of these options further studies have to be carried out. It is not possible to predict when an announcement will be made until the results of these studies are evaluated.

  Livestock Exports
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many livestock exporters have been prosecuted in 1991 for breach of the welfare code for export of live animals to the EC; and what were the corresponding figures for the last five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available centrally.

  School Repairs
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many school buildings were assessed as being in need of fundamental repair in the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Local education authorities are responsible for the repair and maintenance of their school buildings and this information is not held centrally.

  Development Initiatives
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation he has carried out of the(a) Swansea bay initiative, (b) valleys initiative, (c) information technology initiative, (d) financial services initiative and (e) road to opportunity initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows.

  The valleys initiative launched in 1986 by Mr. Nicholas Edwards, now Lord Crickhowell, was evaluated in 1988 by the department of town planning, UWIST, Cardiff. Progress on the programme for the valleys, launched by my predecessor in 1988, is monitored at six-monthly intervals. Reports are published regularly; the most recent was on 19 February 1992. I will consider the most appropriate form of evaluation when the programme ends in March 1993.

  The financial services initiative, the Swansea Bay partnership and IT Wales are initiatives organised by local authorities, the private sector and the Welsh Development Agency, which are intended to help promote inward investment. It is primarily for the partners concerned to evaluate progress. Based on information provided by companies at the time of their decision to invest, 151 inward investment projects have been recorded for Wales so far this financial year. These projects promise more than 14,000 new and safeguarded jobs and include eight projects in financial services, 12 in information technology and 19 in Swansea bay.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, announced on 11 December 1991 his intention to launch a review of the "A55—Road of Opportunity". The review is proceeding.

  Low-Energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is already my Department's policy to introduce low-energy lighting where it is feasible and economic to do so.

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the Cardiff royal infirmary following the rejection of the application to pursue trust status.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The future of the hospital is a matter initially for the South Glamorgan health authority. No application for NHS trust status has been made. The position is that following the expression of interest
  431
  submitted by the Cardiff Royal group of hospitals, the decision whether to invite a formal application was deferred pending the outcome of the strategic review announced by the South and Mid Glamorgan health authorities.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those decisions already made on hospital reorganisation or closures which have been deferred from being announced in February, March or April(a) by his Department and (b) by each district health authority in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much secure accommodation is available in Wales for persistent young offenders; and what representations he has received about his current proposals on the subject.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No secure accommodation is available in Wales for persistent young offenders. The three existing small secure units are suitable for short-term use only.

  On 14 August 1991, I published proposals for a comprehensive strategy to tackle this problem emphasising the development of alternatives to secure accommodation as well as proposing a new all-Wales facility. There has been a general endorsement of the report and its recommendations and responses have included additional comments and suggestions which will now be taken forward for discussion with a consortium of relevant authorities. Some of the recommendations contained in the report for Welsh Office action are already in hand or have been actioned, for example a review of conditions of use of the existing secure units in Wales. I have also considered applications for funding special initiatives aimed at avoiding the need for young people to be placed in secure accommodation. Two successful applications have already been announced and I hope to announce a third later in the year.

  Adult Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many adult students have been, or are at present on access courses leading to higher education during the years 1989–90, 1990–91, and 1991–92 in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of students aged 19 and over, recorded by colleges of higher and further education as being on access courses, was 123 in 1989–90 and 503 in 1990–91. Information for 1991–92 is not yet available.

  Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the budget for the Health Promotion Authority for Wales in 1992–93.
  432
  Mr. David Hunt
  Subject to parliamentary approval, in 1992–93 a total of £2,830,000 will be made available for the authority's core allocation, and a further £355,000 will be allocated for new projects. An additional £29,000 will be available as a further earmarked reserve to meet the cost of the authority's contribution to the family planning information service, and in addition £20,000 will be available to fund the authority's capital expenditure. Finally, for 1992–93 only, the Department will make a further £126,000 available for the authority's life education centres project. The allocation will be conditional upon satisfactory completion of annual performance review. It represents a further and substantial commitment of resources to the authority.

  Food (Self-sufficiency)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of self-sufficiency of Wales in(a) fish, (b) mutton and lamb, (c) poultrymeat, (d) beef, (e) oats, (f) cheese, (g) liquid milk, (h) barley, (i) potatoes, (j) pigmeat, (k) eggs, (l) wheat and (m) butter and what were the equivalent figures for 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: Estimates of the level of self sufficiency, defined as the ratio of production to consumption, are given in the table. The consumption figures, which are taken from the results of the national food survey, are based on a sample size of 480 households in Wales. The self-sufficiency ratios will therefore be subject to significant estimation errors. Information is not yet available in respect of 1991.

  Self-sufficiency (production/consumption)

  1988

  1989

  1990

  (a) fish

  2n.a.

  (b) mutton and lamb

  4·9

  1—

  4·4

  (c) poultrymeat

  2·0

  1·9

  1·6

  (d) beef

  3·6

  1—

  4·0

  (e) oats

  2n.a.

  (f) cheese

  2·1

  2·1

  2·4

  (g) liquid milk

  3·5

  3·4

  3·3

  (h) barley

  2n.a.

  (i) potatoes

  0·9

  0·7

  0·7

  (j) pigmeat

  0·5

  0·6

  0·4

  (k) eggs

  0·8

  0·9

  0·9

  (i) wheat

  2n.a.

  (m) butter

  1·3

  1·6

  1·9

  1 Self-sufficiency ratios for mutton and lamb and beef have not been calculated for 1989 as the relevant per capita consumption data for Wales are not regarded as reliable.

  2 Not available.

  Empty Council Houses
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of unoccupied council houses in Wales in the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: The information requested is given in the table:
  433

  Local authority vacant dwellings1

  Available for letting2

  Undergoing repair or improvement3

  Awaiting repair or improvement

  Awaiting sale

  Awaiting demolition

  Other

  Total vacant dwellings

  Vacant for more than 6 months

  Local authority stock4 (thousands)

  1981

  583

  1,207

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,790

  —

  288,359

  1982

  2,005

  1,621

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,626

  —

  278,400

  1983

  1,389

  1,980

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,369

  —

  265,287

  1984

  1,603

  1,665

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,268

  —

  259,823

  1985

  1,100

  1,820

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,920

  —

  255,886

  1986

  774

  1,501

  396

  56

  54

  147

  2,928

  329

  258,050

  1987

  690

  1,656

  653

  103

  47

  180

  3,329

  437

  253,178

  1988

  840

  1,731

  496

  29

  12

  81

  3,189

  385

  248,074

  1989

  768

  1,616

  371

  25

  29

  143

  2,952

  474

  237,702

  1990

  794

  1,518

  355

  13

  178

  165

  3,023

  327

  228,204

  1991

  639

  1,511

  —

  43

  73

  164

  2,430

  406

  223,576

  1 At 1 April.

  2 Includes 42 dwellings from transferred Cwmbran stock.

  3 Prior to 1986 this figure includes vacant dwellings awaiting repair or improvements prior to 1986. The figure for 1986 includes 82 dwellings in the transferred Cwmbran stock for which no breakdown between dwellings undergoing or awaiting repair or improvement is available. Figures after 1990 represent the total number of dwellings to be let after repairs.

  4 Excludes New Towns. Cwmbran ceased to be designated as a New Town on 1 April 1986 at which date its stock was transferred to Torfaen and is included in local authority stock since 1986.

  This information was published in "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 11, 1991", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homeless people there were in Wales by district council area in the years, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: This information is given in the table.

  Number of persons in households accepted as homeless under Part III of the Housing Act 1985, by district

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Aberconwy

  177

  108

  162

  137

  104

  Alyn and Deeside

  330

  485

  528

  474

  499

  Arfon

  102

  63

  65

  77

  93

  Blaenau Gwent

  463

  595

  695

  841

  761

  Brecknock

  180

  176

  243

  269

  318

  Cardiff

  1,592

  2,971

  3,334

  2,483

  4,052

  Carmarthen

  255

  213

  164

  189

  227

  Ceredigion

  188

  187

  180

  331

  373

  Colwyn

  104

  87

  93

  1103

  178

  Cynon Valley

  603

  710

  530

  623

  1,017

  Delyn

  712

  679

  1,002

  825

  683

  Dinefwr

  141

  185

  124

  181

  410

  Dwyfor

  163

  119

  178

  162

  127

  Glyndwr

  63

  30

  43

  46

  87

  Islwyn

  121

  204

  313

  370

  399

  Llanelli

  408

  302

  343

  297

  383

  Lliw Valley

  254

  143

  288

  338

  284

  Meirionnydd

  137

  210

  230

  250

  257

  Merthyr Tydfil

  207

  191

  359

  496

  365

  Monmouth

  618

  576

  357

  281

  388

  Montgomeryshire

  100

  156

  127

  188

  259

  Neath

  629

  636

  496

  610

  656

  Newport

  1,550

  1,635

  2,460

  2,696

  2,936

  Ogwr

  994

  1,193

  1,176

  1,332

  1,671

  Port Talbot

  357

  327

  442

  303

  340

  Preseli

  176

  194

  153

  209

  255

  Radnorshire

  31

  60

  36

  64

  45

  Rhondda

  268

  270

  292

  166

  358

  Rhuddlan

  296

  256

  273

  293

  177

  Rhymney Valley

  410

  580

  655

  439

  2395

  South Pembrokeshire

  210

  271

  241

  248

  205

  Swansea3

  654

  439

  345

  450

  1,779

  Taff-Ely

  321

  395

  442

  568

  715

  Torfaen

  708

  881

  968

  1,216

  1.038

  Vale of Glamorgan

  293

  755

  1,042

  1,160

  1,184

  434

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Wrexham Maelor

  522

  717

  740

  863

  730

  Ynys Mon

  65

  106

  49

  97

  111

  1 Excludes those persons in the 2,000 estimated households made homeless as a result of the major flooding incident in February 1990.

  2 Information for 1991 is provisional.

  3 It is known that the figure for Swansea prior to 1991 was was under-recorded by the authority.

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

THE ARTS

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the total number of employees in the Office of Arts and Libraries; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Renton
  The Office of Arts and Libraries has currently 59 members of staff. Equal opportunities policy is monitored on an on-going basis in the Department.

  All staff are asked to complete a questionnaire on their ethnic origins but individuals are not obliged to return them. Currently, three respondents to the questionnaire have declared they are members of the ethnic minorities. One member of staff in the Department is currently registered as disabled, but there may be others with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his office in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. Renton
  The current number of men and women in the Office of Arts and Libraries in grades 2, 5, 6, 7, SEO, HEO, HEO(D), EO, AO and AA is as follows. The Department does not employ anyone at grades 1, 3 and 4.

  Men

  Women

  Grade 2

  1

  —

  Grade 5

  3

  1

  Grade 6

  —

  1

  Grade 7

  8

  2

  SEO

  2

  1

  435

  Men

  Women

  HEO

  5

  5

  HEO(D)/AT

  —

  1

  EO

  3

  5

  AO

  3

  5

  AA

  3

  1

  Total

  28

  22

ENERGY

  Low-Energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Low-energy lighting is installed in major areas of the Department's headquarters building, 1 Palace street, which accounts for some 85 per cent. of its energy use. Further installations are under active consideration.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Stock Exchange Investment
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the yield from capital gains on the sale of stock exchange investment by individuals(a) cashing in and (b) reinvesting, in 1988–89 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Maude
  Total net capital gains tax liabilities of individuals and trusts are estimated to be:

  1988–89 liabilities—£2,000 million

  1990–91 liabilities—£1,150 million.

  Table 12.6 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1991", which provides an analysis of net chargeable gains on 1988–89 disposals broken down by type of asset, suggests that about a quarter of the 1988–89 liability is attributable to ordinary shares quoted on the London stock exchange. A comparable analysis of 1990–91 liabilities is not yet available.

  Finer analysis to isolate the amount of gains where the proceeds are reinvested is not available, but from the evidence which is available, it is thought that more of the tax liability from quoted shares will arise from disposals where the proceeds are reinvested than where the proceeds are used for other purposes.

  The figures quoted exclude gains made by companies included in corporation tax.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reduction in annual liability to capital gains tax, in 1991–92 and 1992–93 as against the 1978–79 indexed regime specifying in each case the total and average reduction per taxpayer as well as the number of taxpayers in each year, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates of the difference between the CGT liability on the current regime and on the 1978–79 indexed regime are not available, as indicated in my reply to the hon. Member on 15 March 1991,Official Report, columns 704–5.
  436
  Latest available estimates of taxpayer numbers for capital gains tax for 1991–92 and 1992–93, assuming statutory indexation of the annual exempt amount, excluding gains realised by companies, which are included in assessments to corporation tax, are:

  Liabilities

  Thousands

  1991–92

  105

  1992–93

  90

  Debtor Countries
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will encourage commercial banks to make a response to debtor countries comparable with that of Governments through the Trinidad terms.

  Mr. Maples
  The Government's position is that whenever the Paris club grants Trinidad arrangements, it should insist that the debtor seeks similar treatment from other creditors. The Government have also supported proposals for limited use of IMF and World bank resources to support voluntary agreements on debt relief between debtors and banks. But the final decisions on relief concerning these commercial debts must be made by the banks and is a matter for their commercial judgment.

PRIME MINISTER

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions have been held to seek joint purchases of MRI scanners by the Northern Ireland health authorities with the Departments of Health in Scotland and England.

  The Prime Minister
  No approaches have been made to health authorities in England about the purchase of MRI scanners. However, the Northern Ireland health and personal social services management executive is shortly to establish a new regionally managed supplies organisation which will be expected to seek opportunities for greater savings by co-operating with other supplies agencies in the United Kingdom.

  The Scottish Health Common Services Agency has already placed an order for a number of MRIs—and it is therefore not possible for the Northern Ireland authorities to join with Scotland at this stage.

  Exchange Rate Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his letter dated 13 February to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on the effect of exchange rate policy, what assessment has been made of the effect on pricing out of overseas markets of United Kingdom exports, and the pricing into domestic markets of imports, of increases in the real value of the pound sterling; and if he will publish a table showing the changes in the indices of import and export values of manufactures as a consequence of each quinquennial change in the statistical base.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government cannot determine the real exchange rate over the medium term. The crucial factor determining competitiveness is the effectiveness of United Kingdom producers in controlling their costs. Value indices of trade in manufacturing are not published.
  437
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) further to his letter dated 13 February to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, whether he will distinguish those periods in the last 25 years in which Her Majesty's Government assess the pound sterling to have been(a) overvalued and (b) undervalued;

  (2) if he will give the figures underlying the statement in his letter to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 13 February that the central rate at which the pound sterling entered the ERM was close to the pound sterling's average real rate over the previous 25 years.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Treasury bulletin for winter 1990–91 volume 2, issue 1, pages 25–32 which analyses"measures of real exchange rates and competitiveness",
  in particular chart 4 on page 31 shows the real sterling exchange rate against other ERM countries and the long run average 1966 to 1990.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a table showing, for each of the years 1965 to 1991, the Department of Trade and Industry and the International Monetary Fund indices of trade-weighted relative export unit values base on the second half of 1973 = 100, estimated where necessary on the basis of movements in the rate of exchange since the quarter in which the figures for other countries were last made available.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Trade and Industry does not produce a relative export unit value series. The information from the International Monetary Fund series is in the table. Data for 1991 are not available.

  United Kingdom relative1 export unit value index—UVI— for manufactured goods

  Value

  1979

  119·9

  1980

  134·0

  1981

  131·5

  1982

  123·7

  1983

  120·4

  1984

  117·6

  1985

  119·7

  1986

  116·9

  1987

  121·5

  1988

  131·8

  1989

  124·6

  1990

  129·1

  1 United Kingdom's UVI of manufactured goods compared with an export·weighted average of 16 major competitors, in common currency.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his letter dated 13 February to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, what criteria he uses in judging whether United Kingdom manufactures are fully competitive at home and overseas.

  The Prime Minister
  A number of indicators of competitiveness are readily available in, for example, the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics". But the underlying competitiveness of United Kingdom manufacturers is best demonstrated by the United Kingdom's rising share of world trade over the last three years, as shown by the chart on page 62 of the Autumn Statement.

  Pelagic Fish
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make an assessment of the implications for the pelagic fishing industry of the collapse of markets in eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the discussions held with President Yeltsin concerning supplies of pelagic fish to Russian and other Commonwealth of Independent States markets;

  (3) what progress he has made following his discussions with President Yeltsin in establishing pelagic fish as part of the European Community food aid programme to eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Disruption of the long-established trade with Russia and other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States could have serious implications for the Scottish pelagic fishing industry, even though they have been making commendable efforts to find other market outlets. The possibility that pelagic fish might be included in the EC's food aid programme or credit guarantee scheme is being explored by Departments, including in contacts with the Russian authorities. So far, no request for assistance of this type has been received from Russia.

  Low-Energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the offices used in connection with his offices of state.

  The Prime Minister
  Following an energy audit of 10 to 12 Downing street, high-efficiency, low-energy lamps have been installed where appropriate. Low-energy luminaires and krypton tubes have also been installed.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar (Homosexuals)
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that the requirements of article 8 of the European convention on human rights apply to homosexual acts between consenting adults in Gibraltar.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The European convention on human rights applies in Gibraltar and its laws must, therefore, comply with the convention's provisions. To meet the particular requirement of article 8 of the convention, the Gibraltar Government have drafted an amendment to their criminal offences ordinance. We are considering this.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom, as a depositary state for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, received a copy of the safeguards agreement deposited with the International Atomic Energy Agency on 30 January by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, pursuant to North Korea's obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom's status as a depositary power for the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons—NPT—does not of itself entitle us to receive copies of safeguards agreements negotiated by the International Atomic Energy Agency with states parties to the NPT. However, as a member of the IAEA board of governors the United Kingdom has received a copy of the minor amendments to the standard full scope safeguards text agreed between the IAEA and the North Koreans.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessments he has made of the quality of the BBC World Service broadcasts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The BBC World Service's reputation for the high quality, accuracy and impartiality of its broadcasts is well established and fully merited. The World Service attracts the largest audience of any international broadcaster, estimated at more than 120 million regular listeners.

  We continue to place great value on the World Service and the benefits it brings to Britain's international reputation.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to restore diplomatic relations with Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Diplomatic relations with Afghanistan have not been broken. The Afghan embassy in London continues to function under a charge d'affaires. British diplomats were withdrawn from Kabul in February 1989 because of the uncertain security situation. We have no present plans to reopen the embassy.

  Croatia
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) of 5 February,Official Report, columns 190–91, if he will list the undertakings given by the Croatian Government on minorities legislation; and what plans he has to monitor their implementation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Croatian Government have stated their full acceptance of the provisions in the draft treaty prepared by Lord Carrington on the rights of national minorities and an autonomy for areas in which persons belonging to a national or ethnic group form a majority. We are pressing for the implementation of these provisions in Croatian legislation.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment Her Majesty's Government have undertaken of the extent to which each of the Baltic states is respecting the rights of all residents in full accordance with international requirements of respect for human rights, without regard to race, religion and colour.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Baltic States are members of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and have therefore undertaken to abide by the human rights provisions of that agreement. In our political dialogue with the Baltic states, we make clear whenever appropriate the importance we attach to human rights.

  Lithuania
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the borders of Lithuania as currently recognised by Her Majesty's Government; and what is the historical basis for that recognition.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The borders of Lithuania are those within which the former Soviet Republic of Lithuania existed de facto at the time of our recognition of the Republic of Lithuania as an independent state, in August 1991.

  Low-Energy lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is already the policy of both diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office progressively to install energy-efficient lighting in their buildings.

  Abortion
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the Government of Ireland to change the anti-abortion provision in its constitution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Irish Supreme Court is considering how article 40.3.3 of the Irish constitution should be applied. It would not be right for the British Government to intervene.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated cost of the airlift of food to the Commonwealth of Independent States to(a) Britain and (b) all donors.

  Mrs. Chalker
  British beef flown to St. Petersburg at the turn of the year formed part of the European Community's 200 mecu food aid package. All transportation costs are being met from this allocation. No other significant airlifts of food from Britain have taken place.
  441
  The British Government have no figures for costs incurred by other countries in airlifting food to the former Soviet Union.

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the amounts of official development assistance allocated as bilateral aid in the sectors of primary health, primary education, rural water supply and family planning in the years 1974 to the present, including financial aid and technical co-operation.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Figures prior to 1980 are not available. Bilateral aid expenditure for the period 1980 to 1990 was as follows:

  United Kingdom bilateral aid expenditure on primary health, primary education, rural water supply and family planning 1980–1990 (cash prices)1 2

  £ thousands

  Primary education

  Primary health3

  Family planning

  Rural water supply

  1980

  171

  4,134

  886

  1,609

  1981

  419

  730

  283

  1,518

  1982

  119

  1,868

  1,829

  1,246

  1983

  128

  4,195

  3,794

  557

  1984

  614

  2,939

  2,747

  742

  1985

  384

  3,586

  2,439

  1,280

  1986

  509

  2,041

  1,520

  53,918

  1987

  723

  752

  686

  7,601

  1988

  1,425

  5,891

  1,746

  7,826

  1989

  1,071

  5,264

  1,115

  10,006

  1990

  1,678

  15,026

  6,232

  3,718

  1 Figures refer to the primary sector which benefits from any expenditure. They exclude expenditure classified to other sectors which may also benefit the primary sector (e.g. expenditure on primary teacher training may be classified under teacher training, not primary education).

  2 Technical cooperation expenditure is not included for 1980–87.

  3 Includes family planning.

  Note: Figures include Project Aid provided by the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Health Care Projects
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the amounts of official development assistance allocated as bilateral project aid in the primary health care sector for the years 1974 to the present.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Figures prior to 1980 are not available. Bilateral project aid expenditure, excluding technical co-operation, for the period 1980 to 1990 was as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure (£ thousands)

  1980

  4,134

  1981

  730

  1982

  1,868

  1983

  4,195

  1984

  2,939

  1985

  3,586

  1986

  2,041

  1987

  752

  1988

  2,575

  1989

  844

  1990

  9,308

  Note: Includes expenditure on family planning.

  Workers' Co-operatives
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many projects involving the development of workers' co-operatives in the third world have commenced since 1988, by year;

  (2) what is the total amount of money invested in the development and setting up of workers' co-operatives in the third world since 1988, by year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Comprehensive statistics on aid to workers' co-operatives are not separately maintained and cannot readily or accurately be extracted. A number of projects financed under country programmes have, during the period, included significant elements supporting workers' co-operatives, for example the rural development project in Bangladesh, the co-operatives and rural business development training project in Vanuatu and the handicraft marketing project in Zimbabwe. Other projects will have include smaller components for workers' co-operatives.

  Assistance has also been provided under the joint funding scheme. The number and cost of projects approved since 1988 which were primarily concerned with workers' co-operatives were:

  Number

  Cost (£)

  1988–89

  3

  9,000

  1989–90

  6

  31,000

  1990–91

  6

  57,900

  1991–92

  3

  10,700

  In other cases, support for workers' co-operatives will have formed a smaller part of the project.

  In addition to project support, an annual average of three members of workers' co-operatives have, since 1988, been given awards to attend courses at the international co-operative training centre at Loughborough.

HEALTH

  NHS Overseas Ltd
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when NHS Overseas Services Ltd. was set up; what its objectives are; whether its mission statement and business plan have been placed in the Library; how many staff it employs and at what grade; and what its cost in 1992–93 is expected to be.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have arranged for the Chairman of NHS Overseas Enterprises to write to the hon. Member; a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  GP Complaints
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to speed up the family practitioner committee complaints system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On 2 April 1990 the Government introduced changes to speed up and simplify the family health services complaints system. We are presently considering the scope for Family Health Services Authorities to improve the administration of the complaints procedures.
  443
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to publicise statistics of complaints received by family practitioner committees and the General Medical Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Statistics on the number of formal investigations into complaints by Family Health Services Authorities are published annually in "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library.

  The General Medical Council is an independent statutory body whose procedures are governed by the 1983 Medical Act. A summary of complaints received and considered by the council is published by it annually.

  King's College Hospital (Death)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will institute an inquiry into the death of Frederick Seymour at King's college hospital, London SE5, at the accident and emergency department, following the remarks of the coroner at the inquest on the deceased.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The regional health authority has set up an external inquiry to investigate this tragic incident.

  Hospitals (Parking)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are issued to health authorities regarding the imposition of car parking charges for patients, visitors or staff at national health service hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No such guidance has been issued, as this is a matter for local determination.

  No-fault Compensation
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the working of no-fault compensation schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Total Prescriptions Dispensed by Chemist and Appliance Contractors

  FPC Name

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Total

  Chargeable

  Percentage

  Total

  Chargeable

  Percentage

  Cleveland

  4,645,593

  674,509

  14·5

  4,742,004

  648,293

  13·7

  Cumbria

  3,465,124

  650,960

  18·8

  3,566,067

  633,483

  17·8

  Durham

  4,875,161

  740,129

  15·2

  5,005,114

  708,441

  14·2

  Northumberland

  2,077,930

  375,987

  18·1

  2,135,101

  365,735

  17·1

  Gateshead

  1,774,914

  258,388

  14·6

  1,791,076

  244,524

  13·7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,551,553

  326,188

  12·8

  2,585,659

  312,000

  12·1

  North Tyneside

  1,838,823

  251,353

  13·7

  1,853,674

  237,069

  12·8

  South Tynside

  1,441,112

  171,487

  11·9

  1,479,724

  161,017

  10·9

  Sunderland

  2,898,914

  342,866

  11·8

  2,926,604

  325,004

  11·1

  Northern

  25,569,124

  3,791,868

  14·8

  26,085,023

  3,635,566

  13·9

  Humberside

  6,768,700

  1,027,742

  15·2

  6,846,640

  978,061

  14·3

  North Yorkshire

  4,275,083

  757,755

  17·7

  4,389,417

  740,198

  16·9

  Bradford

  4,277,766

  578,667

  13·5

  4,328,881

  549,174

  12·7

  Calderdale

  1,639,454

  271,693

  16·6

  1,702,257

  267,932

  15·7

  Kirklees

  2,857,411

  513,388

  18·0

  2,898,651

  486,789

  16·8

  Leeds

  6,013,320

  930,678

  15·5

  6,104,747

  890·517

  14·6

  Wakefield

  2,759,190

  438,637

  15·9

  2,844,187

  425,105

  14·9

  Yorkshire

  28,590,924

  4,518,559

  15·8

  29,114,780

  4,337,776

  14·9

  Derbyshire

  6,487,547

  1,184,802

  18·3

  6,624,863

  1,143,588

  17·3

  Leicestershire

  6,153,752

  1,153,423

  1·87

  6,271,886

  1,100,908

  17·6

  Lincolnshire

  3,658,907

  619,919

  16·9

  3,757,464

  584,846

  15·6

  Nottinghamshire

  7,254,541

  1,285,193

  17·7

  7,458,561

  1,228,879

  16·5

  Barnsley

  2,191,445

  279,842

  12·8

  2,187,861

  260,122

  11·9

  444
  Mr. Dorrell
  No full assessment has been made of the working of no-fault compensation schemes, although the Department has noted developments in Scandinavian countries and New Zealand. The question of no-fault compensation was fully debated last year during the NHS (Compensation) Bill. The House decided on a free vote against the measure and the Bill did not receive a Second Reading.

  Medical Training
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the December High Court ruling in respect of the Joint Committee on Higher Medical Training; if he has any plans to revise the arrangements by which the General Medical Council delegates to the medical royal colleges the regulation of post graduate medical training leading to United Kingdom accreditation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  An appeal has been lodged against the High Court ruling and we would not wish to comment until the outcome of the appeal is known.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each NHS region and health district what was(a) the total number of prescriptions and (b) the total number of prescriptions that incurred charges in 1988 and 1991; and if he will express the latter as a percentage of the former.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information for 1988–89 is not available. Information for the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91 is in the table.
  445

  FPC Name

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Total

  Chargeable

  Percentage

  Total

  Chargeable

  Percentage

  Doncaster

  2,765,903

  387,152

  14·0

  2,836,161

  369,282

  13·0

  Rotherham

  2,082,331

  292,406

  14·0

  2,107,267

  278,733

  13·2

  Sheffield

  4,817,349

  654,625

  13·6

  4,893,289

  626,028

  12·8

  Trent

  35,411,775

  5,857,363

  16·5

  36,137,352

  5,592,386

  15·5

  Cambridgeshire

  3,480,702

  725,805

  20·9

  3,622,234

  702,202

  19·4

  Norfolk

  4,047,224

  743,357

  18·4

  4,230,216

  731,160

  17·3

  Suffolk

  3,476,437

  696,214

  20·0

  3,567,657

  673,420

  18·9

  East Anglia

  11,004,363

  2,165,376

  19·7

  11,420,107

  2,106,782

  18·4

  Bedfordshire

  3,340,943

  691,350

  20·7

  3,385,068

  657,867

  19·4

  Hertfordshire

  6,321,276

  1,469,875

  23·3

  6,453,717

  1,415,252

  21·9

  Barnet

  2,048,821

  396,549

  19·4

  2,075,473

  381,753

  18·4

  Brent and Harrow

  3,245,635

  612,335

  18·9

  3,287,635

  576,916

  17·5

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  4,693,664

  896,906

  19·1

  4,741,660

  841,151

  17·7

  Hillingdon

  1,700,576

  369,255

  21·7

  1,721,949

  350,928

  20·4

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  2,358,714

  655,211

  27·8

  2,361,988

  623,929

  26·4

  North West Thames

  23,709,629

  5,091,481

  21·5

  24,027,490

  4,847,797

  20·2

  Essex

  9,874,403

  2,043,221

  20·7

  10,132,792

  1,961,065

  19·4

  Barking and Havering

  2,801,735

  537,117

  19·2

  2,807,571

  499,236

  17·8

  Camden and Islington

  2,555,908

  485,247

  19·0

  2,570,372

  451,263

  17·6

  City, Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets

  5,116,857

  698,195

  13·6

  5,203,786

  643,292

  12·4

  Enfield and Haringey

  3,151,598

  592,033

  18·8

  3,253,609

  555,331

  17·1

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  3,566,650

  645,390

  18·1

  3,604,724

  604,857

  16·8

  North East Thames

  27,067,151

  5,001,203

  18·5

  27,572,854

  4,715,044

  17·1

  East Sussex

  5,714,784

  929,082

  16·3

  5,809,616

  889,044

  15·3

  Kent

  10,708,354

  2,068,884

  19·3

  10,906,431

  1,983,984

  18·2

  Bexley and Greenwich

  3,090,571

  579,471

  18·7

  3,122,385

  539,132

  17·3

  Bromley

  1,975,701

  425,869

  21·6

  2,008,178

  410,927

  20·5

  Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark

  5,171,672

  832,863

  16·1

  5,269,598

  780,601

  14·8

  South East Thames

  26,661,082

  4,836,169

  18·1

  27,116,208

  4,603,688

  17·0

  Surrey

  6,287,851

  1,526,647

  24·3

  6,377,659

  1,474,506

  23·1

  West Sussex

  4,985,936

  906,329

  18·2

  5,077,230

  874,149

  17·2

  Croydon

  2,117,939

  452,523

  21·4

  2,132,843

  429,607

  20·1

  Kingston and Richmond

  2,076,122

  475,683

  22·9

  2,079,613

  459,077

  22·1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  4,146,503

  800,263

  19·3

  4,221,855

  774,851

  18·4

  South West Thames

  19,614,351

  4,161,444

  21·2

  19,889,200

  4,012,190

  20·2

  Dorset

  5,060,355

  815,042

  16·1

  5,205,630

  784,249

  15·1

  Hampshire

  10,620,014

  2,163,583

  20·4

  10,871,595

  2,095,593

  19·3

  Wiltshire

  3,370,352

  712,109

  21·1

  3,444,502

  692,623

  20·1

  Isle of Wight

  1,003,261

  162,154

  16·2

  1,027,719

  157,997

  15·4

  Wessex

  20,053,982

  3,852,889

  19·2

  20,549,446

  3,730,462

  18·2

  Berkshire

  4,510,779

  1,117,376

  24·8

  4,625,941

  1,081,873

  23·4

  Buckinghamshire

  3,656,942

  895,191

  24·5

  3,742,879

  863,281

  23·1

  Northamptonshire

  3,592,195

  740,776

  20·6

  3,676,666

  713,415

  19·4

  Oxfordshire

  2,752,473

  671,793

  24·4

  2,826,551

  653,246

  23·1

  Oxford

  14,512,389

  3,425,135

  23·6

  14,872,037

  3,311,816

  22·3

  Avon

  6,390,596

  1,257,301

  19·7

  6,502,170

  1,207,801

  18·6

  Cornwall

  3,078,878

  481,932

  15·7

  3,180,072

  465,614

  14·6

  Devon

  7,633,769

  1,223,816

  16·0

  7,848,651

  1,188,226

  15·1

  Gloucestershire

  3,087,228

  642,122

  20·8

  3,158,325

  626,206

  19·8

  Somerset

  2,943,809

  541,796

  18·4

  3,009,379

  524,533

  17·4

  South Western

  23,134,280

  4,146,966

  17·9

  23,698,597

  4,012,379

  16·9

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  4,113,740

  812,683

  19·8

  4,203,161

  793,452

  18·9

  Salop

  2,600,082

  466,427

  17·9

  2,617,820

  450,264

  17·2

  Staffordshire

  7,579,951

  1,422,494

  18·8

  7,736,986

  1,364,350

  17·6

  Warwickshire

  3,240,435

  639,082

  19·7

  3,284,385

  611,940

  18·6

  Birmingham

  9,288,033

  1,145,009

  12·3

  9,401,661

  1,071,959

  11·4

  Coventry

  2,731,192

  408,062

  14·9

  2,735,711

  376,780

  138

  Dudley

  2,324,858

  423,633

  18·2

  2,349,260

  406,447

  17·3

  Sandwell

  2,869,891

  392,390

  13·7

  2,864,781

  357,595

  12·5

  446 447

  FPC Name

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Total

  Chargeable

  Percentage

  Total

  Chargeable

  Percentage

  Solihull

  1,508,560

  298,745

  19·8

  1,531,261

  285,528

  18·6

  Walsall

  2,547,769

  370,237

  14·5

  2,530,137

  341,679

  13·5

  Wolverhampton

  2,273,563

  333,547

  14·7

  2,272,690

  314,026

  13·8

  West Midlands

  41,078,074

  6,712,307

  16·3

  41,527,853

  6,374,020

  15·3

  Cheshire

  7,447,839

  1,343,351

  1·80

  7,617,115

  1,284,739

  16·9

  Liverpool

  5,202,664

  451,909

  8·7

  5,309,343

  418,933

  7·9

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3,517,069

  393,842

  11·2

  3,628,178

  371,783

  10·2

  Sefton

  2,887,641

  375,084

  13·0

  2,961,666

  351,658

  11·9

  Wirral

  3,263,855

  423,098

  13·0

  3,344,633

  401,672

  12·0

  Mersey

  22,319,068

  2,987,284

  13·4

  22,860,935

  2,828,784

  12·4

  Lancashire

  13,019,122

  1,927,035

  14·8

  13,225,919

  1,833,966

  13·9

  Bolton

  2,278,039

  346,806

  15·2

  2,327,601

  331,371

  14·2

  Bury

  1,709,275

  259,782

  15·2

  1,743,156

  247,298

  14·2

  Manchester

  4,466,316

  491,264

  11·0

  4,512,237

  458,344

  10·2

  Oldham

  2,094,502

  307,895

  14·7

  2,139,172

  284,895

  13·3

  Rochdale

  2,023,600

  275,252

  13·6

  2,063,949

  259,195

  12·6

  Salford

  2,505,149

  303,759

  12·1

  2,534,318

  281,965

  11·1

  Stockport

  2,433,369

  430,941

  17·7

  2,475,952

  417,509

  16·9

  Tameside

  2,003,432

  308,615

  15·4

  2,036,652

  290,122

  14·2

  Trafford

  2,192,308

  364,438

  16·6

  2,233,437

  349,379

  15·6

  Wigan

  2,912,792

  455,527

  15·6

  2,948,785

  438,338

  14·9

  North Western

  37,637,904

  5,471,314

  14·5

  38,241,178

  5,192,383

  13·6

  England

  356,364,096

  62,019,359

  17·4

  363,113,060

  59,301,074

  16·3

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a chronic asthmatic on invalidity benefit and in receipt of housing benefits and poll tax benefit but below pensionable age is entitled to free prescriptions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since 1968, when medical exemptions from prescription charges were first introduced, asthma has not been a condition which of itself attracts free prescriptions. The NHS low income scheme underpins wide-ranging exemption arrangements on grounds of health or status, thus ensuring that no one need be deterred from obtaining any necessary medication for financial reasons.

