Sitting of 13 July 1992

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

    London Zoo
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what dealings he has had with the Zoological Society of London concerning the proposed closure of the London zoo.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): My right hon. and learned Friend and I have discussed with the Zoological Society of London the consequences of the society's decision to close London zoo. We confirmed that no more Government money can he given to the zoo. However, we remain willing to relieve the society of some of its obligations as leaseholders of the Regent's park site.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the zoo's lease comes to an end in two years' time, future plans must be based on a conservation theme which takes into account the interests of the community? Does he also agree that the donation of £1 million by the Emir of Kuwait was a life-saving gift, which has given the zoo tune to plan for its immediate future?
    Mr. Key: Yes, the gift from Kuwait was extremely welcome. I gather that the report in the press about that money originated from a fellow of the Zoological Society and has nothing to do with the Government of Kuwait.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has powers to grant a lease only to the Zoological Society of London, so any new lease to the society would be for its activities within the terms of its charter. Many options are currently being pursued by various parties and we look forward to hearing of any sound proposals which may he put to us about the new lease.
    Mr. Hardy: As a member of the council of the society for the past few months, may I ask whether the Minister appreciates that all other capital city zoos, with a major significant interest in conservation, depend upon and receive public funds? Unless that central, public funding is provided and guaranteed, London zoo will inevitably close, even despite generous gestures from Britain or abroad. Will the Minister reconsider such a guarantee, especially as the Government appeared to enter into obligations as a result of the decisions reached at Rio?
    Mr. Key: The position on the renewal of the lease is absolutely clear and we have made a commitment. The
    792
    important work on conservation is funded separately, through the Universities Funding Council, and I understand that that work will continue as part of London university's programme. That work is not at issue. Of course I recognise the importance of the work done at the zoo, particularly the scientific work, but the zoo's council has had to face up to the reality of a fall in the number of people who wish to visit the zoo.
    Mr. Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware that for 160 years countless thousands of animals have had to live a miserable existence in that zoo—the equivalent of life imprisonment? Is it not time to shut not only London zoo, but every other zoo?
    Mr. Key: I recognise the great strength of feeling on this issue, but if my hon. Friend, like me, has visited zoos from time to time I am sure that he realises that there is a great difference between the zoos of today and those of 20 years ago or, indeed, the Victorian era.
    I recognise the important work that is done in zoos to preserve species. Much of the breeding in zoos has led to the survival of species which would otherwise be extinct. It is right, of course, that people no longer wish to see great animals in small cages in city centre zoos. However, we recognise the importance of London zoo; that is why it is the only one to have received funds, and substantial ones at that.

    Minority Languages
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to extend the use of and support for minority British languages.
    Mr. Key: The Broadcasting Act 1990 makes provision for ensuring that Welsh speakers continue to have access to a substantial proportion of radio and television programmes in Welsh. The Act also provides for the financing of television programmes in Scottish Gaelic, and I understand that there are plans for a large increase in the number of hours of such television programmes to be broadcast next year in Scotland. My right hon. Friends and I see no need to bring forward further proposals in this area.
    As for the arts, the national arts councils and the regional arts boards support many projects in minority languages.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Government build on their creditable record in that area by fully recognising the immense cultural value of those beautiful languages, which contain the inherited experience, wit and wisdom of hundreds of generations of British people? By doing that and recognising the great value of those living treasures, the Minister might be thanked in the words, "Breith Buidheachas", "Diolch gnfawr iawn", or "Dea's Mure gut is Padraig".
    Mr. Key: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Richards: Is my hon. Friend aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, has been described by the former president of Plaid Cymru, the former Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, now Lord Elis Thomas of Nant Conwy, as having done more for the Welsh language than anyone else this century?
    Mr. Key: Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government's commitment is clear, not least through the introduction of the Welsh Language Bill.
    Mr. Corbett: The Minister will be aware of the initiative in Northern Ireland schools, with Government support, to foster the teaching and expand the use of Gaelic in Northern Ireland. Will he now undertake to see what his Department can do to assist that process on television and radio programmes in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but a few pilot programmes are now being shown on television in Northern Ireland. I understand that the BBC is considering its position and Ulster Television undertook to provide some Irish programming as part of its franchise bid.
    Mr. Butcher: Is good English now a minority language? If my hon. Friend sees the preservation of the English language as part of his job to preserve our cultural heritage, will he have a word with those who hire and fire media personnel in television and radio so that they, too, may be imbued with the same conviction and spirit?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend hits on an important issue. The importance of dialect in the English language is close to my heart. I may be the only Member of Parliament—certainly the only Member of this House—who was required to sing a song in his local dialect the day after election to this House.

    Tourism, London
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the promotion of tourism in Greater London.
    Mr. Key: London is one of this country's most important destinations for both domestic and overseas visitors. It is the role of the tourism industry, with support from the English tourist board and the London tourist board, to work to maximise the capital's visitor potential. The British Tourist Authority features London strongly in its overseas promotion.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that London's important position as a tourist centre is increasingly threatened by foreign competition and the inadequate infrastructure in London. especially the inadequate level and performance of public transport? What will he and his colleagues do to rectify that position so that London does not continue to lose out to other European cities in today's highly competitive tourist market?
    Mr. Key: I was delighted to note that the new chairman of the London tourist board, whom I congratulate on his appointment, had made that one of his priorities—as, indeed, it is one of mine. To illustrate the good faith involved, I should add that I have already discussed with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London a number of the problems facing the capital, particularly those connected with tourism and including those affecting the constituency of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). I await my hon. Friend's advice before proceeding to a meeting with Greenwich borough council.
    Mr. Jessel: With regard to the promotion of tourism in Greater London and in the rest of the United Kingdom, will Her Majesty's Government resist the ridiculous proposal from Brussels to abolish British national tourist offices in countries such as the United States and Japan and replace them with European tourist offices? That is blatantly inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
    Mr. Key: I am glad to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that I know of no such proposals. It is true that the European Community seeks to increase its competence in such matters; the subject was debated vigorously at a recent Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg, which I attended. I believe that the Community has a role to play in speaking about tourism issues—after all, by the year 2000 tourism will be one of the greatest industries in Europe—but it is also important to recognise that those who run the industry and individual businesses, whether stately homes or bed-and-breakfast establishments, will determine the future of tourism.
    Mr. Fisher: The Minister is being dangerously complacent in the face of a significant fall in the number of tourists visiting Britain, which has hit London especially badly. Those are the facts.
    Perhaps the majority of tourists are attracted to Britain because of its arts and heritage. What arts and heritage policies will the Minister introduce? Will he actually repair the holes in the roof of the Tate gallery and other great buildings? Will he perhaps provide the money for the completion of the Globe theatre, and give some money to west end theatres so that their great fabric may be restored? Will he do anything at all? Does he not understand what France, Berlin and Barcelona are doing? When will the Government introduce decent policies, and attract some tourists?
    Mr. Key: Heaven forbid that we should pursue the policies which are current in some of those places. The hon. Gentleman's figures are entirely wrong. Only last month, I was delighted to be able to comment on the increase in the number of tourists visiting this country from overseas in the first quarter of the year: that was most encouraging, and a significant reversal of last year's trends.
    Of course it is appropriate to repair our heritage. One of the great advantages of the new Department of National Heritage is our ability to take an overall view of the problems as they confront us. We can tie the importance of tourism to that of leisure, and the importance of broadcasting to that of sport and heritage. Before, we had to carry out what might be described as a piecemeal operation.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the substantial increase in investment in London Regional Transport—£3,500 million over the next three years—will give a considerable boost to tourism? Is that not very much better than the peanuts spent by the late and unlamented Greater London council?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I well remember the years during which the GLC cut its capital expenditure dramatically in order to subsidise fares. The move took very few people off the roads, and caused mayhem for regular travellers.

    Theatres, Cumbria
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what official visits he has paid to theatres in the county of Cumbria in the last two months.
    Mr. Key: Unfortunately, none. But I will be happy to consider invitations to theatres in Cumbria as part of any future visit that I make to the region.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister agree that the Blue Box theatre in Keswick in my constituency is now one of the finest theatres in the United Kingdom? Would he be prepared to approach representatives of the sports and arts councils, to ask them to look sympathetically on the application for a grant of £500,000 to build a new theatre to replace the old one, on the side of Lake Derwentwater?
    Mr. Key: I shall be delighted to draw the hon. Gentleman's concern to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. I know that the Blue Box theatre has made an application for a grant of £500,000. The theatre is undoubtedly a much-enjoyed as well as a high-quality theatre; its only problem is that, if it moves again, it will fall down—hence the need for a new theatre. I am glad that the Department of the Environment has agreed that the theatre can be replaced, and I very much hope that the scheme will be successful and swiftly implemented, so that we can ensure that it is accessible to the vast majority of those in the north-west who wish to visit it—including the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

    Sport
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives his Department is taking to increase participation and to raise standards in sport.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. David Mellor): It is an overall aim of our policy for sport to encourage participation and raise standards. The Sports Council works with local authorities, sports governing bodies and others to promote a wide range of sporting activities at local level. The council also supports a range of initiatives to enable participants to raise their performance level.
    Mr. Hawkins: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the backing that the Government are rightly giving the Manchester Olympic bid is especially welcomed in the north-west, particularly in my constituency of Blackpool, South? Not only will it encourage greater participation, and the highest standards in sport—standards so well personified by Mr. Nigel Mansell, who achieved a splendid victory yesterday—but when it succeeds, it will greatly boost the hotel trade in the region, and in my constituency in particular.
    Mr. Mellor: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned Nigel Mansell, whose great achievements the House has recognised. He is, of course, a great racing driver, but the extraordinary success of the engineering industry in the United Kingdom in producing so many of the cars which have transformed formula 1 racing is also most impressive.
    We stand 100 per cent. behind Manchester's bid. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be going to Barcelona next week, as will a number of other Ministers,
    796
    to ensure that it is made clear to the International Olympic Committee that the British Government fully support Manchester and will make sure, if it is successful, that the Olympics are run superbly well.
    Ms. Hoey: Does the Secretary of State agree that the role of the voluntary sector, and particularly of unpaid sports coaches and school teachers in their spare time, in improving participation in sport is important? Does he share the concern that many voluntary sports clubs feel about the level of funding, and especially the burden of the business rate? Will he join me in the delegation going to see the Treastury about corporation tax and will he give his full support to exemption from corporation tax for the British Olympic Association so as to ensure that the money raised by voluntary effort for the Olympics can be spent on that and not given back to the Government?
    Mr. Mellor: I probably have enough problems without adding to them, so I will leave the hon. Lady to make her own representations. There has been a substantial increase in Government support for sport—up nearly 30 per cent. to the Sports Council in real terms in the lifetime of this Government.
    I am well aware of the hon. Lady's point, and it is particularly true when it comes to ensuring excellence among young people. I am sure that she will welcome the champion coaching scheme which last year enabled more than 6,000 children to benefit from quality after-school coaching and which came about because of the extra grant that the Government gave the Sports Council. Sports sponsorship, too, increasingly recognises the need to get in behind young people and to breed the champions of the future. That sort of idea is more alive in Britain today than ever before.