  As a result of the exemption and charge remission arrangements, coupled with the prescription prepayment certificate scheme, less than one item in six dispensed in the NHS attracts a charge. In 1991 100 million more items were dispensed free than in 1979, when one in three attracted a charge.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As at 3 February 1992, there were 4,5111 people employed by the Department of Health of whom 5392 were of ethnic minority origin. As at January 1992, 853 members of staff were registered disabled. A survey early in 1991 identified a further 61 additional members of staff with a disability who were not registered disabled.

  Notes:

  1 Figure obtained from the Department's payroll held by the Information and Technology Systems Agency.

  2 Figure based on questionnaires voluntarily completed by staff.

  3 Figure obtained from the Personnel Computer System which does not include four people on the sheltered placement scheme.
  448
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of the grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Grade

  Men

  Women

  1

  1

  0

  2

  5

  2

  3

  21

  5

  4

  17

  7

  5

  108

  55

  6

  69

  17

  7

  349

  154

  SEO

  224

  74

  HEO

  339

  278

  AT

  5

  5

  EO

  332

  482

  AO (CO)

  322

  880

  AA (CA)

  218

  542

  Total

  2,010

  2,501

  Note

  Figures obtained from the Department's payroll held by the Information and Technology Systems Agency on 3 February 1992.

  Medical Doctors
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to increase the statutory protection for the title "doctor" as applied in the medical field.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statutory protection already exists. Any person who wilfully and falsely uses any title, including that of "doctor of medicine", implying that he is registered as a medical practitioner under the Medical Act 1983 is guilty of an offence under section 49 of that Act.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the estimated population of(a) the United Kingdom, (b) England, (c) Greater London, (d) outer London, (e) inner London, (f) Manchester, (g) Liverpool, (h) Birmingham, (i) Leeds, (j) Sheffield, (k) Bristol and (l) Glasgow in 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:

  Estimated resident population

  (Thousands)

  Mid-year:—

  1961

  1971

  1981

  11990

  United Kingdom

  52,807·4

  55,928·0

  56,352·2

  57,236·2

  England

  43,561·0

  46,411·7

  46,820·8

  47,837·3

  Greater London

  7,997·0

  7,529·4

  6,805·6

  6,794·4

  Outer London

  4,496·0

  4,469·7

  4,255·4

  4,271·2

  Inner London

  3,481·0

  3,059·7

  2,550·1

  2,523·2

  Local Government areas

  Manchester

  657·0

  553·6

  462·7

  446·7

  Liverpool

  741·0

  610·2

  517·0

  462·9

  Birmingham

  1,179·0

  1,106·8

  1,020·7

  992·8

  Leeds

  710·0

  748·5

  717·9

  712·2

  Sheffield

  581·0

  578·8

  547·8

  525·8

  Bristol

  436·0

  432·5

  401·2

  374·3

  Glasgow City

  2N/A

  982·6

  774·1

  689·2

  1 The latest estimates available relate to mid-1990. They are based upon 1981 Census data, with allowance for subsequent births, deaths, and migration. Estimates for mid-1991 based upon results of the 1991 Census will become available in Autumn this year.

  2 There is no estimate available for 1961 comparable with the figures presented for 1971, 1981, and 1990 relating to the present Glasgow city authority area.

  "Confronting Elder Abuse"
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take on the report of the social services inspectorate "Confronting Elder Abuse".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The report is the result of the first phase of a project being undertaken by the social services inspectorate. It describes how staff in two social services authorities responded to referrals about elder abuse in domestic settings. The inspectorate is now working to produce guidance on standards as part of our work programme implementing care in the community and improving standards in service provision for the elderly.

  Low-Energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is already the policy and practice of the Department to introduce low-energy lighting as part of its pursuit of improved energy efficiency.

  Abortion
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has discussed with his EC counterparts for the harmonisation of provision for abortion within the Community; and if he will make a statement.
  450
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No such proposals have come forward. Arrangements in respect of abortion are the responsibility of each member state.

DEFENCE

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library statistical information about the radiation doses received by(a) service personnel and (b) civilian workers during refits of the Resolution class submarines.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Radiation dose information is not available in the form requested.

  Suicides
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in how many Army regiments there were no suicides in the years 1987 to 1991; and in how many there were more than one suicide.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the five years 1987–1991 there were no suicides in 33 regiments and six corps of the Regular Army. In the same period there has been more than one suicide in nine corps and eight regiments.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy that all reports of investigations into suicides are examined centrally, that all regiments where there are more than two suicides a year are visited by an independent investigator and that an annual report is made to Parliament on forces' suicides;

  (2) if he will investigate whether bullying was a factor in any suicide in the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All suicides in the armed forces are thoroughly investigated and there are no plans to change present procedures. Investigations completed into suicides committed since 1987 do not show bullying to have been a factor. Statistical information on suicides is contained in the report on "Annual Health Tables: Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force". Arrangements have been made to place the reports for 1990 and future years in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give for the(a) Royal Navy and Royal Marines, (b) the Army and (c) the Royal Air Force for each of the years 1987 to 1991 (i) the number of suicides and (ii) the number of personnel; and if he will express the suicides as the number per 100,000 personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the right hon. Member.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the investigatory procedure that is carried out when a suicide occurs in the Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The suspected suicide of a member of the Army in the United Kingdom would be the subject of a coroner's inquest. The coroner would expect to receive a report on an investigation of the case by the civil police assisted where appropriate by the special investigation branch—SIB—of the Royal Military police.
  451
  Suspected suicides of military personnel overseas are investigated by the SIB. A copy of any SIB report is invariably given to the commanding officer of the unit concerned.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, columns 454–56, if he will investigate the reasons for the level of suicides in the Royal Engineers and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. The level of suicides in the Royal Engineers and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers is not significantly higher than in other parts of the Army.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will complete his review of search and rescue facilities prior to 9 April.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not yet possible to say when the review will be completed.

  Low-Energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is already the policy of the Ministry of Defence, where it is practical to do so.

  Russian Defence System
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest assessment of the operational effectiveness of Russia's anti-ballistic missile defences.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 November 1991,Official Report, columns 613–14.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with members of the Russian Government concerning(a) the future deployment of additional Russian anti-ballistic missiles and (b) the enhancement of existing Russian anti-ballistic missiles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the number of the former Soviet Union's early warning radars sited outside Russian territory.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are six ballistic missile early warning sites located outside Russian territory. One of these is in the independent republic of Latvia; there are two sites in the Ukraine and one each in Azerbaijan, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to prevent the proliferation and deployment of anti-ballistic missiles around the world.
  452
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Transfers of anti-missile missiles and related technology from the United Kingdom are subject to rigorous national export controls. Such systems or elements of them may also be subject to the international missile technology control regime. United States and Russian ABM deployments are subject to the 1972 ABM treaty.

  Range Facilities, Benbecula
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans either to develop or to reduce the range facilities at Balivanich, Benbecula.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently no plans to develop or to reduce the range facilities at the Royal Artillery ranges, Hebrides. Range requirements are, however, kept under review.

  Trident
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria his Department will apply in determining the level at which the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear warheads will be deployed on the Trident fleet.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Trident will deploy the minimum number of warheads necessary to provide effective deterrence, presenting the prospect of damage that no aggressor could find acceptable.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the latest statistics for unemployment in the Durham area for those aged(a) under 18, (b) 18 to 40 and (c) over 40 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information, for the City of Durham parliamentary constituency, is contained in the table and can also be obtained from the NOMIS database system in the Library.

  Unemployed Claimants in the City of Durham January 1992

  Age Group

  Total1

  Under 18

  3

  18 to 39

  2,360

  40 and over

  1,028

  1 The figures are on the unadjusted basis.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of persons employed(a) in manufacturing industry and (b) in service industries for each year since 1981.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information relating to employees in employment is shown in the table:

  United Kingdom (Thousands) Seasonally Adjusted

  September each year

  Manufacturing

  Services

  1981

  6,148

  13,414

  1982

  5,769

  13,384

  1983

  5,485

  13,570

  1984

  5,402

  13,873

  453

  September each year

  Manufacturing

  Services

  1985

  5,371

  14,117

  1986

  5,200

  14,317

  1987

  5,176

  14,693

  1988

  5,217

  15,340

  1989

  5,215

  15,663

  1990

  5,147

  15,826

  1991

  4,795

  15,495

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he makes for each year since 1979 of(a) the total available work force, namely all those of working age regardless of whether they were in work or not, and (b) the percentage of the population which was not in work regardless of whether they were looking for work.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available estimates from the labour force survey are given in the following table.

  Population of working age and percentage not in Employment 1979–90

  Great Britain

  Population of working age1Thousands

  Percentage not in employment2

  1979

  31,966

  26·6

  1981

  32,463

  29·9

  1983

  32,861

  32·4

  1984

  33,125

  31·6

  1985

  33,301

  30·7

  1986

  33,425

  30·6

  1987

  33,620

  29·8

  1988

  33,750

  27·7

  1989

  33,851

  25·6

  1990

  33,922

  25·1

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  2 Unemployed (on ILO definition) plus economically inactive as a percentage of population of working age.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of(a) men and (b) women registered as unemployed in the Tooting constituency on 18 February.

  Mr. Jackson
  In January 1992, the latest available date, there were 4,325 men and 1,636 women claimant unemployed in the Tooting parliamentary constituency, on the unadjusted basis. Figures for February 1992 will be released on 19 March 1992.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of(a) men and (b) women under the age of 21 years who were registered as unemployed in the London borough of Wandsworth on 18 February.

  Mr. Jackson
  Unemployment figures by age are only available on a quarterly basis and are based on particular age bands. In January 1992, the latest available date, there were 561 male and 301 female unemployed claimants aged under 20 years in the London borough of Wandsworth.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs were on offer at each jobcentre in the Leeds metropolitan district in each month since January 1990 showing totals(a) for the Leeds metropolitan district as a whole and (b) for each jobcentre.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.
  454
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of people now registered as unemployed in the Greater London area who have been out of work for periods of up to three months, six months, nine months, one year, two years, three years or longer.

  Mr. Jackson
  The latest available information, relating to January 1992, is contained in the following table and can also be obtained from the NOMIS database system in the Library.

  Claimant unemployment by duration in Greater London January 19921

  Duration of unemployment

  Number of unemployed

  Up to 3 months

  108,949

  3 to 6 months

  78,186

  6 to 9 months

  54,548

  9 to 12 months

  44,000

  1 to 2 years

  68,019

  2 to 3 years

  17,054

  Over 3 years

  23,288

  1 Unemployment figures by duration are produced quarterly and are on the unadjusted basis.

  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the review of the payment arrangements for the sheltered placement scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Employment Service is conducting a review into the arrangements for current and capital funding for both the sheltered placement scheme and sheltered workshops. The review was proposed in the consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" and received widespread support. Proposals for new arrangements will be put for consultation as soon as possible.

  Employment Action
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the best information he has, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, separately for male and female, showing how many people have entered employment action and how many were participating in employment action in December 1991 and in January and February 1992.

  Mr. Jackson
  The tables show the number of people receiving employment action allowances as at each count date, plus the number starting to receive an allowance in the month ending at each count date. Information is not yet available for February. The figure for allowance starts is not available separately for men and women.

  Table 1

  Employment action: allowance starts in month

  Period ending on

  Employment service region

  12 December 1991

  9 January 1992

  Total men and women

  Total men and women

  London and South East

  380

  318

  South West

  203

  103

  West Midlands

  257

  102

  East Midlands

  326

  170

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  352

  137

  455

  Period ending on

  Employment service region

  12 December 1991

  9 January 1992

  Total men and women

  Total men and women

  North West

  410

  170

  Northern

  289

  110

  Wales

  266

  113

  England and Wales

  2,483

  1,223

  Table 2

  Employment action: Receiving allowances on count dale

  Count date

  12 December 1991

  9 January 1992

  Employment service region

  Total

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Men

  Women

  London and South East

  626

  493

  133

  962

  763

  199

  South West

  337

  293

  44

  409

  339

  70

  West Midlands

  429

  377

  52

  503

  441

  62

  East Midlands

  528

  458

  70

  663

  574

  89

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  710

  599

  111

  792

  669

  123

  North West

  790

  696

  94

  904

  792

  112

  Northern

  503

  427

  76

  583

  500

  83

  Wales

  524

  502

  22

  600

  575

  25

  England and Wales

  4,447

  3,845

  602

  5,416

  4,653

  763

  Scotland

  263

  236

  27

  381

  343

  38

  Great Britain

  4,710

  4,081

  629

  5,797

  4,996

  801

  Source: Employment service.

  Employment Service
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, how many unemployed people have been referred to restart courses by employment service counsellors since June 1991; how many of them were unemployed for over two years; how many attended and completed the course; what were the outcomes of the participants; how many had benefit penalties imposed for not attending or failing to complete their attendance at the restart course; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, how many unemployed people have taken part in the job interview guarantee scheme since September 1991; and how many participants have secured full-time employment with their sponsoring employer;

  (3) how many people, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, have attended a restart interview since 1 April 1991; and what were the results of those interviews, broken down in the same way as the reply given in his answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) of 18 December 1990, Official Report, column 148;

  (4) for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, since September 1991, how many people have joined job clubs; how many have left; how many leavers got jobs; how many entered another positive outcome; and if he will give the information broken down by the ethnic origin and gender of participants;

  (5) for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, how many unemployed people have participated in job interview guarantee work trials since September 1991; and how many participants have got full-time employment with their work trial employer.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.
  456

  Period ending on

  Employment service region

  12 December 1991

  9 January 1992

  Total men and women

  Total men and women

  Scotland

  213

  132

  Great Britain

  2,696

  1,355

  Source: Employment Service.

  Lone Parents (Training)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his best estimate, for Great Britain, for each region and for each TEC or LEC, of the number of employment training trainees who are lone parents and have entered the scheme under the lone parent eligibility route; how many are receiving child care allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not held centrally. Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies are required to deliver programmes that meet the needs of all their client groups. It is for the training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies to determine which trainee groups, such as lone parents, they support with child care.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is set out in the table.

  Representation of men and women by grade in the Employment Department group at 1 April 1991

  Permanent staff in post by grade band All staff (administrative and specialist)

  Grade group

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Grade 1

  2·0

  0·0

  2·0

  Grade 2

  4·0

  1·0

  5·0

  Grade 3

  26·0

  2·0

  28·0

  Grade 4

  18·0

  0·0

  18·0

  Grade 5

  142·0

  280

  170·0

  Grade 6

  253·5

  35·5

  289·0

  Grade 7

  955·5

  132·0

  1,087·5

  SEO

  1,370·5

  386·0

  1,756·5

  HEO

  2,939·0

  1,886·0

  4,825·0

  457

  Grade group

  Male

  Female

  Total

  AT

  2·0

  1·0

  3·0

  EO

  5,510·5

  8,779·5

  14,290·0

  AO

  5,805·5

  17,214·0

  23,019·5

  AA

  707·5

  2,106·0

  2,813·5

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Jackson
  The total number of employees on 1 April 1991 was 52,784. At the same date there were 2,564 who classified themselves as of ethnic minority origin and 1,688·5 full-time equivalents who were registered as disabled.

  Trade Union Elections
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from Mrs. Pamela Wilkins and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers about the result of an election to the executive committee of the former National Union of Seamen; how many representations he has received about electoral fraud in the trade unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Employment has received no representations about that particular election. However, continuing public concern about electoral fraud in trade unions led to the proposals in the Green Paper "Industrial Relations in the 1990s", Cm. 1602, which would help ensure that the basic right of union members to free and fair elections is effectively protected. The Government announced on 28 January that they intend to bring forward legislation to put those proposals into effect.

  Low-Energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  As part of the energy efficiency campaign on teh Government estate, it is already the Department's policy to install energy-efficient lighting.

  Earnings
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the earnings, expressed as percentages, of(a) young men under 18 years and (b) young women under 18 years, compared with those aged 18 years and over, in 1979 and at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the average gross weekly earnings of men and women aged under 18 and aged 18 and over, in April 1979 and April 1991, is published in table 124 of part E of the new earnings survey reports for those years.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time males, part-time males, full-time females and part-time females in employment in the Leeds metropolitan district council earn less than £3·40 per hour.
  458
  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 25 November 1991,Official Report, at column 392.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the effect the removal of wages council legal protection for young people has had on low pay and youth unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Since 1986 young people have no longer been subject to the minimum rates of pay decided by wages councils. The average earnings of young people have continued to increase in real terms and the greater flexibility resulting from the removal of wage restrictions will have improved their job prospects. However, we have no information which distinguishes between the effects of wages council reforms and other factors in the labour market on young people's pay.

  Wages Inspectors
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many establishments since 1979 have been found to be underpaying their workers and how many prosecutions have taken place; how many wages inspectors are currently in post and how many establishments they cover; and what was the position in 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Establishments underpaying

  Number

  1979

  10,969

  1980

  12,154

  1981

  10,074

  1982

  9,269

  1983

  9,842

  1984

  9,461

  1985

  9,064

  1986

  8,205

  1987

  4,443

  1988

  5,597

  1989

  5,528

  1990

  5,205

  1991

  n/a

  n/a = not yet available.

  Total prosecutions (including prosecutions for underpayment)

  Number

  1979

  12(9)

  1980

  8(8)

  1981

  10(8)

  1982

  7(4)

  1983

  2(2)

  1984

  2 (2)

  1985

  2(2)

  1986

  3(2)

  1987

  8(4)

  1988

  11(10)

  1989

  10(9)

  1990

  9(5)

  1991

  17(15)

  459

  Wages inspectors in post

  January 1979

  January 1992

  158

  65

  Establishments covered

  1979

  11990

  390,464

  395,181

  1 Latest available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Short Money
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the current level of financial support provided via Short money to the Opposition parties.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Following the resolution of the House on 21 June 1988, payments are made at a scale of £2,550 for every seat won by each party at the preceding general election, plus £5·10 for every 200 votes cast for its candidates. To qualify for such assistance, a party is required either to have won at least two seats at the general election or, if only one seat has been won, to have received at least 150,000 votes.

  Special Standing Committees
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his policy towards an extension of the use of Special Standing Committees to examine legislation prior to Second Reading.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It would be quite inappropriate for detailed consideration of a Bill to take place before the principle had been agreed at Second Reading.

  Select Committees
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his policy towards the Departmental Selection Committees being allowed to play a consultative role in the regular legislative process.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In its report on the working of the Select Committee system—second report, Session 1989–90 —the Procedure Committee did not favour a legislative function for Select Committees related to Government Departments. Nor do I.

  Office Cost Allowance
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the present level of office cost allowance for Back-Bench Members.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The maximum office costs allowance payable to a Member of the House of Commons is £28,986 for the year beginning 1 April 1991, with an additional £2,899–20 per cent.—available for employer pension contributions of staff employed.

  Members' Offices
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) how many rooms are currently available as hon. Members' offices in the Palace of Westminster and other buildings in the parliamentary estate;
  460
  (2) when he expects there to be a sufficient number of offices available to enable each hon. Member to have an offices of his/her own.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  There are at present 294 rooms in the Palace available for Members. A further 236 are located elsewhere in the parliamentary estate. It is expected that, once the phase 2 building is commissioned, every Member who wants a room of his or her own will be able to have one. The timetable for the opening of that building is one of the issues addressed in the report of the Accommodation and Works Committee, due to be published on 27 February.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Library Staff
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is(a) the total number of staff in the House of Commons Library, (b) the total number of staff in the research division of the Commons Library and (c) the number of research staff in the defence and foreign affairs section of the Library.

  Mr. Beith
  The current complement of staff in the Department of the Library, which includes the Vote Office, is 197·2; of that number 52 are employed in the research division and a further 12 in the international affairs and defence section. From 5 April, the total for the international affairs and defence section will be increased to 13.

  Select Committees
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the financial level of support available to each of the departmental Select Committees for the recruitment of the services of specialist advisers.

  Mr. Beith
  A total sum of £257,000 is available in sub-head A.2 (Department of the Clerk of the House) of the vote for House of Commons: administration (class XIX A, vote 1) in the current financial year to meet the fees and other costs of specialist advisers appointed to the Select Committees of the House. The House of Commons Commission does not impose any financial limit on individual Select Committees for the services provided by specialist advisers.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Further Education
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from further education colleges about his policies for further and adult education.

  Mr. Eggar
  A large number of representations were received from further education colleges on the proposals set out in the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" (Cm 1536).

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made on the implementation of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Eggar
  The final subjects in the national curriculum —art, music and physical education—will be introduced on time this September in line with the timetable we set in 1989 and have kept to ever since.

  Research Funding
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what basis future research funding will be assessed for those polytechnics that become universities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  All higher education institutions will be able to compete for funding for basic and strategic research on the basis of assessed quality. The Universities Funding Council has consulted all institutions on the criteria for its forthcoming research assessment exercise.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the closed shop in local student unions.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  During the course of the consultations initiated by the Government on student unions, my right hon. and learned Friend has received a variety of representations for and against automatic membership of student unions.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the extension of grant-maintained status to all schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  The current arrangements by which schools may apply for grant-maintained status following a ballot of parents are proving very successful. We have no plans to change them. In time I expect grant-maintained status to become the norm for secondary schools in particular.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many maintained schools have so far(a) applied for and (b) been granted grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  As at 18 February 1992, 288 schools had applied for grant-maintained status and 199 had been approved, with 55 awaiting decision.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many secondary schools have now been approved for grant-maintained status; and how many applications are still under consideration.

  Mr. Eggar
  As at 18 February, 174 secondary schools had been approved for grant-maintained status and 35 applications were still under consideration.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many grammar schools, whether local education authority provided or grant maintained, there are in the county of Kent; and if he will make a statement.
  462
  Mr. Eggar
  There are 35 grammar schools in Kent, of which 29 are local authority maintained and six are grant maintained.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of teacher training.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I intend to make teacher training, primary and secondary, much more school based. I issued a consultation document on the reform of postgraduate training for secondary school teaching on 28 January. The consultation period will last until the end of March. I have also asked the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education to advise me on the implications for primary teacher training of the recently published discussion paper on curriculum organisation and classroom practice in primary schools.

  School Repairs
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to deal with the backlog of outstanding repairs in schools.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to deal with the backlog of outstanding repairs in schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  We are already providing huge capital resources. More than £700 million is available for maintained school buildings in 1992–93, an increase of nearly 15 per cent. on the year before, and 35 per cent. above 1991. In addition local education authorities are free to top up their education annual capital guidelines from the overall capital resources at their disposal. It is for them to set expenditure levels and priorities and to use their resources efficiently.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will provide specific funding for the repair and maintenance of schools in the city of Leicester.

  Mr. Fallon
  It is not open to the Secretary of State to provide specific funding for such work at county and controlled schools. It is for the local education authority to decide which projects to fund from the capital resources available to it, including education annual capital guidelines made available by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Grant aid for external repairs and for capital work at voluntary-aided schools is available on application in the normal way.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from headteachers about the effect of the standard spending assessment on school budgets for the forthcoming year.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of letters from headteachers about education's share of the local authority grant settlement.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the pupil-teacher ratio in 1991; and what was the figure in 1979.

  Mr. Fallon
  The overall pupil-teacher ratios in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England in January 1991 and January 1979 were 17.20 and 18.95 respectively.

  Education Spending, North Yorkshire
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in north Yorkshire in 1987 and in the current year.

  Mr. Fallon
  In 1986–87, school-based spending in north Yorkshire was on average some £1,055 per nursery, primary and secondary school pupil. In 1989–90, the latest year for which information on actual spending is available, the figure was some £1,390. That represents a real terms increase of 9 per cent.

  Pupil Placements
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate how many pupils are expected to be receiving an education next term in grant-maintained schools or city technology colleges or via the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  Next term, we estimate there will be some 8,000 pupils at CTCs, around 160,000 pupils at grant-maintained schools and 27,400 pupils benefiting from the assisted places scheme.

  London Football Clubs
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had on the effect of the implementation of the Taylor report on first division football clubs in London.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am aware of the concerns of a number of first division clubs about the implementation of the Taylor report but have had no specific consultations with London clubs.

  Teachers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the cost in each of the last five years of the campaign to recruit teachers.

  Mr. Fallon
  The teacher recruitment advertising campaign has run for only two years. The costs are:

  £

  1990–91

  2,200,000

  1991–92

  2,392,000

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.
  464
  Mr. Atkins
  The number of full-time equivalent men and women in each grade on 1 February 1992 was:

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  1–3

  19

  0

  4

  6

  3

  5

  95

  26

  6

  304

  111

  7

  138

  49

  SEO

  51

  31

  HEO

  154

  134

  Administrative Trainee

  5

  0

  EO

  207

  197

  AO

  132

  335

  AA

  77

  160

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Atkins
  On 1 April 1991 the Department employed a headcount total of 2,838 staff of whom 261 respondents to the ethnic monitoring survey were of ethnic minority origins.

  The latest figures provided on registered disabled staff relate to 1 June 1991 at which time there were 70 registered disabled staff out of a total of 2,679 full-time equivalent staff. There are other staff in the Department with disabilities who have chosen not to register and are not included in the above figure.

  Reading Standards
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children under seven years of age have not reached a satisfactory standard of reading; and what is his estimate of the numbers who would benefit from a child-centred recovery scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  Pupil's reading abilities are tested under the national curriculum at the end of key stage I when most pupils are aged seven. The 1991 national tests revealed that 28 per cent. of seven-year-olds had not yet reached level 2 in reading, the target set for typical seven-year-olds.

  It is for individual schools to decide how to tackle pupils' reading needs. However, we are undertaking a national trial of the reading recovery programme to be conducted in some 200 inner-city schools in 21 local authorities, and focusing on children who, at the age of six, are experiencing difficulty in learning to read and write. About £10 million is planned to be supported with specific grant under the grants for education support and training programme over the three years 1992–93 to 1994–95 for this and other reading initiatives for inner-city schools.

  Music
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the extent to which his draft orders for music in the national curriculum will meet his original intention of achieving a broad and balanced curriculum.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's plans for the music curriculum for children aged five to 14 will ensure that all pupils for the first time receive a rigorous and balanced musical education as an integral part of a broad national curriculum. Our plans for increasing the choice of study
  465
  available for 14 to 16-year-olds will ensure that pupils have the opportunity to follow their own particular inclinations and strengths, while still being required to pursue a broader and more balanced curriculum than hitherto.

  Institute Lane Langevin
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of British participation in the Institute Laue Langevin at Grenoble.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Further to my answer to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on 28 November 1991,Official Report, column 590, about the review by the Science and Engineering Research Council of neutron science, formal notice was given on 16 December 1991 of the United Kingdom's intention to terminate the present Institut Laue Langevin (ILL) convention with effect from 1 January 1994, and of our wish to replace it with a new convention from that date. Discussions on this are now in progress with French and German partners in ILL.

  NALGO
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met members of NALGO to discuss expenditure on education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not had any such meeting.

  Low-Energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Mr. Atkins
  Practically all the Department's buildings are equipped with low-energy lighting. It is the Department's policy progressively to install energy efficient lighting in premises where such equipment is not already fitted.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Board

  Number of vacancies filled

  Number of applications received

  Number of vacancies filled

  Number of applications received

  Number of vacancies filled

  Number of applications received

  Belfast

  102

  585

  105

  1,249

  98

  823

  North-Eastern

  64

  463

  81

  762

  68

  458

  South-Eastern

  82

  949

  73

  1,228

  32

  267

  Southern

  41

  467

  82

  1,194

  120

  1,924

  Western

  93

  1,065

  77

  650

  96

  683

  In 1989 one complaint against the Southern board was taken to the Fair Employment Agency which upheld the board's decision. In 1990 two complaints were made to the North-Eastern board but went no further. In 1991 two complaints against the Southern board were taken to the Fair Employment Commission, one is now awaiting a tribunal hearing, the other, together with a third complaint, against the Western board, is still under consideration.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show for each of the last three years for which figures are available the number of vacancies filled by the Housing Executive, the

  Capital Expenditure, Newham
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the capital expenditure on education by Her Majesty's Government in the London borough of Newham since June 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The available data indicate that capital allocations for education within Newham LEA since 1981–82 amount to more than £43 million.

  European Community and Sport
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the Government's position in response to the European Commission's communication on the European Community and sport.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's position is set out in an explanatory memorandum which I submitted to Parliament on 14 February.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show the number of vacancies filled in each of the education and library board headquarters, in each of the last available three years, the number of applications received by each board in each of those years, and the number of complaints made under the fair employment legislation in respect of those posts in each year and the number of such complaints which went to a tribunal; how many went to court; what amount of compensation was paid; and how many are still ongoing.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  number of applications received by the Executive for those posts in each year and the number of complaints made under the fair employment legislation in respect of those posts in each year and the number of such complaints which went to a tribunal; how many went to court; what sums were paid in compensation; and how many are still ongoing.

  Mr. Needham
  The information available is as follows:

  1990

  1991

  Number of vacancies filled

  588

  131

  Number of applications received

  7,000

  4,500

  467
  I am advised by the chairman of the Housing Executive that there were no complaints in 1989 or 1991. In 1990 four complaints were taken to the Fair Employment Commission which is still considering them.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken by the rate collection agency to appoint equality officers to ensure that fair employment legislation and sex discrimination legislation is being adhered to in relation to all staff appointments.

  Mr. Needham
  The rate collection agency has no responsibility for the appointment of its staff. All permanent appointments to the agency are made by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland which has a full-time equal opportunities officer in its employment.

  The recruitment of casual staff by the agency is monitored centrally by the equal opportunities unit of the Department of Finance and Personnel.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what steps have been taken by the area education and library boards to appoint equality officers to ensure that fair employment and sex discrimination legislation is being adhered to in relation to all staff appointments;

  (2) what steps have been taken to ensure that persons involved in interview panels in the area education and library boards are adequately briefed about employment legislation to ensure equality under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989 and the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1988.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Following the publication of an equal opportunities policy statement in 1989, committing the boards to the principle of equality of opportunity, each board established an equal opportunties unit, in January 1990, to comply with its statutory obligations.

  This policy statement is emphasised within the overall training programme for board members, officers of the boards, school governors and members of governing bodies of institutions of further education, including training for membership of selection panels for recruitment and promotion purposes. A guidance memorandum has been issued by the boards to all boards of governors, together with a distance learning package, providing advice on all matters relating to equality of opportunity for persons both employed and seeking employment.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to appoint equality officers to ensure that fair employment and sex discrimination legislation is being adhered to in relation to all staff appointments.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by its chairman that the executive has implemented a number of steps to ensure that the fair employment and sex discrimination legislation is being adhered to in relation to all staff appointments.

  An equal opportunities unit was established in 1989 and its staff are trained in the legislation relating to fair employment and sex discrimination. The unit is
  468
  responsible for monitoring the impact of personnel policies, including recruitment, throughout the organisation and has developed equal opportunities polices in respect of sex, religion and disability. The application of policies which have been approved by the board of the Executive and agreed with the staff trade union, NIPSA, is monitored by the unit.

  The unit has also organised several seminars to ensure that staff are aware of the policies and that they are implemented effectively.

  The Executive has also set up an equality working group, which is comprised of a wide spectrum of Executive staff from across the Province, and participates in the employers equality group which has representatives from some of the major employers in the Province.

  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken by each district council to appoint equality officers to ensure that fair employment and sex discrimination legislation is being adhered to in relation to all staff appointments.

  Mr. Needham
  District councils are employers in their own right and it is a matter, therefore, for each council to ensure that it complies with the statutory requirements of the fair employment and sex discrimination legislation.

  I understand, however, that every council, in recognition of the importance of the requirements, has allocated responsibility for monitoring equality of opportunity to an officer at chief officer level.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure that persons involved in interview panels in the Northern Ireland Tourist Board are adequately briefed about employment legislation to ensure equality under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 and the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  Fair employment and sex discrimination legislation are emphasised in training programmes for all board staff likely to be involved in selection interviewing. In advance of selection interviews panel members receive written guidance on good practice and are fully briefed on their responsibilities.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure that persons involved in interview panels in the rate collection agency are adequately briefed about employment legislation to ensure equality under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 and the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  The Rate Collection Agency does not at present have responsibility for the convening of interview panels to fill posts within the agency. All full-time appointments to the agency are made by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and where recruitment of such staff is involved this is undertaken by recruitment branch of the Department of Finance and Personnel.

  In so far as recruitment for casual employment is concerned this is undertaken by the agency's own staff by way of interview panels normally consisting of two persons. Only those staff who have received training in recruitment interviewing by the Department of the

  469
  Environment's training branch are eligible to sit on such panels. This training includes briefing on employment legislation in Northern Ireland.

  Promotion to higher grades is also presently the responsibility of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. All agency staff who meet the eligibility criteria for promotion are entitled to be considered and all promotion panels are set up by the Department of the Environment in accordance with established civil service procedures.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure that persons involved in interview panels in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are adequately briefed about employment legislation to ensure equality under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 and the Sex Discrimination Order (Northern Ireland) 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by its chairman that all staff involved in interviewing either internal or external candidates for posts in the executive must complete a three-day training course. The course contains specific elements relating to equal opportunities issues including fair employment and sex discrimination legislation. Participants are given an overview of the legislation, its purpose and the need for monitoring, together with illustration of types of direct and indirect discriminatory practices.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure that persons involved in interview panels in district councils are adequately briefed about employment legislation to ensure equality under the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989 and the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  Under section 40 of the Local Government Act (NI) 1972 the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland is responsible for establishing a code of procedure for securing fair and equal consideration of applications to district councils by persons seeking to be employed by them.

  The staff commission has established an equality of opportunity working group to review the equality of opportunity policies and practices of district councils. It is anticipated that the staff commission will produce a code of practice on recruitment and selection in May this year for adoption by all councils. The code will require all those involved in interview panels to be properly trained on all aspects of fair employment and sex discrimination legislation. Training will be undertaken by the staff commission and the Public Service Training Council.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to appoint equality officers who will ensure that fair employment legislation and sex discrimination legislation is being adhered to in relation to all staff appointments.

  Mr. Needham
  The responsibilities of the board's personnel manager include those of equality officer.

  Improvement and Repair Grants
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many applications for improvement grants have been(a) made, (b) approved and (c) refused in each year from 1 April 1988, and from 1 April to 31 December 1991, at (i) Lisburn and (ii) Newry offices;

  (2) how many applications for repair grants have been (a) made, (b) approved and (c) refused in each year from 1 April 1988, and from 1 April to 31 December 1991 at (i) Lisburn and (ii) Newry offices.

  Mr. Needham
  These are matters for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but the chairman has advised me that information about the number of cases refused is not recorded and that details of the number of applications received is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of applications approved are as follows:

  Year

  Improvement Grants

  Repair Grants

  Lisburn

  Newry

  Lisburn

  Newry

  1988–89

  158

  305

  318

  181

  1989–90

  127

  195

  330

  205

  1990–91

  153

  192

  200

  170

  11991–92

  142

  172

  207

  130

  1 To 31 December 1991.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for improvement and repair grants have not been approved due to the current moratorium placed on all capital expenditure at (i) Lisburn and (ii) Newry offices.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but the chairman has informed me that approval of applications for improvement and repair grants has not been affected by the temporary pause in spending on new capital contracts and some maintenance works.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs he estimates to have been lost in the construction industry as a result of the moratorium placed on capital expenditure in early December 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  It is not possible to assess accurately the impact on jobs in the construction industry of the temporary pause in spending on new capital contracts and some maintenance works. The overall employment effects are likely to be minimal as the total volume of public expenditure has not been reduced.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list new housing associations in Northern Ireland registered since 31 December 1987; and how many habitations are provided by each of them.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has registered only one housing association since 31 December 1987. The Oaklee housing association, which was registered on 4 November 1991, does not currently provide any units of habitation, but it
  471
  will take over the properties currently owned by the James Butcher and Nih housing associations when the merger of these two associations is completed on 6 April 1992. The combined stock will consist of 1,473 self-contained dwellings and 254 bed spaces in shared accommodation.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list details of grants and loans made to each unregistered housing association in Northern Ireland by the Housing Executive from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991, and from 1 April 1991 to 31 December 1991;

  (2) if he will list details of grants and loans made to each housing association in Northern Ireland by the Housing Executive from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991, and from 1 April 1991 to 31 December 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  The chairman of the Housing Executive has advised me that grants to unregistered housing associations in Northern Ireland have been paid as follows:

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  11991 £

  Glenall Housing Co-operative

  —

  —

  3,750

  7,500

  Victoria Estates

  405

  405

  405

  405

  1 1 April 1991 to 31 December 1991.

  The Housing Executive has not made any loans to unregistered housing associations in the period since 1 April 1988.

  No grants or loans have been made to registered housing associations in these periods. Government funding of registered housing associations is channelled through the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland; such details as are available are set out in the answer which I gave the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) on 22 October 1991—Official Report, columns 554–57.

  Privatisations
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what change there will be to the block vote to Northern Ireland as a result of the privatisation of Harland and Wolff and Shorts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  These privatisations do not affect the overall level of resources allocated to the Northern Ireland block, which is adjusted mainly through the operation of the comparability arrangements. Some payments are still to be made to the companies under the privatisation agreements but these will taper off over time.

  "The Way Ahead"
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to implement the proposals contained in the Housing Executive document about rural unfitness entitled, "The Way Ahead".

  Mr. Needham
  Implementation of the proposals contained in "The Way Ahead" is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chairman that a number have already been put into practice. This has in some instances required detailed consultation with the Department of the 472
  Environment for Northern Ireland who will continue to support the executive's contribution to the rural initiative programme by responding as quickly as possible to any remaining policy issues.

  Anglo-Irish Conference
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when is the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish ministerial conference.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The next meeting of the conference is likely to take place shortly.

  EC Programmes
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the £18 million approved by the European Commission in respect of STRIDE, Prisma and Telematique programmes will be allocated in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The amounts of EC aid allocated to the Northern Ireland programmes are as follows:

  £10 million—STRIDE

  £4 million—Prisma

  £4 million—Telematique

  All three programmes will be managed by the Department of Economic Development. Press announcements seeking applications for assistance under the STRIDE measure have already appeared and similar calls for Prisma and Telematique projects will be made shortly.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been charged with(a) an offence under section 25(2)(b) section 25(3)(a) or (c) section 25(3)(b) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: No persons have been charged with an offence under any of these provisions since the coming into force of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 on 27 August last year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Frankfurt Exhibition
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of support offered by his Department in respect of the Frankfurt international trade exhibition 1992 to the pottery industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department did not provide financial assistance to the pottery industry for this event.

  British Technology Group
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has discussed with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals or the heads of the research councils the sale of the British Technology Group.

  Mr. Leigh
  The DTI consulted with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the United Kingdom
  473
  universities about the invitations and advertisements issued in connection with the sale of British Technology Group plc, as required by section 7 of the British Technology Group Act 1991.

  Bureaux de Change
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to control exchange rate indications by bureaux de change.

  Mr. Lilley
  For too long the incomplete and obscure way some signs setting out exchange rate indications are displayed has led to confusion. Regulations I have laid before the House today will enable consumers to compare rates more easily and shop around for the best deal.

  The Price Indications (Bureaux de Change) Regulations 1992 mean that exchange rate indications must: give full details of the terms on which transactions will be conducted. Where an operator buys and sells a currency at different rates, or buys and sells travellers cheques at different rates from notes, all rates will have to be given; give full information on commission rates and any other fees, giving them the same degree of prominence as the exchange rates themselves; be easily visible to customers as they approach the premises.

  In addition, customers must be given: all information relevant to a particular transaction when they enquire about an exchange rate; receipts setting out details of the transaction, except in the case of some machines; a clear explanation of the basis on which the rate will be determined when currency is ordered for supply at a later date.

  Bureaux de change must comply with these regulations which come into force on 18 May 1992.

  However, requirements to display the information on fees and commission rates with the same degree of prominence as the exchange rates themselves will take effect on 18 May 1993. This is to allow operators time to modify or replace display equipment.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by EC member states towards providing for a single market in financial services with respect in particular to cross border branch networks and to cross border investment by one financial institution in another.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 February 1992]: The United Kingdom financial services sector already conducts a great deal of cross-border business either through subsidiaries or under the freedoms enshrined in the treaty of Rome. The single market programme was designed to facilitate this further by allowing insurance companies, banks, building societies and investment firms the ability to conduct business throughout the EC on the basis of home state authorisation.

  Political agreement has been reached on a directive creating more freedom in non-life insurance and should be adopted by the Council of Ministers before the summer. Adoption of its sister directive on life assurance is expected by the end of this year.

  The adopted second banking co-ordination directive will, from 1 January 1993, enable a credit institution—a bank or a building society in the United Kingdom—to branch and offer services into other member states on the
  474
  basis of certain agreed minimum standards. The supervisory arrangements to deal with cross-border investment by credit institutions in groups which include a bank will also be covered by the second banking consolidated supervision directive which is expected to be adopted shortly.

  Negotiations on the investment services directive, which is intended to allow investment firms to establish branches and provide services throughout the EC subject to minimum standards, are stalled over draft provisions which would impose rules and restrictions on where and how financial transactions are undertaken. The United Kingdom supports the view of a number of member states that these measures would not open the EC investment services market and the directive would, in its current form, hinder the single market in financial services.

  Coalfield Areas (Support)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his statement of 17 February,Official Report, column 22, what contact he had with Commissioner Milian concerning the level and scope of the new business support measures in coalfield areas; what amount of financial resources will be concerned; and from what estimate they will be authorised.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: The United Kingdom RECHAR programmes sent to the European Commission in July 1990 all proposed that business support measures should be implemented as part of these programmes.

  Implementation was delayed by the delay to the Commission's approval of the programmes in general. We have informed the Commission in outline about the proposed business support measures, which form one part of the programmes to be approved by Commissioner Millan.

  I told the House on 17 February, Official Report, column 22 that, to contribute to the RECHAR programmes, the Government will shortly be announcing methods of new business support measures of our own to assist small firms in coalfield areas.

  Defence Sales
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much, in each of the last five years, of the Export Credits Guarantee Department budget was available to support overseas defence sales.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: No amounts are set aside specifically for defence sales. Ministers announced in June 1988 a facility for providing £1 billion of export credit support for major defence exports, Official Report, 28 June 1988, columns 164–65. While the limit has been largely utilised, this represents only the level of defence sales supported within the terms of the facility.

  EC Co-operative Statute
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the organisations that the United Kingdom Government are consulting on the draft European co-operative statute, adopted by the European Commission in December 1991.
  475
  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: The Government have not yet received a formal translation of the Commission's draft European co-operative statute. Consultation with interested bodies in the United Kingdom will take place as appropriate when we receive a formal proposal.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of each external consultancy study undertaken in each of the last five years into the operation of the national engineering laboratory.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: Since the study by Touche Ross Management Consultants, completed in April 1989, there has been no external consultancy study covering the overall operation of NEL.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: I refer to the list of the departmental programmes given to the hon. Member on 1 July 1991, Official Report, column 20. Supporting publicity for those programmes continues, but there are no current plans for television advertising in the period referred to.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it a requirement that the statement in "Social Fund Manual" paragraph 5023 be included in all area social fund officers' guidance.

  Mr. Scott
  We are currently considering the need for extending and amending the existing advice to area social fund officers on the production of their guidance.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest estimates of how many pensioners are(a) male, (b) female, (c) single and (d) married, in Great Britain.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In mid-1990 the estimated number, in thousands, of men and women at state pension age and over in Great Britain was:

  Men

  Women

  Married:

  2,536

  2,995

  Not Married:

  987

  3,741

  Source: OPCS mid-year estimates.

  Low-Energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.
  476
  Mr. Jack
  The Department is committed to promoting energy efficiency and this policy was confirmed in the reply given to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 28 January 1991 at column 431–32 and at paragraph 122 of the 1992 departmental report (Cm. 1914), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland are paying national insurance contributions as self-employed.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available separately for Scotland.

  Pensions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 96, what would be the net cost to the Exchequer of raising the basic state pension in 1992–93 to £59.15 per week for single pensioners and £95·70 per week for married couples on the same basis as given in that answer, after taking into account extra income tax receipts and off-setting savings on expenditure on income-related benefits;

  (2) what would be the net cost to the Exchequer, after taking into account higher tax receipts and savings on expenditure on income-related benefits, of increasing the basic state pension in 1992–93 to £59·15 per week for single people and to £94·70 per week for married couples, on the basis that the increased pensions were paid to all regardless of contributory record.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 7 February 1992]: Information on the savings on income-related benefits is not yet available for 1992–93 in the form requested. However, using existing basic pension rates increased by £5 per week for a single person, giving £57 and £8 per week a married couple, giving £91·25, costings comparable with 1992–93 can be made.

  For 1991–92 the gross cost would be £3·9 billion with offsetting savings of £1·0 billion on income-related benefits. Income tax receipts would rise by £0·2 billion. The net cost to the Exchequer would be £2·7 billion. The combined cost of this increase in national insurance contributions to a man on full-time average earnings and his employer would be £5·20 per week in 1991–92.

  Pension Rights
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will introduce an early warning system to inform contributors that they need to make back payments on their national insurance contributions to maximise their pension rights; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will produce advice for the public on arrangements for making back-payments of national insurance contributions to help people to maximise their pension rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: The Department already writes automatically to relevant groups of contributors following the end of any year in which their contribution record is insufficient to count towards basic retirement pension. In addition, the

  477
  Department also provides a retirement pension forecast to contributors: they can request a forecast by completing an application form (BR 19) obtainable at local social security offices. The forecast gives details of the pension entitlement based on the national insurance record held. It states the number of qualifying years required in the future to obtain the maximum pension which can be achieved, and offers advice on the payment of additional contributions, if required.

  The Contributions Agency has a high level of commitment to provide information and assistance to all its customers. This is shown in the charters recently issued by the agency and I will send the hon. Member copies of these documents.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Ambulance Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for the Scottish Ambulance Service, Greater Glasgow area, in April 1991 and December 1991 the number of(a) urgent calls and (b) emergency calls.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information about the Greater Glasgow area is:

  April 1991

  December 1991

  Number of urgent calls

  2,762

  2,779

  Number of emergency calls

  3,415

  4,175

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of cases currently being considered by the procurator fiscal for fatal accident investigation in which delay in ambulance response from the Scottish Ambulance Service, Greater Glasgow area, is considered a possible factor.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am advised by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that no such cases are currently being considered.

  Lead Poisoning
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department are conducting into the dangers of lead poisoning, especially for children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In January 1992 the chief scientist office of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department approved funding amounting to £27,000 for a one-year study by Dr. Mary Fulton of the University of Edinburgh to determine the impact of treating water to reduce its lead content on the blood lead levels of those children who participated in her earlier research into the influence of blood lead on the ability and attainment of children in Edinburgh.

  The health implications of lead are fully recognised by the Government and measures have been taken to reduce lead exposure through petrol, water, industrial emissions and a range of other sources.

  Pittenweem Harbour
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to give borrowing consent to Fife regional council for the construction of a breakwater at Pittenweem harbour.
  478
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend expects to announce his decisions on capital expenditure consents for local authorities very shortly.

  Texts (Efficiency Scrutiny)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the efficiency scrutiny of text creation in the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Lang
  The efficiency scrutiny was recently completed and I have today placed in the House Library a copy of the scrutiny team's report. It makes a number of recommendations. My Department will now produce an action plan outlining the Scottish Office response to the report.

  Candidiasis and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the provision made by each health board in the treatment of candidiasis and myalgic encephalomyelitis; and what is the approximate spend of each health board annually on such treatment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: Treatment of these conditions is a matter for general practitioners in the first instance. Costs for the treatment of these conditions cannot be identified separately.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the television advertising campaigns and all other publicity campaigns costing over £100,000 to be carried out by his Department in February, March, April, May or June of the current year.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: A television and press publicity campaign on solvent misuse and drug abuse is currently running in Scotland and will continue into March. The cost is £115,000. To date, the only campaign planned for the next financial year is one to promote car crime prevention. It will run on television in April and May at a cost of 110,000.

TRANSPORT

  Shipping (North Sea)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to restrict North sea supply vessels to those which sail under the British flag.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. It is our policy to seek the removal of such restrictions elsewhere. Liberalisation of cabotage trade, including offshore supply services, is currently one of our main objectives in the European Community. We believe this to be in the best interests of the British shipping industry as well as of those who use its services.

  Blackwall Tunnel
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, as part of the improvements for traffic control and avoidance of delays and congestion in and
  479
  around the Blackwall tunnel, he will consider the merits of reverting to the practice of having a heavy duty breakdown vehicle permanently stationed at the north exit of that tunnel.

  Mr. Chope
  I shall consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

  Air Traffic Noise
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider using the noise line statistics when judging the impact of air traffic on local communities.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My noble Friend wrote to the hon. Member on this subject on 18 February.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of the grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The table shows staff in the Department of Transport and its agencies by grade equivalent and gender. The figures reflect staff in post at 1 April 1991 of 15,984.

  DTp staff by grade equivalent at 1 April 1991

  Grade

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 2

  4

  0

  4

  Grade 3

  23

  0

  23

  Grade 4

  17

  0

  17

  Grade 5

  107

  9

  116

  Grade 6

  149

  6

  155

  Grade 7

  686

  69

  755

  SEO

  917

  72

  989

  HEO

  1,098

  310

  1,408

  EO

  3,122

  1,085

  4,207

  AO

  1,597

  2,655

  4,252

  AA

  951

  3,097

  4,048

  Other

  9

  0

  9

  Total

  8,681

  7,303

  15,984

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The total number of non-industrial staff in post in the Department of Transport, and its agencies, on 1 April 1991 was 15,484. A survey of the ethnic origin of non-industrial staff showed that of the respondents—representing 81 per cent. of the Department —619 were from ethnic minority groups.

  MOT Tests
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many MOT tests were conducted in the area of Hawick, Roxburghshire in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  There were 5,595 MOT tests carried out in the Hawick area between January and December 1991.

  British Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether it is his intention that the provisions of the citizens charter applicable to British Rail will also apply to private sector rail operators after privatisation of the railway;

  (2) how many civil servants he estimates will be required to be employed in regulation of safety, access, fares, franchising and service standards monitoring of the railway system after privatisation; and whether their costs will be met by the Exchequer or the railway customer;

  (3) to which authority he intends to give responsibiliy for the safety training of railway staff and for testing in professional competence following the privatisation of British Rail;

  (4) what obligations he intends to place on private sector operators taking over parts of British Rail to contribute to the work of the Railway Heritage Trust and to continue and expand the community involvement currently undertaken by British Rail;

  (5) how he intends introduction of automatic train protection will be financed following the privatisation of British Rail;

  (6) to whom he intends to give responsibility for the maintenance of the bridges, viaducts and other structures on closed branch lines following the privatisation of British Rail;

  (7) which company or authority he intends to nominate to take over the 50 per cent. share of channel tunnel capacity contracted jointly to British Rail and French Railways following privatisation of British Rail;

  (8) how he intends essential safety expenditure will be financed following the privatisation of British Rail;

  (9) what arrangements he intends to make for railway research and development following the privatisation of British Rail;

  (10) which authority he intends will represent Britain's railways on the International Union of Railways and the Community of European Railways following the privatisation of British Rail;

  (11) how he intends to ensure the co-ordination of the planning and publication of timetables and the provision of train service information to customers throughout Great Britain following the privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  We shall make known our proposals in due course.

  Passenger Transport, South-East
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the total number of passengers (expressed as millions of passenger miles) carried by(a) London Underground, (b) London Buses, including tendered routes and (c) Network SouthEast in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Passenger miles (millions)

  London Underground

  London bus services1

  Network SouthEast

  1980

  2,640

  2,579

  8,100

  1981

  2,540

  2,500

  8,000

  1982

  2,270

  2,320

  7,000

  1983

  2,700

  2,436

  7,800

  1984–85

  3,340

  2,587

  7,400

  481

  London Underground

  London bus services1

  Network SouthEast

  1985–86

  3,710

  2,562

  8,100

  1986–87

  3,862

  2,687

  8,500

  1987–88

  3,888

  2,786

  9,000

  1988–89

  3,910

  2,769

  9,400

  1989–90

  3,738

  2,728

  9,300

  1990–91

  3,830

  2,713

  9,300

  1 Including tendered routes.

  Speed Limiters
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he intends to implement the provisions of the recently agreed EC directive requiring the fitment of speed limiters to heavy goods vehicles and passenger-carrying vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  The United Kingdom has been ahead of the EC in recognising the road safety and environmental benefits associated with speed limiters. It has been a requirement to fit speed limiters on new coaches since April 1989; and new goods vehicles over 7·5 tonnes maximum weight will have to have limiters fitted from 1 August 1992. In addition, domestic regulations already require existing coaches registered since April 1974 to have speed limiters fitted.

  We consulted last year on a proposal to require speed limiters to be fitted to certain types of existing heavy goods vehicles over 16 tonnes, and regulations to implement that initiative will be made shortly. We shall also be introducing regulations requiring that limiters must be secured against tampering only by officially approved centres.

  Domestic regulations will need to be amended in due course to accommodate the additional requirements in the EC directive which will effectively limit the maximum speed of the coaches concerned to 65 mph, and the maximum speed of the heavy goods vehicles concerned to 56 mph. The regulations on existing heavy vehicles and coaches will also have to be extended to accommodate the slightly wider requirements of the EC directive. These amendments, which will ensure that domestic legislation satisfies all the EC requirements, will not need to be implemented until 1994 at the earliest.

  M6
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current position on the proposed widening of the M6 and the competition for a private sector route in the Birmingham to Manchester corridor.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have today announced plans for widening the M6 between junctions 11 and 20 to dual four-lane carriageway at an estimated cost of £450 million. A copy of the press notice setting out the details of what is proposed has been placed in the Library. I have also announced the decision that, for a variety of reasons, ranging from environmental to operational, none of the proposals received in response to the competition for a new privately-funded route in the Birmingham-Manchester corridor are to be taken forward. However, we shall keep under review the scope for involving the private sector further in road provision throughout the network.

  In widening the M6, environmental assessment will be carried out and landscaping, planting and noise protection
  482
  measures will be used extensively. We shall continue to consult local authorities and other interested organisations as we develop designs for widening. We will mount exhibitions to show our designs to the public and enable them to comment, prior to embarking on the normal statutory procedures required for this kind of road improvement.

  Birmingham Western Orbital Route
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to announce the next stage of the competition to build a privately funded Birmingham western orbital route.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am today inviting pre-qualifying bids for this scheme from the private sector. A notice is being published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  The aim of this pre-qualifying stage is to provide a basis for selecting a limited number of tenderers to avoid wasted tendering effort by the industry. The short-listed candidates will then be invited to tender to design, build, finance and operate the new road as a tolled road under a concession agreement with the Department.

  Authorisation for the road scheme will be sought by procedures introduced by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The road will be required to meet the same environmental and safety standards as any public sector scheme and there will be the same opportunity for a public inquiry.

  The aim is for the scheme to be completed in the late 1990s, the same target as for the previous public scheme.

  Low-Energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Guidance on the use of low-energy lighting has been issued throughout this Department and has already been applied in a number of its buildings. Such systems will be progressively introduced where it is cost effective to do so.

  Motorway Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has made of the impact of lighting on motorways on the incidence of driver/ passenger fatalities and accidents; and with what results.

  Mr. Chope
  The results of a study undertaken by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory were published in 1987. The study concluded that there does not appear to be any evidence to support an increase in the Department's current assumption of a 30 per cent. reduction in night-time accidents, but the range of uncertainty remains high.

  British International Helicopters
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the procedures that were followed when British Airways was privatised with regard to the arrangements entered into
  483
  over British International Helicopters; and what steps were taken to preserve the interests of the Exchequer and the staff of British International Helicopters.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  British International Helicopters, formerly British Airways Helicopters Ltd. (BAHL), a subsidiary of British Airways, was sold in September 1986, prior to the privatisation of British Airways. The decision to sell BAHL and the details of the negotiations were commercial matters for the British Airways Board.

  Aberdeen Airways
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent application has been received for the operation of Aberdeen Airways; and what factors are taken into account in considering such applications.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority has referred the case of Aberdeen Airways to the Secretary of State for Transport under section 66(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 for a decision as to whether the airline's air transport licences should be revoked. All such cases are considered on their merits.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.1
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank
The right honourable William Thomas Rodgers, Esquire, having been created Baron Rodgers of Quarry Bank, of Kentish Town in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Croham and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Cambodia
2.48 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What contribution they are now making to the process of rebuilding Cambodia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we are playing a full and active part, bilaterally and as a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, in the implementation of the comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodian conflict and the rebuilding of Cambodia.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while the House will gladly recognise what has been done, does the Minister agree that the situation remains grim, with reports of rampant inflation, hunger, lack of medical supplies and personnel, banditry, 500,000 mines hampering agriculture and the resettlement of refugees and displaced people, only 3 per cent. of the people having access to safe drinking water and 85 per cent. carrying water-borne parasites? In view of all that and the nightmare of the Pol Pot years, can the Government assure us that they are doing everything possible to bring about adequate assistance and effective co-ordination of government, UN and NGO assistance?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that a great deal needs to be done in Cambodia. Having been there recently I know what an enormous task the UN faces. It is the biggest task which the UN has undertaken. The Secretary General of the United Nations has appointed a special representative—Mr. Akashi—and it is hoped that the United Nations team will be on the ground in April.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge that the Minister has been to Cambodia to see for himself some of the very serious problems which have been outlined by my noble friend. Does he agree that in
162
addition to the problems which my noble friend mentioned there are also grave suspicions that Pol Pot and his evil followers have not been eliminated?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, certainly the Khmer Rouge still exists in Cambodia. It is part of the peace settlement and without it there would be no peace settlement.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, in undertaking the enormous task which the Minister has described, is the United Nations receiving proper finance and has the United States yet paid the debt which it owes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are awaiting the final announcement of the financial situation with regard to the UNTAC forces to be put into Cambodia. It is estimated that the cost will be about 2 billion dollars. The House may be interested to know that about 16,000 military personnel, 3,000 police and up to 4,000 civilians will be deployed, together with 60,000 locally recruited personnel.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that a know-how fund along the lines of that we have already set up for the Eastern European countries would be a good idea in order to help Cambodia in its present plight?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, not at the moment. Perhaps that is for the longer term. It is important to support the United Nations P5 initiative which is taking forward the process of rebuilding Cambodia to get it through to elections next year. That is the first stage.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that although his reply to my noble friend was most interesting, he did not in fact answer the question? Am I to assume that that means that the United States has not paid its dues?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is another Question not related to the one on the Order Paper.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, that was the question that my noble friend asked. Has the United States paid its share?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not dispute that that was the question the noble Lord asked. I did not answer it because it was not relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Judd: My Lords, notwithstanding the assurances given by the Minister, is he aware that there are reports that the United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia is still not certain what its final budget or staffing levels will be? Is he also aware that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has a budget of 144 million dollars for its operations and that so far only 50 million dollars have been pledged?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I appreciate that the financial situation is not yet clear. We are still working on it in the United Nations. We hope to get further information in the very near future about what the amount will be. It will be difficult to work out

163
exactly what the UNHCR's costs will be until the end of the process. I can tell the House that we contributed £2 million to the UNHCR to help with the repatriation of refugees. In particular we are giving aid by putting in temporary bridges at Poipet, which is on the border of Thailand, and at Sisophon. We have earmarked funds for a permanent bridge at Poipet.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House exactly what is the position of Pol Pot? Did he not start the most brutal attack ever committed by any communist organisation anywhere in the world? Yet is he not trying to regain power in Cambodia at the present time?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no doubt the whole House would agree with my noble friend that, although Pol Pot was initially welcomed when he took power, the regime that he imposed upon the Cambodian people was one of the most frightful that the world has seen. What is important is that we take forward the peace process so that the Cambodian people themselves can decide their future at the elections to be held next year.

Refugees: Assistance to Bangladesh
2.53 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance they have offered to the Government of Bangladesh in coping with the recent problem of refugees from Burma.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have made £100,000 available in response to an appeal received from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Will he confirm that there are as many as 50,000 refugees who have crossed from Burma into Bangladesh? Is he aware that there are rumours of an agreement that they should be forced back into Burma? Does he agree that the circumstances in Burma are such that no one should be forced back into that country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that the figure given by the noble Lord of about 50,000 to 60,000 is roughly accurate. It is difficult to be absolutely precise because some 1,000 refugees arrive daily. I agree with the noble Lord that the situation in Burma is appalling. The treatment of the ethnic minorities—considered not to be true Burmese people —is something that we should condemn.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House which country has been most obstructive in trying to bring about help to Burma? The other day he told us that the problem in bringing full assistance to Burma was that one or two of the surrounding countries were being unhelpful. Will he be so good as to name those countries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is about the refugees who go to Bangladesh.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his encouraging reply to the Question. Is he aware that I shall have great pleasure in passing it on to the wife of the former vice-president of Bangladesh when she has tea with me this afternoon?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. Perhaps she can inform her guest at tea that the appeal was issued on 11th February and that we responded on 12th February.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that if we are concerned about refugees, we must be concerned about the cause for refugees. What are HMG doing, together with their partners in the European Community, through the Security Council to tackle the appalling situation within Burma itself? Furthermore, what representations have been made to China about the supply of arms by China to Burma?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have made a number of official statements both on a bilateral basis and through the European Community. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have raised the question of arms with the Chinese at recent meetings.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the Burmese army still occupies part of Bangladesh and whether it continues to put pressure on the Moslem community in the part of Burma that adjoins the border with Bangladesh, forcing those people to cross the border as refugees?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot help my noble friend on his question about whether the Burmese are occupying part of Bangladesh. It is clear that they are putting enormous pressure on the Moslems, as a result of the action that they took—I believe, in 1982—which in their eyes differentiated those who were true Burmese and those who were not. On one side, on the Thai border, they are persecuting the Karens; on the other side, they are persecuting the Moslems.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there has been a European Community contribution in addition to the £100,000 referred to from the United Kingdom? If there should be a request from the UNHCR for assistance in dealing with any long-term refugee settlement, will the Government look sympathetically at it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are grateful that the Bangladeshis approached the UNHCR, which has a team on the ground at the moment. We shall await the results before considering further action. The European Community has set aside £665,000 to be provided for aid. Of that, Britain pays 20 per cent., which will be about £133,000. At the moment, together with the Government's payment of £100,000 and £50,000 by the Red Cross, we are the largest donor.

Nurses: Grading Appeals
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How long it will take to clear the estimated backlog of 35,000 appeals from nurses against their grading.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we have emphasised that we wish to see clinical grading appeals at all levels heard quickly and fairly. The procedure under which those appeals are heard is a matter for the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council which is working towards an agreement on streamlining the appeals, and which should significantly speed up the process.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree that the position does not sound very hopeful, bearing in mind that at present there are 1,400 appeals waiting at national level and that last year only 87 appeals were heard by that appeal panel? Is she aware that at least 10,000 of the appeals are expected to come up to national level? Can the Minister tell me how long the process will take?
Secondly, if nurses win their appeals, and the money is backdated to April 1988, the sums can vary from £5,000 to £10,000, but those nurses who are successful in their appeals will have been deprived of that income for a period of four years. Will the Government consider paying interest on that money?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the regional health authority chairmen estimate that up to 13,900 appeals may be awaiting employing authority level hearing. That is the first level of appeal. At 31st January of this year 23,416 appeals were lodged at regional level and 1,609 at national level. At regional level 3,124 appeals have been heard and 97 at national level of which 28 per cent. and 38 per cent. respectively have been successful. There is no way of predicting how many appeals will be made as decisions on whether to bring an appeal are taken by the staff side of the organisation.
Back-pay, which may be appropriate on the success of an appeal, is a matter for the regional health authority in each case.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the effect on morale among nurses of this appalling wait as a consequence of the Government's cock-up? (I believe that is a parliamentary term). Does the noble Baroness accept that the fact that there are fewer nurses recruited this year is partly due to their dissatisfaction with the Government's cock-up?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on the latter point there is no general shortage of nurses at present. The number of nursing and midwifery staff in England at September 1990, in whole time equivalents and including agency staff, was 402,100. That represents an increase of 2.6 since September 1981. The small drop in the number since September 1989 of 3,200
166
whole time equivalents reflects the transfer of many senior nurse managers to the general senior manager pay structures.
On the question of who is responsible for the delay and the backlog of this appeal system, I have to say that the staff side of the negotiating council is largely responsible for not having got its act together.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a Member of another place who was then a Minister, and to whom I am not unrelated, had twice to apologise for using the phrase which was used twice in the same supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will follow the action of the person not unrelated to my noble and learned friend in this case.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is a great relief that we are responsible for our own order rather than the situation in another place.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the nursing appeal process has been so slow that some applicants have died and their relatives have received a posthumous capital sum? Will the Minister confirm that the total cost of the appeals procedure is likely to exceed £30 million? Will she also say why there is no final appeal to an arbitrator if at national level of appeal there is a failure to agree?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we do not collect centrally information about the total cost of appeals. I am not prepared to accept the noble Lord's figures.
On the procedure, since the general Whitley Council arrangements have shown themselves to fail time and again through their very cumbersome procedures, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has agreed to revoke the appropriate Section 32 of the Whitley Council procedures so that in future the appeals will be dealt with much more rapidly by an independent body appointed at local level. The streamlining procedure to which I have referred is to deal with the backlog of appeals. The future certainly looks rosier.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the problem is nationwide or concentrated in certain regions?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the figures vary quite considerably from a high of 2,822 in the North Western region to 615 in Oxford and East Anglia. However, I note that the South West Thames region, for example, has set itself a deadline of two years to clear up its appeals, which currently stand at just under 1,000.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify an answer she gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, in relation to the possibility of interest being charged on quite large sums of arrears? She appeared to state that it was a matter for the regional health authorities. Do the regional health authorities have such power? Would it not be unfair if some authorities paid interest and some did not?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall look into that point. However, it is worth remembering that basic pay rates for nursing staff are up by 43 per cent. on average in real terms since 1979.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that the regrading is being done with extreme care and although it takes a lot of time it is very valuable? Does she recollect that in the 1970s, when the university technicians were regraded, almost every lead-swinger won his case to the fury of his hardworking colleagues?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. We have always made it quite clear that we want appeals to be heard both quickly and fairly.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question that I asked the Minister at the beginning. The figures quoted by the Minister and myself were fairly similar subject to one or two small differences. There are already 1,400 appeals waiting at national level. It is nice to hear that efforts are being made to speed up hearings of appeals at the lower level. Only 87 appeals—as I claim; the Minister referred to 97 appeals—were heard last year. Even if no extra appeals are added, it will take 14 years before we get through the existing appeals. We cannot expect the nursing profession to put up with that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, the delays are the result of the cumbersome three tier system that has operated. I have also quoted the example of the South West Thames region which has set itself a deadline of two years. That means that its backlog will be completed by 1994.

Arms Sales to Indonesia: Policy
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current policy on selling arms to Indonesia.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the sale of arms and defence equipment to Indonesia, like anywhere else, is subject to strict export licensing procedures. Applications are carefully scrutinised on a case by case basis. We do not allow the export of arms and equipment likely to be used for repressive purposes against civilian populations.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer two questions? First, is it the case that a Royal Navy support ship, the "Green Rover", valued at about £11 million, has been sold to Indonesia? Secondly, despite the fact that previously the noble Earl discarded any comparison between supplying arms to Indonesia and to Iraq, can he tell the House the difference in principle between sending arms to Indonesia, which has invaded East Timor against the authority of the United Nations, and sending arms to Iraq, which invaded Kuwait equally against United Nations authority?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the first question, a small, unarmed tanker vessel is in the process of being sold—the negotiations continue—to the Indonesians. It belongs to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It is a replenishment vessel and cannot be described as arms, as the noble Lord would like to believe. The second question is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that between 1986 and 1990 Her Majesty's Government allowed the export of arms to Indonesia to the value of £290 million? Given Indonesia's appalling record on human rights, and in view of the massacre at Dilly, is not that action indefensible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no. Every country has the right to purchase arms for self-defence. That is contained in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and it is a right which the House should uphold. We have no evidence to show that the arms that were sold to Indonesia were used in East Timor.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, are any other countries imposing limitations on the sale of arms to Indonesia and, if so, which countries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, none to my knowledge.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, would the Minister care to reflect on why he appears to attract a peculiarly high proportion of questions which are wide of the issue?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps those noble Lords who ask such questions should reflect on that.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, does it not concern this country, and countries in the area of Indonesia, that there is a policy which is guided under the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation? Therefore, we must consult that organisation and others who have an interest in the area before any action is taken on our part.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government can take a unilateral decision. Of course, if the Government took such a decision they would have to account for its consequences. The security in the area of the South Pacific and that covered by the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation is one of the consequences that must be taken into account.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister realise that while a country has a right to purchase arms from another there is no obligation on the British Government to give approval for arms sales? Does he not recognise that the decision is highly political and is taken at a time when Indonesia has occupied East Timor and massacred its people? Therefore, is not the Government's action most insensitive?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have no evidence to show that any British arms have been used against the people of East Timor. As regards the massacre at Dilly, the noble Lord knows full well that we have made strong representations to the

169
Indonesian Government. They have responded but still further response is required. The UN Secretary General sent a special representative, Mr. Amos Wako, to East Timor. He has returned and is to report in the near future.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is information given to Singapore and Malaysia about the weapons that are passed to Indonesia? In recent years their relations have not always been good.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, all the sales of military equipment are commercial and confidential. However, the relationship among the ASEAN countries and our bilateral relationship with them is important.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, in view of the tensions that exist in South-East Asia, would not a more constructive approach be for Her Majesty's Government to prompt the United Nations to follow the example of Europe where a most successful arms agreement has been negotiated? I do not wish to move too wide of the Question, but is it not time that in some of the regional areas there, and in the Middle East, we should try to put our weight behind starting regional negotiations to reduce the general level, and purchase, of arms in those areas?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister proposed the setting up of an arms register and that has been taken forward. I hope that will begin to make far more open the question of which countries are building up arms and stop the kind of situation that happened in Iraq. As regards the wider question of East Timor, the noble Lord is right in saying that the best way to resolve the problem is through the United Nations.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Minister accept congratulations on answering a question which was a little wide of that on the Order Paper? Will he follow his own example more closely in future?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the Minister reads the Order Paper he will see that I asked him about Her Majesty's Government's policy. If his Answer is that their policy is that arms can be supplied to any country in the world, is he saying that the Government are prepared to supply arms to countries which have openly defied the authority of the United Nations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question asks about the Government's current policy on selling arms to Indonesia. If the noble Lord wishes to ask a wider question I shall be grateful if he will put it on the Order Paper.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister answered my Question in a particular way. He said that Her Majesty's Government considered that all countries in the world were entitled to buy arms. Does that mean, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to sell arms to Indonesia and to any other country which is in defiance of United Nations' authority?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have answered the Question specifically about Indonesia, which is the Question on the Order Paper.