    Industrial Heritage Year
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans the Government are making for Industrial Heritage Year 1993.
    Mr. Mellor: The English tourist board, which receives funding from my Department, has designated 1993 as Industrial Heritage Year, as a means of more widely promoting the tourism potential of our industrial heritage.
    I have agreed to become patron of the year.
    Mr. Page: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. He may be aware that more than 100 years ago my constituency was the centre of paper production in this country, but that very little of that remains today. Will he and the Department work through next year with English Heritage, with local authorities and with private bodies to encourage such schemes so as to preserve our industrial heritage for future generations?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The idea of Industrial Heritage Year, besides nurturing the industries of the future, is to ensure that there are reminders of the great industries of the past—reminders in the form of a partnership, with significant assistance from English Heritage, with Government funding, and with many local interests, resulting in a genuine commitment which goes wider than merely public bodies. That will ensure that vital parts of our industrial heritage are preserved.
    Mr. Sheldon: Does the Minister agree that Industrial Heritage Year must be rather more than just a means of attracting tourists? Does he agree that it can show the richness of our past industries, making that more relevant to what is happening today and ensuring that people understand that what happened in the past can be achieved again—if the necessary assistance is forthcoming.
    Mr. Mellor: It is certainly very important that Industrial Heritage Year should stand on its own merits and not just be related to tourism, although that is an important aspect. We should all have the opportunity to go and see the sort of conditions in which people used to work. In my former, similar job I had the chance to go to a museum dedicated to showing the sort of conditions in which people used to manufacture needles. It is extremely salutary for those of us who sometimes complain about our lot to see the sort of conditions that people had to endure then. That is particularly relevant to young people.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the national railway museum, on the committee of which I have the honour to serve, is the jewel in the crown of industrial archaeology in this country? Will he therefore take an early opportunity to visit the museum? Will he explain why the arena of railway preservation, which was previously under the auspices of the Minister with responsibility for the arts appears to have been transferred to the Department of Transport? Has that to do with transport policy?
    Mr. Mellor: I was unaware that that part of my empire had slipped away. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention. Both the museum and my hon. Friend are valued parts of our national heritage.

    Sport
    Mr. Pendry: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his responsibilities for sport.
    Mr. Mellor: The Government's priorities for sport were set out in the policy document "Sport and Active Recreation", published in December 1991.
    Mr. Pendry: Does the Secretary of State accept that he has made a good start with association football, especially by relaxing the all-seater stadium requirements for third and fourth division clubs, following the Taylor report? Does he accept that some clubs in the higher divisions are running into real problems in meeting the Taylor timetable? That applies especially to clubs submitting plans for modern stadiums or adapting their existing grounds and finding great problems at local and Department of the Environment level. Will he urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to look sympathetically at those cases, or will he extend the timetable beyond August 1994?
    Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that before announcing a decision on the Taylor report I consulted widely in the House, especially with the members of the all-party parliamentary football group. That all-party group shows what can be achieved when partisanship is laid on one side and we are able genuinely to co-operate. I appreciate that we set a tough timetable, but I did not think that it was right, especially in the light
    798
    of the tremendous efforts made by some clubs to comply, to allow the timetable to slip. The additional funds from the sale of television rights to the premier league should allow much more work to be done. Football Trust moneys will continue to be available to the new first division. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's real concern that clubs sometimes feel hard done by when they are put under pressure by the wider community to improve facilities and then, when they have proposals to do so, planning authorities raise all kinds of objections. That should be taken seriously, and I would welcome a meeting with the all-party group to discuss it.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the sport really needs a better standard of behaviour, better manners and better etiquette? In that context, will be study carefully the splendid example set by the Parliamentary Golfing Society?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend has certainly scored a hole in one with that. It is very unfortunate, as I had to say during the recent European championships, that a small minority of fans in England of our national game let everyone else down. That is untypical of the behaviour of fans generally. I have been to many different sporting events, both before and after being appointed to this job, and it is clear to me that most British sports fans behave impeccably, are well informed, enjoy the game and do not in any sense behave badly.
    Ms. Eagle: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that part of his responsibility is to ensure that people have equal access and equal opportunities in sport? I speak from experience as a chess player and a cricketer. However, I was a very bad cricketer because I was never allowed to play in mixed teams. Does he agree that improving access to sporting opportunities, especially for girls and young women, is an important part of his responsibility if we are to regain a place of excellence in sporting achievements?
    Mr. Mellor: I agree with the hon. Lady. She will be glad to know that, since 1987, it has been a condition of all Sports Council grants to mixed sports organisations that the recipients provide equal opportunities for men and women. I shall widen the issue a little by saying that I am also concerned about access to sport by disabled people. I am sure that the House will know that, as well as supporting the main Olympics in Spain, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be going to the Paralympics in Spain as a way of showing our endorsement and encouragement of the tremendous achievement of disabled athletes.

    Tennis
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans the Government have to encourage excellence in tennis proficiency in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: Promoting excellence is a Government priority for sport. The Sports Council, which my Department funds, supports a range of performance and excellence initiatives which benefit tennis along with other sports.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that Wimbledon is the greatest tennis tournament in the world and that Jeremy Bates ran his little legs off this year, to come within one match point of getting into the quarter finals? However, where are the champions? In recent memory, we have had only three, and they have all been ladies—Angela Mortimer, Ann Jones and Virginia Wade. What are we doing to encourage champions, because Champions like Nigel Mansell are good for British commerce, trade and industry?
    Mr. Key: Jeremy Bates did a magnificent job, but let us not forget Chris Wilkinson or Mark Petchey, or Miles Maclagan, who became the first Briton in 18 years to reach the semi-finals of the boys' juniors. In the ladies' singles, Shirli-Ann Siddall, who is only 17, won in her debut game at Wimbledon and, as a result, climbed 200 places in the world rankings in four weeks. Wimbledon last year provided £12 million for the Lawn Tennis Association, which was 56 per cent. of its income. The LTA is spending that income wisely—for example, with its Rover juniors tennis initiative. There are now 70 young people aged between 10 and 14 on that scheme and from September a further 90 aged between 10 and 16 will be on it. There are also seven boys and four girls at the LTA's school at Bisham Abbey.

    Sport
    Mr. John Carlisle: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will discuss with the chairman of the Sports Council the future funding of sport.
    Mr. Mellor: The funding of sport is one of many issues which I have already discussed with the chairman of the Sports Council, and I look forward to continuing to meet him regularly.
    Mr. Carlisle: As a former Chief Secretary, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider marking his term of office by becoming the one Minister with responsibility for sport who asked less of the British taxpayer than his predecessors? On that basis, when can we expect money from the national lottery, and is my right hon. and learned Friend encouraging more business participation in sport? Furthermore, will he consider asking some of those sportsmen and sportswomen at the top of their sport, who have made enormous sums from prize money and wages, to give something back to help those at the grassroots, from when they came?
    Mr. Mellor: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Relevant to the last question is the fact that Cliff Richard has been doing a tremendous amount of work, with his own resources, to encourage youngsters to play excellent tennis. I should like to see more people doing such things. We reckon that private sector sponsorship now provides £200 million of resources a year to sport. Government money should be used to tease out more private sector commitment. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have been able to get more business sponsorship of the arts by an incentive scheme whereby some Government money goes to those organisations that raise business sponsorship. I am delighted to say that we shall be announcing shortly a £3 million business sponsorship scheme for sport, which is designed to get even more private sector money into sport.
    Mr. Bennett: When the Minister has a word with the Sports Council, will he consider the problems faced by people organising fell racing and orienteering events in the north of England because both North West Water and the Forestry Commission seem to be increasing, or imposing for the first time, charges for the use of their land? That causes considerable concern, particularly as there is a danger that it will push fell racing back on to public rights of way—where there can be no charges—which will increase the problems of erosion.
    Mr. Mellor: I confess that that is not an issue with which I am familiar, not being much into fell racing myself, as will be obvious. However, I appreciate that it is an important sport for a number of people, and if the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to write to me about it, I shall look into what he says.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is no small champion himself when he looks for champions? Does he agree also that sport in schools is not getting the support that it deserves and that many children are missing out? Does he accept the recommendation of the previous Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts that teachers who coach sport after school hours should be paid for so doing?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend knows that we have been expanding the after-school coaching scheme. I shall not become involved in industrial relations negotiations about whether people should be paid. It is important that sport should be recognised within the national curriculum. As my hon. Friend knows, it is recognised now for children up to 14, and by 1995 it will be recognised for children up to 16. That will be important and necessary in producing champions and ensuring that everyone reaches a certain level of fitness and enjoys participation in sport.

    Eastern European Art
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his request to the United Kingdom art trade to co-operate in the event of any objects, including icons, from Czechoslovakia, other eastern European countries or the Commonwealth of Independent States appearing at auction houses in Britain.
    Mr. Key: In response to our request to members of the United Kingdom art trade to co-operate should any items be offered for sale which would appear to have come from eastern Europe, we were asked to obtain further details, including photographs, of any particular items which might have been stolen in order to assist in identification. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been asked to write to our embassies in eastern Europe requesting that approaches should be made to the relevant authorities for this information and responses are awaited.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not poignantly ironic that, having survived 40 years of communism in Czechoslovakia and 70 years of Stalinsim in Russia, many of the most beautiful carvings and icons are in greater danger than ever before? Is the Minister aware that distinguished colleagues of his who are members of the parliamentary all-party heritage group found ourselves locked up in a rural church in

    801
    Bohemia, having been suspected of pilfering? We then discovered that this was all about valuable items that find their way to the London and Frankfurt art markets.
    Mr. Key: I was aware of that, and I wish to add something to the hon. Gentleman's point. He is right. Last night, having returned from Silverstone, I sat down to watch the "Europe Express" programme on Channel 4, which dealt with precisely the problem to which he referred. Reference was made to the problem in Bulgaria, where I understand there is a new generation of grave robbers who are assisted by magnetic metal detectors. This is a most serious issue. It is the consequence of open borders, and we shall do all that we can to prevent looting. I understand that about 20,000 Czechoslovakian pictures and icons have been stolen from churches. I am sorry about the inconvenience that was experienced by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but I am sure that he will recognise that it was a good thing that the problem was recognised by the authorities. We shall do all that we can to assist at this end as, I know, will the United Kingdom art market.
    Mr. Cormack: Having been locked in the said church with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I add my plea to his. Would my hon. Friend like to consider setting up an international art loss register rather like the national register that has been set up by the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I should be glad to hear more about the expedition of which he was a member. There may be lessons to be learnt by many countries in the European Community.

    Royal Collection
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many of the items listed by Queen Victoria as state property remain in public ownership; and where are the others.
    Mr. Mellor: I understand that there are no grounds for believing that any of the items listed have left the royal collection.
    Mr. Cohen: I am pleased that the Minister acknowledges that there is a list, as put forward by Suzy Menkes, the eminent writer on the royal family. Will he assure the House that the jewels are the property of the state? Is it not about time that we had a new inventory? If not, what is to stop royalty—after all, they have a reputation for rapacity—making off with, for example, the Crown jewels?
    Mr. Mellor: Or offering them to the hon. Gentleman for evening wear. I am sorry to disappoint him, but there is no reason to think that the jewels are state property—
    Mr. Cohen: Yes, they are.
    Mr. Mellor: Absolutely not.
    Mr. Cohen: They are.
    Mr. Mellor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should be answering the question, not asking it. The electorate will
    802
    have a view on that. There is no reason to think that the jewels are state property; they are royal property. The hon. Gentleman has made a mistake.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimates he has made of the proceeds from the reintroduction of a national lottery.
    Mr. Mellor: It is too early to say. We intend that it should be a great success, raising hundreds of millions of pounds for good causes.
    Mr. Bottomley: I welcome that answer, which appears to downgrade the idea that there might be £1 billion a year for good causes, £1 billion for prizes and £1 billion for costs. Would not a realistic estimate of the amount available help to diminish some of the wild exaggerations that have been behind some of the calls for support for the national lottery?
    Mr. Mellor: It is because I have no wish to add to that exaggeration that as yet I have no wish to put a figure on the lottery. If it has the right statutory backing—which I hope and believe the House should give it—and if it is properly run, it will have the scope not only to provide a great deal of interest and innocent amusement for a whole range of people but to raise a large amount to benefit causes that would never benefit to such a degree through conventional public expenditure. That will be good. I hope that when we introduce the necessary Bill it will have the support of the whole House.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Global Climate Observation System
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will enable British representatives to put forward specific expenditure proposals for the new elements of the proposed global climate observation system to the World Meteorological Organisation meeting next year; and whether they will be met by additions to the science budget.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): The joint scientific and technical committee for the global climate observing system has been charged by its international parent bodies with making specific costed proposals. We, like other Government Departments, look forward to considering those detailed proposals and discussing them at the intergovernmental co-ordinating committee planned for next spring.
    Dr. Moonie: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he confirm that he recognises the importance of such international collaboration projects, the need for a commitment forward planning where more than one Government is involved and the need for the money to be found outwith his existing budget?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Before answering the hon. Gentleman, I wish to say how unfamiliar it is during questions on science to face an Opposition without the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who has made a great contribution to these matters.

    803
    We recognise the importance of the issues. The Meteorological Office is a major contributor on world climate issues. Its former director, Sir John Houghton, is the director of the technical group. On the question of money, we shall have to wait until we know what is requested before we can say how we shall finance the proposal.

    Market Testing
    Mr. Sproat: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will issue a progress report on the moves to contract out and market test central Government services.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Our discussions with Departments continue to make progress. As promised in the White Paper "Competing for Quality", I look forward to publishing later this year the targets set by Departments and agencies for testing new areas of activity in the market, to see whether alternative sources give better service and value for money for the customer and the taxpayer.
    Mr. Sproat: As the objective of the policy is to improve the quality of public services by the Government buying them in through either the public or the private sector—whichever does it better—will my right hon. Friend make absolutely certain that all Government Departments set the most demanding targets to ensure real competitive benefits?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right about the policy's objectives. I am glad to say that there appears to be increasing cross-party support for it. In an important speech, Jeremy Beecham—who is a distinguished Labour local authority leader, although he has made other criticisms of the Government—said that the purchase-supplier split has
    "caused a re-examination of performance, with general beneficial results."
    He is right, which is why central Government will pursue the same policy that has been successfully pursued in local government.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister encourage his colleagues to apply the same criteria to spending by the royal family?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman expects a reply to that slightly frivolous question.

    Scientific Research
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the change in Government spending on scientific research since 1979.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The science budget was £324·5 million in 1979–80 and is £1,050 million in 1992–93. That represents an increase of 25 per cent. in real terms since 1979 after making appropriate adjustments for changes in funding responsibilities during the period.
    Mr. Marshall: I welcome the fact that the Government spend a greater percentage of gross domestic product on civil research than is spent in Japan or in the United Slates. Is my right hon. Friend happy that the quality of the research is adequate as well?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend draws attention to the important point that we should look at the ouput from the investment in science and technology just as much as we look at the financial and other inputs into it. The academic output of British science—the quality to which my hon. Friend refers—appears to be in good health. During the 1980s, Britain remained second only to the United States in the number of papers published and in the number of citations of those papers.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what improvements have taken place in public services as a result of the implementation of the citizens charter.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I will give the House three recent examples out of many. Comparative tables of school performance will be published for the first time this autumn. Guaranteed admission times for hip and knee replacements and cataract operations will be reduced to 18 months from 1 April 1993. British Rail is publishing monthly performance figures—line by line—for the first time.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the patients charter is working well in Bolton where the health authority succeeded in abolishing the two-year waiting list before the charter deadline? Is not today's announcement of a trust status application from Bolton general hospital further good news for patients in Bolton?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is good news. Bolton health authority has had a good record of achieving its charter standards. It beat the target of having no waiting for more than two years by some months and it has in place the named nurse system for patient care. I confirm what my hon. Friend says. The seeking of trust status will help to carry that further forward.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister comment on the fact that parents are increasingly finding it difficult to find dentists who are prepared to take children on to their books, not only because of the fees situation but generally as a result of payment methods? That is especially so when children have particular problems with their teeth, given that the payments bear no relationship to the treatment needed. Will the right hon. Gentleman intervene with his colleagues at the Department of Health to see whether there is a way to sort out that problem?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The new dental contracts for the first time specifically removed the incentive to do more filling and were concerned with the whole dental care of the patient. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and hon. Members of all parties are well aware of the background to the dispute. I imagine that no one wants a completely open-ended commitment regardless of the recommendations of the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the patients charter is to be extended to general practitioners and that that will lead to an improvement in the health service on offer to patients, which patients will welcome?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. It is the objective of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to carry the charter principles forward into primary care, which is very sensible. The great majority of contacts between patients and the national health service take place in the primary care format. I know that many GPs—the committee of general practitioners—have welcomed those steps and the offer of discussion with my right hon. Friend.
    Dr. Marek: It is important for the charter that any moves to contract out and market test central Government services are open to public scrutiny and it is especially important that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have complete access to examine any value-formoney proposals that the Government have. Does the Chancellor agree?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware of the suggestion made by some of the civil service unions for an umpire of the level playing field in this matter. The Comptroller and Auditor General has access to the accounts after the event and, if any contracting out did not show good value for money, he would doubtless have something to say about it.

    Research and Development
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the level of private sector research and development in Britain.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The latest information is that the level of private sector research and development was some £8·1 billion in the United Kingdom in 1990, up about 13 per cent. in real terms since 1985.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the independent scoreboard of research and development data, which is so often quoted by the Opposition, has recorded an increase in business research and development for 1990–91? Is that not an excellent record of performance, bearing in mind the difficult economic circumstances of the past two years?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. It was an encouraging indicator that, despite the first year of recession, private sector firms have not cut research, if we are to believe the independent scoreboard. I hope that that shows that there has been an underlying sea change in the attitude of our industrial firms to the importance of R and D for the long term.
    Dr. Bray: Does the Minister agree that, when comparing like with like among those firms—apart from the pharmaceutical industry—there is a major lag between spending by British companies and that of their industrial competitors overseas? Does the Minister see any chance of closing that gap if we fail to provide the incentives to firms to increase their industrial research and development that are provided in other countries, particularly the United States?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the picture is mixed. Some of the leading firms in Britain do better than their counterparts. For example, GEC at 7·2 per cent. is lower than Siemens at 10·8 per cent., but higher than Philips at 6·8 per cent. As one would expect, the percentage for Glaxo is very high. It is not a universal
    806
    picture. However, it is encouraging that British firms have been increasing their position and, to some extent, catching up with their rivals abroad, as they need to do.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend now confident that the United Kingdom is getting its fair share of the very sizeable research contracts in the EEC system, particularly, for example, in high definition television?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We get almost our just return from the EC expenditure on research and development—and perhaps a little bit better than that. It will be one of our objectives during our presidency to ensure that the quality of assessment and management of that increasingly large programme is improved further. It is very important, and of increasing importance, particularly in the near-to-industry area of research in this country.
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what initiatives he proposes to take to encourage a switch from military to civilian research and development; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: The defence research and development programme is directed to the future equipment needs of the armed forces. The interface between military and civil R and D is an issue in which I shall take a close interest—for example, in the context of the Government's White Paper on science and technology.
    Mr. Barnes: Does the Minister accept that Britain's high level of investment in military rather than civilian research and development means that this country has often lacked a competitive edge? Will he have a word with the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that major defence establishments such as Farnborough begin to move into civilian research and development, away from military research and development, to give us that competitive edge?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman should not overlook the substantial contribution made by the defence industries, for example, to the balance of payments. Those firms make an important contribution to the economy. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about Farnborough and other institutions within the Ministry of Defence research framework, the establishment of the Defence Research Agency has provided an opportunity to review the position and we will consider it again in the White Paper. The DRA will be able to consider the possibilities for diversification in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does not the Defence Research Agency already carry out work for non-governmental customers? Is not there much scope in that regard?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The DRA has inherited a wide-ranging and complex set of businesses and there are many sites. It is considering what it has been given and I am sure that it will take advantage of the opportunities such as those to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Service Standards
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to ensure that none of the service standards specified in the charters published to date are relaxed or withdrawn during the lifetime of this Parliament.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: In the 19 follow-up charters published to date, we have, for the first time, clear standards which tell customers the level of service that they can expect. Those standards will be regularly reviewed so that we get a continuous improvement in the quality of public services within a tax bill that the nation can afford.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the process of continual review allow the Government to abandon or water down any commitments in the charters that they find difficult to meet? The Library's reference sheet on charters mentions the Department of Employment charter to establish minimum wages and protect them through regulation—a wages inspectorate charter. Will that remain unchanged throughout the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman asks two questions, one about the review process for charters and their targets and standards, and the other about the policy of the Department of Employment, and that is obviously a matter for it. On the review process for charters, there will be an annual review, if not more frequently, of the targets, standards and performance indicators that have been set for the different branches of the public service under the citizens charter. Government Departments will, of course, be in the lead in their sectors, but the charter unit and the Office of Public Service and Science, which is headed by my right hon. Friend, will obviously play an important part in that.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my hon. Friend ensure that he monitors not only national charters but local government charters to ensure that they are not just words but actions that are carried out and that, where they are inadequate, as is often the case, they are strengthened?
    Mr. Jackson: In the case of services that are delivered by local authorities, obviously a different attitude to review has to be followed. In short, ultimate responsibility for enforcing the standards that are set in local government charters has to lie with the local electorate. We have to recognise that fact. However, there is a central Government role, which is limited to ensuring, first, that citizens have the information that they need about the performance of local authorities and, secondly, that, wherever possible, citizens and local authorities are able to take advantage of choice between competing providers of services.
    Mrs. Mahon: On charters, will the Minister begin to redress the disgraceful exclusion of the homeless from citizens' rights by adopting CHAR's citizens charter for the homeless?
    Mr. Jackson: We are obviously very interested in any suggestions for improving and extending the quality and range of our charter effort. I will certainly look at what the hon. Lady has said.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the wide differences in the performance of local
    808
    authorities, the Audit Commission's initiative to have comparative performance indicators for local authorities should enable local authorities to improve the service that they deliver?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is what I meant when I said that one of the roles of central Government can be to ensure that information is available so that citizens can make appropriate judgments about the performance of local authorities. The Audit Commission's initiative is very welcome. It stems from Government legislation, and it will have an important effect on the quality and circumstances of local government services.

    Intestacy
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the income and expenditure of the benevolent fund which specifically relates to intestacy proceeds.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Duchy of Lancaster benevolent fund was set up to provide income to be used for charitable and benevolent purposes primarily in the county palatine. The income from the fund is applied to such purposes.
    Mr. Cohen: At the previous Duchy of Lancaster questions, the Chancellor told me that all—all—the proceeds from repossessions on intestacy, rather than going to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, went to the benevolent fund. It is in Hansard. He said "all". I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at that. That does not accord with the duchy's own accounts. After interest, it still amounts to a substantial little earner for the privy purse. The Chancellor may quibble over the figures, but will he seriously look at the issue and stop unjust repossessions in the duchy?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I made the matter clear—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: To me.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I made the matter clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who perhaps knows rather more about such matters. I distinctly remember saying that the costs of the magistracy were taken from them—nothing from the bona vacantia payments goes to the privy purse. Eventually, the hon. Gentleman may understand that point.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the envious attitude of Londonders towards the excellent charities in Lancashire which accrue from that ancient custom and law is much to be deplored? Will he ensure that the likes of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who do not care two hoots for Lancashire and know little about it, do not plunder the funds, many of which go to my constituency?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I take it that the only rational outcome, if there is one, of the questioning of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will be that Lancashire will lose the funds and they will go to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That may be what the hon. Gentleman wants, but I cannot believe that it would be popular in the county palatine, where many good causes are financed by the fund. The hon. Gentleman, in

    809
    his desire to attack the royal family on the matter, still does not understand that none of the moneys go to the privy purse.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister not accept that there is considerable concern about the affair in the county of Lancashire—both the county palatine and the shire county? Will he undertake to publish in full what the
    810
    income is and what payments have been made of it so that the people of Lancashire know exactly what is happening with the fund?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The concern stems from the fact that hon. Gentlemen, principally the hon. Member for Leyton, have managed so to confuse themselves that they may have confused the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who may like to know that the accounts are placed in the Library every year, where he can read them.