Business
3.16 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Third Reading of the Charities Bill may be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and in that event during the adjournment the Report stage of the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill will be taken.

Business of the House: Debate, 4th March
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Motion in the name of the Lord Peston set down for 4th March shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 51 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Enactments, other than local enactments, to which s.40 applies]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 35, leave out lines 19 and 20.
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving the amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. All four are drafting amendments which are needed to correct the schedule. The schedule is derived from Schedule 1 to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. As it stands it fails to take account of the fact that certain enactments listed in Schedule 1 have been repealed and re-enacted without any express amendment or repeal of the relevant paragraph of the schedule being made by the repealing Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4:
Page 35, line 21, leave out ("27,").
page 35, line 22, at end insert:
4A. Section 5 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966.
4B. Section 4 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.")
Page 35, line 29, at end insert ("and paragraph 6 of Schedule 25 to").
The noble and learned Lord said: In view of the fact that the explanation is the same, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Bingo Bill [H.L.]
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, when this Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House I viewed it with all the surprise and suspicion due to a potentially explosive substance. I suspected it of being the thick end of the wedge. I thought it might be a loophole through which any amount of mischief might creep into the Gaming Act 1968 and I saw it as a possible encouragement of the dangerous habit of gambling, for which there is plenty of opportunity in this country.
Your Lordships will recall that on Second Reading I spoke in severely warning terms. Since that time further inquiries have alleviated my anxieties about the Bill's contents. The drafting has been greatly improved by the work of parliamentary draftsmen, and discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, have removed my last lingering reservations about the Bill. I thank the noble Lord for his help and his courtesy and I wish his Bill Godspeed.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the support which he gave throughout all stages of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [The register of charities]:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 20, at end insert:
("(2A) In subsection (2), after "so excepted" there shall be inserted "(other than one excepted by paragraph (a) of that subsection)".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 56. These amendments anticipate the amendments in my name to Clause 3 which we shall discuss later. My amendments to Clause 3 will insert an income limit which will be based on the charity's income in the previous financial year. The reference to the previous financial year causes a problem in relation to exempt charities which have registered voluntarily, as they may do under Section 4(4) of the Charities Act 1960. In short, there is no consistent definition of "financial year" for the various types of exempt charity as they are regulated in a variety of different ways. There would, therefore, be a theoretical lacuna in Clause 3.
In looking at ways of overcoming this technical difficulty, and in the light of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on Report, we have looked again at the rationale behind giving the commissioners discretion to allow exempt charities to register voluntarily.
Exempt charities are not subject to the jurisdiction of the commissioners and they are excused compliance with almost all of the 1960 Act and Part I of the Bill. In particular, they are not subject to the commissioners' powers to obtain information or to take action to protect charity property. Nor are they subject to the provisions in the Bill relating to the form, content and submission of accounts. The whole justification for exemption is that the charities concerned are already subject to systems of supervision which would make the commissioners' involvement superfluous.
Because their jurisdiction does not extend to exempt charities, it has been the commissioners' policy since the early 1970s not to register them voluntarily. In the light of the commissioners' development of the register as the basis for their supervisory and monitoring role, the argument for maintaining on the register charities over which they have no control seems to me to be weak. As a result of this Bill, and as a result of computerisation, the register will no longer consist of a list of institutions which are just charitable; it will become a list of charities which are open to public scrutiny and accountability and which are subject to the full supervisory powers of the commissioners.
I have, therefore, concluded that we should take this opportunity to remove the commissioners' discretion to register exempt charities. These amendments do that. They also cancel the registration of any exempt charity which the commissioners have not yet removed from the register. The commissioners fully support that approach, which is a logical extension of the policy which they have pursued for some years. These amendments also settle the technical problem that I mentioned in respect of Clause 3 because that clause applies only to registered charities.
I understand that some exempt charities may be a little worried at not being able to register voluntarily, and about the loss of their registered number. However, I do not think that they need be unduly worried. There are two steps which they may take in

173
order to address that anxiety. First, there is no reason why documents that are produced by an exempt charity should not contain a statement along the lines of: "We are an exempt charity under Schedule 2 to the Charities Act 1960". Secondly, it is open to many exempt charities to take themselves out of the exempt category with relatively little fuss. Charitable housing associations, for example, which are registered under the industrial and provident societies legislation, are exempt charities by virtue of Schedule 2 to the 1960 Act. If they want to be registered charities and subject to the commissioners' jurisdiction, then their proper course is to take themselves out of the exempt category by ceasing to be industrial and provident societies. That would be quite straightforward. For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly express my disappointment to the noble Earl as regards this set of amendments, on which he has been untypically ungenerous. Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have behaved with a degree of openness and receptivity to good argument and amendments which has been throughly commendable. I am sorry that in this case the Government have not been able to meet the views of, in particular, charitable housing associations, which are extremely anxious about this matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He has been extremely generous in making such gentle remarks because I did not believe that he would be pleased about this matter. The noble Lord will realise that we are trying to keep a register of charities which are accountable to the Charity Commission.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) Where an exempt charity is on the register immediately before the time when subsection (2A) above comes into force, its registration shall cease to have effect at that time.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Registered charity's status to appear on official publications etc.]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause:
Status of registered charity (other than small charity) to appear on official publications etc
(".—(1) This section applies to a registered charity if its gross income in its last financial year exceeded £5,000.
(2) Where this section applies to a registered charity, the fact that it is a registered charity shall be stated in English in legible characters—

(a) in all notices, advertisements and other documents issued by or on behalf of the charity and soliciting money or other property for the benefit of the charity;

(b) in all bills of exchange, promissory notes, endorsements, cheques and orders for money or goods purporting to be signed on behalf of the charity; and

(c) in all bills rendered by it and in all its invoices, receipts and letters of credit.

(3) Subsection (2) (a) has effect whether the solicitation is express or implied, and whether the money or other property is to be given for any consideration or not.
(4) If, in the case of a registered charity to which this section applies, any person issues or authorises the issue of any document falling within paragraph (a) or (c) of subsection (2) in which the fact that the charity is a registered charity is not stated as required by that subsection, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale.
(5) If, in the case of any such registered charity, any person signs any document falling within paragraph (b) of subsection (2) in which the fact that the charity is a registered charity is not stated as required by that subsection, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale.
(6) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) by substituting a different sum for the sum for the time being specified there.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 46 and 48. We had a lively debate about these provisions during Report stage. Various anxieties were expressed. The noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, were worried that the duty imposed went too far in catching the trustees of even the smallest registered charities. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised other difficult questions relating to the reversal of the onus of proof. I undertook to look at this clause again. I have done so and these amendments are the result.
As your Lordships can see, the amendments will limit the duty imposed by the new provision so that it applies only to those registered charities whose gross income in the previous financial year exceeds £5,000. The advantage in referring to the previous financial year is that we then avoid the possibility of an offence being committed when a charity's gross income unexpectedly exceeds £5,000 in a particular year.
In practice, the requirements should not present those charities whose income fluctuates on the borderline with too many problems because most of those charities are likely to want to indicate that they are registered in any event.
My second change makes liable for the offence the person who authorises the issue, or who issues the document, or in the case of a cheque, the person who signs the cheques. The offence, therefore, will catch only the charity trustee, employee, officer or promoter who is actually responsible for authorising the issue, or who issues or signs the documents in question. This change brings these provisions closer to those which relate to charitable companies, on which this clause is based; that is Section 349(3) and (4) of the Companies Act 1985 as applied by Section 30C(3) of the Charities Act 1960.
Some of your Lordships queried on Report whether creating a criminal sanction was appropriate in this case. I have looked at the possibility of an alternative sanction for non-compliance but I have been unable to find one which is effective. The Charity Commissioners are given a general power in the Bill to compel charity trustees to make good defaults in respect of certain duties which are placed on them, but that does not seem appropriate in this case.
There would seem to be little, if any, point in requiring a defaulting trustee, possibly some considerable time after the event, to write to donors, or potential donors or the recipients of other

175
documents to alert them to the fact of the charity's registered status. The purpose of these provisions is to alert such people to the fact that they are dealing with a registered charity which is subject to the commissioners' jurisdiction and about which information and accounts can be obtained from the commissioners. Potential donors and others need that information before them when they are actually dealing with an approach from a charity and not at a later stage. I hope that the amendment meets with the approval of the House. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4:
In subsection (6), in line 1, after ("may") insert (", in consequence of change in the value of money,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am generally in agreement with the new clause proposed by the noble Earl and I am grateful to him for coming so far to meet the anxieties expressed at earlier stages. The first anxiety was that the clause as it stood in the Bill criminalised administrative omissions. The second was that it made those criminal offences offences of strict liability; in other words, a trustee was liable for the administrative omission whether or not he knew about it, much less had anything to do with it. The third is that the let-out to him was by reversing the onus of proof. It was not enough that he could prove that he had nothing to do with it but he also had to prove that he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the omission occurring. The last matter to which the noble Earl referred specifically is that those provisions apply to the smallest charities.
It is obvious that the Government have practically met all the anxieties. Some remain, but it is a criminal offence and the Bill generally seems to be a bit slap-happy about criminalising conduct, particularly offences against bureaucratic requirements. But that is a small matter compared to the great change made in the clause. I welcome it and am grateful to the noble Earl for considering the representations made.
The amendment relates to subsection (6). That is a Henry VIII provision and says,
"The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) by substituting a different sum for the sum for the time being specified there".
That sum is now £5,000. The importance of that provision can be realised from the fact that my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale proposed at Report stage that the figure should be £25,000. That is a considerable change and identifies the importance of that provision.
The amendment proposes that after the word "may" there should be inserted the words,
"in consequence of change in the value of money".
Although that still remains a Henry VIII provision it is a concession and an easing which Parliament frequently, if not habitually, allows to a Minister. Anything beyond that is surely objectionable. The provision is not even subject to the more effective affirmative resolution procedure; it is subject only to the ineffective negative resolution procedure. In my submission the Secretary of State should be allowed to
176
alter that figure in consequence of changes in the value of money. But if he wants to make a change which is, in effect, a policy change, he ought to come to Parliament for the usual parliamentary approval.
The noble Earl spoke also to two later amendments which relate to the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the clause was originally framed, that section and other provisions of the Bill could be prosecuted as offences only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There was a good deal of discussion in that regard on the previous occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, supported the excision of that clause, as did the noble Lord, Lord Richard. As I said, I was given some pause by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on the whole approved of the clause. However that may be, as the clause now stands unamended there can be no possible reason for requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; in other words, the sacrifice of the age-long liberty of the subject to set the law in motion without seeking the favour of any official.
I hope that the provision will now have general approbation. There are separate amendments dealing with the clause and there is no reason to require the consent of the director as it now stands. With regard to Amendment No. 4, I beg to move.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, perhaps I may ask either him or my noble and learned friend Lord Simon one or two questions relating to the meaning of Amendment No. 4. What is meant by and how does one define for the purposes of application in the courts a,
"change in the value of money"?
Does it relate to the retail prices index, to which many of our definitions of inflation relate? Does it relate to any particular change in prices? If so, what other change in prices can it refer to? Does it relate to the interest rates charged by banks? What is meant by "money"? Is it sterling? Is it the value of money as a whole? Does the amendment relate to changes in the exchange rate and the value of sterling? For instance, is it tied to the dollar, to the deutschmark, to the yen or perhaps the rouble?
Exactly what are we being asked to do in preference to Henry VIII? I can only say, as no great supporter of that late lamented monarch who was not kind to his Lord Chancellors, "Good old Henry VIII"…
Lord Renton Lord Renton My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, except in relation to his own amendment. He has overlooked the possibility that by writing these words into the new clause he may be fettering the discretion of the Secretary of State in a way which the noble and learned Lord might not welcome. For example, he referred to the fact that at an earlier stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, had suggested that the limit should not be £5,000 which appears in the new clause on the Marshalled List, but £25,000.
Let us suppose that experience shows that £5,000 is too small a sum and that a larger amount should be

177
inserted. Without the noble and learned Lord's amendment the Secretary of State could insert the larger sum, thereby pleasing the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. If the amendment confined the activities of the Secretary of State to,
"in consequence of change in the value of money"
that would not be possible.
I have much sympathy with what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone said as regards the meaning of a change in the value of money. However, I respectfully remind him that very frequently it is inserted into an Act of Parliament that a Minister shall have power to change an amount. Everyone has had in mind getting the sum in line with inflation. In my recollection the expression,
"change in the value of money"
has not been used in statutes in order to enable the power to be used in that way. Therefore, I cannot support the noble and learned Lord's amendment although I welcome so much else of what he said.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, without wishing to defend the precise wording used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, perhaps I may say in response to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone that this problem has long since been solved in Finance Acts, which are an erudite if somewhat obscure branch of the law. It is not very productive to try to resolve problems which have long been solved.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, without wishing to prolong the debate perhaps I may, in defence of my noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, say that the wording he has used precisely reproduces that of Section 5(2) of the Charities Act 1985 which states:
"The Secretary of State may, if he thinks it expedient in consequence of changes in the value of money"
and so forth.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as it has been pointed out that I originally suggested £25,000, I had better not pursue Amendment No. 4. I take this opportunity of saying that I am perfectly happy with the figure of £5,000 which was hit upon ultimately. I hope that the power might be retained to increase it if experience suggests that that is desirable, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. On the whole I prefer Amendment No. 4 not to be accepted. The clause as proposed in Amendment No. 3 is a great improvement. I particularly welcome the change reversing the onus of proof, a point which I took at an earlier stage. There is one question I would like to ask. The amendments we have been discussing involve an alteration to Clause 55 which is concerned with proceedings. It states:
"No proceedings for an offence to which this section applies"—
the provision that we have been discussing is one of them—
"shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions".
The question I pose is this. Obviously, the provision rules out private prosecutions. But does it mean anything more than that the prosecution should be undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service, which works with the Director of Public Prosecutions? Or
178
does it mean that in this particular category of offence someone has to produce a certificate showing that the director himself has approved the prosecution? This is the first time that I have come across this provision since we have had a Crown Prosecution Service. I shall be interested to know the answer.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said. A larger figure might have been better, but I very much welcome this amendment. It represents a significant improvement in the Bill and accordingly I thank the noble Earl for having met our anxieties.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may present the noble Earl with the full picture before he replies. As regards Amendment No. 4 and the definition of money and change of value, we on these Benches are quite content to consider this a private and domestic dispute between lawyers which we do not propose to enter. We welcome the general thrust of the amendments and the detail within them. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, they meet the anxieties expressed by quite a large number of noble Lords at earlier stages in the progress of the Bill.
We are pleased to see that charities with a gross income of less than £5,000 are exempt from some regulations with which it would be difficult for them to comply. We would have liked to have had a higher figure, but we accept gratefully the limit of £5,000. The provisions made in Clause 3(2) (a) (b) and (c) would impose multitudinous requirements on small charities to the extent that in many cases it would be difficult for them not to offend before long. At Committee and Report stage we pleaded eloquently and long the cause of small charities. I am grateful to the noble Earl now that our plea has been heard to this extent.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, as someone who has run a charity, I say to the Minister that it is surely unusual to talk about the gross income. When we are dealing with VAT or tax we talk about turnover. There is a great difference, which applies equally to charities. Therefore, I have great sympathy with the amendment which the noble and learned Lord has suggested. The value of money does change. It is not a good idea to include an amount in any Act of Parliament because next year the amount will not be worth the same in any event. I am very interested in the question of the gross income which is a very different thing when one considers the way the money is spent and the possibility of emerging with a profit at the end of the year. Perhaps the Minister can explain why there has been a change.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the new clause which I propose reflects the strong arguments made at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and others. It raises the requirement for a registered charity to disclose that it is so registered on a variety of documents in respect of charities which have an income of £5,000 or less. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was worried about the word "income" as

179
opposed to the word "turnover". Income is fairly straightforward because it is what one receives. Income is probably part of it, but income itself is the money which one receives.
Under my amendment the Secretary of State is given a general power to amend the financial limit if he so wishes. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that if the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, were accepted it would fetter the Secretary of State. It is quite interesting because the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and Lord Morris of Castle Morris, all wished that the figure had been higher. But the Secretary of State, with experience of how this works, may wish to reflect the changes in the value of money. Or, in the light of his experience, he may wish to excuse a higher or lower proportion of the charities from the duties in Clause 3. That kind of flexibility is desirable.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that the clause would not be using the effective affirmative resolution but only the ineffective negative resolution procedure. The fact is that the Secretary of State would have to come to Parliament and say, "This is what I intend to raise or lower the figure to", and he would have to get parliamentary approval. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whenever a negative resolution is put down everybody always screams and says that it is absolutely terrible and that we ought to use an affirmative resolution, but it is a perfectly good parliamentary procedure and is used for matters of not enormous moment. This matter slots into that category.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I do not propose to join in the argument between noble and learned Lords as to what the value of money means. Suffice it to say that if my amendment were accepted, and not that of the noble and learned Lord, that problem would not arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked why we wanted to use the Director of Public Prosecutions. There are criminal—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I was not complaining about using the Director of Public Prosecutions. I was inquiring what the procedure would be when he is invoked.
Earl Ferrers: I see, my Lords. Perhaps my mind was taking me back to another stage of the Bill when some people were complaining about the use of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I apologise to the noble Lord if I misappropriated those thoughts to him. The fact is that there are certain criminal sanctions. It is only intended that those should be used in the most extreme cases. Before that is done the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to be consulted and the Crown Prosecution Service would then put into operation the prosecution, should there be one. That does not rule out private prosecutions. That can be done, but the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to be obtained before doing so.
180
For those reasons—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this comparatively small point. Obviously private prosecutions are ruled out, but in such cases does the prosecutor in court have to produce a document—rather like the Attorney-General's fiat in other circumstances—saying that the director has authorised a prosecution?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Allen, the answer to that, but I shall find out and let him know.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I propose with your Lordships' permission to postpone discussing the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions until we come to the two amendments which deal with that aspect. I propose at this stage to deal only with the amendment that I have presumed to move.
There are two questions. First, is it a meaningful amendment? Secondly, if so, is it a desirable amendment? So far as concerns its meaning, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. This is a perfectly usual statutory phrase. In addition to the examples that they put forward, it occurs several times in the Child Support Act of last Session and I very much think it occurs in this Bill. Perhaps I may also say that I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for her support.
So much for the meaning of the phrase. I do not think that anybody would have the smallest difficulty in understanding what it means. The figure of £5,000 appears now in the Bill. If, due to inflation, the value of money is halved then the figure of £ 10,000 can quite reasonably be substituted. That is the sort of thing that Parliament would be ready to concede to the Secretary of State. But, over and above that, it is a policy change.
That brings me to the second argument of the noble Earl relating to the affirmative and negative resolutions. It is universally regarded that the affirmative resolution is a far more effective parliamentary control than the negative procedure. That is why the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1972–73 laid down rigid criteria for cases where the affirmative resolution should be imperative. But the main reason is that the negative resolution procedure frequently does not come on for discussion in the other place; and when it does it comes on at a very inconvenient time.
On the other hand, when a regulation is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure the Government have to make time for its discussion in both Houses. Moreover, the need for that regulation then has to be explained. Conversely, in the negative resolution procedure, even in your Lordships' House, the Minister only replies at the end of the debate and there is no scope for seeing what are the real needs. Therefore, the fact that this change is subject to the negative resolution procedure should, in my respectful submission, cause your Lordships to be very wary about conceding any part which involves a policy

181
change. The noble Earl did not gainsay that anything beyond a change in the value of money does involve a policy change.
However, with all the support I have had, the two noble Lords to whom I normally look for support took the opposite view. Therefore, I think on the whole the best thing for me is to ask leave of your Lordships to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 3 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Supplementary provisions relating to receiver and manager appointed for a charity]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 10, leave out lines 17 to 25.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment goes with Amendment No. 24 and I shall speak quite briefly to them both. I do not propose to move either, but since they have both been tabled and are therefore within the control of your Lordships' House I should explain why I do not propose to move them. It follows a discussion with the noble Earl. These two amendments seek to deal with what is, these days, a very common statutory formula—very common, but highly undesirable. Subsection (6) gives a general power to make regulations. The following subsection states that such regulations may, in particular, do x, y and z.
As a matter of common use of language as well as of logic, it is a particular of a generality. It is contained in a generality and there is no need to set out the particulars. In fact, these two amendments would cut out 20 lines of the measure, which is some benefit in a highly voluble measure.
The reason I do not seek to move the amendments is this. Although the matter was replied to by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, when I raised it at Report stage, he subsequently wrote to me setting out a further reason—an afterthought, if I may say so—which raised a very important and controversial constitutional point. I did not agree with it as a matter of constitutional law but what was much more serious was that, if varied, it would have very wide repercussions all over the statute book.
Under those circumstances, having discussed the matter with the noble Earl, it seemed to us that it would be better not to discuss a matter of high constitutional principle on the Third Reading of a Bill but rather to give time for further consideration of the matter. I suggested that it was of such importance that it might be considered by the Law Officers. With that explanation, I hope your Lordships will be satisfied if I do not move either of these amendments.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Dormant bank accounts of charities]:
4 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 17, line 25, leave out from ("transfer") to end of line 30 and insert ("to each of two or more other charities so specified in the direction such part of that amount or aggregate amount as is there specified in relation to that charity.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. These amendments owe much to the suggestions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that the Bill could be and should be shortened here without loss of clarity. During the debate on Amendments Nos. 28C and 28D I acknowledged that the wording of Clause 29(8) could be simplified and agreed that we would come forward with appropriate amendments at Third Reading. The amendments to Clause 29 fulfil that undertaking. Clause 18(2) is very similar in the direction-making powers it gives to the commissioners, though in a different context; that of dormant charity accounts. I thought it right, therefore, to make similar amendments to that provision, too. That is why they are grouped together. I hope that they will meet with your Lordships' approval. Perhaps I may add that the effect of the amendments together is to reduce the length of the Bill by a full 28 words. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, anything that reduces the length of the Bill by 28 words is to be welcomed. I am grateful to the Government for the care that has gone into the rewording of this clause. It clarifies the doubt which many of us felt about the phrase "the appropriate part". So far as I can see, it will not make any vast amount of extra work for the Charity Commissioners and it helps Clause 18 clear up the business of dormant accounts. Noble Lords may recall that that caused me some problems when I tried to squeeze in a reference to the Gillingham bus disaster fund on the question of dormant accounts. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his interest and for his guidance on that particular and, I must confess, marginal matter. I am most grateful for what he said to me. We on these Benches very much welcome the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Annual audit or examination of charity accounts]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 20, line 33, leave out ("(or both)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 8. I know that I have raised this point twice before, but I really cannot let it go without a final appeal. When the noble Earl explained on Report why he could not accept the amendment the reasons he gave seemed to me so unconvincing and so unlike the noble Earl's normal persuasive style that I thought I must have misheard. I did not pursue the point then, but when I read Hansard, alas, I found that I had not misunderstood. Perhaps I may read briefly what the noble Earl said:
"The idea is that if the income is more than £100,000, or if the expenditure is more than £100,000, or if both are more than £100,000 the charity must prepare different forms of accounts. Without the words 'or both—
this is the remarkable part—
"it might be construed that as both items have exceeded the limit and not just one item the charity need not he subjected to that regime".—[Official Report, 6/2/92; cols. 406–407.]
There seem to be three powerful arguments against that interpretation. The first is that it is contrary to common sense, if that has any relevance to the drafting of a statute. The second is that, to my mind, it introduces a possible ambiguity since it might be thought that the intention, however crudely expressed, was that the income and expenditure added together should exceed £100,000. But thirdly, all the legal opinion that I have received—I have consulted other high legal dignitaries as well as my two eminent noble and learned friends who have added their names to the amendment—is unanimous in the view that these words are not necessary. On this occasion the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I are at one, and the fact that he has not put his name to Amendment No. 8 is of no significance at all.
At the Committee stage my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman went on record as saying that he believed he could say on behalf of his fellow Law Lords that the construction to which the noble Earl still clings would stand no chance of success whatever in this House. The defence of these words and of the views of the draftsman that the Government have so far put forward carries no conviction at all. The words would be better out of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend has moved this amendment again because, although these are only two words, they are beyond any reasonable argument unnecessary. It was said at an earlier stage that the words were needed to resolve a possible ambiguity which would arise if the words were omitted. So far as that meant a legal ambiguity, I entirely agree with what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman that such an argument is quite impossible of acceptance. A legal ambiguity only arises when words are reasonably capable of being understood in two senses. There can be no question of that in this case. But it is not really a legal question at all. It is, as my noble friend Lord Allen said, a matter of common sense and ordinary English language.
I ask the House to think of this situation. At the moment there are five all-rounders contending for three places in the lower middle order of the English test cricket side. Supposing some munificent benefactor said, "I will give £1,000 to any of you who has a batting average over 30 or a bowling average under 20". Two of the five have batting averages over 30 and claim and get the £1,000. Two have bowling averages under 20 and claim and get their £1,000. But the fifth has both a batting average over 30 and a bowling average under 20. What would happen if he were met with the argument, "Oh no, not a penny, I did not say `or both"? Such an argument would not only be hooted out of every court of law with derision and execration but out of every cricket pavilion. I beg the Government to use common sense in this matter and let us get on with serious matters with this Bill.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am bound to say that I thought I had at least understood the Government's argument on the matter. However, after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the
184
noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I am now not even sure that I understand the Government's argument, let alone the Bill.
The Bill is clear to the extent that if a charity's gross income in the relevant financial year exceeds £100,000 then the subsection applies. I believe that that is all right. Moreover, if the charity's total expenditure exceeds £100,000 in any relevant year, then the subsection applies. I understand that. If the words "or both" are meant to mean that you add up the gross income and the total expenditure, each of which separately is under £100,000, but that if you put them together then you arrive at a figure which is over £100,000, the mere addition of the words "or both" does not seem to me to cover the position.
Alternatively, if the words "or both" are designed to achieve anything else, I have to say that I cannot for the life of me work out what it is that they are supposed to achieve. Therefore, I support the amendment. Perhaps the noble Earl will proceed slowly with his response so that we may understand it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall proceed slowly because I want to be very careful with my words. I thought that we would be able to continue without having to discuss this amendment. I looked through the tabled amendments last night and asked whether the amendment now before us had been put down. At that time it had not; but, sure enough, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, put it down at the last moment and there it was on the Marshalled List this morning.
I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is nothing if not tenacious. I say that because we had this issue in Committee and on Report. Noble Lords put their cases, as they have today, with great vigour and confidence. I should say that on each occasion, before coming to your Lordships' House, I have put a metaphorical wet towel around my head in order to understand the noble Lord's amendment, the drafting of the Bill and the difference between the two.
I am advised that, of the two views, the drafting in the original Bill is correct, all embracing and better than the wording of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. In short, the purpose of the amendment is to insert the words "and or" in the Bill. But, of course, there are no such drafting mechanisms. We therefore use the words "or both." Perhaps I may take first the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. If income exceeds £100,000, the accounts must be produced. If the expenditure exceeds £100,000, then new accounts must be produced. Or, if they both exceed £100,000, a new form of accounts must be produced.
It is a simple drafting matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, introduced a bowling and batting analogy into the debate. I followed it for a certain length of time, but then I became lost in the mathematics. Perhaps I may put forward another analogy which is closer to your Lordships. For example, if the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, tabled an amendment, I should be obliged to reply to it; and if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, tabled an amendment

185
I should also be obliged to reply to it. But if they both tabled an amendment then, without these words, I might not be obliged to reply if they both spoke to the amendment. Therefore, it is what one might call "belt and braces".
I do not believe that it is a matter of earth shattering importance but, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will keep picking at this bone, I am bound to tell him that I am advised that the Government's wording is the best. On Report, my noble friend Lord Renton said that Ministers are responsible for what goes into the statute. I am conscious that, as always, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is very keen on economy of drafting, even though it takes much time and many speeches to achieve the economy that he seeks. Those two considerations are pretty alarming. Your Lordships' assistance over this particular issue, in what I might call the form of a battering ram, has been most helpful. As I have wearied over the difference and as I despair of ever being successful in persuading your Lordships that the Government's wording is correct—and as I was unsuccessful in persuading your Lordships before—I think the best thing that I can do is to lie down like a spaniel, wag my tail and accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I can only say that I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 20, line 40, leave out ("(or exceed)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 20, line 42, after ("who") insert:
("(a)")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. On Report, in response to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I undertook to bring forward my own amendment which would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow auditors, who are not able to audit company accounts but who are currently able to audit charity accounts, to carry out a professional audit under Clause 21 of the Bill. The amendments before the House fulfil that undertaking. They will allow the Secretary of State to specify bodies whose members may, if the rules of the body so authorise, audit a charity's accounts. I have in mind, for example, members of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I believe that the amendments entirely meet the point that I was trying to make at an earlier stage. I am most grateful.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the revision. It widens the scope for the appointment of the auditor which will be a relief to many small or specialist charities. The body to which the person must belong under paragraph (b)
186
should be specified in regulations so that the necessity of appropriate audit is properly preserved. Once again, small charities will be the main beneficiaries; indeed, they and we—or both—are grateful for the group of amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 20, line 44, at end insert (", or
(b) is a member of a body for the time being specified in regulations under section 22 below and is under the rules of that body eligible for appointment as auditor of the charity.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Supplementary provisions relating to audits etc.]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No.11:
Page 22, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) specifying one or more bodies for the purposes of section 21(2) (b);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 22, line 5, leave out from ("to") to end of line 8 and insert ("the making by him of a report on—

(i) the statement of accounts prepared for the financial year in question under section 20(1), or

(ii) the account and statement so prepared under section 20(3),

as the case may be;").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16. The noble Lord, Lord Benson, at Report stage, put it to your Lordships most forcefully that it was misleading to talk in terms of a "certificate" in relation to the audit of accounts because it implied that the auditor (or examiner) was being asked to certify as to the accuracy of the accounts in question. That, of course, was never our intention.
Clearly, the terminology used in the Bill was inappropriate. My noble friend Lord Ferrers was pleased to accept the amendments in principle. We undertook to bring forward our own amendments to put matters straight, to remove the references to certification and, in the case of an independent examination, to substitute a reference to a report. We have done so. I therefore commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for proposing the amendment. It clears up certain matters which were raised on Report. That expression of gratitude also applies in respect of Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 16.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome the amendments. The unsatisfactory word "certification" has been replaced by the very much better word "report." That seems to us a welcome and sensible improvement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 22, line 9, leave out ("certification by an independent examiner") and insert ("making by an independent examiner of a report in respect").
Page 22, line 10, leave out ("that section:") and insert ("section 21;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23 [Annual reports]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 15 and 16:
Page 23, line 18, leave out from ("on") to end of line 21 and insert ("that statement of accounts or (as the case may be) on that account and statement;").
Page 23, line 23, leave out from ("the") to end of line 24 and insert ("report made by the independent examiner in respect of the examination carried out by him under that section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 24 [Special provision as respects accounts and annual reports of exempt and other excepted charities]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 23, line 36, at end insert:
("(1A) Nothing in sections 21 to 23 applies to any charity which—

(a) falls within section 4(4) (c) of the 1960 Act (certain charities with an annual income not exceeding £1,000), and

(b) is not registered.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 to 23. On Report, we had a debate, prompted by an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about what accounting requirements should be placed by the Bill on the trustees of small charities. The noble Lord was especially worried about charities with an income of less than £1,000 which are excepted from the requirement to register with the commissioners. I said that I would look again at the position of those small charities. The amendments before the House are the result of that process.
The amendments simplify greatly the accounting requirements for charities which are excepted, which have not chosen to register and whose income is less than £1,000 a year. All that such charities will now be required to do under the Bill is to keep proper accounting records under Clause 19 and to prepare an annual statement of accounts under Clause 20. This annual statement of accounts will be in the simplified form of a receipts and payments account and a statement of assets and liabilities. The statement will not have to be sent to the commissioners.
I have looked carefully at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that these small charities should be subject only to the general requirement to keep accounts in Section 32 of the Charities Act 1960. I have concluded, however, that Section 32 of the 1960 Act would impose an equal, if not greater, burden in comparison with Clauses 19 and 20 of the Bill. For example, the 1960 Act requires an income and expenditure account as opposed to the simpler receipts and payments account in Clause 20.
I remain of the view, however, that if an excepted charity registered voluntarily it should accept the duties which go with registration. My amendments therefore do not change the accounting requirements for excepted charities which have chosen to be registered. If these charities feel burdened by the additional requirements brought by registration it is of course open to them to remove themselves from the register.
The amendments to Clause 25 are consequential since excepted charities will continue to be subject to the requirement to make their accounts available to members of the public on request. That is an important element of public accountability which should not prove too onerous.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Minister has met us more than half way and I am most grateful to him.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I certainly support the amendments but wonder whether my noble friend would be so good as to clarify one thing. Section 4(4) (c) of the 1960 Act as recently amended, to which reference is made in Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, states that the charities that are not required to be registered are,
"any charity having neither any permanent endowment, nor any income from property amounting to more than fifteen pounds a year, nor the use and occupation of any land".
Of course £15 a year would be a ridiculous amount now and the phrase,
"an annual income not exceeding £1,000",
is to be inserted by the amendment. Perhaps the Minister could be so good as to tell me—if he happens to have this information to hand—in what way that income has been increased from £15 a year to £1,000 a year as part of the definition of a "small charity".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am thinking hard about the question that my noble friend has asked me. I am afraid that, despite the fact that he put his question so clearly, I did not understand it. Perhaps he will be kind enough to repeat it. He asked whether I could let him know how the figure of £15 had increased to £1,000. Was he implying that he wanted to know how much of that increase was due to inflation?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am not asking how much of that is due to inflation. I am asking by what statutory provision the amount has been increased from £15 a year to a sum not exceeding £1,000 a year.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the answer to that is in Clause 2(4) (c), which permits that to happen.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am very much obliged for that. I understand and am most grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 20:
Page 23, line 38, after second ("charity") insert ("or a charity which falls within section 4(4) (c) of the 1960 Act").
Page 23, line 39, leave out ("the 1960") and insert ("that").
Page 24, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) Any reference in this section to a charity which falls within section 4(4) (c) of the 1960 Act includes a reference to a charity which falls within that provision but is also excepted from registration by section 4(4) (b) of that Act (charities excepted by order or regulations).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25 [Public inspection of annual reports etc.]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 23:
Page 24, line 29, leave out ("which is a company or an exempt charity,") and insert ("falling within any of paragraphs (aa) to (c) below,").
Page 24, line 33, at end insert:

189
("(aa) in the case of such a charity as is mentioned in section 24(1A), a reference to the statement of accounts or account and statement prepared in pursuance of section 20(1) or (3) in respect of the last financial year of the charity in respect of which a statement of accounts or account and statement has or have been so prepared;").
Page 24, line 37, after first ("charity,") insert ("a reference to").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 29 [Divestment of charity property held by official custodian for charities]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 26, leave out lines 18 to 24.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am so sorry. This is an amendment to which I spoke earlier when I said that, for the reasons that I had laid before your Lordships, I did not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 27, line 20, after ("direction") insert ("in accordance with subsection (9)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 27, line 22, leave out from ("pay") to end of line 25 and insert ("to each of two or more other charities so specified in the direction such part of that amount as is there specified in relation to that charity.").
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 27 and 28.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 27, line 22, leave out ("the appropriate part of that amount") and insert ("such part of that amount as they may specify").
Page 27, leave out lines 24 and 25.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the noble Viscount kindly wrote to me to say that he was going to table Amendment No. 26, which covers the same ground as my Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 which I tabled on Report. I had not realised that the noble Viscount had tabled his amendment when I tabled mine. It would be quite unprofitable at this stage to canvass the respective merits of the two amendments, both of which make the Bill shorter than as presently drafted. I shall be quite content if my amendments fall in those circumstances and wish merely to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount for doing what he was good enough to say that he would do.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Divestment in the case of property subject to Reverter of Sites Act 1987]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 29, line 33, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 34 and insert ("relevant charity trustees (as defined in subsection (3A) below),").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these are purely drafting amendments. The commissioners may
190
under the provision of this clause discharge the Official Custodian from his trusteeship at any time before or after the reversion takes place.
The use of the past tense in lines 34 and 39 on page 29 does not seem to me to be appropriate in the case of an order made by the commissioners under subsection (3) (a) of this clause because in such a case the discharging order is made before the reverter takes place. My amendments are merely designed to remedy this, but they also serve, I think, to make the provision easier to follow. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 29, line 38, leave out from beginning to second ("the") in line 40 and insert:
("(3A) In subsection (3) above "the relevant charity trustees" means—

(a) in relation to an order made as mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection, the charity trustees of the charity in trust for which the land is vested in the official custodian immediately before the time when the order takes effect, or

(b) in relation to an order made under subsection (2) above, the charity trustees of the charity in trust for which the land was vested in the official custodian immediately before").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Restrictions on dispositions of charity land]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 30, line 36, leave out ("other than") and insert ("who is not—
(i)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 31 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers indicated during Report stage, we have been looking again at the provisions of Clause 32(2) and Schedule 2 and we have realised from this that there is still a loophole in the provisions which relate to "connected persons". A "connected person" is a person or institution to whom the trustees of a charity may not dispose of charity land without first obtaining the consent of the commissioners. The purpose of requiring the commissioners' consent to such dispositions is to prevent trustees from disposing of property to a close relative or associate for less than its full value.
The amendments I now propose extend the provisions relating to "connected persons" in Clause 32(2) (a) to cover someone who is a trustee for or a nominee of a connected person. The amendments to Schedule 2 are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 30, line 37, after ("Act)") insert (", or
(ii) a trustee for, or nominee of, a connected person").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 31, line 36, leave out ("subsection (7)") and insert ("subsections (7) and (7A)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 34. At Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, argued that the requirements in subsection (6) of Clause 32, which provides additional safeguards in relation to the disposition of property held on specie trusts, would create an onerous burden for charities such as the National Trust which undertake a large volume of straightforward land transactions.
These amendments therefore empower the commissioners, on application by, or on behalf of, a charity or class of charities, to direct that subsection (6) of Clause 32 shall not apply. The commissioners will be able to make such a direction, if they consider it to be in the interests of the charity concerned, in relation to all dispositions by that charity, any class of disposition or in relation to any particular dispositions. I hope that this will meet the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I support this useful amendment. Perhaps I may ask for clarification that the commissioners will be able in effect to give a blanket exemption—if I may use that rather imprecise phrase—in relation to a body such as the National Trust without the National Trust having to make separate applications in respect of each land transaction.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the answer is that the commissioners can give either a blanket or an individual approval without separate applications being necessary if that is thought best.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 32, line 3, at end insert:
("(7A) The Commissioners may direct—

(a) that subsection (6) shall not apply to dispositions of land held by or in trust for a charity or class of charities (whether generally or only in the case of a specified class of dispositions or land, or otherwise as may be provided in the direction), or

(b) that that subsection shall not apply to a particular disposition of land held by or in trust for a charity, if, on an application made to them in writing by or on behalf of the charity or charities in question, the Commissioners are satisfied that it would be in the interests of the charity or charities for them to give the direction.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Supplementary provisions relating to dispositions of charity land]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 33, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) Where—

(a) any land held by or in trust for a charity is sold, leased or otherwise disposed of by a disposition to which subsection (1) or (2) of section 32 applies, but

(b) subsection (2) above has not been complied with in relation to the disposition,

then in favour of a person who (whether under the disposition or afterwards) in good faith acquires an interest in the land for money or money's worth, the disposition shall be valid whether or not—

(i) (where subsection (1) of that section applies) the disposition has been sanctioned by an order of the court or of the Commissioners, or

192

(ii) (where subsection (2) of that section applies) the charity trustees have power under the trusts of the charity to effect the disposition and have complied with the provisions of that section so far as applicable to it.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35 and speak to Amendments Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42. I must first apologise to your Lordships for the late tabling of these amendments. They are the result in part of representations made to my officials only last Thursday afternoon by the Law Society about the provisions of Clause 33.
Subsection (1) of Clause 33 requires any contract for the disposition of land held by, or on trust for, a charity to state that the land is so held together with certain other information. Subsection (2) of the clause requires trustees, when disposing of land held by, or on trust for, the charity to certify in the instrument by which the disposition is made that either the disposition has been sanctioned by the Charity Commission or the court or that the trustees have complied with the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 32.
Subsection (3) of Clause 33 provides that where that certificate is given, the interests of the purchaser who acquires the land for money or money's worth are protected even if the facts stated in the certificate are subsequently found to be incorrect.
The Law Society pointed out that there appeared to be no equivalent protection for the purchaser of property who is unaware that the land is charity land and where the trustees have not certified the instrument as required by subsection (2) and, indeed, where they may not be able to do so. Where the land is unregistered, the purchaser will not be on statutory notice that the land is held on charitable trusts and therefore will not know that special considerations, including the need for a certificate, apply to the disposition unless he has actual knowledge that the land is so held.
It seems to me that the situation which I have described is unlikely to happen very often. Nevertheless, it is a worrying lacuna in the present provision since it does not seem fair that the purchaser for value without notice should lose the interest in the land that he has purchased. My Amendment No. 35 is designed to remedy that situation.
In examining the Law Society's query, we have looked again at the land transactions provisions in the Bill and, I regret to say, we have found other gaps or inconsistencies between the provisions.
The amendments to Clause 34, which refer to the restrictions on charging charity property, have two purposes. First, they restrict the scope of the provision to mortgages and charges over "land" as opposed to "property". The expression "property" would include such things as stocks and shares. It was never our intention to catch property other than land in this provision.
Secondly, my Amendment No. 39 inserts the equivalent of subsection (8) (a) of Clause 32 into Clause 34. This has the effect of ensuring that the provisions of Clause 34 override anything in the charity's trust and of disapplying the provisions of Clause 34 in relation to any mortgage or charge for

193
which general or special authority is expressly given in or under any Act of Parliament or by a legally established scheme. The other amendments to this provision are consequential on these changes.
The provisions in the new clause for insertion after Clause 34 are intended to provide the same protection to those who lend money to charities and accept land held on charitable trusts by way of security as is provided by subsection (3) of Clause 33 and the new subsection in Amendment No. 35 to purchasers of land held on charitable trusts. The new clause makes the same provision to that provided in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 33 but in relation to mortgages. Subsection (5) provides the equivalent disapplication of subsection (1) of Section 29 of the Settled Land Act 1925 in relation to mortgages as subsection (5) of Clause 33 does in respect of other dispositions of land.
I am afraid that that is a rather technical explanation. I am sorry that I was unable to give your Lordships greater notice of the amendments. I hope that my explanation will clarify what they are about. They cover important matters. Purchasers or chargees of property which is held on charitable trusts need to be properly protected. The amendments are designed to ensure that they are, and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Restrictions on charging charity property]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 36 to 40:
Page 35, line I, leave out from ("no") to ("without") in line 3 and insert ("mortgage of land held by or in trust for a charity shall be granted").
Page 35, line 5, leave out ("the mortgaging or charging of any such property") and insert ("a mortgage of any such land by way of security for the repayment of a loan").
Page 35, line 7, leave out ("or charge").
Page 35, line 27, at end insert:
("(5) This section applies notwithstanding anything in the trusts of a charity; but nothing in this section applies to any mortgage for which general or special authority is given as mentioned in section 32(8) (a).").
Page 35, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) In this section—
"land" means land in England or Wales; "mortgage" includes a charge.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 35, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in this section applies to an exempt charity.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment. It does no more than clarify the scope of Clause 34. The clause contains restrictions on the mortgaging or charging of charity land to ensure that trustees receive and consider expert advice when they borrow money secured on the trust property.
It was never our intention that exempt charities should be caught by Clause 34. Exempt charities fall outside the jurisdiction of the commissioners now and they will continue to do so when this Bill becomes law. Exempt charities are not subject to the restrictions on dealing with charity property in the Charities Act 1960; this amendment therefore maintains the status quo. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Supplementary provisions relating to mortgaging of charity land
(".—(1) Any mortgage of land held by or in trust for a charity shall state—

(a) that the land is held by or in trust for a charity,

(b) whether the charity is an exempt charity and whether the mortgage is one falling within subsection (5) of section 34, and

(c) if it is not an exempt charity and the mortgage is not one falling within that subsection, that the mortgage is one to which the restrictions imposed by that section apply;

and where the mortgage will be a registered disposition any such statement shall be in such form as may be prescribed.
(2) Where subsection (1) or (2) of section 34 applies to any mortgage of land held by or in trust for a charity, the charity trustees shall certify in the mortgage—

(a) (where subsection (1) of that section applies) that the mortgage has been sanctioned by an order of the court or of the Commissioners (as the case may be), or

(b) (where subsection (2) of that section applies) that the charity trustees have power under the trusts of the charity to grant the mortgage, and that they have obtained and considered such advice as is mentioned in that subsection.

(3) Where subsection (2) above has been complied with in relation to any mortgage, then in favour of a person who (whether under the mortgage or afterwards) acquires an interest in the land in question for money or money's worth, it shall be conclusively presumed that the facts were as stated in the certificate.
(4) Where—

(a) subsection (1) or (2) of section 34 applies to any mortgage of land held by or in trust for a charity, but

(b) subsection (2) above has not been complied with in relation to the mortgage,

then in favour of a person who (whether under the mortgage or afterwards) in good faith acquires an interest in the land for money or money's worth, the mortgage shall be valid whether or not—

(i) (where subsection (1) of that section applies) the mortgage has been sanctioned by an order of the court or of the Commissioners, or

(ii) (where subsection (2) of that section applies) the charity trustees have power under the trusts of the charity to grant the mortgage and have obtained and considered such advice as is mentioned in that subsection.

(5) In section 29(1) of the Settled Land Act 1925 (charitable and public trusts)—

(a) the requirement for a mortgage of land held on charitable, ecclesiastical or public trusts (as a "conveyance" of such land for the purposes of that Act) to state that it is held on such trusts shall not apply to any mortgage to which subsection (1) above applies; and

(b) the requirement imposed on a mortgagee (as a "purchaser" for those purposes), in the circumstances mentioned in section 29(1) of that Act, to see that any consents or orders requisite for authorising a transaction have been obtained shall not apply in relation to any mortgage in relation to which subsection (2) above has been complied with;

and expressions used in this subsection which are also used in that Act have the same meaning as in that Act.
(6) In this section—
"mortgage" includes a charge, and "mortgagee" shall be construed accordingly;
"land" means land in England or Wales;
"prescribed" and "registered disposition" have the same meaning as in the Land Registration Act 1925.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Removal of requirements under statutory provisions for consent to dealings with charity land]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 35, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) In section 2(4) of the Education Act 1973 after "religious education in accordance with the tenets of the denomination concerned" there shall be inserted "and, for the benefit of the locality served or formerly served by the voluntary school at the premises that have gone or are to go out of use for such a school, use for other educational purposes".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I shall also speak to Amendment No. 44. I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the Church lawyers and their officials and also my neighbour, the Bangor diocesan registrar and in particular the right reverend prelate, for all the time, trouble and letters they have written since Report on this subject. I am most grateful to them for their help as I fear some of my remarks on Report contained a certain inexcusable acidity.
The problem which this amendment addresses occurs when a church village school is no longer being used as a school and the diocese applies under Section 2 of the Education Act 1973 to the Secretary of State for permission to reallocate its resources. That usually involves a sale, although other methods can be used —for example, a long lease. The Secretary of State is then empowered to allocate the proceeds as he thinks fit within the terms of the trust. However, in most cases he will apportion three-fourteenths to the village and the rest to the diocesan board of education.
I believe it is correct to say that all parties, including the Church, are happy that in the great majority of cases some part of the benefit should return to the village. The problem is that on some occasions the village would like to receive a greater proportion than the three-fourteenths that I have mentioned. However, what is much more important, the village would like this benefit to be used for wider charitable purposes in the village, whereas the law and, I think, the Church—the right reverend Prelate will correct me if I am wrong on that point—insist that whatever the Secretary of State decides to allocate to the village must be used for denominational religious purposes. That is the nub of our disagreement. As the law stands, it is not possible for the village to use this fund for anything except narrowly defined religious education. Hence the fund is called the Sunday school fund and its trustees are usually rectors and church wardens. Our amendments would widen the uses to which the village could put that benefit.
The village case is supported by the report entitled Faith in the Countryside. Although I fully accept the Church need not act on that report, I hope members of the Church listened this morning to "Pause for Thought", in which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark implored us, and in particular the Church, to listen more attentively and constructively. Perhaps if the bishops do not do so, they may be refused entry to Westminster Abbey to say their prayers. They were refused entry 100 years ago for failing to be tolerant.
My case is that, when these trusts were made, education covered a much narrower field than is the case today. The classics were about all our ancestors studied—
Lord Renton: And the Bible!
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, they also studied the Bible. In Wales, if one did not belong to the Church of England as it was then, one received no education at all. Education has a more essential and wider role to play in the village. I believe that in the village education should embrace such things as playgroups, adult study groups and physical and recreational education. I hope your Lordships will agree that these wider benefits should be made available. Our amendments would achieve that, but I suggest that allowing and indeed making the Church become more involved in those activities would be of great benefit to the Church, as the Archbishop's Commission on Rural Areas thought. Surely it is an essential tenet of the Christian faith to be involved in all the affairs of men and women. Certainly, when these trusts were founded in the 19th century, progressive churchmen agreed with that concept. Our amendments would enable that involvement to occur.
I realise I have cut a lot of legal corners. I am, thank God, a farmer and not a lawyer. I know that the right reverend Prelate will be able to explain the position of the Church. I wish him in particular to explain the flexibility he spoke of on Report at col. 428 of the Official Report. Will that flexibility allow the fund to be used elsewhere if it is not possible to provide a demand for a Sunday school? Will it allow and encourage leaseholds and, if so, what will qualify as a leasehold? Will it allow sale at a discount under a covenant? Must the premises be used for religious education, or do they merely have to he made available for that purpose? Will the Church encourage full consultation with the village before applying for a Section 2 order?
I conclude by putting a question to your Lordships. Were these educational trusts set up solely to provide religious education in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England, or were they also in part set up to provide education for the village? I hope noble Lords think—as I do—that some small part of that trust was intended to provide education for the village and that they will support these amendments, or at least the principle behind them. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I fear my support for the noble Lord may be counter-productive because I am too much on his side to be tolerant about this matter. The Church of England has enjoyed remarkable support from non-Anglican citizens over a long period of time. The Church of England could not have maintained its denominational schools without state support. It could not have retained its denominational exclusiveness in the educational system if there had been no state support. The Church of England has been amply rewarded—I would say almost extravagantly rewarded—by the tolerance of other people.

197
Now, when a school is about to be dissolved and other arrangements made for the education of the children who attend the school, the question arises of who should have the money when the school premises and site have to be disposed of. Is that money to be used wholly for the purposes of Anglican schools elsewhere, or can it be divided between religious interests and those of the generality of citizens of the village?
I lived in a village where the villagers were mostly non-Anglicans. The patronage of the Church hierarchy served as a class distinction. The pew rents were beyond the purse of ordinary citizens. If one did not have one's own pew, one was not welcome in anyone else's pew. That was the case when I lived in a village in my youth. I am sure much of the spirit of the division between denominational school education and other education is still there.
It is monstrous to suggest that the whole of the proceeds in the cases we are discussing should be used for denominational expenditure simply because that is how the process started. I suggest that how it started is no basis for deciding what should be done now. That era is at an end except that denominational schools still receive state aid. What is more, to the utter dismay and horror of my family, support is now given to the Roman Catholic Church. If that is not an example of tolerance, I hope noble Lords can tell me what is. I speak as a member of a Nonconformist household whose members are bitterly resentful of the patronage, conservatism and disdain of Church of England churchgoers. I love to have an opportunity to vent my spite and the fruits of my historical inheritance upon the denominational educational system. I experienced that system and the remnants of it still exist.
I warmly support my noble friend opposite. I only hope that I have not ruined his case.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend and his amendments. Perhaps I may quote, as a precedent, experience in the village where I live. The schoolhouse of the church school became available and was sold. By agreement with the diocese, the local authority and the parish, the whole of the proceeds of that sale were placed in a trust for the educational benefit of the people of the village. That purpose is construed widely. It has enabled the trustees, who include the vicar, the churchwardens and members representing various interests in the village, to devote the funds to such purposes as buying books for young people going on to further education, to help the scouts in their work, and to provide various items for the village school, which still exists, which could not be provided by the educational fund. It has provided a great service to the village, which I feel sure justified the creation of the fund following the sale of the schoolhouse.
I hope that the spirit of my noble friend's amendments can be agreed by my noble friend the Minister and that trusts may be extended to include the proceeds of the sale of church schools.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I hope that I shall succeed in making an irenic speech in support of the amendment, which was moved so well by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley.
My father was an Anglican all his life. I happen to have been a Roman Catholic all my life. Nevertheless, I have served as a manager of a village, voluntary aided, Church of England primary school, (I believe that the managers have since been upgraded to governors). My three eldest sons attended that school. There is very little spirit of contention in that village. As well as functioning as a primary school the building has also provided a venue for such activities as the village Women's Institute, the flower show and a number of other purposes beneficial to the local community. I hope that it will continue for many years as a school and will not have to be closed.
However, one recognises that in some instances there are no longer enough children in a village to support a school, or perhaps a new school has been built in the next village and it is not possible to maintain two schools in the area. Closure of a school bears most severely on those villages which do not also possess a village hall. Having lost their schools, they may have no common meeting room for village purposes. That is a very difficult situation. In such cases there is a strong need for a venue for the type of function mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, such as pre-school groups, adult educational and recreational activities and other meetings. Therefore, I hope very much that the amendment will commend itself both to the Church of England and to the Government.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I must first beg leave of your Lordships to correct the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. He said that in Wales in previous centuries it was not possible to obtain a proper education if one was not part of the Church of England as it then was. I should be delighted to discuss with him at greater length, and in some other place, the superb work in the 18th century of Griffith Jones of Llanddowror and the circulating schools which he inaugurated and the spread, which has been widely documented in many books, of the Sunday school movement by Robert Raikes of Gloucester.
The amendment before us concerns the church village school. I am sure that the noble Lord is right in saying that the central question is where the greater need lies. It is difficult even for a fully paid up member of the Church of England like me to claim that religious educational needs in rural areas are growing at the same rate as secular educational needs. I find that I must support the amendments, for the reasons so lucidly given by the noble Lord.
It is clear that activities for educational purposes in villages or rural localities will increase in the years to come. Pre-school activity, physical education, extra-school activities, adult education and everything that it implies from small colleges through to the Open University—everything that is described in the French phrase, l'education permanente—suggest that the greater need in village localities will relate to the secular educational needs of the village. I cannot but

199
think that they should be served so far as is possible by the re-use of this money in the way which the amendments propose.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, it may perhaps help if at this stage I try to respond to some of the points that have been made. I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, with whom I have had conversations on this matter. I believe that in one sense there is no difference between us. As I explained to him, I come from a farming family and I have been rector of a country benefice in which a school was closed. Therefore, I know the difficulty to which the noble Lord alluded. Indeed, it touches a raw nerve whenever such a school is closed.
A school is not only a place of education. It is a focal point in the life of a community. It is a meeting place. Therefore, when that school closes a degree of the life of the community disappears. Inevitably the people left will wish to find a way of replacing what has been taken away from them. There is no doubt about that anxiety. I need to put before your Lordships, therefore, the dilemma in which we find ourselves and the way in which we try to relate to obligations and responsibilities.
I shall deal first with the responsibility in connection with religious education. Most church schools are held on trust and we have to honour trust law and obey trust deeds. The assets of a church school, as has already been pointed out, will have come over the years from a number of different sources. No doubt when such schools were founded, say 100 years ago, some of the money would have come from local people—local landowners and so on. Over the years, or even initially, it is likely that some of the assets will have come from grants from the National Society (Church of England) for Promoting Religious Education. I declare an interest as the present chairman of that body. They will also probably have received money from the Government and probably also recycled Section 2 money from other villages. Therefore, the assets will have come from a number of different sources; some local, some diocesan and some national. Therefore, we have to hear in mind that the money is not all local in origin.
It needs to be borne in mind that these schools are church schools, whether Church of England, Roman Catholic or Free Church. In the 19th century it was the National Society which was the principal agency for the founding of schools in England and Wales. Other schools were founded by the Free Churches through the British and Foreign Schools Society. Therefore, such schools were not Church of England by accident; they were and are Church of England schools by deliberate intent.
In 1944, as part of the Church/state bargain, it was agreed that money from redundant church schools should be recycled into the Churches' partnership in the Church/state relationship in order to maintain the Churches' part in the educational system of the country. The Church of England currently has 2,000 aided church schools, quite apart from controlled schools of which there are a greater number. The Roman Catholic Church has more aided schools than
200
the Church of England. If there is to be a continued partnership between the Church and state in education, the money invested by the Churches in education needs to remain available as the position of schools changes in the light of changing circumstances. Therefore at the end of the day we must be clear that we are dealing with money held on trust for denominational religious education.
Having said that, I myself—I speak specifically for the Church of England—would wish to put alongside that the responsibility that the Church of England feels for the local community. We have always been a local Church and a community Church with doors open to the varied local concerns. Our view is that, provided we can do it without breach of trust, we should like to be able to meet local aspirations. I believe that we can do so in large measure within the existing law.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, pointed out, when a school closes it is customary for three-fourteenths of the proceeds to be made available—the noble Lord said it was made available to the village, but more strictly it is usually made available to a local trust, of which the trustees are the vicar and the churchwardens —and usually required to be used for general religious education purposes. I regret that the phrase used is normally "Sunday school fund". I feel that we should abandon that phrase. It is largely misleading. For many people "Sunday school" still conjures up a picture of elderly spinsters telling Bible stories to small groups of children. There is a lot to be said for that but the world has moved on and that is not the way in which religious education, even of a denominational kind, is put into practice. We speak nowadays of "all-age learning". Many localities have holiday clubs in which children are given the opportunity for wide ranging activities of an educational kind but with a religious dimension. Those are the kinds of activities that are included in our understanding of religious education.
I was almost challenged, so to speak, by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, to give examples of the flexibility that exists under the present law; and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, who gave an example of that flexibility under the existing law. It is possible. At this point I must tread wearily because on the one hand the Secretary of State for Education has to make decisions about these matters and on the other hand the Charity Commissioners look carefully at us to make sure that we observe the trusts.
In the advice which the Church of England gives to dioceses and trustees of local schools—we are reissuing that advice and strengthening it—we always say that there should be local discussions at an early stage, in the hope of clarifying the local needs and seeing whether there is a way to meet them. Within the existing law we can give consideration, for instance, to leasing school premises to a local charity, with a reservation about using the school at specified times for religious education. If that is done, the reservation necessarily lowers the market value. That gives a degree of flexibility. We can, for instance, consider a sale to a local charity, provided that the capital is not immediately needed for Church schools elsewhere. A

201
sale with restrictive covenants can be considered, so that if the building is subsequently resold the Church interest for religious education can have its appropriate share in any uplift value. Those are the kinds of ways that have been used and which we can continue to use and encourage, provided that we observe the terms of the trusts to which the money has been given and used over the years.
I am in some difficulty when it comes to the amendments. There seem to be two amendments. If I have understood the position correctly, they are alternatives; one has been moved and the other has not been moved. I have some difficulty in speaking to them.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the right reverend Prelate will allow me to intervene. It may help him if I mention that they are intended to be alternative amendments. That is what my noble friend Lord Stanley and I agreed, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, accept that.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I understood the amendments to be alternatives. In that case it may be helpful to say—I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I put it in these terms —that the less damaging of the two amendments is the first one. I doubt whether it achieves its objective because it leaves untouched in the 1973 Act the dominant phrase of the clause; namely, that any reuse of sale proceeds must be
"to [enable] the denomination concerned to participate more effectively in the administration of the statutory system of public education".
As I understand it, that phrase would still be left, controlling the rest of the section even though the amendments may be inserted at the end.
The second amendment appears to raise particular difficulties. If I read it right—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will put me straight on it—it provides that the premises of any school shall be used for educational purposes if the Secretary of State so directs. But it does not in any way alter the nature of the trust or the nature of the trustees. What would happen would be that the present trustees, who have been holding the building and using it for religious educational purposes, would find, whether they liked it or not, that they were operating for a totally different purpose. Without change of trustees and the agreement of those trustees to the change of purpose, we may be in some difficulty because the trustees may not be sympathetic to the use that the Secretary of state lays down.
The noble Lord may be able to help but I find particular difficulties with the second amendment. If, therefore, an amendment is to be made, I should certainly want to look closely at the first one. The examples that I and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, gave indicate that already there is much more flexibility without breach of trust than people have hitherto recognised. I give such undertaking as I can, but I have to be realistic. These matters are not in the control of the General Synod Board of Education, of which I am chairman. These matters are in the control
202
of local trustees and diocesan authorities. The only undertaking I can give, therefore, is to say that I am ready, as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education, to give such clear, firm encouragement and advice as I can to diocesan authorities to take very seriously the points which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, quite rightly said are included in the report Faith in the Countryside, to which he drew particular attention.
On the basis of that explanation of the history of the circumstances and the present law, whose history differs slightly from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I hope that the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, perhaps I may ask a question which he or the Government will be able to answer. It concerns the public interest, in the sense of ratepayers' and taxpayers' interest, in Church of England schools. Ever since 1944 and perhaps before then, it has been possible for a substantial part of the cost of both repairs and improvements to be carried by the local education authority—in some cases up to 85 per cent. How is the public interest of the general population in that expenditure to be safeguarded for the benefit of the local community in the area served?
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to my amendment before my noble friend Lord Ferrers replies to this important debate.
First, I hope that I shall please the right reverend Prelate by the proviso at the end of my amendment which in effect gives the trustees the last word, a veto, even over the discretion of the Secretary of State, in using the power which my amendment suggests he should have to use the assets and the buildings,
"for any educational, recreational or other purposes of benefit to people living in the locality".
I hope in that way to set at rest the mind of the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, will the noble Lord help me further? The amendment does not provide that the trustees shall decide whether there is denominational need. It appears to me to imply that the Secretary of State decides whether there is any local denominational educational need. If that is correct, that would surely involve the Secretary of State making a decision that he may not wish to make and, furthermore, might involve considerable negotiation which might be time consuming. Perhaps I have misunderstood the noble Lord.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may amplify the explanation that I gave. That proviso means that the terms of the trust have to be enforced. That is the same as saying that the trustees, who are bound by the terms of the trust, would have the last word.
Perhaps I may deal with several of the matters which have arisen. As the right reverend Prelate was good enough to say, there is a dilemma. As was pointed out by every single noble Lord who spoke, it is a worrying situation in those villages where the matter arises—and it arises fairly frequently all over

203
the country. I have several examples in my former constituency. I live in a village in which there is a splendid new Church school. Other Church schools were closed down in neighbouring villages in order that it could be built. But it was built very largely with public funds. I should not like to hazard the exact proportion of Church money but it was, I believe, very small. If we were to decide the matter on who provided the money, we should bear in mind that, although the money was provided originally for a Church school, it did not normally come from the Church to any great extent; it came from parishioners, from people living in the village not all of whom were necessarily regular churchgoers, although I dare say that one could estimate that pretty well all of them were members of the Church of England or whichever denomination had built the school.
I sympathise a great deal with the right reverend Prelate; I happen to be a member of the Church of England. He emphasised the need for maintaining religious education in accordance with the terms of the original trust. But we have to bear in mind that throughout this century religious education was only a small proportion of the total amount of education provided in Church of England schools. That is a factor which we ought in conscience to bear in mind even though we are keen supporters of the Church of England.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley—which I support as an alternative to my own—and my own amendment are respectively the third and fourth attempts to put before your Lordships some way to resolve the dilemma. The method that I have adopted, I have to concede, would cover only a very small proportion of any cases which might arise. My amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should have a very wide power indeed. It provides that,
"the Secretary of State may make an order"—
my amendment uses the word "may"—
"requiring those premises to be used for any educational, recreational or other purposes of benefit to people living in the locality provided that he may not make any such order if the endowments of the trust on which these premises were held are needed for denominational education under such trusts".
That gives to the right reverend Prelate the provision that he seeks on behalf of the Church. I have to concede that it would only be in a small number of cases, a very rare occasion, when the Secretary of State would be able to use his full power and find that he was not prevented by the terms of the denominational trust.
It is quite clear from the discussions that we had in Committee, on Report and in the debate today that there is a wide desire in your Lordships' House—I am sure that it is reflected throughout England and Wales —that something should be done to try to save premises which were Church schools or denominational schools of one kind or another but which have come into very wide and necessary use by villages. Some uses have been mentioned already. My noble friend Lord Boardman referred to scouts. We know that the Red Cross sometimes likes to use village schools, as do the Women's Institute and the Mothers'
204
Union, which is indeed a Church organisation. Parish councils, parochial church councils and the British Legion are all good causes which the Church of England supports. If the premises are not available for those good causes, then one of the assumed wishes of the Church of England will be frustrated.
I most earnestly ask that my noble friend give further thought to the matter. If he supports either the very limited, modest amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley or my amendment, that would give some satisfaction but only in a limited number of cases. If, after negotiating with the Church authorities, the Government could find some more fulfilling, broader way of dealing with the problem, then all the better. I hope that we shall receive an encouraging reply from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Congleton: My Lords, almost everything that I had hoped to say has already been said, if not in Committee, on Report and this afternoon. I speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and I congratulate him on his persistence. He has spoken with eloquence and lucidity.
I speak as one who has lived in a small village in south Wiltshire for 32 years. I have been treasurer of a small parochial church council, manager of the village school and in a rather elevated fashion was for six years a member of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches. Therefore, I claim an insight into the problems which beset the Church of England, of which I have been a member all my life, and the small parishes to which reference has been made. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford was correct in saying that the Church acts within the law. The Charity Commissioners apply the law. The issue is in a bind of some kind.
There is widespread support for the wider use of former village schools. When I first went to live in my village there was a church, a chapel, a pub, a post office, a village hall and a school. We have lost the post office, the shop and the school—that may seem a strange set of priorities. Our village hall was an old First World War army hut. Because our community is resilient and resourceful it set about providing itself with a new hall. When the school was closed seven or eight years ago it was discovered that there was a residuary legatee. The school arose as a result of a benefaction by some 19th century munificence on the part of a local resident. To the heirs and successors of that benefactor went the school, and it was sold for a considerable sum of money. After several months I discovered what was happening and made an application to the residuary legatee for a contribution towards the new village hall, which was costing about £30,000 to build. I received what I suppose was a generous cheque of £25. That example is not entirely parallel with the sale of Church schools and the money reverting to the Church for educational purposes, but it is not entirely dissimilar.
I can only echo what has been said by those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I listened to the right reverend Prelate with great interest. He was being generous in talking about flexibility and so

205
forth. However, I asked myself why we should wait upon the generosity of the Church of England in such issues when we had had the use of our schools for purposes other than religious education and general education for so many years. Have we not established some kind of right to have them and to use them in the way in which they have been used hitherto? I am not certain that it is right that we should be beholden in this way. The Church is correct and is within the law. The Charity Commissioners apply the law. As legislators it is our job to change the law if we think fit in order to meet changing circumstances and to bring it up to date.
I could go on—I have an enormous brief from ACRE, the charity which looks after rural matters —but this is not the moment to do so. Many of the points that are contained in my brief should be discussed between the diocesan board of education and the vicars and church wardens in their parishes. I support the amendments and I hope that the Minister and the right reverend Prelate will look at them with great care and sympathy.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that this is an important debate. It touches upon issues about which many people are deeply anxious. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that the school is a focal point of the village. People mind about it, they like it and are worried and distressed when it is sold. We all wish to see resolved or at least minimised the difficulties, conflicts and sorrows caused by the sale of a school. I believe that all noble Lords agree with that.
However, we are debating the case of a school that has become redundant and must be sold. Denominational schools are set up as charitable trusts. If the school is sold for above the market price, it can be sold to anyone, and to anyone in the village provided that it is sold above the market price, and it can be sold to any charity. If that were so there would be no difficulty in those people who have enjoyed the school in the past enjoying it in the future, provided that they could pay for it.
If, on the other hand, the school is sold for below the market price, the original charitable trust—that is, the educational trust for which the school was built up —will be denied the full amount. Provided that the school is sold to a charitable trust within the village whose objects are the same as those of the school, that can be done. The original beneficiary of the charitable trust will receive less money but the building will be transferred to a similar charity within the village. That can be done provided that the commissioners agree.
One is then presented with the third problem: that is, what to do with a village school which is to be sold —thereby denying the original trust the full value of the sale—to a charity whose purposes are different from those for which the school was originally built. That is the position that we face with these two amendments. There is a fundamental difficulty in the suggestion that the original trust should have less than its normal proceeds, that the children who will be educated by the trust thereafter will be denied the full
206
proceeds and that some other charity which has different objectives from the school will have advantage of the building.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that the amendments may force the Secretary of State to make decisions which he does not wish to make. Furthermore, they will extend the powers of the Secretary of State over charities, which is a sphere in which he is not competent or suitably involved.
Although they adopt different approaches, Amendment No. 44 to be moved by my noble friend Lord Renton and Amendment No. 43 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley both seek to achieve similar ends by different means. They seek to give the Secretary of State for Education wider powers under the Education Act 1973 to enable him to make fresh provision for the use of denominational educational endowments which would not reflect and perpetuate their denominational and educational character.
Although I sympathise with the intention behind these amendments, I wish to explain why in the Government's view neither is desirable in principle and how the existing law already provides for the needs of the local community to be catered for when a denominational school is closed. For the reasons which I gave in Committee, the approach proposed by my noble friend Lord Renton goes too far. To allow other local charities to benefit from the sale of discontinued denominational schools in the way in which my noble friend's amendment proposes would be to allow the primary educational purposes of the school trust to become subservient to other purposes. That would be unfair to those who stand to benefit from the continued use of the proceeds of sale for educational purposes.
It is in the interests of the children who formerly attended the discontinued school that the sale proceeds from that school should be used as far as possible for educational purposes and that the amount of those proceeds should be as large as possible. Furthermore, they should continue to benefit from the proceeds of that village school, as they benefited from the school before it was sold. I find it difficult to foresee the situation suggested by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton where there will no longer be a need for the sale proceeds of a school to be used for educational purposes.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend moves on, perhaps he has overlooked the proviso at the end of my amendment which makes it clear that the denominational trust shall prevail over the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I daresay that it does, but that does not alter the basic argument, which is that when the schools are sold the proceeds should go towards the further education of those who would have benefited.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley takes a more moderate line.