Economic Summit and CSCE
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the economic summit in Munich and the summit of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Helsinki last week. I represented the United Kingdom at the economic summit, with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Foreign Secretary also attended the Helsinki summit.
The economic summit met against the background of a world economy that is still sluggish. The difficulty of achieving non-inflationary growth was uppermost in our discussions. We would all like to see faster growth. Recovery has been slower in coming than anyone anticipated but the conclusions, which are in the Library of the House, record both our desire for stronger sustainable growth and our view that it can be achieved only through sound monetary and fiscal policies. Unless we get inflation down and keep it down there will he no lasting growth.
The single biggest contribution that can be made to recovery throughout the world is a GATT settlement. A settlement would give a sharp non-inflationary boost to the world economy. The OECD has concluded that it would be equivalent to a $195 billion gain in annual incomes. More than $90 billion of that would accrue to developing and former communist countries. It would boost the economic transformation of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, encourage developing countries to persevere with their reforms, and check protectionism in world trade.
A GATT settlement is essential, and I make no apology for having put it high on the agenda at Munich and insisting that it was discussed in detail. In the light of this year's reform of the common agricultural policy, the remaining gap between the European Commmunity and the United States on the crucial agricultural issues is a small one. I believe that it can be bridged and the communique contains a firm commitment to a result this year.
At the economic summit last year I pledged to attend the Rio conference and urged others to do the same. On my return, I suggested an eight-point follow-up action plan. That plan, which is set out in the conclusions, was accepted by the G7.
We also had a meeting with President Yeltsin, days after Russia had reached an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The imminence of the Munich meeting undoubtedly helped to clinch that agreement. It opens the way for the IMF to release the first $1 billion credit tranche. That, in turn, opens the way to a debt-rescheduling agreement. I was able to announce that the United Kingdom is ready to make available $500 million of export credit cover for the former Soviet Union.
Russia faces massive difficulties. Inflation is running at well over 150 per cent., the fiscal deficit is rising and will be well over 10 per cent. of GDP for the rest of this year, and the pace of reform has slowed down in several areas. Translating reforms on paper into reforms in operation is proving difficult. President Yeltsin assured us of his determination to put renewed impetus behind the reform programme. With the IMF programme in place it will be easier to monitor progress and to propose remedies, but
812
none of us should underestimate the huge nature of his task: it is literally unparalleled and we all have a stake in his success.
The United Kingdom has urged for some time that the Munich summit should take an initiative on the safety of nuclear power stations in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Members of the Community pledged themselves at Lisbon to provide significant resources. The G7 agreed on an action programme and to create a fund to supplement existing bilateral efforts to ensure a co-ordinated and targeted approach.
The political declaration adopted at Munich underlines, in respect of the former Soviet Union, the general theme of help for self-help. It calls for a resolution of the northern territories dispute. The declaration also calls for the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty at the 1995 extension conference and underlines the need, in the face of the growing demands on them, to strengthen both the United Nations and the CSCE.
The CSCE played a crucial role in the 1970s, setting human rights standards which the communist world could not ignore. The role of the CSCE in monitoring human rights, especially minority rights, remains. The CSCE must also take on new roles as well. At last week's meeting we agreed a number of new roles for the CSCE covering: the earlier warning of political conflicts; the need for a new mechanism to improve the peaceful settlement of disputes; the establishment of a high commissioner for national minorities; and the CSCE role in peacekeeping.
No mechanisms can provide solutions if people are not willing to use them. It will take more than one or two conferences to resolve many of the ethnic conflicts that were frozen under communist rule and which are now coming aggressively to life again. But progress was made at that meeting, for example, on the issue of troop withdrawal from the Baltic states and on the handling of Yugoslavia.
The overall priority in Yugoslavia is to try to get the parties to negotiate. In that task, Lord Carrington's efforts are of crucial importance, and were underlined and endorsed at the Helsinki meeting. In the short term, our priority is the provision of humanitarian relief to Sarajevo and beyond. Britain already has 300 medical personnel as part of the UN force in Croatia. We have so far flown 28 humanitarian flights to Sarajevo. HMS Avenger will take part in an operation to monitor sanctions, jointly agreed at Helsinki by NATO and the Western European Union. The feasibility of establishing a land corridor to Sarajevo under UN auspices is being explored. If such an operation were feasible, Britain would be prepared to consider providing air cover for it. We would not supply ground troops.
Everyone who has seen the recent news reports has been shocked and moved by the suffering children in Sarajevo. At the end of last week, we told the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that we stood ready to evacuate children from Sarajevo to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, or to send medical teams to Yugoslavia to provide treatment on the spot.
If it is possible to treat the children on the spot, near to their families, with people around them who speak their language and in relatively familiar surroundings, that is obviously the best way. We have told the International Red Cross that we are willing to fly out medical personnel at very short notice if needed. I hope to meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in London later this week to see what further action is needed.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the Munich and Helsinki summits. The G7 communique recognises that
"Too many people are out of work … The potential strength of people, factories and resources is not being fully employed … unemployment creates great hardship",
and that the world would
"gain greatly from stronger, sustainable non-inflationary growth".
Since that is all self-evident, will the Prime Minister tell us why absolutely no positive measures for economic expansion were proposed or adopted at the Munich summit? Can he tell us why, yet again, there were no concrete proposals for the co-ordinated growth policies which are now so obviously necessary if the world economy is not to sink into prolonged stagnation?
After two full years of recession in Britain, is it not clear that the policies which the Prime Minister follows suppress rather than eradicate inflation and are preventing growth rather than achieving non-inflationary growth? Is it not equally plain that the continuation of those policies will perpetuate recession and unemployment?
At the G7 summit, the Prime Minister, with the other leaders, recognised the need for more investment in training in infrastructure and in research and development. Will the Prime Minister explain how the commitments that he made at Munich are consistent with the statement by the Secretary of State for Employment last week that resources for training and enterprise councils are to be cut? Will he also tell the House how his commitments at Munich can be reconciled with persistent reduction in the real value of research and development funding and with the neglect of infrastructure by the Conservative Government in Britain?
On the issue of Russia and the other states of the former Soviet Union, is the Prime Minister aware that the value of the aid offered to the former Soviet Union is minuscule by comparison with the enormous benefits which are in prospect for everyone as a result of the end of the cold war? While recognising that it is necessary to act to prevent realisation of the threat of hyper-inflation in Russia and the other states of the former Soviet Union, does the Prime Minister agree that the hurdles which have been placed in the way of the Russian Government's receiving assistance from the west are so large that they will effectively prevent the necessary assistance from being given? Does the Prime Minister recognise that, if strong and stable support is not provided to the former Soviet Union, a terrible political, economic and environmental price could be paid, not only by the people of those states but by the wider world?
With regard to the hideous problems of what was Yugoslavia, on which the Prime Minister spent quite a deal of his statement, I welcome his announcement that medical aid and medical treatment will be available in Britain for children from Sarajevo who cannot be treated in their own area. While everyone must want the most substantial humanitarian aid programme to be sustained and delivered to the wretched people of the republics, and while the most intense sanctions are justified, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been right to counsel severe caution in relation to military intervention. Will he be sure to continue that approach and to insist that any action which proves necessary is undertaken only under the auspices of the United Nations?
When the Prime Minister reflects on the ineffectual results of the Munich summit, does he not think that it
814
would now be sensible to suspend G7 meetings until the leaders of seven of the strongest economies in the world are willing to take action which is significant enough to live up to the splendour of the summit occasions? Does the Prime Minister not recognise that there can scarcely have been a summit at which the results for the world fell so far short of the needs of the world, and that the paralysis of policy is a source of potentially dangerous disappointment and disillusionment for all who seek answers from the leaders of democracies?
As one who continues to believe in the great potential of co-ordinated and co-operative action by the leading democracies, may I record my regret at having to speak of the Munich summit in such negative terms, and my even greater sadness that the occasion earned only that response?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful for some of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, and I will deal with the points that he raised.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that at the Munich summit there were some successes and some disappointments. In some areas, I should have liked to see stronger progress—not least on the Uruguay round, in respect of which I made it clear to my fellow heads of government that I believed that we could have made more progress. For many of the reasons implicit in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, it would have been desirable if we had done so.
However, there was progress at the summit: there was progresss in the programme to develop safety in the field of nuclear power, in carrying forward the agreement at Rio, in helping the lower and middle income countries with their debt, and in pushing ahead yet further the Trinidad terms. There was progress also, of course, in the meeting with President Yeltsin. I refer not least to his remarkable statement on debt-equity swaps, which may open up great possibilities both for Russia and for business enterprises with the former Soviet Union. Although there were areas in which the G7 summit might have achieved more, it is unreasonable to say that it achieved nothing. The meeting was well worth while—not least because, if people meet to discuss and examine problems, they will all find themselves in a better position to deal with those problems in the future.
On the subject of aid to the former Soviet Union, $1 billion is being dispensed immediately under the IMF agreement, but a total of $18 billion is available through the G24. What has been agreed, and wholly accepted by the Russian Government, is that that ought to be dispensed against progress on the reform packages. Had we dispensed aid and assistance without reform, we should have dispensed a great deal already—and it would have achieved little, if anything at all. The right hon. Gentleman was right to talk about the dangers of hyper-inflation, which are real and explicitly recognised by Prime Minister Gaidar and President Yeltsin.
We did discuss unemployment and the only way in which it will come down. Non-inflationary growth is the key to providing lasting job opportunities. That is true in relation to the growth of employment and the improvement of training opportunities. Throughout the G7 there was a commitment to policies to free innovation and enterprise to create employment opportunities. That is the only way in which we can satisfactorily proceed.

815
On Yugoslavia, I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the aid offered to children. I also believe that he is entirely right to be cautious about military involvement on the ground in Yugoslavia. I assure him that that is the Government's position. The conflict is unlike any that we have seen in recent years and it is not one that is likely to be resolved readily by external troops on the ground. In any event, were there to be intervention, the right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that it should be done under the auspices of the United Nations.
Mr. David Howell: In relation to the Bosnian horror, will my hon. Friend accept that his great caution about getting involved in Balkan entanglements is wholly to be commended? Will he also recognise, however, that one way or another—through air cover, naval operations or the United Nations—we seem to be starting to become entangled in that area? Does he agree that, as things unfold, it is vital for us to distinguish clearly the objectives of international involvement as between humanitarian operations, even if they involve force, and prtotecting the integrity of the Bosnian state, which is a quite different objective? Finally, does he agree that, having settled those clear and limited objectives, it is vital to ensure maximum co-ordination among the powers and the minimum of individual flamboyant gestures, which merely create difficulties and lack of co-ordination in Bosnia?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. In particular, I do not think that flamboyant gestures are of help at this time. There is a need for care, caution and co-ordination, and I promise my right hon. Friend that we have those objectives in mind.
Mr. A. J. Beith: When the Prime Minister was arguing at those rather unproductive conferences for non-inflationary growth, did he hear floating to him across the seas the siren voices of those in his own party who believe that we should devalue sterling and never mind the inflationary consequences? Did it occur to him that the countries with which he was dealing have not suffered recession so long and so deeply as we have, and that the policies which gave us that earlier and deeper recession were supported by those now calling on him to devalue—the massive Lawson credit boom and the failure to invest in key areas in the supply side of the economy?
The Prime Minister: The internal political situation in the United Kingdom did not feature high in our discussions while we were looking more generally at the problems of the world economy. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I believe that the exchange rate mechanism is an anti-inflationary discipline, and I believe that it is the right one. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out our position with admirable clarity last Friday.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the United Kingdom initiative on Yugoslavia, particularly the proposal to help the children in that tragedy.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who have been calling for instability of exchange rates and, therefore, higher inflation, are the very people who, several
816
years ago, were very much against our joining the exchange rate mechanism at a more propitious moment when some of today's problems would not have arisen?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I can add to what I said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). No one expected that an anti-inflationary policy would be easy in every respect; it never has been, and it is not now. It is absolutely imperative, however, that we do not duck the necessity of bringing inflation down to a level below that of our competitors—as low as we can get, to nil if possible—and seek to keep it there. It is from that basis that we shall be best able to secure sustainable growth, not in the short term but in the long term.
Mr. Tony Benn: Does the Prime Minister recognise that although we support humanitarian measures and note his caution about military involvement, he must answer a specific question before the House goes into recess at the end of the week? Will he assure the House that there will be no military involvement in Yugoslavia—by land, sea or air forces, or bases under our control—without the consent of the House of Commons? A long history shows that it is easy to get into conflict but difficult to get out of it, and memories of similar conflicts go back a long way. Will he give the House a specific assurance that British troops and bases will not be involved until the House has heard the case for it from the responsible Minister and has had an opportunity to register its feelings?
The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we already have 300 personnel in Bosnia and I made it clear a moment ago that we have no plans to put further personnel there. However, I cannot be certain precisely what will happen during the recess and I would be unwise to give a blanket assurance to the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot do so because I simply do not know what events will occur. I am extremely cautious about further involvement in Yugoslavia for the reasons which the Leader of the Opposition set out and which I fully endorse. Nevertheless, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a banket assurance about what may happen in future circumstances which are not yet known.
Mr. John Biffen: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's remarks about the Uruguay round and the general agreement on tarrifs and trade. When my right hon. Friend made his economic appraisal and judgment at the Munich meeting, did he conclude that German interest rates are at an appropriate level? If so, and as our interest rate policy can now be characterised as "Waiting for Helmut", when does he expect those interest rates to fall?
The Prime Minister: That is predominantly a matter for the Bundesbank and the Germans, not for me. I remind my right hon. Friend that, since we have become members of the exchange rate mechanism, the United Kingdom has cut its rates nine times while the Germans have raised theirs four times.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The House will welcome paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 of the Helsinki communique, dealing with security and co-operation in the Mediterranean. We would welcome the creation of such a body in addition to the conference on security and