207
However, it seems to me that it too would run counter to fundamental principles of charity law by giving the Secretary of State power to apply the money from the sale of educational property in a way which was not in accordance with the denominational and educational character of the trusts in question.
The existing law goes some way to address the anxieties of local communities, even though the primary function of orders under Section 2 of the 1973 Act is to enable the sale proceeds from closed Church schools to be applied for the benefit of schools of the same denomination in a wider area.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, vented his spite on denominational schools. I believe that those were his fairly clear words. He said that what happened in the past belonged to the past and should not determine what happens in the future. With respect to the noble Lord, that is a way of totally disregarding charity law. How the school started and what tenets and trusts were made within which the school operates is of fundamental importance to what should happen to the money when the school is sold. One cannot say, "That money belongs to a charitable trust but let us pretend that it does not because this is a bore and we should like to use the money elsewhere". The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is always extremely entertaining. He becomes worked up with his own enthusiasm and manages to make us worked up too. I believe, with respect, that he is misdirected on this occasion.
Where the Secretary of State makes an order under Section 2 of the 1973 Act he may under subsection (4) either authorise the diocese to use all of the proceeds of sale for the benefit of other voluntary schools in the diocese or make provision for the sale proceeds to be applied partly in connection with voluntary schools and partly in other ways related to the local area served by the school which has closed.
My noble friend Lord Stanley and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford referred to Sunday school funds. Those funds usually represent three-fourteenths of the sale proceeds, but the Secretary of State can increase that proportion depending on the needs which are identified and the extent of the activity envisaged. But that must be educational and denominational. Sunday school funds, which are created at the request of the trustees and with the agreement of the Secretary of State, are currently created in respect of about 40 per cent. of the schools which are comprised in Section 2 orders. This local provision is invariably made in response to pressure from local interests, either via the diocesan authority or to the Department of Education direct.
All orders made under Section 2 of the 1973 Act authorise the assets to be applied "for appropriate educational purposes". That means for purposes in connection with the provision of religious education in accordance with the tenets of the denomination concerned. That properly reflects both the educational and the denominational nature of the trusts which govern Church schools. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley would result in the denominational aspect of the trust being lost.
208
There is no reason in principle why the assets of those Sunday school funds should not be applied, if the trustees wish, to provide more broadly based educational activities which, while retaining an element of religious education, meet more closely the needs of the local community. It would be for the trustees to ensure that whatever they chose to do remained within the terms of the trust in question.
I understand that the Department of Education is considering proposals to alert the trustees of any school which is proposed for inclusion in a Section 2 order to the Secretary of State's discretion to create a Sunday school fund. Furthermore, the Board of Education of the Church of England intends to issue a publication highlighting the flexibility which Section 2 of the 1973 Act already offers. I think that those steps will do much to protect the needs of the local communities by ensuring that they have the chance to call for local provision if and when they so wish.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the funds which are made available by Section 2 orders. They are used to support the diocesan authorities' collective contribution to the 15 per cent. share which trustees and governors have in capital investment in respect of building projects associated with over 2,000 Church of England voluntary aided schools. That commitment by the Church of England during the 1990–91 financial year amounted to over £5 million, for which the corresponding contribution from public funds amounted to more than £50 million.
This is a difficult situation. I understand the anxieties which have been expressed. However, a balance must be struck between the needs of new and continuing voluntary schools and those of local villages. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that there is a good deal more flexibility here than is realised.
While I understand the reasons behind both the two amendments proposed by my noble friends, I believe that the existing arrangements offer the best way of dealing with those sometimes difficult and conflicting interests.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, sometimes, but not very often, I wish I were a lawyer. However, I shall try to reply as quickly as I can.
I should like to address the point made by the right reverend Prelate, my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Lord, Lord Congleton. I accept that the trusts cannot be used for a purpose other than that for which they were originally designed. Of course Parliament can change that. Indeed, I believe that Section 2 of the 1973 Act did just that.
I return to my original theme which I believe most noble Lords accept; namely, that the trusts should be widened to include education other than strictly religious education. I believe that the cy pres principle applies in the light of changing circumstances. If the law is as flexible as my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate say it is, I wonder why my noble friend will not accept the amendment. At one time I gained the impression that the right reverend Prelate was almost accepting Amendment No. 43, whereas his legal advisers believe it to be unacceptable because it

209
does not comply strictly with promoting education according to the tenets of the Church of England. That shows the muddle that still exists.
I accept that the right reverend Prelate can only make suggestions to dioceses. I hope that he will make those suggestions because some dioceses, particularly the diocese of St. Edmunds and Ipswich, would like the law to be changed and I have a letter to that effect.
I should say to my noble friend Lord Ferrers that my amendment refers to what should be done with the money that is returned by the Secretary of State to the village, as opposed to the situation of a sale to another charity at less than the market value. I am worried that often the money is used for education which is not available to children in the village. Moreover, my amendment would not lose the denominational character of the trust. I have said before that I still try to be a member of the Church of England so I do not wish to detract from that.
I am grateful for the support and interest of all noble Lords on this, what I call "village" amendment. I believe that all who have spoken have accepted that there is a problem. Unfortunately, the right reverend Prelate does not feel able to accept the amendment.
I have to say that I am disappointed, for all the comments and discussions I had with the Church indicated a strong desire to show how flexible these trusts are. Sadly, the right reverend Prelate feels unable to accept this most moderate of moderate amendments—far too moderate for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. The rector and churchwardens would be able to widen the benefit returning to the village. Perhaps there is a lack of trust between the diocese and the rector and churchwardens. I am sorry to say that there was when I was a churchwarden. It is perhaps a case of the spirit being willing but the flesh being weak. The flesh in this case is money, which has been a problem to the Church for a number of centuries.
I am grateful for the help given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in trying to clarify the point. I hope that he will accept—perhaps he will nod—that his door is open in the future to representations from the village and the Church, should there be need for further clarification. I am not sure that he goes as far as that but we shall continue to rattle at the door of government and the Church as we have with dog registration. I can only hope that it is not an unregistered pit bull terrier that gets the right reverend Prelate. I shall be delighted at some stage in the future to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, the subject of Welsh education, particularly in Anglesey where there was a parliamentary row in the 19th century.
I should have liked to ask the opinion of the House in regard to the amendment. One day I am sure that someone will do so. I suggest that the Church should start listening and acting; otherwise, it may be saddled with something far more radical than this small amendment suggests. However, if I divide the House this evening and by chance win, it will result in the whole Bill being lost. I will not be responsible for that.
210
Therefore, with disappointment, but in confidence that with the goodwill expressed by the right reverend Prelate we shall one day solve the problem, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 43 [Small charities: power to spend capital]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 42, line 22, leave out second ("their") and insert ("the").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which makes the wording of subsection (4) of Clause 43 more clear and consistent. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in the art and science of textual criticism in which I have exercised myself day and night for the past 40 years, it is well known that a misprint often goes undetected in many reprints if it makes any kind of sense. Countless manuscripts and printed texts will produce precisely this example of a reduplication of a word used as a kind of echo. In this case we have the words,
"in their opinion, impose on the charity"
obviously the correct reading, mistakenly put in as "their charity."
Clearly, the word "the" is correct. I am delighted to find such a neat example of a well attested textual corruption in the Bill and I am happy to support the correction.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 54 [Restriction on institution of proceedings for certain offences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 49, leave out line 23 and insert:
("(a) section (Status of registered charity (other than small charity) to appear on official publications etc.) above;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, although this amendment was grouped with the amendment concerning Clause 6, it raises quite different issues. I do not think that any consensus can emerge unless your Lordships consider the matter separately.
At Report Stage I sought to leave out the whole of the clause because it made the ancient and variable right of private prosecution dependent upon the favour of an official —the Director of Public Prosecutions. That evoked the support of the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Renton, both former Home Office Ministers and both accomplished and experienced lawyers, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in addition, having been the main director of the 1960 Act when it was going through the other place.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I can interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I wonder whether he is speaking to Amendment No. 47 rather than to Amendment No. 46. Amendment No. 46 was spoken to with Amendment No. 3.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am speaking to both. I do not wish to see Amendment No. 46 in the Bill at all. That applies the provisions as to DPP consent to the new Clause 6, substituted by the noble Earl in place of the former clause which aroused such general condemnation. I want to leave out paragraph (a) entirely and not include the wording of Amendment No. 46.
When I proposed the leaving out of the whole clause, it evoked assent, to which I attached great importance. However, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to whom I generally look for support in these matters, in both Committee and on Report expressed a contrary view. I therefore withdrew the amendment. The matter is now rather different and more concentrated. The noble Earl kindly wrote to me at some length—I received the letter today—dealing with the general matter of DPP consent and explaining how he saw the specific provisions operating. That was extremely helpful and I am grateful to him.
There are two safeguards to the abuse of private prosecutions. The first is that it is always open to the Attorney-General to take over a prosecution and enter what is in technical terms a nolle prosequi—I must apologise for the barbarous way in which lawyers pronounce Latin. It amounts to a withdrawal of the prosecution on behalf of the Attorney-General, he having taken the case over. That is a safeguard against abuse. On the other hand, on the last occasion I ventured to remind your Lordships of the Glasgow rape case where the Lord Advocate, for perfectly good reasons, refused his consent to a prosecution. At that time it was believed that there were no rights of prosecution in Scotland. However, the complainant managed to revive, after a lapse of 150 years, the right of private prosecution. No one studying the case can doubt for a moment that without that justice would not have been done.
What has happened since the debate on Report is this. Previously, paragraph (a) applied to Clause 6 as it stands in the Bill at the moment. That was universally assailed, first, because it created a criminal offence for a mere administrative omission; secondly, because it made it an absolute offence—in other words, a trustee was liable merely as a trustee even though he knew nothing about the offence and could have known nothing about it; and, thirdly, because it reversed the onus of proof.
Presumably it was felt that that was so inherently likely to do injustice that private prosecutions without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions could not be countenanced. The position is quite different now. The noble Earl has rightly met those concerns by moving a new clause which meets with general approbation and which is subject to none of the matters that aroused anxiety. So the first question is: why is the consent of the director necessary in the event of this new clause? On this narrow issue I hope to enlist the support of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It is only right that we should make the right of prosecution depend on the favour of an official if it is inherently likely that private prosecutions without that waiting on favour and in
212
spite of the right of the Attorney-General to take over a prosecution and abandon it are liable to cause injustice.
There are certain crimes which in the middle of the last century were thought to fall into that category, mainly concerning perjury. However, this matter cannot possibly do so. The question I ask the noble Earl is this. Why is it necessary to provide assent as defined in this new clause to wait on the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions if a private prosecution under his new clause is inherently likely to cause injustice, notwithstanding that the Attorney-General can take over the prosecution?
I do not know whether I am right in begging to move my amendment or whether I am merely opposing the noble Earl's amendment. I fancy that the latter is the proper course. If that is so, I beg him not to press this amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships. I should have pointed out that if Amendment No. 46 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 47. We are now dealing with Amendment No. 46.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was quite correct in his procedural remarks and also as regards his factual remarks. He was opposing my Amendment No. 46 which he did in his characteristically robust way. If my amendment were passed, the noble and learned Lord's Amendment No. 47, as the Deputy Speaker has said, would not be called.
The noble and learned Lord does not like the criminal offence in Clause 3 concerning the disclosure of a charity's registered status. He has made it clear that in his view the failure to comply with the requirements of that clause should be merely an administrative failing and should not be subject to the whole rigmarole of criminal sanctions.
I do not know what sanction would or could be put in its place. In preparing the Bill I examined very closely what sanctions should exist for the various duties which are created in it. Whatever alternative to a criminal sanction one might concoct in this context, it would almost certainly be more cumbersome and expensive than a criminal sanction. Under the Charities Act 1960 the commissioners can compel trustees to make good various defaults. I cannot see the point in requiring a trustee to make good the default of omitting to give the statement which is required by Clause 3 as regards a cheque written six months ago. In any event, the noble and learned Lord believes that if there is to be a criminal offence in Clause 3 it should not be subject to the requirement of the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before a prosecution can take place.
My noble friend Lord Astor explained at Report stage and at some length why we consider that the Director of Public Prosecutions' consent is an important safeguard for the interests of trustees and others who work for charities. We still remain of that view and for good reason. Many people who help with charities are volunteers. They give up their time and give freely of their efforts without reward. We have to

213
balance that against the need to create an appropriate sanction for the duties which are created in the Bill. Of course there are duties put on trustees. That is the only way in which one can control charities. The whole purpose of the Charities Bill is to control and regulate charities. Therefore, if people are going to default there has to be some kind of sanction against them.
It is right that the possibility of prosecution for an offence under the Bill and under the Charities Act 1960 should be a sanction of last resort. In order to ensure that it is a sanction of last resort there needs to be a safeguard. That safeguard is provided by the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
An offence under Clause 3 could be a relatively minor breach. In that case in all probability there will be no need for a prosecution. An offence under Clause 3 could be merely one aspect of a much wider attempt by people who are involved in a charity to mislead the public. An offence under this clause would not therefore always be a minor affair. It is perfectly clear that where they are minor affairs they would not come to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions because prosecution would not be sought.
When we came to prepare the Bill we looked carefully to see whether it was possible to give the commissioners some kind of prosecuting arm. I came to the conclusion that that kind of provision could not be justified in cost terms. The number of prosecutions was likely to be relatively small, but they would still require some of the commissioners' staff to be trained in the criminal law where they have no expertise. I concluded that the most effective way would be to give the task of prosecution to the body which exists for that purpose—in order words, the Crown Prosecution Service. Offences can be prosecuted straightforwardly by it and that will accord with the Government's general concern to encourage the efficient running of the criminal justice system.
The commissioners' expertise and resources will be devoted to the investigation of charity affairs. They fully support the division of responsibility between them and the Crown Prosecution Service when it comes to the prosecution of offences. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is the right way forward. Section 1 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 provides that, where any enactment requires the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, any Crown prosecutor who is in charge of that case may take any step or give consent on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is no need for a certificate of consent in any case except where the consent of the Attorney-General is required. Generally, the Crown Prosecutor has delegated to him all the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
For those reasons, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will see why we have these provisions in the Bill. I hope that he will find his way to agreeing that they are reasonable provisions.
6 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I respectfully remind him that he has not answered my question. Are private
214
prosecutions under his new clause so likely to cause injustice, notwithstanding the right of the attorney to take them over, that it is necessary to encroach the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only say to the noble and learned Lord that that is a protection which we think is correct. If there is going to be a private prosecution it should nevertheless have the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in order to make sure that there are no frivolous prosecutions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 49, line 24, leave out ("that") and insert ("the 1960").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 51, line 29, leave out ("same meaning as in the Charities Act 1960;") and insert ("meaning given by section 46 of the Charities Act 1960 (as amended by the Companies Act 1989);").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, our definition of "company" in Clause 57 was a little unpopular at Report stage. A number of your Lordships, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, thought it could be made clearer in particular by making it explicit that the reference to the Charities Act 1960 was to that Act as amended by the Companies Act 1989. Like all your Lordships I want to make the Bill as clear as possible, therefore I have come forward with this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I rise only to thank the Government for this amendment which resolves the difficulty to which I drew attention at Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Prohibition on conducting public charitable collections without authorization]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 63, line 5, at end insert:
(" or
(c) where regulations made by the Secretary of State provided for circumstances under which the need for a permit issued by a local authority under section 67 of this Act may be waived.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I sympathise with the general objective of this part of the Bill. However, having thought it over since the last stage I still believe that there is a case for considering some possible relaxation from the need for local authority permits, under Clause 67, for certain types of harmless and well-accepted activities. Last time I instanced carol singing, boy scouts cleaning cars, and collecting for jumble sales. Since then I have had a long and helpful letter from the noble Earl who points out that the requirements put on those people are not very onerous. All they have to do is to get a permit and keep accounts. He emphasises the drafting difficulties which I freely acknowledged the last time I spoke.
If I may say so I think that he somewhat overstates the problem in places. He says in his letter that it would be difficult to explain to promoters why, if they are simply collecting money from door to door, they would need a permit, but if they sang carols at the same time they would not. I should have thought that it was perfectly easy to explain the difference. I cannot help thinking about next Christmas if, as happened last time, three small boys come to my door singing carols to raise money for a project for the Egham Parish Church. Do I say, "Where is your permit? What arrangements are you making to keep accounts? Do you realise that if you are not doing it right you are committing a criminal offence?" Have I to say the same when neighbours come round collecting old newspapers for a local charity? My milkman has recently left a receptacle in which we can put milk bottle tops for a charity. Does he need a permit to do that?
The present law covers some of those activities, but I think there is general agreement that it is not enforced. I am slightly alarmed by the prospect which the noble Earl's letter conjures up. He says that the impetus of this fresh legislation, together with the publicity which will be given to the Bill once it becomes law, will change the position and ignorance of the law, both by those who collect and those who enforce, will be greatly reduced.
One of his arguments against my proposal is that there might be some inconsistency between different local authority areas. But how much more would that apply if prosecutions were more widely undertaken? The prospect of this being done on any consistent basis seems somewhat remote. As I said, I have not for a moment under-rated the difficulty of drafting and certainly the problems could well prove formidable. However, if we do not have powers on the lines of my amendment we cannot even try. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. As the law stands, and as the Bill is drafted, regulations governing public collections would also apply, as he said, to the collection of goods. It seems ridiculous that the collection of goods for jumble sales, or old newspapers, by local groups such as the Women's Institute or boy scouts, should fall under this form of regulation. There are many hundreds of thousands of such collections throughout the country each year. Are my noble friends on the Front Bench really saying that sufficient resources will exist to regulate and police these activities properly? Surely there is enormous capacity here for the law to be brought into immediate disrepute. Is it not better to provide powers to the Secretary of State to enable him to waive the requirements in specific cases? I refer to the type of fund-raising activity, not the creation of waivers for every collection.
The Government might say that to do so would only create a potential loophole through which the unscrupulous could pass. No one wants that. I do not think that that will be the case. Indeed, new provisions regulating fund raising in Part II and Part III of the
216
Bill will ensure that that cannot be the case. For example, if a rag and bone merchant wanted to distribute bags to people's houses, asking them to fill them with jumble and indicating that part of the proceeds would go to a charity, then that rag and bone merchant might be waived responsibility under the public collection regulations, but he would most certainly be regarded as a professional fund-raiser under the definition stipulated in Clause 57 in Part II. As such he would have to fulfil all the new requirements in that part of the Bill specifically designed to protect donors and voluntary organisations.
I do hope that my noble friend can see his way to accepting this amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I said right at the outset this afternoon that, by and large, the Government's approach has been sensible and reasonable. Indeed, they have been accommodating on a large number of issues.
This is a Bill which imposes restrictions on fund-raising. It says that people who want to raise money have to go through certain hoops. It seems to me that there may be situations in which it is clearly absurd that the people who are raising funds should have to go through those hoops. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, illustrated that quite dramatically by the case of the local waits who may be collecting for the local hospital, or what have you. Is it really necessary that they should have to go through all the rigmarole of getting a licence from the local authority to say that on Saturday 21st December they are entitled to go round the village singing carols and holding out their collection boxes?
This is a saving provision. One thing we are all agreed about in this Bill is that one cannot foresee all the eventualities that the Bill is likely to cover. In those circumstances I should have thought that to have a saving provision in the Bill which actually gives the Secretary of State the power to release some of the pressures that the Bill imposes is a power which, on the face of it, I should have thought the Secretary of State would rather like to have; otherwise he could find himself in the position of having to insist upon the procurement of a licence in circumstances in which most people looking at it would think that it is absolute nonsense that a licence should have to be procured.
For the life of me I do not understand why the Government cannot accept the amendment in the spirit in which it was offered by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. It is a useful provision which the Secretary of State might at some stage wish to use.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, since the previous stage of the Bill I have looked at this matter with considerable care because I knew that it would be all too easy for the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, to make fun of the whole thing, particularly with regard to carol singers. He did so, and very effectively too. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he could not for the life of him understand why we could not accept the amendment. There is first a technical reason why I could not recommend the amendment to your

217
Lordships. The wording is defective in that it allows the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying circumstances when the requirement for a permit should be waived but it does not go on to remove the need for a permit in those circumstances.
Apart from that technical objection, as I understand it the amendment seems to rest on a local authority granting a waiver in respect of an activity of the kind which is specified in the regulations, but if it is necessary for the charity or other group to apply to the local authority for a waiver, one then wonders why it should not apply instead for a permit as the provisions of Part III require.
There are substantive objections to the amendment. I understand of course why the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has moved it. I think, however, that it would be difficult to make the system proposed in the amendment work —let alone fairly—in practice. It seems to me that what the noble Lord is proposing could have effects which may prove to be both as absurd as those which he has mentioned and indeed inequitable. I think that drafting the kind of regulations which this amendment envisages would be very difficult to accomplish without either creating absurdities or loopholes for the less scrupulous. It would be easy enough to specify carol singing as an exempt activity. But if one did so, the group which sings "The Holly and the Ivy" would be able to take advantage of the concession but the group which sang "White Christmas" would not because that is not a carol. It would be difficult to think of a more absurd situation than one in which the application of the criminal law depends on the classification of the items sung.
Likewise, it ought to be possible to cover what is known as bob-a-job week. But a detailed provision of this kind would create its own anomalies since similar activities by groups other than scouts would not be covered.
If the concession were limited only to certain groups, how would those groups be chosen? What criteria should the Secretary of State use to decide between competing interests? It seems to me that it would be wholly inequitable to discriminate between one charity, benevolent or philanthropic institution and another. If we went down this route, the waiver would have to be of general application. Your Lordships might agree with that and say that the regulations should be drafted widely. But the more widely they are drafted, the greater the risk that the exception might be used improperly.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, quoted my letter and lampooned it, as I thought he probably would. He said that it was absurd to require people singing carols to have a permit. What is proposed is no different from the law as it stands now. That is the position. If one takes carol singing as an example, one might well wish to exempt the choir of the local parish church, but we do not at the same time wish to open the door to unauthorised collections by some of the more dubious religious cults which advance the Christian faith. They too could enjoy the exemption if they sang a quick verse of "Silent Night" while rattling their tins or selling their newsletter.
218
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to milk bottle tops. The milkman has to have a permit to collect milk bottle tops. If the noble Lord's amendment were introduced, the milkman need not have a permit provided he sang a carol while he collected his milk bottle tops. My noble friend Lord Swinfen referred to the rag and bone merchant. The rag and bone merchant has to have a permit now, so we are not making the law any different from that which exists at the moment.
The amendment could lead to other inequities. One could have a group of people going down the street collecting money for the local cottage hospital. They need a permit if they do so. But across the road could be another group of people collecting for the same cottage hospital who are singing "0 Come All Ye Faithful" and thereby are excluded from the need to have a permit.
Exceptions seem at odds with what Part III is trying to do. It serves two purposes. First, it ensures that those who raise money or collect property locally are also accountable locally for what they collect. That is why it requires local authorities to give permission for public charitable collections and why the regulations to be made under the Bill will require promoters to keep proper accounts.
Secondly, Part III serves to ensure that public charitable collections do not cause a nuisance to the public as a result of their sheer number or the places in which they are conducted. Both of those purposes might be undermined by the system of waivers which are suggested by the amendment. Controls of this kind are in the interests of the charities affected since the system ensures that each group wishing to collect gets its chance and that the public—on whom most charities and other groups depend for money—is not alienated by being constantly asked for money.
A system of supervision along the lines of that which has been in place in Scotland since 1982 under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act of that year is not inappropriate. There is no exemption system and no waiver system in the Scottish legislation. I do not know of any evidence that the kind of activities mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, are dying out north of the Border.
I realise that this is a difficult situation. I have tried to meet it, but all I can tell the noble Lord is that the suggestion which he proposes would lead to more complications than would be the case under the system proposed in the Bill.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, there is a quite good answer to a good many of the points which the noble Earl has made, but I do not propose to weary your Lordships with attempting to give it this evening as there is obviously no prospect of getting agreement to an amendment of this kind. I can imagine circumstances in which it might be possible to discuss this again in a rather different context.
I did not intend to lampoon—I think that that was the word the noble Earl used—his letter. I was merely taking what I thought was a good point on it. Nor was I naive enough to think that my drafting would commend itself to the draftsman even if the idea were

219
adopted. I shall have a word with my milkman tomorrow. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Applications for permits to conduct public charitable collections]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter): My Lords, there is a misprint in the Marshalled List. The amendment should read: "Page 63, line 30, leave out from the second time the word 'area' is mentioned to end of line 31".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 63, line 30, leave out from the second time the word "area" is mentioned to end of line 31.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment falls into the same class as the amendment your Lordships discussed earlier which concerned the words "or both". In other words, it concerns words which are palpably unnecessary in the Bill. I have not, however, retabled this amendment without taking account of the fact that that was not my view alone.
The subsection concerns permits for collections which have to be sought from a local authority. Subsection (4) states:
"Before determining any application duly made to them under this section, a local authority shall consult the chief officer of police for the police area which comprises or includes their area"—
and then the words that are quite unnecessary—
"and may make such other inquiries as they think fit".
The first and obvious comment is that of course local authorities can make any such inquiries "as they think fit"; they do not need statutory authority to do so. The second is that the subsection itself envisages that the local authority may not be the only one.in the police area. There may be another local authority. Therefore the clerk of one authority can be expected to make inquiries of the clerk of the neighbouring authority. He does not need to have it written into the Bill to tell him that he can do so. The words are quite unnecessary.
In replying to the amendment on Report, the Minister made two points. He said, first, that the words are clear; and, secondly, that it is important that trustees should be able to read and see what are their rights. As to the first point, of course the words are clear; indeed, no one has gainsaid that. However, although they are clear, they are quite unnecessary. For example, one could write into a Bill the words,
"man means a human being of the male sex".
Nothing could be clearer and nothing could be more unnecessary. So it is with this case.
The second argument was that the trustees should be able to read and know where they stood. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, answered that point. He said that this has nothing to do with the trustees; it has to do with the local authority, which knows perfectly well that it can make inquiries and does not need to be told that it can do so. In addition, local authorities know that it would be quite absurd to say, if they did make inquiries other than to the chief officer of police, that
220
that would invalidate their dealing with the application. I hope that the Government have had time to think soberly about the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. The words are quite absurdly unnecessary. Indeed, they could create confusion in other statutes. I say that because someone may point to the words in the Bill and find that, in another statute about which inquiries may have to be made, the words,
"may make such other inquiries",
were not included. The words are not only unnecessary, they are also potentially misleading. I hope that my noble friend will agree to accept the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I explained when we discussed the matter on Report, subsection (4) of the clause makes it clear that local authorities may, when deciding whether or not to issue a permit for a collection, make such inquiries, in addition to consulting the police, "as they think fit" in the circumstances. I thought that it would be helpful to spell that out.
The inclusion of a specific duty to consult the police might be taken to exclude a discretion to consult other persons or bodies. It would be undesirable if a local authority felt inhibited from consulting widely in view of the provisions in Clause 67 about conditions which may be included in a permit and those in Clause 68 about the grounds for refusal. Inevitably, therefore, local authorities will need to make inquiries before taking a decision on an application.
In answer to the trustee point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, people who are applying for a permit must be aware that the local authorities can make inquiries. We do not want it to be suggested that, because only the police are mentioned expressly, they do not have that power. The value of the words in the Bill is that they make absolutely clear the position about inquiries. They also rule out an argument that might otherwise appeal to lawyers advising local authorities that the existence of a specific duty to consult excludes discretionary powers to do so.
I do not think that the words are culpably unnecessary as the noble and learned Lord said. I beg to differ with him. Some may have argued in 1960 that the Charities Act of that year, so successfully taken through another place by my noble friend Lord Renton (aided and abetted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale), contained unnecessary detail. All one can say is that the provisions of the Act are beautifully clear to the reader as a result. We must all be grateful to both of them. In my very modest capacity, I am merely attempting to emulate their clarity.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, there is only one point which needs to be adverted to. The noble Viscount said that the inclusion of the duty to consult the chief officer of police might be held to imply that local authorities had no powers to consult anyone else. I can only say that that argument could not possibly succeed; indeed, no lawyer would ever advise a local

221
authority that that was the meaning of the provision. I cannot therefore, I fear, congratulate the Minister on his reply. However, I can congratulate him on preserving parliamentary decorum by keeping a straight face while he gave the answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 [Determination of applications and issue of permits]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 64, line 13, leave out from ("section") to ("and") in line 14 and insert ("71").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another short point regarding unnecessary words. The section referred to in the amendment has two rights of appeal; namely, those under subsections (1) and (2). That being so, all that is needed is to refer to the rights of appeal under "Section 71". It is quite unnecessary to say "Section 71(1)" or, as the case may be, "Section 71(2)". I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord moved a similar amendment on Report. I explained then that I thought that the Bill as drafted was clearer to the reader. I hope that he will forgive me if I rehearse that argument again. I do so because I think that it is right.
Several of your Lordships have raised points about making the Bill intelligible for trustees and others who will be regulated by it and who will use it. That must be a laudable aim. We have, therefore, tried very hard to make the wording as simple and helpful as possible. I believe that the term "helpful" is the most important part of my argument. The present wording of subsection (4) of Clause 67 is intended to be helpful. Clause 70 gives a right of appeal in two clearly defined circumstances: under subsection (1), where a permit is refused by a local authority; and under subsection (2), where the local authority attaches conditions to the permit or varies any such conditions or withdraws the permit.
With my wording of the provision, the applicant would have to be pointed by the local authority to the precise subsection where his right of appeal is to be found. Under the noble and learned Lord's amendment the provision would simply require a reference to Clause 71, without further help. I think that that is certainly less helpful than what we have proposed. I have said before that I understand the reservations about cluttering the statute book with unnecessary words, but I do not think that it is worth losing the extra clarity in the clause as drafted simply for the sake of losing nine or 10 words.
With a straight face and a straight bat, I must also advise the noble and learned Lord that, technically, I cannot accept his amendment because it refers to Clause 71, whereas it should refer to Clause 70. Nevertheless, my arguments still stand unchanged and I cannot recommend that your Lordships accept the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I readily accept that anything that is put forward or sponsored by the
222
noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is designed to be helpful. Further than that, however, I cannot accept his answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 71 [Orders made by Charity Commissioners]:
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 69, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) A benevolent or philanthropic organisation or cause, which does not qualify for exemption by the Charity Commissioners, may instead apply to the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State shall have power to make any order which can be made in respect of a charity by the Charity Commissioners under this section, if he is satisfied that the benevolent or philanthropic organisation or cause meets all the requirements of this section except that its purpose is not charitable within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we briefly discussed the substance of this amendment on Report. It is designed to fill a gap in the present law and we believe that it will be extremely helpful. As I understand it, the position now is that under the Bill a charity is entitled to apply to the commissioners for an exemption if it wants to have a nationwide, region-wide or large city-wide collection that spreads across several local authorities.
There is no problem, as long as the body concerned is a charity. The difficulty arises if the body is not a charity but an institution which may well have charitable or benevolent purposes, but which is technically not a charity for the purposes of this Bill or the 1960 Act. I refer, for example, to benevolent or philanthropic organisations or causes, and the one which springs most readily to mind is Amnesty International. It is not a charity. It is not registered as a charity and I do not think that it is capable of being registered as a charity. On the other hand, there is not much doubt that it is a benevolent or philanthropic organisation or cause. If the Bill goes through in its present form, should Amnesty wish to hold a national collection, it will have to get permission from each local authority in whose area it wishes to make the collection.
We are suggesting a simple proposition that, where an organisation is not technically a charity but is a benevolent or philanthropic organisation or cause, the Home Secretary should have the right to make the same kind of exemption order, subject to the same conditions in relation to that exemption order, as the commissioners can make in relation to a charity. The amendment states:
"the Secretary of State shall have power to make any order which can be made in respect of a charity by the Charity Commissioners under this section, if he is satisfied".
In other words, the amendment would give the same protection —the same provisions would apply. The difference would be that a benevolent or philanthropic organisation would go to the Secretary of State for an exemption, whereas a charity would approach the Charity Commissioners for the exemption.
I have used the phrase three or four times today, but for the life of me I cannot see where, in rough justice, logic or common sense, that position can be refuted. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment, to which I have put my name. Although I realise that it would benefit organisations such as Amnesty International, I am far more interested in assisting disaster appeals. I moved an amendment to that purpose on Report, but the Minister turned it down. Although he has gone some way towards helping us with his amendments, they do not address the particular and important case of those appeals that are not "charitable" under the meaning of this Bill and the Charities Act 1960.
Disaster appeals, which touch the emotions of the entire nation, are often established to help particular individuals or regions that have been affected by a calamity, such as the Armenian earthquake. Because of that, they quite properly cannot—and often do not wish to—qualify for charitable status. Consequently, as the Bill is currently worded, they are not eligible to apply for an exemption permit. However, your Lordships will understand that, by their very nature, the response that is required to national disaster appeals is always likely to be urgent, especially if they are efficiently to address the mood of the nation and to provide speedy and proper relief for the disaster and those affected by it.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, chaired a committee of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which reported in April 1990. The report stated:
"At a time when the voluntary inclination to support others is perhaps at its highest, it is important that the administrative structures, the powers and the accountability of these appeals are beyond reproach."
It continued:
"We are also concerned, in the case of appeals which—for wholly legitimate reasons—decide not to seek charitable status, as to what mechanisms exist for the regulation of the manner by which money may be solicited and distributed."
The amendment, which was ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is one way out of the morass into which I fear the Government are driving philanthropic bodies which promote urgent appeals in response to disasters. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, so do I. We have been round this track on two previous occasions —first, in Committee and secondly, on Report. Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I have found the Government to be extremely accommodating on this Bill. Therefore, I find it all the more puzzling that they have set their face against this proposal. At the moment, as we all recognise, there is no problem because the matter is dealt with by the Home Office. Under the new arrangements, as, again, we are all aware, the problem for charities will be dealt with by the Charity Commissioners, but those organisations that are not charities will have to go to literally hundreds of local authorities. For the reasons that I set out in our two previous debates on this proposal, this does not seem a sensible way to proceed.
Putting to one side the question of disaster appeals, with which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has just dealt, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said in our last debate on this matter that the problem would not be so difficult for Amnesty International because it has two "subsidiary charities". However, as the noble Earl
224
will now be aware, those two "subsidiary charities" —if I may so describe them—deal with very limited areas of work. One deals with research and the other with the victims of human rights abuses.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that we have put forward previously, but I must advise the noble Earl that I think that it would be a very great pity if the amendment were not accepted because the effect of resisting it would be, first, to make it infinitely more difficult for disaster appeals to work successfully and, secondly, to damage profoundly the fund-raising activities of Amnesty International—and, as a result of the activities of that organisation, many people are alive today who would otherwise be dead.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, so abruptly put it, we have been round this track twice before, in Committee and again on Report. I explained when we discussed the matter on Report why I felt that we could not make the change which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and others seek.
There are good reasons for that. The first is technical and one on which I do not rest too much of the argument. I do not believe that the amendment as drafted would work. It would allow a benevolent or philanthropic cause to apply for an exemption order. I do not see how a cause could make an application: only a person—whether natural or legal—could do so. The amendment was presumably intended to be inserted at the end of Clause 71. However, the amendments insert the provision at the end of Clause 72 which concerns the power to make regulations. I do not rest much of the argument on that assertion; these are nevertheless factual, technical matters.
However, there are arguments and good reasons why I feel I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the amendment. Under the existing law—Section 3 of the House to House Collections Act 1939—an organisation may seek an exemption order from the Secretary of State where it pursues a charitable purpose throughout the whole or a substantial part of England and Wales. A charitable purpose, in this case, means any charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purpose whether or not it is charitable within the meaning of any rule of law. The exemption order, if granted, allows the organisation to carry out house-to-house collections without obtaining a licence from the individual local authorities in whose areas it wishes to collect. There is no equivalent exemption order provision in respect of street collections.
Part III of the Bill introduces a single system for controlling all types of public charitable collection. So exemption orders will be available in respect of all types of collection for charitable purposes, whether they are house-to-house collections, street collections or whatever. That is an extension of the existing concession.
One must remember that the exemption order system is a concession. It is discretionary. It will not be available to just anyone who applies. Given that the provision is designed to help charities collecting on a national scale, the potential sums which may be raised through collections authorised by such orders are very large. It is right that those holding such orders should