817
co-operation in Europe as we know it today. Does the Prime Minister agree that difficulties would arise in relation to the peace process in the middle east and United Nations involvement in Cyprus if a new body were created in the middle east where, according to the communiqué, the problems are entirely different?
The Prime Minister: I think that we can carry on with both. I see no particular difficulty in doing that. As the hon. Gentleman mentions Cyprus, I should say that I hope to see President Vassiliou of Cyprus later this evening and the United Nations-sponsored talks between the separate parties in Cyprus will continue in New York later this week. Some progress has been made, but there is clearly some way to go. The prospects for moving towards a settlement in Cyprus are better today than they have been for some time.
Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the decision to concentrate on the GATT negotiations during our presidency is of great importance and to be widely welcomed? If no further progress can be achieved, however, does it not bring into question the very existence of the common agricultural policy as a means of support for farmers?
Does my right hon. Friend also accept that no easy fix can be gained by devaluing sterling within the exchange rate mechanism and that to do so might bring about a financial accident?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's second point. Throughout the years, we have seen that currency devaluations—in this country or elsewhere—lead only to short-term gains which are rapidly eaten up. We then find ourselves in a less competitive position. I therefore agree entirely on the importance of maintaining the value of the currency. On my hon. Friend's earlier point, we must continue to do all that we can to reach a GATT settlement as speedily as possible. The agreement that has been reached on the common agricultural policy will help us towards reaching a GATT settlement, and the expectation that one will be reached this year is well founded. I believe that the United Kingdom could reach a settlement within a single day, so close are we to a settlement, others find themselves less readily able to agree to a settlement, but I have no doubt that, with the right political instruction, the negotiators could swiftly reach a settlement of the Uruguay round.
Mr. Peter Shore: Surely the Prime Minister recognises that the current world economic problem is not inflation but deflation. In the Munich declaration, he committed himself to policies to assist growth and employment. If there is to be any relationship between ends and means, he must do something about the exceptionally high real rates of interest which are now squeezing the life out of British industry, and also about the exchange rate, which simply is not competitive. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise those facts? Why does he not do something to assist the British economy, and to arrest the process which is plunging us into ever deeper recession?
The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is right about the exchange rate not being competitive, I fail to see why our exports are running at record levels. As for his
818
earlier point about inflation and deflation, he will know that on more than one occasion since the second world war Governments have reflated at precisely the wrong moment, and recreated exactly the problems that they were seeking to solve. We are not prepared to do that again.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), I welcome the accent that my right hon. Friend has placed on the importance of GATT. He mentioned the narrow gap between GATT and the common agricultural policy. Can he give an idea of any initiatives that he hopes to launch to bring about the political directions that he mentioned when replying to my hon. Friend?
The Prime Minister: The GATT negotiations for the European Community are conducted by the Commission. We currently hold the presidency of the European Council, and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall press the Commission to reach an agreement within Europe, and to negotiate on the essential difficulties which remain with the Americans as speedily as possible.
Mr. Alex Salmond: To follow the question asked by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), as there must have been some discussion at the G7 summit about the prevailing level of interest rates in western Europe, and as the Prime Minister must have made some observations about it to the German Chancellor. would the right hon. Gentleman care to confide in the House about those observations? Does he accept that the position of sterling within the exchange rate mechanism is the only restriction on our policy of reducing the real level of interest rates?
The Prime Minister: When we remained outside the exchange rate mechanism, our interest rates went up to 15 per cent. and stayed at that level for some time. Since we joined the mechanism, our interest rates have fallen by a third—from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent.—while German interest rates have risen. The interest rate differential with Germany is now about ⅓ per cent.—the lowest for more than a decade. As for long-term interest rates, which are so critical for investment, the gap between the United Kingdom and Germany on 10-year rates has more than halved since we joined the exchange rate mechanism. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the United Kingdom has cut its interest rate nine times while Germany has raised its rate four times.
Sir Richard Body: During the discussions, did my right hon. Friend raise the issue of the present trade barriers against eastern Europe?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I did. I also said, particularly to my European colleagues, that I wanted the association agreements to be extended, and that I wanted association agreements with eastern Europe to be in operation before being individually ratified by all our European partners. That would be a great help to eastern Europe. Eastern Europe in the wider sense of G7 also figured significantly in our discussions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: How much do these summits cost? This is the first time that summits have merged into one another. They gallivant around the world

819
three or four times a year; now they are running from Munich to Helsinki and hack again. We are seeing what is being described as a range of summits.
The Prime Minister said during the election campaign, "Elect a Tory Government and everything in the garden will be rosy." Now he says that our exports are high. If our interest rates have come down and Germany's have gone up, why is our rate of exchange against the German mark down to DM 2·85 today? Before the general election, it was well over DM 2·90.
Instead of gallivanting around the world, it is high time that the Prime Minister did something about this country. He should cut interest rates by two percentage points and get out of the exchange rate mechanism.
The Prime Minister: I do not think, after careful consideration, that I will take the hon. Gentleman's advice on the subject—
Mr. Skinner: I do not expect you to.
The Prime Minister: Then the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed. He will be pleased to know that the costs of the Munich summit were largely paid by the German Government.
Mr. Paul Channon: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations began as long ago as the last British presidency, and that on that occasion there was an active role for our presidency in bringing the French in line with Community policy? Can he therefore say what initiatives he will take, as he intends to make this a high priority of the British presidency? Will he, for instance, hold a Council or a special series of Councils to reach agreement among Community countries?
The Prime Minister: I would certainly not exclude any of those options, but in the first instance it may be better to proceed by bilateral discussion with our European partners rather than by collective discussion. I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall take part in those discussions so as to put the European Community in a position to conclude the negotiations as speedily as possible.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Has the Prime Minister seen the comment which seems to have been made by a member of the Bundesbank to the effect that countries which find themselves in difficulty with German interest rates should consider devaluing their currencies? In the light of the meeting of the Bundesbank this Thursday, which may result in a further increase in German interest rates, what will the Prime Minister do to ensure that our interest rates eventually come down to a more sensible level?
The Prime Minister: I have not seen that comment, if it was made, but in any event, any decision on that is not for a German official to make.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the Opposition and to the House the relationship between lower inflation and higher employment?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend invites me to point out, there is a clear relationship between low inflation, encouraging investment and the creation of jobs,
820
and higher employment. Until we get that very low level of inflation, we shall not have the competitiveness and the job creation that we all want.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The Prime Minister will be aware of my parliamentary question to him for reply last week about the important recent communiqué of the Cairns group Ministers in regard to the Uruguay round. While I appreciate that he could not reply then, will he now make a statement specifically on the outcome of the G7 summit in terms of what the Cairns group Ministers are seeking?
The Prime Minister: The Cairns group was represented at the G7 summit by the Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney. I have no doubt that he will report back to the group. There are no real difficulties for the Cairns group in the conclusions of the summit or in the position taken on the GATT round. There is little of difficulty for the Cairns group in the present proposals for GATT; I believe that it could sign up to them speedily. There are some small difficulties, but they could be readily resolved.
The substantive difficulty holding up the GATT round is the agricultural difficulty between the European Community and the United States—essentially on internal support and external subsidies. Those are not the only issues at stake, but they are the two key issues. Once they are unlocked and agreement reached on them, the rest of the GATT round will fall speedily into place.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when this country was last in a comparable state of recession, in 1981, we got out of the problem and set off a period of sustained growth by reducing interest rates, which we were able to do because the pound sterling was floating? Although it floated down at the time, almost to $1·50, it floated up again shortly afterwards and nobody talked about devaluation. Should we not now do the same as it is absolutely clear that the justification for the exchange rate mechanism is political and not economic?
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot share all my hon. Friend's views, although I know the force with which he holds them. Quite apart from the fact that the exchange rate mechanism is at the centre of our anti-inflationary strategy, there is a real risk that if we left the exchange rate mechanism the net result would be that interest rates would rise rather than fall. That would not be remotely helpful to the British economy. It would therefore not be right to leave the exchange rate mechanism and float sterling. It is right to maintain the exchange rate that we have because it will deliver the low inflation that for some years my hon. Friend and all my right hon. and hon. Friends have continually wished to see. We are making great progress on inflation and I have no intention of throwing it away.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Was there any debate in G7 about the damaging effect on industry and employment of the rather manic pursuit of price stability and zero inflation by some European leaders, especially the Prime Minister himself'? Does he agree that, with little prospect of wage increases, no prospect of house price increases, and the threat of unemployment, Essex man will not be too enthusiastic about price stability?
The Prime Minister: I seem to remember that remarks about Essex man just a few months ago proved spectacularly inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about manic pursuit of low inflation. I would rather pursue low inflation than let inflation rip, with the consequences that we have seen before.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the quiet role that he played at both international conferences? It is necessary for that to be recorded. Does he recall that, before the Helsinki conference, the first of the parliamentary CSCE assemblies, meeting in Budapest, had 277 members representing 51 nations? Will he ensure that Britain plays a leading role in the establishment of that assembly so that Parliament may have a considerable say and the CSCE is not left just to officials or heads of Government?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I will certainly take on board my hon. Friend's points. Some valuable progress was made at the CSCE summit, especially the agreement that for the first time disputes within states can be addressed. That is a step forward. The decision to have a high commissioner for minorities, to monitor the treatment of minorities and to sound the alarm when things get worse, is a further useful innovation. The fact that the CSCE can now mandate peacekeeping activities will help to bring stability when political negotiations fail. Those are all moves forward, and they all came from the meeting at Helsinki.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In terms of the humanitarian and peacekeeping initiatives in the former republic of Yugoslavia, will Her Majesty's Government impress upon those involved the urgent need to protect the interests of soldiers taken prisoner in the conflicts? I wrote to the Prime Minister only last week urging him to intercede in the dreadful case of three Croatian soldiers who were sentenced to death by Serbian military authorities after the most appalling torture had been inflicted upon them. It is right to protect children, but soldiers taken prisoner should surely be entitled to certain basic rights.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and good point. I promise to take it up and to raise the matters that he brings to our attention with the Red Cross and the United Nations. There should be no doubt among the combatants that the Geneva conventions apply.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in discussing defence with our allies, he continued to emphasise the enormous importance that this country places on the NATO alliance? Will he reassure me that, if there is closer co-operation on defence matters at European level, our commitment to NATO will not diminish?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that commitment. Of course, there was a NATO meeting on Friday as well as other meetings. There is no doubt that NATO has provided the defence of Europe for nearly 50 years and will continue to do so. All our experience shows that it would be damaging to European defence to undermine NATO, and the American pillar of NATO in particular. We have no intention of doing so,
822
although we believe that it is right for European nations to take a greater proportionate share of the collective defence of Europe.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: In respect of the ERM and the fixed exchange rate, is not the Prime Minister comparable with the driver of a moderately powered motor car driving up a hill which turns out to be rather steeper and longer than he thought, but who nevertheless refuses on principle to change down a gear? Would not the result be embarrassing to the driver, dangerous and embarrassing to the passengers, and dangerous to the other traffic on the road, and would not such a driver fail his driving test?
The Prime Minister: That is a very ingenious comparison, but I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. My response must be the same as that which I gave to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). There have been too many instances where Governments—I make no party point—have changed their policy at the wrong moment and sought reinflation at a moment when they should not have done so. We are making genuine progress on inflation, in both the headline and the underlying levels of inflation. We shall not change our policies—not out of stubbornness, but out of conviction.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me, as president of the Guild of Experienced Motorists, that far more accidents are caused by drivers chopping and changing in panic from the course on which they are proceeding? With regard to the GATT negotiations, will my right hon. Friend ensure that in the case of protectionism and interest rates he and all Ministers spell out to little Englanders that there is no solution in isolation from the rest of the world, and that we would suffer from such a policy more than anyone else?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right, and particularly so on his last point.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Prime Minister not draw a distinction between military action—that is to say, air cover—for the purposes of protecting humanitarian supplies flying into Sarajevo, and military action for the purposes of intervening with a view to resolving the dispute? Does he agree that in the case of the former there is no need to refer the matter to Parliament, but that there would have to be a parliamentary debate on the second option?
The Prime Minister: In what I said earlier I clearly drew that distinction between the desirability of air cover, which we shall provide in the circumstances that I have set out, and the desirability of intervening on the ground. I have said that it is not our policy to produce troops, and that I do not anticipate that we shall do so. However, I cannot be certain what events will occur. There is no sign of an agenda that will mean that we have troops involved. Indeed, I have expressly said that it is not our policy to use troops. However, I do not think that it would be wise for any Prime Minister to give the blanket assurance sought by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
Mr. Jim Lester: My right hon. Friend mentioned discussions in Munich on the debt situation both of middle-income countries and of those which come under the Trinidad terms, which he proposed in a former

823
incarnation. Will he give the House more information about the success of the policy on middle-income countries, which looks promising, and far more seriously on what progress is being made on the Trinidad terms, which are far more critical in view of their effect on the lives of impoverished countries?
The Prime Minister: Agreement was made that the Paris club would look at dealing with the debts of a number of lower-middle-income countries. I will let my hon. Friend have a note of which countries are involved. They will have to be dealt with by the Paris club on a case by case basis, but there was agreement that some progress can now be made. The summit welcomed the start that we had made on implementation of the Trinidad terms. Thus far, seven countries have benefited from 50 per cent. debt reduction and there will be more to follow.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What did the Prime Minister mean in terms of practical help to Scottish Nuclear and others with twinning arrangements when he spoke about supplementary help to nuclear power stations in the Soviet Union and Bulgaria? In the corridors of Munich, did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to ask Mr. Kohl how it is that, for six whole months, the Bundeskriminalamt has sat on vital evidence about Lockerbie? Is not some explanation due from the German police as to whether that was sheer incompetence or wilfulness?
The Prime Minister: I had no discussions on the latter point. On the former point, about nuclear power stations, we agreed a programme of action covering operational safety improvements, technical improvements to plants based on safety assessments, and an improvement to regulatory regimes. The programme that we had in mind is also designed to improve longer-term safety by examining the scope of replacing less safe plants through alternative energy. It is a massive programme, and the amount of money committed to it is likely to be $680 million to $700 million. That will be partly paid for with bilateral contributions, the sum total of which is not yet certain. The balance will be met out of the multilateral fund. The purpose of having the multilateral fund is to be able to cover those areas which are missed in the individual bilateral agreements made between the Russians or other countries, as the case may be, and the donor countries.
Mr. Tony Marlow: If the Germans are prepared to be bad Europeans by screwing up all the other European economies through their cavalier attitude to the exchange rate mechanism, why should we be good Europeans and remain members of that mechanism? To put it another way, in this particular, if my right hon. Friend had evidence that being at the heart of Europe was to tear the heart out of the United Kingdom economy, what would he do about it?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend sets up a premise with which I am unable to agree. We are in the exchange rate mechanism because the Government judge that it is where we should be, in the interests of a counterinflationary strategy for the United Kingdom. That is why we are there. Nobody compelled us to go there. We took a judgment. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of the day and I. as the then Chancellor of the Exchequer,
824
took the judgment that it was right to enter the ERM to bring down inflation and maintain the stability of our exchange rate.
My hon. Friend mentioned Germany. It is noteworthy that the Germans have maintained currency stability for a long time and, as a result, have produced an extremely powerful economy. I do not accept that the deutschmark is forever the benchmark of the exchange rate mechanism. That benchmark is the strongest currency in the mechanism, and we are determined that sterling will become an extremely strong currency. We cannot do that by cutting and running from the policy when it is beginning to succeed.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Prime Minister has referred to the managing of potential conflicts and the issuing of early warnings of such conflicts. Are there not already enough early warnings about possible imminent conflicts in other territories, such as Kosovo and Macedonia? How differently does the right hon. Gentleman think that we shall handle those matters from the way in which we have mishandled the Bosnian conflict?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that there have been early warning systems in quite the way now envisaged in the CSCE proposals. There are particular difficulties with a conflict which arises within what was a single country—the former Yugoslavia. Conflicts which arise between countries are obviously much more easily dealt with through external assistance. The proposals that we have set up will not solve or hold back every conflict, but they are certainly an advance and well worth developing.
Sir Dudley Smith: As one of Parliament's representatives at the new CSCE Assembly, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether is is aware that at its recent meeting the CSCE was unanimous in its view that the strongest possible pressure should be brought to bear on all the warring elements in Yugoslavia, just short of direct military intervention?
The Prime Minister: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that point to my attention. Under the proposals, the CSCE will have the ability to mandate a range of peacekeeping activities in future, from monitoring to full-scale forces.
Mr. Ron Leighton: At the G7 meeting, did the Prime Minister bear in mind that what caused our recession was the huge hike in interest rates? Does he understand that present real rates of interest—adjusted for inflation—are twice as high as when we joined the exchange rate mechanism? It is those high rates which are prolonging the recession, and we shall never get out of it while we have them. Will the right hon. Gentleman please consider using interest rates for the purpose of our domestic economy instead of for the arid dogma of the exchange rate mechanism?
The Prime Minister: We have to look at the interests of our domestic economy in the round, in both the medium and the long term, rather than in the short term only. That is precisely what the Government's policy does.
Mr. David Atkinson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his proposals for a citizens' Europe designed to avoid ethnic conflicts in Europe in future? Can he give us further clarification

825
about the proposed CSCE peacekeeping role as a last resort when all else fails? Does he mean peacemaking? If so, which organisation would do it—NATO, the WEU or the United Nations?
The Prime Minister: I would not draw a distinction between those bodies. The CSCE will have an enabling role and it could approach each or all of the organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Prime Minister agree that in relation to Yugoslavia, it is important always to be a stage or two ahead of the game? While we are rightly concerned with the problems in Bosnia- Herzegovina, should we not also be concerned about the problems of ethnic minorities in other areas of the former Yugoslavia? Did the CSCE address itself in any way to the problems of the ethnic minorities within Croatia, especially those who live in eastern Slovenia and Krajina? What is the Government's policy towards those parts of the country that we have now recognised?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points, with which I agree. We intend to support Lord Carrington's proposals for autonomy. We are concerned about the minorities in almost all the component parts of the republic of the former Yugoslavia. On the point about keeping ahead of the game and determining policy, the hon. Gentleman may care to know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be visiting all the republics within the next few days.
Mrs. Angela Knight: What steps, if any, were taken at the G7 meeting to take forward the important environmental agreements reached at Rio?
The Prime Minister: Immediately after the Rio conference, I wrote to all the G7 heads of Government with an eight-point plan to follow up the agreements reached at Rio. That plan was endorsed at the Munich summit and will now be carried forward. Therefore, within the member states of the G7, a further momentum has been given to the agreements reached at Rio.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite what he has said, there is bound to be a great deal of concern about any further escalation of British involvement in what used to be Yugoslavia? However, people accept—I certainly do—that what is now being done in terms of humanitarian supplies is right. I am sure that it has the approval of the vast majority of people in this country.
In what circumstances will the House be recalled if there is an escalation of British involvement? In these few days before the House rises, it is important for the right hon. Gentleman to promise that the House will be recalled, should the event that I have described materialise.
The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the way in which matters are developing in
826
Yugoslavia; the position is worrying. We have watched the developments over a number of weeks. There can be no certainty that there will be no further flashpoints in other parts of the republics of the former Yugoslavia. However. as I have said, I do not envisage that, as a result of those flashpoints, British troops will be involved on the ground. If and when such a circumstance arises, I shall consider what action is appropriate.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): During the G7 conference in Munich, was my right hon. Friend involved at any stage in discussions about the remarkable disparity in interest rates between the United States of America and the four European members of G7? If so, was it observed that if the United States—which is still, unfortunately, in recession—had persisted with the western European and British policy of high levels of real interest rates, it would now be in slump?
The Prime Minister: Those points were not discussed in the precise form suggested by my hon. Friend. It is true that interest rates are lower in the United States, although not so low as we might think from the discount rate and the rates at which people can borrow for business purposes. We must also take account of the size of the United States fiscal deficit and other aspects of its economy. It is equally true that, as the Americans have repeatedly reduced their interest rates over the past few years, that has not produced the kick start to the economy that many people expected.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: From what the Prime Minister has said so far, can we deduce that he is setting his face against any reduction in interest rates because he believes that, at this stage in the war against inflation, we need a futile gesture such as the sacrifice of a further million jobs to ad to the million already lost since we joined the exchange rate mechanism? Is not the right hon. Gentleman showing all the prejudices of his predecessor, but none of her flexibility?
The Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. Friend will welcome the hon. Gentleman's tribute to her flexibility, which was not evident from him when she stood at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman should not misstate the Government's position on interest rates. We have reduced interest rates by five percentage points over the past two years. When it is appropriate, we shall reduce interest rates, but it must be when it is appropriate and when we can sustain the exchange value of sterling and still reduce interest rates. That must be the key part of the decision that we have to make. When it is appropriate, we shall, of course, reduce interest rates.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. As hon. Members know, I take points of order after Standing Order No. 20 applications.

Royal London Hospital (Redundancies)
4.25 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement of £4 million cuts involving up to 600 redundancies at the Royal London hospital trust."
It is a specific matter affecting the reduction of hospital services in the borough of Tower Hamlets. Six hundred jobs, including those of doctors, nurses and ancillary staff, are to go—about 12 per cent. of those employed at the Royal London hospital.
The matter is important both to those who work in the health service and to the community they serve. It comes on top of the decisions made only last month to close the accident and emergency department at the Mile End hospital and to reduce and rationalise other hospital services in the borough.
In Tower Hamlets, with our above average health needs, we are not over-provided with health services; we are seriously under-provided. The cuts will only lengthen the long waiting lists which now exist.
Last Friday's announcement was made without first informing, let alone consulting, either the health authority or the community health council. The immediate cause of the problem is that the Royal London hospital has been unable to sell £4 million-worth of its much needed services and now, one third of the way through the current financial year, has to make emergency cuts to balance the books.
Short-term financial pressures, not a serious study of the needs of the people of Tower Hamlets, have dictated the decisions. It is urgent, therefore, that the Government now provide extra funds to prevent large and unplanned cuts in hospital services, not only at the Royal London hospital, but elsewhere in London, at least until the Tomlinson report has been completed and until sensible decisions based on its findings have been taken.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, I have to give my decision without giving any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.