225
be subject to the closest possible scrutiny. We therefore think it right to transfer the responsibility for granting these orders to the Charity Commissioners. They are the people who have the powers and who know about the bodies. At the same time we seek to restrict the availability of the orders to charities.
The Home Secretary has no means of policing the operations of those to whom he grants exemption orders. Nor does he have any power to investigate their suitability for the concession concerning the need to obtain a licence in each area. So he cannot tell whether an applicant for an exemption order is likely to act responsibly. This has been a source of concern for some time. The Bill gives us the opportunity to tighten up. The Home Secretary has no powers to investigate the organisation in question or to scrutinise its internal controls and administration or to remedy any deficiencies, should these be brought to his attention.
The Charity Commissioners have such powers but they are of course limited to charities. The commissioners have no jurisdiction over non-charitable organisations, whether they are benevolent or philanthropic bodies, and have no means of calling them to account. If we extend the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners to those bodies, we should be effecting a fundamental change in their role. So it would not be right to give the Home Office supervisory powers in this area either.
I do not see that non-charitable bodies will be seriously disadvantaged by limiting the availability of exemption orders. They will still be able to carry out a national appeal. There are many ways in which money can be raised other than by a public collection for which a permit is necessary. All of them are open to the non-charitable appeal. Donations can be invited through newspapers or the broadcast media. These are, indeed, often the preferred methods. No permit is required for any of them.
All charities will be able to obtain exemption orders; it is only the benevolent and philanthropic institutions which will not. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that people will have to run around the countryside applying to many different local authorities. However, our information is that all the existing exemption order holders are charities. There was one which was held by a non-charitable body, Amnesty International. It lapsed last year. So far as we can discover, that is the only non-charitable body which has had an exemption order in the past. Thus, we are not withdrawing something which has been eagerly sought. It has hardly been sought at all. My noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Harris—
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to intervene. Will he enlarge on the small number of exemption orders that he says exist? Do the organisers of disaster appeals know that they need to obtain an exemption order? What have the Government done to publicise that fact?
6.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, anyone who carries out public appeals must know what the law is. I am not aware that the public benevolent or philanthropic institutions are not aware of the law. It is up to them to be aware of it.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen expressed concern about disaster appeals. I can only repeat what I said during the earlier stages of the Bill. So far as I can discover, no applications for exemption orders have been received from those who organise a disaster appeal. My understanding is that those appeals are usually made via the television or radio or in newspapers. As the appeals have to be organised quickly, I doubt whether a series of public collections held on a national scale would have much appeal to their organisers.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen referred to Amnesty International. My officials have spoken to representatives of the non-charitable body which previously held an exemption order about their anxieties. The officials understand the body's disquiet at not being able to take advantage of the new system for exemption orders. However, there is a balance to be struck here between public accountability and private inconvenience. While I have some sympathy with its position, I do not think it is right to extend the concession—for that is what it is—to a body which is not subject to the degree of supervision which is appropriate and which can be provided by the commissioners.
I reiterate that we are extending the existing concession and introducing a better system for supervision. That aim would not be attainable if the noble Lords' amendments were accepted. It would be a pity if we lost that in trying to cater for what does not at the moment seem to be a real problem.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not follow the noble Earl's last remarks. Why should we lose the provisions? How does this amendment eat into the structure of the rest of the Bill in relation to charities? If it is passed and the Home Secretary is empowered to grant an exemption order for a benevolent organisation, why should that somehow bring down the edifice in relation to charities? There is no connection at all between the two.
I do not share the noble Earl's sanguine view that there will be no effect on disaster appeals. The information that I have leads me to exactly the opposite conclusion, which is that there certainly will be an effect on national disaster appeals if the organisers of those appeals do not belong to a charity but to a benevolent organisation. I suspect that what will happen is that organisations will go ahead with appeals. No doubt the Government will then have to decide whether or not they should be prosecuted for not having a licence. If we reach that stage, we shall get into a mess. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of undertakings
The Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall have effect subject to the amendment specified in Schedule 6 to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I wish to speak to this amendment and to Amendment No. 63. It is refreshing to be able to say that at least we have not been round this track two or three times already. I did rather spring the matter on the Government at Report stage and I am grateful for the prompt attention they have given it.
Since the amendment was put down, my noble friend and I have both received a letter from the noble Earl which deals with the present position. We found it a great help. I am grateful for the detailed work which has already been done on the small bombshell which I felt obliged to drop at such a late stage. We are pleased to learn that the Government are not unsympathetic to the difficulties which charity workers may face. I am obliged to the noble Earl for pointing out in his letter that charity workers are not entirely without protection in such circumstances. I should be grateful if he could confirm that this complex matter remains under active consideration by his department and others. Perhaps he might be able to give some indication of when that consideration may be complete. In responding to Amendment No. 54 and Amendment No. 63, the noble Earl may be able to banish all my fears. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to say we have not been round this track two or three times before; we have been round it only once before. I am sympathetic to the concerns that are behind the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, just as I was sympathetic to them when he first raised them on Report. There is a technical reason why this amendment will not work, but I need not labour your Lordships with that reason.
I turn now to the substance of the amendment. As I understand it, the 1981 regulations excluded non-commercial ventures in the genuine belief that the Treaty of Rome, from which the acquired rights directive stems, did not cover such undertakings. This was because of the essentially commercial nature of the treaty.
The point at issue is whether it is right now to maintain the distinction between commercial and non-commercial undertakings. I think it is fair to say that charity workers are not entirely without protection in such circumstances. For example, Schedule 13 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provides for continuity of employment for the purposes of redundancy and other service related statutory entitlement where there is a transfer of an undertaking. Though effectively superseded by the regulations for commercial undertakings, this provision still applies to noncommercial bodies. I would, however, agree that the regulations range wider in their effect.
I do not believe it would be appropriate to seek to amend the regulations in this Bill. These amendments
228
raise important issues which go much wider than the scope of the Charities Bill and the implications require careful consideration. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is, however, aware of the concerns that have been raised and is presently considering possible amendments to the regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked when consideration of this matter would be complete. I am afraid I am unable to make any commitment on that matter at this stage. However, I hope a solution will be found in the near future which will satisfy the concern of the noble Lord.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's comments. These are important issues and I apologise once again for raising them at such a late stage. I note the technicality to which the noble Earl refers. I am grateful for the explanations and the assurances he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 71, line 7, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a new amendment. I am sorry it has not been tabled earlier. It is a short amendment. It seeks to remove subsection (4) of Clause 76 of the Bill. I shall read out that subsection so that its quality may be appreciated. It states that before making any regulations under various sections,
"the Secretary of State shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as he considers appropriate".
My question is a short one. If that subsection were omitted, what is the very worst that could happen? I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I find myself in rather an odd position as regards this amendment. I believe various other noble Lords will find themselves in a similar position. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, his amendment seeks to remove subsection (4) of Clause 76 which was inserted in the Bill (as a government amendment) a mere seven days ago. It was widely welcomed by noble Lords on Report. My amendment was made to address the concerns put forward by a number of your Lordships and others that the Government should consult before making the regulations specified in the subsection.
We tabled the amendment on Report purely as a result of the concerns that noble Lords had expressed in Committee. Of course the Government will consult before making these regulations. To that extent I agree with the noble and learned Lord that these words may be unnecessary. But it is frequently the practice in legislation to ensure that consultation takes place by placing Ministers under a duty to consult—that is the important point—even if it is left to their discretion to determine who should be consulted.
I am sure noble Lords will understand when I say that I cannot recommend they accept this amendment. As I have said, my amendment was made purely to address the concerns that were raised in Committee.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I believe this is the last of my amendments at any stage of the Bill to which the noble Viscount will reply. Therefore I wish to say how grateful I am for the tone of his replies. As I suggested on Report, it is a pleasure, having been in another place a colleague of his father, to see the present noble Viscount performing so successfully on the Treasury Bench. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Sections 4 and 20 of the Charities Act 1960, as amended]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 72, line 8, after ("excepted") insert ("(other than one excepted by paragraph (a) of that subsection)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with an earlier amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Meaning of "connected person" for purposes of Section 32(2)]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 61:
Page 76, line 37, after first ("any") insert ("connected").
Page 77, line 1, leave out ("a person") and insert ("any such connected person as is there mentioned").
Page 77, line 2, after ("if') insert ("the person or institution in question").
Page 77, line 3, leave out ("he").
Page 77, line 5, leave out ("he").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of Charitable Trustees Incorporation Act 1872]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 84, line 28, after ("charity") insert (", in trust for that charity,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment which makes clear that the effect of an order under subsection (3) of new Section 12A of the Charitable Trustees Incorporation Act 1872 to dissolve an incorporated trustee body is to vest the body's property in the trustees of the relevant charity to be held in trust for that charity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
6.58 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
We have reached the end of an interesting and, I hope, fruitful journey. Some of us thought at various stages of the Bill that the end might not appear. Nevertheless we have reached the end. It would be uncharitable of me—I use that word in the widest sense—if I were to delay your Lordships more than is necessary at this final stage of the Bill. However, I felt
230
I should trespass on your Lordships' time for a few minutes to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in these debates.
Our discussions have been peculiarly well informed. As usual, your Lordships have brought to bear a wealth of knowledge and experience which has been channelled towards making the Bill as good as we can get it. I am glad to say the debates have been free from acrimony. At times they have even had a touch of humour. That is what one would expect in your Lordships' House, particularly in the context of a Bill which is mercifully free from party politics and which has, I am glad to say, received such widespread support. Your Lordships have done much to expedite consideration of the Bill, for which I can only be grateful. The prospect of having this legislation on the statute book has also been welcomed by the charity world.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who have led from the Benches opposite have sought to amend the Bill in a most helpful, constructive and understanding manner. Some cryptic and partisan observers might say that that was surprising. Whether or not it was surprising I can only say that their attitude was refreshing and most helpful and I am very grateful to both noble Lords. I quite expected that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would find some way of bringing into the context of the debate the Nepalese military band in full ceremonial dress, but we were denied that intellectual luxury. I have though a funny feeling that we shall live to hear of that another day, as well as the Icelandic baby. His contributions were welcome nonetheless.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, too, have contributed considerably to our deliberations. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, reverted for support, characteristically, to Holy Writ. He quoted from St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. On the same wavelength I can only refer him to the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, Chapter 13, where, he will remember, there abides faith, hope and charity. I would observe to the noble Lord only that in the next few weeks he will need a great deal of faith and much hope. But whatever the outcome, I hope that he will remember that the most important quality is charity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made a distinguished debut on the Front Bench opposite during the Report stage. With her quiet measured tones she injects a formidable legal gimlet approach into legislation and her expertise will be both respected and admired in any debate—charitable or otherwise —in which she gives us the pleasure of her participation.
I have been particularly grateful too for the contributions to our debates from the noble Lords on the Cross-Benches, where there lies a rare depth of experience and expertise in charity matters. Throughout our debates that has been both impressive and at times somewhat daunting.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, brought all of his Home Office experience to bear with great

231
effectiveness. He has been either incisive or stimulating, and sometimes both. He has been a formidable protagonist in these debates, and he spent much time gently—and at times not so gently—encouraging the Government to bring forward this legislation.
The Bill has also gained much from the attentions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, whose knowledge and experience of charity law are widely respected. His short, incisive interventions, whether in the Chamber, in discussion or in writing, have been immensely helpful.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, also added to our debates in a way which reflected the distinction which is concomitant with being a distinguished member of the Chancery judiciary. I now understand why the noble and learned Lord was called with affection a "Treasury devil".
There have been other contributions from the Cross-Benches which have been memorable for a number of reasons, not least from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Both my noble friend Lord Astor and I have felt the lash of the noble and learned Lord's penetrating arguments and his disapproval of anything he did not like.
I shall let your Lordships into a secret. My noble friend Lord Astor issued a simper of complaint to me the other day when we were outside the Chamber. He said that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, had called him a Nazi. "Oh, no he didn't", I said; I assured my noble friend that the noble and learned Lord had only called him a Gauleiter. My noble friend complained that that was in effect the same thing. I know that that was only a momentary flight of fancy on the part of the noble and learned Lord, who was really complaining in a colourful way that he did not like being rushed. I hope that he considers that he was not rushed. He certainly gave the Government much about which to think, and I thank him for that.
I should also like to say how much I appreciated the many helpful contributions which we received from the Episcopal Benches. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester spoke with great knowledge and concern on a number of amendments in Committee. He put the subject of the liability of trustees firmly on the agenda, and there will be many who will thank him for that achievement. The right reverend Prelate also considerably concentrated our minds on what happened when you were in a hot air balloon: were you on the churchyard, in it, or above it—or in the grave? And what were you doing there anyhow? And was it charitable? As a result of the right reverend Prelate's intervention we may not have answered those questions but at least we succeeded in defining a churchyard.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford has been enormously helpful on the questions of education which we discussed today. His views and the views of the Church have been immensely valuable.
Our debates have been an interesting experience. I am glad to say that we have had to endure a minimum
232
of Divisions. Commonsense, understanding and a willingness to accept sound arguments from all sides of the House have seen to that. We have all been genuinely concerned to see that, however this Bill eventually emerges from your Lordships' House, it will be in the best possible form.
We also had the unusual but on the whole (at least in this case) successful experience of the rarely used Public Bill Committee. It will be a forum which your Lordships will perhaps use more often in the future. That remains to be seen, but with this Bill and in these circumstances it seemed to work well.
I have no doubt that your Lordships' helpful contributions have produced a better Bill than the one with which we started in November. In some respects your Lordships may have wished to have gone further than did the Government, and that was evident this evening. However, I hope that the final product is acceptable to us all. More important, it is welcomed by the charitable world. There may not be many opportunities to reform charity law in the next 30 years. I have said on a number of occasions that we are doing important work in breathing fresh life into this part of the statute book. For your Lordships' help in that I express the approbation as well as the thanks of the Government.
Our debates were enriched by your Lordships' considerable experience in many areas. My noble friend Lord Swinfen brought to bear his experience in raising funds for charities, and he has done much to ensure that the provisions of Parts II and III of the Bill will not only provide protection to those who give to charities and to the charities themselves but that they will take into account the many diverse ways in which charities seek to raise funds.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull brought to our debates a concern for and a knowledge of the interests of the trustees of charities. She raised a number of matters which lie at the heart of what the Bill seeks to achieve, and I am grateful for my noble friend's contributions. For once—and peculiarly—she did not vote against the Government, at least at Report stage. I am grateful for that. It would of course have been too much to expect my noble friend to have accepted such a dirigiste regime for the whole of the Bill—and she suffered a few flights of fancy during the Committee stage—until she saw the light. I wondered whether she would, but she did, and I am grateful for that.
My noble friend Lord Stanley had a few problems relating to education. There is nothing new in that. He set a hare running and pursued it with characteristic determination. Although he did not catch it, I hope that he found that our sympathies were not too far apart.
My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil began by being a trenchant critic of the Government but he has proved particularly generous in his appreciation of all that goes on behind the scenes, and I am most grateful for that. I am sure that many readers of the Bill when it becomes law will be grateful that my noble friend was able to convince me of the benefits of a Keeling schedule. I do not know—and your Lordships did not decide—whether it is a mini Keeling schedule, a major

233
Keeling schedule or a maxi Keeling schedule. Whatever it was I am sure that it will prove very helpful.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret spoke eloquently on behalf of almshouses and their trustees. If ever—and God forbid—my noble friend should fall upon hard times there will, I am sure, be a place for him among the almshouses for whose concerns he showed such a robust interest.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor who has shared the burden and heat—and interest—of the Bill for the Government. I valued his gallant stand in the ring with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and others. He may have emerged bloodied—but he was always unbowed. His work both in your Lordships' House and behind the scenes was invaluable.
Many other noble Lords took part in the deliberations. I like to think, and I am sure that noble Lords will agree, that whatever amendments have been made to the Bill they were all made with considerable care and after much thought. They were made with one pursuit in mind; namely, that they should make an improvement to the Bill. The one guiding light that seems to have shone through all our debates has been your Lordships' efforts to make the Bill as good as possible. I hope that it will prove to have been time well spent.
I believe that the Bill will make a remarkable and substantial contribution to the law on charity and charitable activities. It has been 30 years since the law was last changed. It may be another 30 years before it is changed again. It can therefore be said that your Lordships have played a significant and important part in trying to change and formulate the law on charities for the future. I hope and believe that it will prove to be a success.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I shall try to follow the example of the noble Earl, without offering perhaps quite the same sweep or tour d'horizon of the Bill that he gave us.
I start by making two points. I agree with the noble Earl; I believe that the Bill has been a success. First, it has been a success because Members of your Lordships' House who know a great deal about the subject—certainly far more than I do—took an active interest in the passage of the Bill. Not only that, the pressure groups involved and the various interests and organisations concerned were assiduous in their briefings of almost all noble Lords who were interested in the subject and particularly Members of the Committee. As the noble Earl said, there were examples of sterling loyalty from people backing the Government including the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. That made for an interesting Committee. The information that was before noble Lords when we discussed the Bill was considerable. We were perhaps better informed on this Bill than we may have been on one or two others.
Secondly—it gives me great pleasure to say it—on the whole the attitude of the Government was accommodating. When the Government, the
234
Opposition, the Cross Benches, the experts and the charities world all want a Bill, it would have been rather sad if we had messed up the situation and not given them the Bill.
The Bill that has now emerged at the end of a fairly lengthy process is a better document than the one with which we started. The input from—I nearly said the Opposition but I saw the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, looking at me—non-governmental noble Lords and from various organisations, being met (as it was) with a great degree of accommodation from the Government, on the whole produced a very good Bill.
I agree with the noble Earl that the experiment of the Public Bill Committee on this particular Bill was indeed a success. A lot of work was done there which otherwise would have taken up a great deal of time on the Floor of the House. The acid test of whether that experiment worked was the length of time that the Bill took on Report when it came hack to the House after having been in Committee. I believe that we were one-and-a-half days on Report after six days in Committee. That did not seem to be excessive. I believe that the experiment was a success.
I thank in particular the two Ministers who have been responsible for the Bill. Contrary to what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, told us today, it is not a clear Bill. This Bill, which to a lawyer is almost incomprehensible, is to a layman a snare. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his attempt to clarify the situation so that on this side of the House we were at least clearer about it at the end than we were at the beginning.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Earl who has been in charge of the Bill. I have probably said enough about him already tonight. He deals with Bills in his suave and terribly effective manner at the Dispatch Box. He brushes aside arguments but does it in such a way that one cannot possibly take offence, even when one's favourite amendment bites the dust. On behalf of the Opposition I thank him for the way in which he approached the Bill. It is an important Bill and a good one. I hope it has a speedy passage.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I believe that we all agree that this is a good and useful Bill, which has been considerably improved both in the Public Bill Committee, at Report stage and today. I certainly join the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in thanking the noble Earl and the noble Viscount for having been so accommodating. In so doing I also express the thanks of Members from all parts of the House to Home Office officials who have had to work extremely hard on the Bill, not least when they were confronted last Thursday afternoon by a letter from the Law Society which led to some quite complicated amendments being tabled yesterday. I think it is right to refer to their hard work in terms of putting through the Bill.
On most issues the Government have been extremely accommodating. The Bill is not without blemishes. There are one or two issues on which I feel that it would have been better if the views of those who

235
were not Ministers had been accepted. However, that would always be true in the passage of any Bill through Parliament.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I believe that there are two reasons why the Bill will be as useful as I believe it will be. First, it has received all-party support. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that all-party support is a rather good idea when trying to get important legislation through Parliament. The second reason is because we had a Public Bill Committee. Inevitably that was an experiment. Some previous experiments have not worked, but I believe that on this occasion it certainly did work. It enabled a number of Members of this House, who have expertise in that area—not including myself, I may add—to participate in a constructive way in the discussion of legislation.
Undoubtedly, the Government were defeated on one or two more occasions than would have been the case if the Bill had been taken through a Committee of the Whole House. Given that the Government, with very good grace, have accepted all those defeats bar one, it indicates again the useful role played by the Public Bill Committee. I hope that in future we shall be prepared again to experiment with the idea. Certainly the Bills will have to be of a non-partisan character. I believe that the proceedings have been a success. I repeat, that is one of the reasons why this Bill has emerged in a far more satisfactory form than when it was introduced in this House.
Like the noble Earl, I seriously considered raising the cases of the Nepalese military band and the Icelandic baby, but those who are not experts on the provisions of the Asylum Bill will probably not be aware of the high quality of the jokes being exchanged between the noble Earl and myself. Again, I should like to thank him for the constructive role that he played in the passage of this Bill. He deserves the gratitude of the whole House for the attitude that he adopted throughout the proceedings.
Lord Renton: My Lords, having had the responsibility of piloting the 1960 Act, with the help of the then Solicitor-General, who is now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I should like to congratulate my noble friends on the Front Bench on their tremendous achievement in getting this Bill through the House. They are both laymen and they had no help from any law officer. They showed patience and good humour and were receptive to ideas. As has been said, as a result it is a better Bill.
The 1960 Act remains the principal Act but it has been brought up-to-date and has the important addition of an attempt to deal with unscrupulous fund-raisers. To that extent in itself the Bill is fully justified. But altogether, in my opinion, it is a wise and necessary Bill.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers quoted St. Paul with regard to faith, hope and charity. I should just like to add:
In faith and hope the world may disagree
But all mankind's concern is charity.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am trying to be happy about this Bill. Some of us have been involved in it for so long that a little of the satisfaction of getting the Bill through is lost upon us. Certainly it is lost upon me. The all-party group that has prepared the Bill over the years went through four Home Secretaries. There was no indication at that time from any quarter that the Government attached any serious importance to a Charities Bill. We cannot congratulate the Government on their initiative. A good deal of the work was already done for them before they decided to take the matter up. However, I certainly join in the felicitations and the happy congratulations and comments that are usual on these occasions which the Government well deserve. The noble Earl and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, have been amiable, patient and helpful and have done a splendid job.
However, something has to be done, in my judgment fairly soon, to relieve the intolerable pressure on the Home Office. That obsolete bundle of tricks has to be broken up to give its Ministers any chance of giving proper attention to the contentious matters that the Home Office has to deal with. The noble Earl deals not only with this Bill but with others of high complexity and difficulty. With the pressure upon them, Ministers at the Home Office are not able to give proper attention to the matters that come to them.
There is a suggestion in the Labour Party's approach that a separation of some functions of the Home Office may be made. To have a Secretary of State for Home Affairs in the Government at the present time is an absolute antiquity of ministerial division. No wonder that on one occasion a Home Secretary raised objection to taking the consideration of delinquent children away from the Home Office because if that were done and the matter were given to the Department of Education the Home Office would be left with nothing but crime, prisons and illegal entry.
The Home Office is the dustbin of Whitehall. No wonder there was a dustbin in the dangerous dog advertisements. When a matter cannot be given to other departments, and is floating around, it is given to the Home Office. However, I must not go on.
We have devoted ample time to small charities in the Bill. I notice that much of our time has been taken up by claims for relaxation of the supervisory and regulatory provisions of the Bill. Some claims have been misplaced. On the basis of tolerance and reasonableness, I believe that we have achieved a fair balance. However, if the Bill had been under consideration when some of the events of recent weeks took place, we should have felt that we had to pay more attention to the growth of money power in the big industry of charities. We have not touched that aspect. Mark you, my Lords, I believe that we were very wise to delete the old Clause 2 and not to have religious cults getting in the way of so much useful work that we otherwise had to do. After an hour on the only residual religious topic, noble Lords will realise the position that we would, or would not, have reached had we kept the old Clause 2. But someone has to tackle that question before long. We cannot

237
wait another 30 years—at least I cannot—for another Bill to deal with some of the major problems that confront us.
We have done nothing to alter the structure of the growth of money power in the hands of charitable bodies which they are showing they can use to dangerous lengths in their dealings with Parliament. They have been doing so in recent days. A cautionary note must be struck. The matter needs to be watched. It is not right that Members of Parliament should be described as animals to their constituents and to the general public with everyone being advised to see what sort of animal is representing them in Parliament. That I object to. Similar pressures that are now being placed on Members of both Houses amount to a sense of coercion and possibly of intimidation. I believe that we have to watch those issues carefully in the days to come.
Some bodies are handling large sums of money. One charity alone boasts of having spent £130,000 in newspaper advertising and other forms of advertising in recent days on the hunting controversy. That is a new development in the field of charitable pressure upon the legislature.
Some charities have no subscribing membership. They hold no annual general meeting. They have had no obligation, until the present Bill to publish accounts or an annual report. That will certainly change. But what have they been doing? They have appealed for money. Much of the money comes from tendentious publicity and those bodies have not until now been accountable for the money that they have received. There have been TV and radio appeals without clear definition of what is to happen to the money. An appeal to the public to subscribe large sums of money could amount to a reduction in taxation if translated into fiscal terms. That is a possible danger. We have to find some way of improving the control of such bodies. There is little or no democracy in the world of charity today. Some charities which handle large sums and receive substantial government aid have no democratic control whatsoever from any body. In those circumstances we are bound to ask ourselves whether all that money, going into so few hands of management and accountability, is to be left to the present ad hoc and undefined system. I feel very disturbed about it.
I turn to Clause 6 of the Bill upon which I asked questions relating to internal problems arising in charitable bodies which threaten gravely the unity, the economic administration, the use of funds and so on. I accept the assurance that the noble Earl has given that such matters that I referred to on Report regarding internal disputes within charities, or challenges as to what trustees are doing, are now within the scope of the Charity Commissioners. We have a Trades Union Commission, a Building Societies Commission, a Broadcasting Standards Council, a Broadcasting Complaints Commission, a Race Relations Commission, an Equal Opportunities Commission and regulatory bodies for companies and financial operations. In those circumstances it is not without cause that we ask for the powers of the
238
Charity Commissioners to be firmly established and exercised. I hope that the Charity Commissioners, with the Bill in their hands, will adopt a firmer and more public stance on charitable matters. The Bill raises their prestige, their powers and their capacity for supervision and regulation. I hope that we shall see good results from that.
I shall test the attitude of the present Charity Commissioners. The new chairman is not a sidetracked former civil servant, which helps to gain a new initiative. I shall put to him matters which are of considerable importance to the charitable world and to the well-being of some of the large charities. We cannot be completely indifferent about what may be happening inside large undertakings which have important funds at their disposal and considerable power and influence in various directions. We must make an attempt to intervene and to avoid difficulties—
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am about to conclude. I have taken up too much time already and I apologise to the noble Baroness. I am under a certain amount of strain at the moment. That is what I have to say. I hope that my words have not been ominous nor raised matters which have disturbed the pleasure of noble Lords at having completed the Bill.
There is no doubt that we have done a good job of work, but it is not finished. Changing circumstances will make further changes necessary, otherwise one day the Government will wake up to a situation which they did not anticipate. With their customary dash and verve they will come forward with emergency legislation, asking Parliament to pass all stages in one day. That is their remedy for lack of foresight and courage in dealing with problems which other people can foresee but which they cannot.
I am sorry to finish on such a note. However, it is no good being a Member of your Lordships' House unless one can speak one's mind on the affairs of the day. It is with grateful thanks that we have completed a good job and I shall try to gain from it the greatest satisfaction possible.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I wish briefly to thank the noble Earl and the noble Viscount for their courtesy, patience and good humour throughout our proceedings and for their readiness to listen to argument, as was demonstrated even today. The many changes made to the Bill mean that it is a much better Bill. We often claim our abilities as a revising Chamber but, when put to the task, we can do well with Bills which are introduced here.
To my surprise, I agree with noble Lords who said that the Public Bill Committee worked pretty well. However, I believe that it can be used only for a Bill which is non-party political, such as this one. There was a long interval between Committee and Report, but when at last Report stage came, it was, at one-and-a-half days, not as prolonged as I had feared. That was by no means out of the ordinary for a Bill of

239
70-odd clauses. It is worth noting that after all the proceedings the Bill has only two more clauses than it started with.
There is not a great deal of controversy left. I still believe that the Government are wrong in what I might describe as the "Amnesty International" clause, but there it is. We still have to see the regulations, on which we have been assured that there will be wide consultation. We still have to see what will happen about the accounts of charities which are also companies and about the whole issue of limited liability. I cannot help recalling that throughout our debates we have never discussed Europe and the fact that our charity law is unique in the Community. I wonder whether in the future developments will make it necessary to look again before another 30 years have gone by at some of the issues which we have dealt with.
There is a great deal to be done about informing and training trustees. I hope that the Government will back up the work of the NCVO and the other organisations in their efforts in that regard. It will be interesting to hear in due course the Government's ideas about a timetable. I hope that this set of measures can be added to the list for consideration for consolidation.
Looking back at all the debates that we have had throughout the years, this is quite a moment, now that we are sending the Bill on its way to another place. It has been a long time coming but in the end it will be a good Bill. If passed into law it will do much to restore integrity to the charitable world. By increasing confidence and trust, one hopes that it will increase charitable giving.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, even though it is late, I wish to add a word about the Public Bill Committee. In my respectful submission, it would be unsafe to place too much weight on its undoubted success on this occasion. First, a wonderfully well-qualified Committee was appointed to deal with the measure. I doubt whether noble Lords could think of any other constituted committee of this House which can match in quality that Committee or point to one so attuned to a Bill. Secondly, there were disadvantages in the procedure. It meant that any noble Lord who was interested in this Bill but who was concerned with another could have attended the Public Bill Committee only if he were prepared to put up with a parliamentary day beginning at 10 a.m. and lasting until 11 p.m. I am glad to see the Opposition Chief Whip in his place—I hope he is wincing at the thought of 11 o'clock at night!
Thirdly, certain people were missing from the membership of the Committee. Your Lordships had the great advantage of having as a Member my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. However, three other great equity lawyers were unable to attend because their attendance would have disrupted the judicial work of your Lordships' House. Fourthly, I fear that the availability of Public Bill officers would, on the principle of Parkinson's Law, merely invite a greater weight of legislation being imposed on your
240
Lordships. Therefore, although the Committee was a wonderful success so far as I could judge, we ought to be wary about drawing conclusions.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friends on the Front Bench for the way in which they have listened to the arguments and have met them as the Bill has made progress through this House. I believe that more changes have been made to this Bill as a result of the arguments put forward than have been made to any other Bill with which I have been connected during the 15 years that I have been a Member.
When the Bill came to this House Parts II and III were a nightmare for the charities. However, the charities wanted the Bill; they wanted proper regulation. As a result of the changes that have taken place, a Bill which, from the fund-raising point of view, began its life as totally unworkable is now one with which charities as a whole can live. I am grateful to my noble friends for the changes that have been made. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Ferrers will pass on to his officials my thanks and those of other noble Lords.
I do not know how many of your Lordships know —it is not normal to discuss officials but I shall do so this evening —that during the Christmas Recess, between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, government officials had five meetings with fundraising officials from the charity world. When the Bill was in Committee and on Second Reading the Government's advisers knew nothing about fundraising. They had two meetings at which they were taught fund-raising: one was held on a question-andanswer basis; the other meeting was held to go through the Bill. If a similar process could be arranged on other Bills of a rather specialist nature that would help the work of Parliament in general.
With regard to the Public Bill Committee, on the Pilotage Bill some years ago I was in a similar position as I was on this Bill in that I moved a large number of amendments in Committee. At the Report stage of that Bill the whole of the business which was conducted in Committee was gone through again, mainly by those noble Lords who had not been able to attend the Committee stage. I fear that that is a danger.
There is also a severe disadvantage for Members of your Lordships' House who earn their living and are normally working, at any rate during the mornings. As the Committee stage took place in the morning, as it did on this occasion, it meant that a number of noble Lords who attended were not doing their jobs and, therefore, could not earn their living or had to let down employers. That is a disadvantage for those who are younger and who are not retired.
On the whole the Bill has been considerably improved. I thank my noble friend for the way in which the Government have listened and responded to the arguments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen for what they have said about those who have

241
supported the Government behind the scenes. It was a mammoth operation and their remarks will be greatly appreciated. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Timeshare Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill
7.42 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I expect that the noble Earl has had a rather busy day and is perhaps feeling hungry by now. I am sorry on his account that the business for today has been arranged in the way that it has. However, I must use this opportunity to mention that the Bill, having been pushed through another place in a single day, then came to this House and in Committee several noble Lords withdrew amendments on the express understanding that they wanted to study what had been said and reserved the right to come back on Report.
Nevertheless, at the end of the Committee stage the Deputy Leader of the House saw fit to move that the Report stage should be dispensed with. I believe that but for the timely intervention of the Opposition Chief Whip we may have lost this Report stage.
The noble Earl did not withdraw that Motion without a struggle. He said:
"If amendments are to be made, they can be made on Third Reading".—[Official Report, 11/2/92; col. 714.]
So they can. But that is an argument in favour of dispensing with Report stages altogether. That may be welcome to governments but it is not at all welcome to noble Lords in Opposition. We need the stages of the Bill to develop and present our arguments.
The noble Earl can take some comfort from the Companion to the Standing Orders which says:
"if the Bill is reported … without amendment, the Lord in charge of the Bill may move forthwith—'That this Report be now received"'.
However, the next paragraph says:
"It is however possible to postpone receiving the Report to a later date, even though the Bill has passed through Committee without amendment".
The Companion is not expansive about that and does not fully explain the position. I understand that when the Companion is reprinted, which may not be for some time, that part of it will be expanded to explain the position, and in the meantime I shall briefly try to explain the position.
There are two kinds of withdrawal of an amendment. There is the simple case where the mover
242
is satisfied with the Government's answer and begs leave to withdraw the amendment. That is straightforward. There is the other situation, which arose several times in Committee, in which the mover of the amendment says, "I have listened to the Government's argument. I want time to consider the matter. I want time to consult people outside Parliament who are advising me. I reserve my right to return to this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment". I believe that that is the position. I hope that that will be included in the Standing Orders and that there will be no more confusion about the matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to let me know that he wished to raise this matter. I apologise to him and to the House for any indiscretions which I may have committed. But I find it difficult to accept the noble Lord's innuendo that I tried to manipulate the occasion quickly so as to bounce your Lordships out of having a Report stage.
The noble Lord quoted from the Companion to the Standing Orders which says that if no amendments have been made in Committee it is possible to dispense with a Report stage. No amendments were made in Committee and, looking cursorily at the brief I was given, I realised that it was possible to move that the Report be now received. I certainly did not wish to do your Lordships out of a Report stage. Had I done that against the wishes of your Lordships, I should have apologised profusely. Indeed, I apologise for the fact that I moved that Motion, even though I subsequently and—despite what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said—happily withdrew what I said.
I am most anxious that your Lordships do not think that by moving that Motion I was trying to do you out of a stage of the Bill. That was the last thing that I had in mind. If I gave that impression I apologise for it. I hope that your Lordships will take that in the way in which it is meant and that we can now move on to consideration of amendments.
On Question, Report received.
Clause 1 [New offence of aggravated vehicle-taking]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("by the accused or by another person incited by the accused").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 6. We have been here before. I cannot say that this is the first or even the second time around this track and I apologise for going over what must be rather familiar ground. My reason for doing so is that we have received many representations, especially from lawyers—some in quite high places in the law —and practising magistrates who are anxious about the points that we have brought back for your Lordships' further consideration.
Amendment No. 1 refers to Clause 1. I accept without question that the purpose of Clause 1 as it stands is to make anyone guilty of the basic offence of taking and driving away a vehicle guilty also of any aggravated offence which occurs before the vehicle is

243
recovered. There was perhaps some slight confusion at earlier stages in that regard. I hope that we are now all agreed about the purpose of Clause 1.
Amendment No. 1 is not intended to destroy Clause 1 or remove the responsibility of the person I shall call the "passenger." It is certainly not intended to let anybody off the hook. The aggravated offence, as we all agree, can be, and often is, a horrific event and we do not wish to understate or underestimate it. But the amendment has two connected purposes. The first is to distinguish in law between an active participant and a passive passenger. We use the term "incited" to make that distinction. It seems to me that one is far more guilty than the other and that it is unjust and unfair for the same punishment to fall indiscriminately on both categories of person. Secondly, the amendment is intended to place the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish by the normal rules of evidence that an accused person is guilty of incitement rather than assuming the accused's guilt unless he can prove the contrary. As it stands the Bill is liable to convict people who had no intention of committing any serious crime and we are still unhappy with the promiscuous attribution of vicarious guilt.
I re-read carefully in the Official Report what the noble Earl the Minister said in this regard in Committee. I believe that I can locate my sense of unease at the point where he replied to a possible scenario involving passive passengers put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The Minister used such words as,
"I ask … what on earth they were doing there in the first place. They should not have been there".—[0fficial Report, 11/2/92; col. 693.]
That still worries me. On reflection, the answer to the question posed by the noble Earl regarding what they were doing there is that they were committing the basic offence. After that, there is and should be seen to be a possible range of culpability which the law should not casually and carelessly brush aside and disregard.
Amendment No. 1, I repeat, is not intended to wreck the Bill. It is meant to refine a blunt instrument into something more like a precision tool. It is meant to permit greater sensitivity in apportioning due blame. I believe that it can surely be left to the courts to punish the offender according to his deserts. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said, we debated these amendments in Committee. I am sorry to hear that I was unsuccessful in my efforts to persuade him to the Government's point of view. As I understand it, the noble Lord's argument is concerned with the injustice he thinks the Bill might do to what he called the "passive passenger". The noble Lord's point is that the passive passenger should not be punished more severely when he has neither caused nor incited the damage or dangerous driving. I would make three basic points in reply to the noble Lord.
First, the "passive passenger", so-called, is not passive in so far as the total vehicle-taking event is concerned. He is a proven criminal who has
244
committed the basic offence of taking someone else's vehicle without their consent or has allowed himself to be carried in it knowing it to have been taken in that way. No one can be convicted of the aggravated offence created by the Bill unless he has first committed the basic offence which I have just described. That is an important point, with implications for what I shall say in a moment about liability for the potentially lethal consequences of vehicle-taking.
Secondly, it is not correct to say that the Bill is unprecedented in making passenger and driver equally liable. The basic offence, at Section 12 of the Theft Act 1968, treats driver and passenger in precisely the same way. I would also draw your Lordships' attention to Section 35(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. That section says that a person convicted of the basic offence in Section 12 of the 1968 Theft Act is liable to pay compensation for any damage to the vehicle occurring while it was out of the owner's possession, and that such damage is to be treated as resulting from the offence "however and by whomsoever" it was caused. So the offender is already liable to pay the price for the damage of others where he unlawfully took or travelled in the vehicle. The Bill takes that principle to its logical conclusion.
Thirdly, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, to reflect on the speed and potentially lethal power of the vehicles which are taken for these purposes. It seems to me that there is an illuminating analogy with the way in which I understand the criminal law treats those who go jointly to commit a criminal offence where one of them carries a lethal weapon. If a group of robbers agree to take a gun with them, and to use it if need be, then all of them are jointly liable for any consequences which may arise from the use of that gun. Only if the robber who used the gun can be shown to have departed from the agreed plan can the others escape liability. The simple point I am seeking to make is this. These so-called joy riding events are indeed like taking a deadly weapon. That is why it is right to call them death-riding and not joy-riding. The circumstances of the taking are, by definition, irresponsible and the risks and consequences are entirely foreseeable. And so the Bill insists that all those who got involved share a moral and legal responsibility for what happened, except in the special circumstances set out in subsection (3) of the proposed Section 12A.
That position taken by the Bill seems to me to be correct and entirely morally defensible. It is invidious in the circumstances of vehicle-taking to single out particular individuals for degrees of culpability, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. They might all have taken a turn at driving or been a party to it in some other less provable way. And even if they were not, they knew what they were getting involved in. If one of them genuinely did not know and, having committed the basic offence, tried to prevent the accident, damage or whatever, then my advice to him is simple: "You knew this was someone else's vehicle and you knew the risks. You ought not to have got involved in the first place. What you have said may be taken into account by the court in passing

245
sentence in your case, and I suggest you go and make a clean breast of it. It may be that the court will find that your circumstances mitigate the penalty. But they do not excuse the offence and that is a lesson you will have to learn the hard way by going to court. Above all, don't do it again—and be sure to tell all your friends about the joy you found in joy riding."
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, would, by his amendments, wish to take a much softer line with the offender. I hope that he will consider that in the light of what I have said. I hope that he will reflect on the catalogue of death, destruction and mayhem which is caused to innocent people by this crime. We had an example of it in today's papers. It must be something that requires firm and hard action.
8 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I said in my original submissions that I do not in any way underestimate the horror of these events. I did read with a heavy and sinking heart the account in The Times this morning of the particular case. Nevertheless, the noble Earl will not be surprised to learn that I am disappointed in his reply. On the first point he raised, we must simply disagree about the relative culpability of being a passive passenger. I am certain that he is not moved by my plea to see that there might be different degrees of culpability which could be distinguished without in any way mitigating the seriousness of the offence.
As regards his second point, I accept the precedents which he adduces. However, I would still argue that driver and passenger may display—not must display or do display—in certain cases very different degrees of guilt. As regards the third point which the noble Earl raised relating to communal guilt and the analogy which he drew, that brought back to my mind the very worrying case of Craig and Bentley, which has recently resurfaced. We are still worried in this particular Bill about people not being liable for consequences which they could not possibly have foreseen. It seems that the Government are going to insist that people should learn their lessons in a very hard way indeed. I am not convinced that that is necessary, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 2
Page 1, line 23, after first ("the") insert ("dangerous").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. Once again, we proposed these amendments at Committee stage, when I argued that in the present state of the Bill an accused person can be convicted of an offence either under Clause 1(2) (b) if, because of the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurs by which injury is caused to any person, or, alternatively, under Clause 1(2) (c), if an accident occurs by which damage is caused to any property other than the vehicle.
The amendments that we are proposing ensure that the aggravated offence would apply only where the damage was linked in each case to the dangerous
246
driving of those in the vehicle. It seems to many of us that the higher penalties should not justly apply where the driving was careless or indeed blameless or where damage was inflicted on the vehicle without reference to the driving. At Committee stage the noble Earl the Minister replied that whatever happened to a car which had been taken and driven away, that must be the responsibility of the takers.
It is the unlimited and indiscriminate nature of that responsibility in law which continues to worry many of us. Eminent barristers have told me that this whole concept is alien and offensive to our law. A whole range of examples have been given. Perhaps the most extreme, although not the most unlikely, concerns the car which has been taken and is standing stationary at traffic lights when another car hits it. The aggravated offence will then have occurred. We feel that it is somehow basic to law and justice that there must have been some fault on the part of the defendant and that he should not be guilty of so serious a criminal offence if the events which made the offence aggravated lie completely outside his control. That is what lies behind Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. It would lead to a defence solicitor saying that the driving at the time was not dangerous. An example has been given. I can think of someone driving safely along a road over a period and then knocking someone down. The defence would say that the accident was due to a lack of due care and attention and not to dangerous driving. There is a big difference. That would allow a big loophole for the defence which would lead to people being let off when they should not be.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I do not understand what the Bill means without the word "dangerous". Perhaps the word "reckless" would be equally suitable. The mere words,
"owing to the driving of the vehicle",
could mean merely that the vehicle was in motion and not standing still. Surely we need a backbone to that expression either with words to the effect that the vehicle was being driven dangerously or recklessly or with other strong words of that kind.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in these amendments the noble Lord, Lord Morris, seeks to excuse those whose driving was merely careless—I thought that was a slightly surprising word for him to use in Committee, but he did use it—or who were not otherwise the cause of the accident. I shall try to persuade the noble Lord that the Bill's approach is correct and justified.
The basic question posed by the noble Lord is why the Bill allows punishment for the person who is unlucky enough to be involved in an accident which causes injury or damage after he has taken the car. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, sought to support him over this matter and said that it is bad luck if the car just happens to be moving and it is not being used dangerously. The fact is that somebody else's car has been taken and it should not have been taken. The taker has to be responsible for what happens whether the car is moving slowly or quickly or whether anyone is hurt or property is damaged.

247
The Bill contains various reasons why that is proposed. The simple reason is clearly not conclusive so far as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is concerned. I would ask him to consider, in the circumstances of aggravated vehicle-taking, the fact that driving itself is a mischief. That is what most victims of this kind of crime would say. I believe they are right in that the criminal law should adopt the common-sense position too. If we were to accept the noble Lord's amendments, the vehicle-taker who writes off the noble Lord's parked car by accidentally backing the taken car into it would probably escape liability for the aggravated offence because he was not driving dangerously. The position is even worse when we come to consider personal injury. The noble Lord's amendments would prevent the proposed higher penalties being applied if the noble Lord's younger passenger was killed or maimed when the taken car reversed into the noble Lord's car.
It is perfectly true that the Bill has the effect of treating criminal takers who have accidents more harshly than the rest of us. I would not make any apology for that. The whole purpose of the Bill is to make these so-called "joy-riders" realise that their illegal driving is totally unacceptable and that they will not be allowed leeway to argue when things go wrong and when they are illegally on the road. It is true that some accidents just happen. But that does not mean that none of those involved bears any responsibility. In the case of vehicle-taking the law has long recognised that the offender should be liable to pay the price for an accident however and by whomsoever it is caused. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, will reconsider the principle which is at issue here. It is that none of these accidents which happens afterwards, which the noble Lord seeks to weaken by putting in the word "dangerous", would happen if the basic offence had not occurred in the first place. I ask the noble Lord to try to be a little more robust about this.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I shall read and consider carefully what the noble Earl said. What lies between us in the case he quotes is that we feel that it is not just a case of bad luck but that it is basically unfair and unjust not to discriminate and to sweep everybody in together.
I am not sure, but it occurs to me that the case that the noble Earl mentioned about backing into another car could be covered by Clause 1(2) (d) where damage is caused to the vehicle. I make no apology for not being brutal and robust. Robust is a word which we seem to be using quite a lot in the consideration of this Bill. I am not trying to be either robust or whatever the opposite of robust is; limp, I suppose, or wet. I am trying to be just and to avoid the kind of "gung ho" approach which one hears from time to time in various places—though never of course from the noble Earl —that if somebody has committed the basic offence then anything else can be pinned on him with justice and he deserves all that he gets. That is not justice as I understand it. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 not moved.]
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("he proves that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the amendment which was moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, with a marvellously convincing, well-reasoned argument that I fear I shall not be able to rival; but I am pleased to see the noble Baroness in her place and able to give me support.
The first thing that I should say, because I believe it to be the most important, is that I sympathise with the predicament of a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box, who is not himself a lawyer, having to argue with lawyers. Nevertheless, I believe that in Committee the noble Earl mistakenly misrepresented the law when he said:
"the defendant will escape liability where he can establish, on the balance of probabilities only, either of the defences which are covered in subsection (3)."—[Official Report, 11/2/92; col. 699.]
I do not believe that to be the case. The burden in criminal cases is the same whether it be on the prosecution or on the defence. It is not a burden equivalent to proving in a civil case that the case is decided on a balance of probabilities. Whether it be the prosecution or the defence on whom the burden rests, the burden has to be discharged. To use the words of Lord Chief Justice Goddard, which have been frequently approved, the court has to be satisfied and sure that the burden is discharged. That applies whether the burden is upon the prosecution or upon the defence. To give the impression that the defendant will escape liability where he establishes his defence on the balance of probabilities is misleading. If the burden is on the defence it has to be proved beyond mere probabilities. I hope I have made that point clear.
If I heard aright, earlier this evening the noble Earl was accusing the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, of lampooning. If that is so, I can only say to the noble Earl, "Physician heal thyself". We had from the noble Earl in Committee the most extraordinary parodies of some of the things that we had said from this side of the House. I do not want to give a long quotation, but shall take one simple example. The noble Earl, at the same column (column 699) said:
"For the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to attempt to use as a defence that a poor old fellow walking along in the middle of the night finds a car sitting in a side road and it is all right for him to pick it up and drive it away, leaves me astounded".
What leaves me astounded is that the noble Earl thinks that I ever said anything like that at all. If the subject matter of the debate is not too serious, it is perfectly good knock-about tactics to try to make your opponent's argument look absurd, but when we are talking about trying to make prisoners prove their innocence it is a serious matter. I hope that for the rest of the Report stage we shall not be treated with extraordinary parodies of what we have said.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, opposed this amendment. He produced a formidable list of statutes compiled by an industrious pupil in his son-in-law barrister's chambers; statutes which partly placed the burden of proof upon the defendant. It may

249
be that those were all cases where the peculiar knowledge of what had happened rested with the defendant and not with the prosecution. But we do not really know. I do not know whether the Home Office knows the answer to that. If I were to put down a Question asking in how many cases miscarriages have occurred under those statutes where the burden of proof has been put upon the accused I suspect I would be given the answer that we do not compile the statistics in such a way as to provide the information requested. If the noble Earl thinks that the Home Office knows the answer, let him say so, and I shall be very pleased to table the Question. In any event the offence that we are talking about is about the most overt offence one could possibly have; people driving cars dangerously through the streets.
For the benefit of noble Lords who did not hear the example I was trying to give in Committee perhaps I may briefly repeat it now. A hooligan emerges from a pub at closing time. He takes a car and drives it dangerously. He runs into someone and injures them, or possibly kills them. There is a witness to the accident. He does not recognise the features of the driver in the dark but he manages to take down the registration number from the illuminated number plate. The hooligan decides that it is a hit-and-run case, so he drives the car to a safe distance where he abandons it and makes off. He is never apprehended. In the meantime, there is someone who has missed his last bus home and he is set upon walking home. He comes upon the abandoned vehicle and temptation gets the better of him. He gets into it and starts driving home.
He has committed the basic offence; of course he has. Unfortunately for him the police by now are looking for that car because the accident has been reported to them. They see it coming along, stop it, question the driver and want to know where he is going to and where he has come from. He does not know about this but reveals that he has driven past the scene of the accident. He is the only person who is known to have been driving that car that night. He is charged with the aggravated offence. The burden is upon him to prove that it was not he who caused the accident. How is he supposed to prove that? He will be very lucky not to find himself in prison.
That is the kind of case that we are disturbed about with the Bill. We have had so many distressing cases of miscarriages of justice that last March—very nearly a year ago—the Lord Chancellor set up a Royal Commission to investigate the whole of the administration of the criminal law. Its terms of reference occupy a full page. The Lord Chancellor particularly requested it to try to report within two years. We do not have very long to wait now, with any luck, for the report of the Royal Commission. Is this the moment to go on chipping away at the burden of proof and requiring people to prove their innocence?
Last week we had another disgraceful case of a miscarriage of justice. It led the Sunday Times to liken our criminal administration system—once our great pride—to the procedure of a banana republic. At least in this country we do not hush these things up. Our Lord Chief Justice is prepared to undertake the
250
painful duty of openly declaring that yet another terrible miscarriage of justice has taken place. Is this the moment, while we are awaiting the Royal Commission report, to be chipping away at the burden of proof and requiring prisoners to prove their innocence? I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I intervene rather reluctantly. I wonder whether the noble Lord who has just spoken consulted the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who has her name attached to the amendment, before he accused my noble friend the Minister of misleading the House on the burden of proof.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in the hope that the time there has been for reflection since the Committee stage will have led the noble Earl to give some thought to his position on this aspect of the Bill before it is too late. If he does not do so, a piece of bad legislation will leave this House and a small but potentially ripe breeding ground for the growth of miscarriages of justice will find its way on to the statute book.
The Bill has not been opposed from these Benches because we support and accept the good sense of increasing penalties for offences of taking and driving away vehicles where there are aggravating features. We support the good sense of making an offender responsible for the consequences of his actions. But it must surely give the noble Earl some pause for thought and occasion him real concern that in the other place practising criminal barristers from all sides of the House condemned the provisions of Clause 1(1) (3) and that the chairman of the Bar Council at that time attacked the provision as being unique in jurisprudence in making a defendant guilty of the aggravating event even though he does no other act than commit the basic offence and the event which makes the crime aggravated is outside his control unless he can prove it happened before he came along or after he had left the scene.
The noble Earl's remarks in answer to my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris on the earlier amendment echo what he said on Second Reading which was, if I summarise him correctly, that if people want to be sure that they will not be convicted of any aggravated vehicle-taking, they should make sure that they do not commit the basic offence in the first place. With great respect to the noble Earl, that is the jurisprudence of the saloon bar.
This part of the Bill is bad law, we submit, for the following reasons. First, it changes the burden of proof so that a man has to prove his innocence. At this point I have to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, as to the standard which would be required. I would accept that, where the burden is placed on a defendant in circumstances such as these, the burden he has to discharge is not the ordinary criminal burden. My understanding—I shall be corrected by others more eminent if I am wrong—is that he would simply have to discharge the burden that the noble Earl indicated on the previous occasion. What is wrong with this part of the Bill is that it runs counter

251
to the letter and spirit of Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which I understand this Government are a signatory, which states that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty. Has the noble Earl considered this difficulty; and if not, will he please do so? If he has had advice, what advice has he received about that aspect of the Bill?
Secondly, the provision runs counter to what lawyers from Horace Rumpole downwards call the golden thread that runs through the English criminal law: the burden of proof lies throughout on the Crown to prove guilt. Of course there is other legislation where the burden of proof is reversed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to that at the previous stage when we discussed this amendment. For example, if you have cannabis plants growing in your garden it is up to you to establish that you did not know what they were, or you are guilty of cultivating them. If you live with a prostitute, it is for you to establish that you are not living on her immoral earnings, and so on. But these are exceptions to the general rule. The burden should be reversed only in exceptional circumstances and for good reasons. Such a provision is not to be used in situations such as this one. As the noble Earl has frankly and repeatedly admitted at the various stages of the Bill, the Crown cannot prove its case against any one individual so it makes them all guilty unless they can prove their innocence. No satisfactory reason has yet been given for taking a frankly alarming step in relation to this legislation. If there is one, I very much hope that the noble Earl will tell us tonight what it is.
A further reason for my submission that this aspect of the Bill makes bad law is that it is likely to be unfair from its very nature and likely to lead to wrongful convictions as a matter of plain common sense. If the original taker and driver away of a vehicle is charged after he has ceased to have anything to do with the car, he is unlikely to be able to call upon the driver who took over the car to support his defence and help him discharge the balance of probabilities in his favour. That other driver would himself face prosecution.
We all know that the main recipients of this legislation are likely to be young people. They will very often be from the same community and will very often know one another well and live in the same neighbourhood. There is thus every likelihood that intimidation, friendships, loyalties, rivalries, fear and so on will play some part in the background and will affect the availability of witnesses. Such factors are, therefore, likely to work against a defendant who has to call evidence from his associates to prove his innocence.
There is no point in passing criminal legislation unless it first reduces the incidence of crime, and, secondly, furthers the interests of justice. Good legislation is manifestly fair. The provision before us, which makes those who are not responsible for the aggravating features prove that they are innocent, far from strengthening the Bill actually weakens it by introducing a manifest unfairness and an area of potential miscarriage of justice into this piece of legislation.
252
In my submission, this part of the Bill is a classic example of rushed, muddled and confused legislation which has been brought in without sufficient thought in response to public clamour. I urge the noble Earl not to let such a damaging feature find its way onto the statute book. I plead with him to look again at the matter before Third Reading.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I too support the amendment, which, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu has already so eloquently said, preserves the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I have always understood that to be an important principle of English law.
Perhaps I may briefly be anecdotal. One of my very first arrests was more than 30 years ago. It concerned a tramp who hitched a lift from a driver in a stolen lorry. The tramp was one of the pathetic meths drinkers who used to frequent the bomb sites of Stepney in those days; he was pathetic, befuddled and demented. The case was quite properly dismissed because I could not prove that he knew that the lorry was stolen. If the legislation before us had been in force at that time and if the lorry had been involved in a serious accident, that demented and confused man would have had to prove his innocence. That seems to be contrary to natural justice.
The Bill is directed at young people rather than at middle-aged tramps. However, many young people accept lifts on impulse, when drunk or as a result of group pressure. I believe that to reverse the burden of proof removes an important protection from the innocent and overturns a vital element of our judicial process; that is, that the prosecution should be required to prove the guilt of the person accused.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the basic philosophy behind the Bill is one which I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, finds difficult to accept. If there is a basic offence which has been undertaken by a number of people, it has in the past frequently been difficult to ascribe as to who actually took the car, who was driving it and who was driving it at the time of the accident. One person might have done so. But if he is accused he may say, "I wasn't doing it; it was someone else. My next-door neighbour Bert told me to drive". Bert may then say, "I didn't do it; Ted said that he ought to be doing the driving". You can have four people together who individually and collectively take the vehicle, who very often take it in turns to drive and who often do so badly and dangerously. As soon as anyone tries to say that one of them was responsible, they all turn around and say that it was someone else.
The philosophy behind the Bill is that if people corporately take a vehicle, they are collectively responsible for what happens to it. I do not think there is anything wrong in that. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, confirmed that view in Committee. He said:
"I should have thought that this is just that class of litigation because it will be immensely difficult to establish exactly who among a number of young men was doing what and why".—[Official Report, 11/2/92; col. 698.]

253
The noble and learned Lord agrees with that approach, and that is the approach that the Bill has taken.
I was sorry to find that I have evidently needled the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, this evening. I do not know why he seems to have it in for me. He first tried to suggest that I bounced your Lordships into doing without a Report stage. However, I have explained that I did not do so. He then said that he hoped that we would not have any more exaggerations this evening as regards my interpretation of what he said. The noble Lord was very upset by my explanation of his remarks. Of course I did not write his words down. I see that he wishes to intervene. I gladly give way.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I have already received one apology at the beginning of the proceedings from the noble Earl. It would be churlish of me not to repay the compliment and express my regret that I appear to have misdirected myself as to the burden of proof required of a prisoner in proving his defence as against the prosecution proving the case against him. I am sure that the noble Baroness is right and that I am wrong in the matter. I unreservedly apologise to the House for having made that mistake.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is very kind. I thought that he was going to apologise to me for having said that I misrepresented him. However, his generosity did not extend that far down the track. Nevertheless, I took the liberty of finding out what I said. When referring to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale (at col. 699 in Committee) I said:
"He says that a person wanders along in the middle of the night and wants to go home—Mr. Smith—and he finds a car sitting there. He therefore drives the car and takes it home. Along comes Mr. Plod and says, 'That car has just run over an old lady and it is your responsibility"'.
I then continued:
"The noble Lord is quite right. The Bill will catch that person".
I believe that the noble Lord took offence at my remarks. He said that it was a gross exaggeration of what he had said. But what did he say? At col. 698 he said:
"Then along comes Mr. Smith who is the basic offender. I urge the noble Earl to accept that it is possible to be a basic offender. Mr. Smith has missed his last bus home and all that he wants to do is to get home. He discovers the vehicle standing by the roadside. He gets into it and drives carefully towards his home. In the meantime, the police have discovered that the vehicle with that registration number is very much sought after. They spot Mr. Smith driving the vehicle towards his home. They stop it and take Mr. Smith's particulars".
I do not think that my synopsis of the noble Lord's remarks was at all bad. Of course I did not write down his words verbatim; I took them down in my mind. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I think that he should not get too touchy about such matters. I did not really do him a disservice in that respect.
If the amendment achieved its purpose it would not in theory alter the category of offenders liable to conviction of the new aggravated offence. It would change what are presently defences so that they would become elements of the offence to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The reason for doing that would be to ensure that the burden of proof
254
rested on the prosecution and not on the defence, thereby maintaining the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, reminded us in Committee has been described as the golden thread running through the web of English law.
To the extent that the Bill creates defences rather than qualifying the definition of the aggravated offence, I accept that there is what amounts to a small shift in the burden of proof, though certainly not a total reversal of the usual burden of proof. However, I do not accept that this is a dangerous or unprecedented departure from fundamental legal principles. As your Lordships know, much of our time is spent on Bills which contain offences of what is sometimes called strict liability, the strictness of which is mitigated by defences of reasonable excuse or due diligence, all of which are for the defendant to establish. The few defences such as provocation and duress which need only be raised by the defendant and must then be disproved by the prosecution are the exception and not the rule.
The justification for the usual approach is partly a practical one: the matters relevant to the defence lie peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant. It is very much easier for him to establish the defence on the balance of probabilities than it would be for the prosecution to disprove it or to prove its opposite beyond reasonable doubt. To provide an offence and a defence should, therefore, ensure that the guilty are punished while allowing the innocent to go free.
So in this case the act which is forbidden by the criminal law is unlawfully taking vehicles when that is aggravated by one or more aggravating circumstance. If it can be proved that someone has taken a vehicle unlawfully, and that an aggravating event has occurred, the prosecution has made its case for convicting the person concerned of an aggravated offence. If, after all, there is then some reason for not convicting him, it is fair that this should be for the defendant to establish.
Requiring the accused to prove his defence does not amount to a reversal of the burden of proof, because the two elements of the aggravated offence are the basic taking without consent offence and the aggravating event, and both of those must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. This contrasts with the much more draconian provisions in, for example, the prevention of corruption legislation of 1889 to 1916 (under which certain gifts are presumed to have been given and received corruptly unless the defendant can prove the contrary) and in Section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred, (under which a man who lives with a prostitute is presumed to be knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution unless he can prove the contrary). In these, and other cases, a presumption is made as to the guilt of a person, who may be entirely innocent, unless he can prove that some integral element of the offence did not occur.
The Bill does not create any presumption of guilt; it simply allows a defence to people who have been

255
proved to have committed the basic offence, even though it has also been proved that an aggravating event took place.
I do not think that this approach is unjust or unfair, and I do not think that it will result in the conviction of the innocent. I hope it will avoid the acquittal of the guilty, and I make no apology for saying so, as this seems to me an entirely reputable purpose of the criminal law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that I favoured the legislation of the saloon bar—quite a graphic expression. I have said before that, if people do not wish to be convicted and punished for the aggravated offence, they should not commit the basic offence. That does not seem to me to be the language of the saloon bar; it seems the language of common sense. Nobody forces people to take other people's cars, and if people do take cars, they must accept the consequences of what happens to the cars.
The noble Baroness referred to the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not believe that the Bill is contrary to Article 6 of the convention because no one is presumed guilty of the offence. The prosecution must prove guilt of the basic offence and on the count of the aggravating event beyond reasonable doubt. If it does so, the burden then shifts to the defendant to establish his defence.
For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships will see fit not to accept the amendment as tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I shall not say anything for a fourth time about the example that I first sought to give in Committee. However, in view of the masterly speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I could not possibly consider withdrawing the amendment now if the Minister is not prepared genuinely to say that he will give the matter further consideration. I should like to hear him say that he will go to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary and ask, "Do you really think it wise to risk further miscarriages of justice so soon before the expected report from the Royal Commission into the whole of our criminal law administration?"
Unless I can have some assurance that the Minister will think again about this matter before Third Reading, I cannot withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am quite happy to consider anything before Third Reading, but I am bound to tell the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that I do not find his argument in the slightest bit convincing. Although I am happy to consider it, I do not give any undertakings whatsoever that I shall accommodate him. The fact is, as I have tried to explain, that this amendment would weaken the whole principle behind the Bill and there is no justification for it.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I find that profoundly unsatisfactory and I wish to test the matter in a Division.
8.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 44.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Judd, L.

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

McNair, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Desai, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Parry, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Raglan, L.

Hacking, L.

Richard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Howe, E.

Ampthill, L.

Joseph, L.

Astor, V.

Liverpool, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beloff, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Newall, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Renton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Renwick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Seccombe, B.

Carnock, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ullswater, V.

Ferrers, E.

Waddington, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie,L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Young, B.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert:
("(c) he was not driving the vehicle and he had taken reasonable steps to make sure that driving, accident or damage would not occur.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which was moved by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu in Committee, is motivated by precisely the same intention as the two previous groups; namely, to discriminate better between the degrees of culpability. However, in this case it has the additional advantage that it provides an incentive towards better behaviour.
As the Bill is drafted, there is no incentive whatever to any passenger to try to persuade the driver to return the car, drive it with care or in any other way to mitigate the offence. At the Committee stage the noble Earl felt unable to breach in any way the doctrine of total responsibility by everyone involved after the basic offence was committed.
We have heard little indication that he may change his view tonight. It seems to be a case of, "They should not have been there in the first place." However, eminent lawyers, including my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, have used such phrases to me as, "The jurisprudence of the saloon bar", and "The legislation of the off-licence." I wonder whether, on reflection and since so many practitioners of the law have been worried by the whole doctrine, the noble Earl may feel able to offer any mitigation of its rigour, with this amendment in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Earl explained on the previous amendment that the Government were concerned about offences committed by groups of people. Perhaps this amendment will afford him an opportunity to tell us whether or not in such circumstances the offence of conspiring would he a way out of the difficulty which seems to trouble him.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the practical point about the amendment is that the defence that is provided by it could be argued by any passenger. It would have to be accepted if he could establish on the balance of probabilities that things were as he said they were.
The new defence would severely weaken the Bill, making it all too easy for proven criminal takers to escape liability for the new aggravated offence. It would be a defence for the person to say, "I wasn't driving, Sid was, and what's more, I shouted at Sid to stop and he didn't". Sid could then turn round and say, "I wasn't driving, Bert was driving." If the amendment were to be accepted, we would not be able to find out precisely who was the person driving at that moment. The fact would be that they were all involved in the act. That is why we seek the provisions in the Bill.
There is a moral point involved, which I made earlier in reply to the first amendments about why passengers should also bear liability for punishment when they become involved in those events and things go wrong. The Government simply do not accept that passengers should avoid liability. The present law does not accept it either, as I explained, nor, so far as I am concerned, should the moralist.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, will agree that the special circumstances invented in his "difficult case" are circumstances which can be accommodated both as regards the decision to prosecute and as regards a plea of mitigation, if the case gets that far. I think that it would be unfortunate to put this provision in the Bill and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will see it that way too.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we seem intent in the Bill on proceeding by anecdote and recital of anecdote and revision of anecdote. Surely, the case of Sid and Bert which the noble Earl produced is not unlike other cases which magistrates hear daily. X says that Y did it, Y says that X did it. It is up to the magistrates or the judge hearing the case to decide on the balance of evidence who has done what. I do not
258
believe that this is in any way a unique problem for the law. It must happen regularly in every court in the land.
We keep offering the noble Earl ways in which it would be possible for him to allow some form of discrimination to take place. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for producing the idea of a possible conspiracy defence. It seemed to me, as he made the case, well worth exploring. So far as I know, it has not been raised at any previous stage of the Bill. I still wish to commend the proposal to the noble Earl, but he seems to be absolutely adamant against any such thing. I must therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Obligatory disqualification]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 21, leave out first ("obligatory") and insert:
("(a) obligatory where the vehicle was driven or the damage was caused by the offender or by another person incited by the offender;
(b) discretionary in any other case.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, one is worried by mandatory penalties in principle, but it must be granted that in some cases they are necessary and would be effective. I shall certainly allow that under the Bill in the vast majority of cases there must be disqualification. That seems obvious. One would not dispute it. However, I would also argue that cases are bound to exist where mandatory disqualification would not be in the interests of either justice or good sense. For example, a young man with no previous convictions for anything at all gets into a friend's car and then learns it has been taken and driven away. In a hundred yards that car hits another car and causes damage which creates an aggravated offence. Leaving aside all question of whether the young man should be regarded as equally, less or more guilty than the driver, he will automatically be disqualified for one year. He will suffer insurance penalties which may continue for considerably longer.
Magistrates are, after all, the people who will decide these matters for the most part and they are the experienced practitioners. They might well feel that disqualification of such a person in such a case would work against the best interests of the rehabilitation of that offender. However, as things stand, they would have no choice in this matter.
We have considered this amendment before. I hope the noble Earl will take it away and will at least think about it. It asks only for an element of discretion to be available to the courts in such cases. We are asking that disqualification should not be mandatory but rather that magistrates and judges should be allowed discretion. Surely that is not much to ask in a Bill that is as tight as this one. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment seeks to distinguish between those aggravated offenders who could be shown to have driven the vehicle concerned or to have caused damage, or to have incited the person who drove or caused damage, and other aggravated offenders. The latter would be subject only to discretionary

259
disqualification, as they are for the basic offence. I struggle to try to go along with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and I find it an uphill task. I cannot go along with him on this occasion.
Like Section 12 of the Theft Act which creates the basic taking offence, this Bill does not distinguish drivers of taken cars from their passengers. They are all guilty of one offence, and they should all be liable to the same maximum penalties. These penalties should be higher than those provided for the basic offence to mark the greater seriousness of the aggravated offence. Passengers in an illegally-taken car are already liable to disqualification from driving at the discretion of the court. It is right that passengers who are guilty of an aggravated offence should be subject to obligatory disqualification for at least a year. I believe that is the correct course to take. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that an aggravated offence should attract a greater penalty than just the basic offence.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the noble Earl finds it an uphill task to agree with me on these amendments. I can only remind him that uphill
260
walking is bracing, salutary, health giving and good for us. I think he should do much more of it and make a much greater effort.
I cannot agree that all these aggravated offences can be lumped together as automatic disqualification offences. We on these Benches have said before that in the case of this Bill there should be certain circumstances in which discretion is given to magistrates to try to help offenders rather than simply dishing out a mandatory punishment about which they can do nothing, regardless of their experience.
However, it seems that on this amendment, as on each amendment we have proposed tonight, even where we have had to press them to a Division, the Government are resolute as regards not conceding an inch. I regret that that is the case and I am disappointed. However, it seems there is nothing we can do to pierce the noble Earl's defences. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, Etc.) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at five minutes past nine o'clock.

  LITHUANIA AND LATVIA: EMBASSY COSTS
  LITHUANIA AND LATVIA: EMBASSY COSTS
  IRAQ: COMPENSATION TO IRAN AND KUWAIT
  IRAQ: COMPENSATION TO IRAN AND KUWAIT
  SERC: 1992–93 GRANT-IN-AID
  SERC: 1992–93 GRANT-IN-AID
  M.6 WIDENING AND BIRMINGHAM-MANCHESTER CORRIDOR
  M.6 WIDENING AND BIRMINGHAM-MANCHESTER CORRIDOR
  BIRMINGHAM WESTERN ORBITAL ROUTE
  BIRMINGHAM WESTERN ORBITAL ROUTE
  SPEED LIMITERS ON HGVs AND COACHES
  SPEED LIMITERS ON HGVs AND COACHES
  BCCI: BINGHAM INQUIRY
  BCCI: BINGHAM INQUIRY
  EC BUDGET: MEMBER STATES' CONTRIBUTIONS
  EC BUDGET: MEMBER STATES' CONTRIBUTIONS
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT: ADDITIONS TO PROTECTED SPECIES
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT: ADDITIONS TO PROTECTED SPECIES
  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL: RELOCATION
  INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL: RELOCATION
  NON-STATE PENSION SCHEMES: NATIONAL INSURANCE FUND PAYMENTS
  NON-STATE PENSION SCHEMES: NATIONAL INSURANCE FUND PAYMENTS
  CIDERS: AVAILABILITY IN PUBLIC HOUSES
  CIDERS: AVAILABILITY IN PUBLIC HOUSES