Points of Order
4.29 pm
Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to item 21 on page 1258 of today's Order Paper? The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) seeks to insert my name as a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and to delete the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey).
Standing Order No. 104 requires
"Any Member intending to propose that certain Members be members of a select committee, or be discharged from a select committee, shall give notice of the names of Members whom he intends so to propose, shall endeavour to ascertain previously whether each such Member will give his attendance on the committee, and shall endeavour to give notice of any Member whom he proposes to be discharged from the committee."
I received no such notice, and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was not told by the hon. Member for Tayside, North that he intended to have him discharged from the Committee. However, I received a rather charming letter from the hon. Member for Tayside, North after the event, which opens with the words
"Dear Norman,
I have transgressed."
That has great appeal to me because I am a Scottish Presbyterian and those who have transgressed add up to the sum total of humanity.
The hon. Gentleman went on to appeal at the end of his letter
"Please forgive me."
I am afraid that forgiveness is not within my gift or that of any of us in the House—and I can assure you of that, Madam Speaker, as a Scottish Presbyterian.
I hope that you will use this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to at least reiterate the fact that hon. Members should act with good manners towards each other and should not seek to add or delete names on the Order Paper without fulfilling the conditions of Standing Order No. 104.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am quite capable of dealing with a Standing Order between two Scottish Members. May I hear from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)?
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) is wrong in one respect. I wrote to him before I took any action. Unfortunately, one did not know the names until Thursday morning. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman before I went to the Table Office to table my amendments very late on Thursday evening. I have also spoken to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), the other Member involved. In fact, I spent all of Saturday with him.
I tabled the amendments on the Order Paper because I believe that there are aspects of selection, election and the election of the Speaker which must be addressed. I thought that that was the opportunity for the House to address those matters, and that was the vehicle that I used to get those matters addressed.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) for giving me notice of his point of order. He has done his homework and he knows that Standing Order No. 104 requires an hon. Member to
"endeavour to ascertain"
whether any hon. Member whom he intends to propose for a Select Committee
"will give his attendance on the committee",
and that should be done before notice is tabled of a proposed nomination.
I ask the hon. Member for Tayside, North whether he took steps, before he tabled his amendments, to consult the hon. Members for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), whom he wishes to be omitted from the Committee? Did the hon. Member for Tayside, North consult those two hon. Members? Did he get a clear indication from them before he tabled the amendment? That is the question that should be answered. Is the answer yes or no?
Mr. Bill Walker: The answer clearly is that yes, I have discussed the matter with both hon. Members. No, I did not discuss in detail what I planned to do, because I did not have the time to do so and very few Scottish Members, other than those on the First Scottish Standing Committee, were here on Thursday.
Madam Speaker: This can be touched upon in general debate later. However, this is not simply a matter of common courtesy, although I am very keen to uphold common courtesy in the House. This is a matter of upholding our Standing Orders, and that I intend to do. Therefore, I rule that I am not able to select the two amendments, and that is the end of the matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There may have been another transgression, this time on the part of the Leader of the House. As a matter of common courtesy, last Thursday I telephoned the office of the Leader of the House to express an interest that, in business questions, he would make an announcement about European Standing Committee B, chaired by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), and the Libyan order. At column 473, he announced the business of 13 to 16 July, and said:
"The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday"—
and Hansard states "21 October". It was not at all clear. Indeed, from recollection, I think that he said "on Wednesday",
"to consider European Community Document No. 5894/92 concerning relations with Libya."
He went on to say:
"It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the provisional business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:"—[Official Report, 9 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 473.]
He then listed that business. We might be forgiven for thinking that the Libyan order, which was originally arranged for tomorrow, was going to be held on Wednesday.
The urgency is this: the Scottish police were incandescent with anger when they discovered what has happened in the courts in New York on the Pan Am wilful atrocity—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the merits and demerits, which I cannot listen
830
to. He has put his point of order to me. The Leader of the House provides information for the House, and it is of course for the Chairmen of Committees to determine the time of their sittings. The hon. Gentleman has been very explicit in his point of order, and I am sure that it has been taken on board by the Leader of the House.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be nothing further to that point of order, because I am now dealing with it. The Leader of the House has heard what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has had to say, and I cannot allow a debate on a point of order.
Mr. David Winnick: At a later stage in our proceedings today, we shall discuss departmental Select Committees, and set out on the Order Paper are the names that have been put forward on behalf of the Committee of Selection. You will remember, Madam Speaker, that when those Committees were set up and approved by the House in June 1979, they were meant to oversee and to inquire into the work of the various Departments; hence the reason why they came into existence and will be re-established in this Parliament.
Would it therefore be right for Ministers, under any kind of instruction, to decide who should be on those Committees? Cabinet Ministers' own Departments will be scrutinised by the proposed Select Committees. I therefore ask you to rule on whether, in the circumstances, that would be right in what is recognised as a free vote. Labour Members were not whipped on the issue, and Conservative Members, I understand, have not been whipped, but I understand that Ministers have been asked to support the motions from the Committee of Selection.
Madam Speaker: The whipping of various parties in the House is nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair. The hon. Gentleman knows that very well. I have no idea what the whipping is tonight or whether it exists or not. That is not my business. I am present anyway, irrespective of whether hon. Members are present. I shall be here for that business. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, it is a matter entirely for the House and for every individual Member of the House, whether a Minister, Back Bencher or whatever, to make up his or her mind. Of course, hon. Members are free to go into the Division Lobbies on the matter.
Mr. Bill Walker rose—
Madam Speaker: Is this a separate point of order?
Mr. Walker: May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to use your influence? You will understand the compressed time scale involved from the time when the orders were published, to the time when hon. Members may table amendments, and today. I ask you to use your influence in matters as contentious as membership of Select Committees and ensure that more time is given so that hon. Members can fulfil the necessity—I accept your ruling—to consult others involved.
Madam Speaker: Yes, I quite understand that there needs to be a period of consultation, and I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Bernie Grant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a member of European Standing

831
Committee B. Two weeks ago, we received our usual notification by letter from No. 10 Downing street, stating that, on Wednesday, we would discuss Libyan sanctions. It seems as though the situation has changed, and there has been no proper explanation. Could you advise us where we go from here?
Dr. Godman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I be allowed to explain that there is informal notification of meetings of European Standing Committees A and B? My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) is right. We were given the usual informal notice that, as members of Standing Committee B, we would meet this week to discuss relations with Libya. To put it bluntly the matter has been put on the back burner. The Government do not want the debate, because a Minister would have to come to the meeting and be cross-examined by the members of the Committee. Something curious is going on here.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, an informal notice is a means of notification. It is informal until there has been formal notification of the matter.
Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It seems curious that, when the Leader of the House announced the business for this week he apparently—according to Hansard—mentioned the business for Wednesday 21 October in the announcement of this week's business. He subsequently made a second statement about the business including that for the week of Wednesday 21 October. It seems an odd way to announce things. I wonder whether, when the Leader of the House made that statement he said "Wednesday" or "Wednesday 21 October".
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Mr. Marlow. Is it further to that point of order?
Mr. Tony Marlow: It is further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and your ruling. Supposing—
Madam Speaker: Order. If I have given a ruling, I do not take points of order retrospectively. I have given a ruling, and I understood that the Leader of the House wished to speak. He may well be able to clear the matter up for us.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Clearly, in the light of the points that have been made, it is sensible that I should say a word further to the point of order. In response to an informal request from an hon. Member, I carefully checked the words that I had in front of me, which, indeed, referred to Wednesday 21 October. I have no reason to doubt that I used those words, as recorded in Hansard. Obviously, I am sorry if it has given rise to some confusion among hon. Members; that is the last purpose that I had in mind.
Mr. Marlow: On a new point of order, Madam Speaker. Just supposing that members of the Government, who also happened to be Members of Parliament and of this honourable House, all voted one way this evening, or assuming that members of the Government, who also happen to be members of this House, were disproportionately present this evening when the voting took place, would you look upon that as a coincidence or something else?
Madam Speaker: I would look upon it as the sort of fairy story that I used to have read to me when I first joined my political party.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    PRIVATE SECURITY (REGISTRATION)
    Mr. Bruce George, supported by Mr. Robert Allason, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Ms. Glenda Jackson, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. John Home Robertson, Sir Keith Speed, and Mr. Ken Livingstone presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Private Security Registration Council and to give that Council powers and functions for the regulation of firms offering private security services and of persons employed as private security agents; to require the registration of such firms and persons with the Council; to impose requirements upon such firms and persons; to make provision for training of persons employed as private security agents; to make provision for compensation to be paid in respect of inadequately insured death or injury arising from the activities of such firms and persons; to define offences and specify penalties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 13 November and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

Sittings of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
4.43 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I hope that I can give some idea of the spirit in which I approach the debate by saying that I hope—subject, of course, slightly to the will of the House—to conform in my speech today with the recommendation in the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House that both Government and Opposition Front-Bench speeches should, if possible, be confined to 20 minutes. I shall do my best to restrict myself to that ration.
The purpose of today's debate is to provide an opportunity for the House to express its views on the report from the Committee so excellently chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). He brought to that task the experience acquired through many years of service in the House, including not only senior ministerial office but, not least, a time as Chief Whip. I remember that time clearly, because I was then probably the most junior Government Whip. I learned a great deal from my right hon. Friend. He now joins that select band whose name becomes so firmly associated with a report that almost no one can remember its formal title. Indeed, if all goes as he would wish, there may even be pressure to erect a statute to him in some part of the building. [Interruption.] I am not making a commitment this afternoon.
The previous debate on 2 March gave the previous House an early opportunity to express its views on the report. In replying on that occasion, my predecessor, to whom I also pay tribute for his initiative in proposing the appointment of the Committee and his input to it, said that there would need to be further detailed consideration of the recommendations. But he also underlined his view that the opinion of the new House would also have to be taken into account before any firm decisions were made about how the issue should be taken forward. I believe that he was right to express that view.
After all, this Parliament is barely three months old. There have been many changes in its membership. New Members are still coming to grips with the premises, the customs and the existing procedures. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said in opening the earlier debate:
"when considering altering parliamentary procedure, it is important to seek to do it on the basis of concensus".—[Official Report, 2 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 74.]
That is an important point. The proposals in the report are more far-reaching than is realised in some quarters. I shall develop that point later. However, I make no apology for maintaining the view that the new House of Commons should have the chance to have a wide-ranging discussion before we attempt to table substantive motions.
It is all the more important that the new House should discuss the matter because, as my predecessor said in his evidence to the Committee and in his speech in the previous debate, changes will not work without the co-operation of the House as a whole. If they are to work in practice, it is essential that the whole House understands what is involved in operating on the basis proposed by the report and that we can be sure that there is support
834
throughout the House for making the changes work. However, we can draw some encouragement—perhaps a lot of encouragement—from the fact that the report of the Committee was unanimous.
Before I turn to specific recommendations, it may be helpful to give a brief over-view of the report. The recommendations go far wider than merely reducing the hours that the House sits. In an attempt to find a reduction in hours which could be delivered, the Committee has made recommendations affecting the timing and handling of Government business as well as Private Members' business.
The most important of the Committee's recommendations could be crisply listed as follows: to sit on Wednesday from 10.30 am without interruptions, to take Private Members' business other than Private Members' Bills until 2.30 pm; to take 10 Fridays a session as non-sitting days, to provide much-needed extra time for MPs' constituency duties; to finish at 7 pm on the Thursdays before the non-sitting Fridays; to take only non-controversial business—a point which raises difficult issues—after 7 pm on all other Thursdays; to restrict fairly considerably the circumstances in which the House would sit beyond 10 pm on any day, even on Government business; and to provide for the automatic timetabling of all Government Bills.
It may be helpful if I indicate how I hope to proceed. I propose in the next few minutes to set out, I hope in reasonable detail, the Government's thoughts on the recommendations in the report. I will then, as I hope I need hardly say, pay close attention to the views expressed in the debate, with a view to identifying a basis for agreement, which can then be discussed through the usual channels, with the aim of being in a position to table some substantive resolutions at an early stage after the House resumes in the autumn. I should, however, emphasise that many of the recommendations would involve complex Standing Order amendments which may not be easy to frame.
Mr. Peter Shore: Is the Leader of the House sure that he interpreted the report correctly when he said that it proposed the timetabling of all Bills? Surely the proposal was for timetabling Bills other than those taken on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Newton: My understanding is that the report envisaged timetabling of Government Bills generally. If the right hon. Gentleman, who is experienced in such matters, takes a different view, undoubtedly he will elaborate it during the debate.
The House may appreciate my next point, which is partly directed at those who examine our proceedings from outside. It seems important to view the report and the matters with which it deals not simply as a question of shorter sitting or working hours. There is far more to it than the prospect of earlier rising, some morning sittings, or what in some quarters might be seen as Fridays off. The proposals in the report need to be seen in the context of the overall demands made on Members of Parliament.
A Member's time is not spent solely in the Chamber, in Committee or at Westminster—important though those aspects of the role are. As the report makes clear, one significant change in the pressure on the average Member has occurred in what is expected of him or her in constituency work and duties. We are talking about the

835
balance between different aspects of the job, rather than seeking to make it entail less work overall, and it is important that we should emphasise that in our discussions.
The report draws attention to the principle of balance between Government, Opposition and Back Benchers. I emphasise in particular, as does the report, that the Government of the day, whatever their colour, should have a reasonable expectation of getting their reasonable business. That means that they must have sufficient time, or procedures must be so arranged, for them to implement the commitments on which they are elected, and their programme as set out in the Queen's Speech each Session.
But that—this is no less important—must be balanced by the right of the House, groups in it, Members and, in particular, of the Opposition to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise and, where they wish, to oppose Government business, especially legislation.
Our procedures rest on a balance between those considerations. It is a delicate balance, in which the use of time and the scope for delay have sometimes been seen as the Opposition's main weapons. It follows that that change must be carefully balanced if we are to maintain the basic democratic values which our procedures exist to protect.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is not merely the main weapon. Often, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, it is the only weapon of the Opposition. Is that not a charter for the castration of the Opposition?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is very familiar with the procedures and techniques of the House. He is expressing a view about one of the propositions underlying the report. I note that, and shall be interested to find out whether it is followed by other hon. Members from either side of the House.
Thus the Government's basic approach to the report is that, if the legitimate need of the elected Government to progress and have enacted their legislative programme and to secure their other essential business is accepted, and appropriately reflected in the procedures of the House, the Government would be more than happy for the working practices of the House to become more civilised—I suppose that that is one way to describe it—in terms of hours of work, and in other ways.
The central equation cannot be ignored, however, and the House needs to go into that with its eyes open and to appreciate the implications. If there is to be less time, proceedings will have to be more structured, debate may be less open-ended and the scope for obstruction could become more limited—which picks up the point that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) just raised.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the biggest obstacle to changing the hours in this place, perhaps to 9 to 5, the fact that more than 200 Members of Parliament—who happen mainly to be Tory Members—have moonlighting jobs, making money in the boardrooms and the law courts? They cannot afford Parliament regularly to start at 9 in the morning because they want to be able to come here when it suits them, when they have finished in the City or the law courts, and to vote at 7 or 10 o'clock. That is the basic problem. It is not a question of merely playing around at the edges. The real problem is stopping moonlighting. Then we could get some regular hours.
Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the House to know that I do not readily accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the reasons for our existing procedures. Incidentally, it is also important to recognise, although it is not universally the case in all Parliaments which might be compared with this one, that members of the Executive—Ministers—are also Members of Parliament, it is an important feature of the way in which our Parliament and our democracy work, and has some relationship to the issue that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised.
Mr. David Harris: Some of us are getting heartily sick of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) constantly talking such rubbish. Most Conservative Members work just as hard as he does—[HON. MEMBERS: "Harder."] Most of us work harder in one respect at least, because most of us are members of Committees. I am on five Committees, whereas the hon. Member for Bolsover refuses to serve on them.
Mr. Skinner: I was on one last week.
Mr. Harris: That must have been an exception. In general, the hon. Member for Bolsover refuses to serve on Committees, which is where much of the work of the House is done.
Mr. Skinner: That is not true.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that it was clear from the response to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) that many hon. Members, certainly on the Conservative side of the House, have some sympathy with his arguments. My aim in responding to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was to seek—so far without avail—to keep the temperature down in the interests of rational discussion of the proposals.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Newton: I shall give way to the hon. Member.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Janet Fookes): Order. I am not clear to whom the Leader of the House was giving way, as an hon. Gentleman rose from each side.
Mr. Newton: I intended to give way to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. John Garrett: Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised an important matter. Many Members of the House, principally those on the Conservative Benches, have outside employment, and that is one reason why there is so much opposition to morning sittings. Will the Leader of the House give his view on the widespread use of outside employment by Members of Parliament?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to my remarks in response to the hon. Member for Bolsover a few moments ago. It is by no means the case that Members on one side of the House alone combine a range of different roles, both in respect of their position as Members of Parliament and in other ways. By and large, those different responsibilities interact in a way that benefits the House and the service that Parliament provides.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that today is significant because the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has graced us with his

837
presence, even though it is out of prime television time? Does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Gentleman's constituents might be interested to note that, whereas most of us are prepared to work in Select and Standing Committees and to spend time researching our contributions to them, all that the hon. Member for Bolsover looks forward to is £30,000 a year for a nine-to-five job?
Mr. Newton: As I said, one of my hopes is to try to keep the temperature down in the debate, although that hope looks a little forlorn. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not follow him. Nevertheless, I note his remarks carefully.
Mr. Peter Hain: I appreciate the desire of the Leader of the House to keep the temperature low. If we were designing Hours for the House, starting afresh in a modern parliamentary democracy, which is what we are supposed to be, is it conceivable that we would come up with the antiquated, anachronistic and ridiculous hours that we now sit?
Mr. Newton: It is difficult for me to say. I plead the basic proposition that I sought to make in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who is sitting beside the hon. Gentleman. Experience from various quarters such as local government, business, trade union activities and being a teacher—whatever it may be—is a considerable help to Members when they perform their duties in the House, as constituency Members of Parliament and in other ways. It would not be sensible if the continuation of that experience were cut off as soon as people became Members of the House. Our proceedings would be the loser if we went down that path.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Newton: I shall, but one of the reasons why I wryly referred to my aim of keeping my speech to 20 minutes is being revealed—that interventions make it singularly difficult to keep speeches to the length that hon. Members would wish.
Mr. Flynn: The Leader of the House has said that hon. Members on both sides of the House have outside interests. It is worth putting on record the fact that in the last Parliament, 14 per cent. of Labour Members had outside paid interests, whereas 85 per cent. of eligible Conservative Members had such interests. Does the Leader of the House agree that the situation would be clarified if hon. Members were to declare not only their interests but also the amounts of money received?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman has just said adds hugely to our debate. I am tempted to observe that it merely confirms my view that Conservative Members are of exceptional value.
Mr. Derek Foster: Not to us.
Mr. Newton: I accept that they are not of exceptional value to the Labour Chief Whip, but they are of exceptional value in the role that they play in the House. In saying so, I do not seek in any way to diminish the
838
important contribution that the hon. Gentleman and many others play, with their particular types of expertise drawn from outside.
One of the keys to the balance that the Committee sought to establish is the automatic timetabling of Government legislation. I stress the word "timetabling" as it is important that this should be seen not as a guillotine—which is how we have traditionally thought of such a device—but rather as an attempt to agree, in a prescribed way, a systematic scheduling of the stages of a Bill to ensure organised debate and effective scrutiny. That might or might not mean less time overall being spent on any particular measure than is spent at present, but it could be expected—at least in the minds of those who made the proposal—to be more productive time. In particular, it could be expected to ensure that all parts of a Bill were examined in Committee in a way that our existing procedures have not always managed to achieve.
If the House is serious about reforming sitting hours, it must recognise that this proposal is an essential element in the balance of the whole report, and therefore crucial to an overall package of change.
Mr. Tony Marlow: With regard to automatic timetabling and the proposed change in hours, as well as other matters, can my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that consideration of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty will not influence the timing of the Government's recommendations? If it is proposed that there should be automatic timetabling, will that be subject to a vote in the House? If not, the Maastricht treaty might be timetabled automatically. without the House being able to express a view on it.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may wish to develop that point in the course of the debate. Clearly, he may regard this as a reason for having reservations about the proposal. Indeed, for all I know, his reservations may well go wider than the measure to which he has referred. My purpose today is to describe the approach that the Government bring to the report, without seeking to pre-empt points about timing or about the detailed discussions that would have to take place to overcome some of the reservations that are being expressed in interventions.
Dr. John Cunningham: I urge the Leader of the House to avoid the trap that he seems to be setting for himself, or—to put it another way—the threat that he is issuing to the House. He seems to be saying that, if there can be no agreement on automatic timetabling, there can be no other changes—in other words, that this package must stand or fall as a whole. The nature of the report and of the changes makes it clear that that is not the case. In saying so, I express a personal view. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am in favour of the timetabling of legislation. However, I should not like him to suggest that no changes could be made unless there were agreement on automatic timetabling, insisted upon by the Government.
Mr. Newton: If there is any misunderstanding about that, I should like to clear it up. I do not want to put words in to the mouths of the report's authors, but I think that it is fair to say that the report, including all its recommendations—for example, those about hours, non-sitting days and the handling of business on Thursdays—sees this as a balanced package between timetabling and the proposals as a whole. That is not the

839
same as saying that, if it were not possible to make progress on timetabling—some reservations have already been stated very clearly—nothing at all could be done. Clearly, however, one's view of the balance of the report as a whole would be affected.
Mr. Shore: In relation to this point and the point about the Maastricht treaty, paragraph 69 of the report says explicitly:
"Existing practice would continue in respect of bills taken in committee of the whole House."
That is an acknowledgement of the importance of Bills that are taken on the Floor of the House, which generally—at least, often—are constitutional measures.
Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
I recognise that the issue with which we are dealing is a controversial one, although, in the light of what has taken place in the last few minutes, it is hardly necessary to say so. Clearly, there has been growing support for a different approach to timetabling—scheduling, if that word is preferred—in recent years. Some might say—at least one hon. Member has implied this already—that such an approach could make things much easier for the Government. Whether or not that proves to be the case, there will certainly be some who see it as constituting good grounds for caution, as has been amply demonstrated in the past few minutes. However, it would certainly make things better for the House if that were what hon. Members wanted and if the House were prepared to make it work.
As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said, in his memorandum to the Committee he expressed his personal support—I emphasise that it was personal support—for the automatic timetabling of all Government Bills. In the debate of 2 March, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who was a distinguished member of the Jopling Committee and whom I am glad to see in his place, was broadly supportive, but clearly he recognised the dilemma on which we have been touching during the last few minutes, while the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) was supportive with some reservations. The Liberal Democrats too, in their memorandum to the Committee, favoured the proposal. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said in the earlier debate, we must face up to this issue.
We have some reservations about the alternative mechanisms proposed in the report for deciding the timetable of a Bill, but if the general proposal for automatic timetabling were to find favour with the House, the details could be considered further, with a good deal of discussion through the usual channels, before substantive motions were tabled. Clearly this is a difficult and sensitive issue.
Mr. Stanley Orme: If there were to be timetabling of a kind acceptable to the Opposition of the day, it could be detrimental to the Government, as Standing Committees could then discuss issues which, because of the traps set by Ministers, would not be reached. I say so as one who has been on both sides of these arguments. If there were timetables, and if we were able to discuss and vote on the controversial issues, that would be a benefit, rather than a detriment, to the House.
Mr. Newton: The whole House will listen with respect to the views of the right hon. Gentleman, who has a great deal of experience, not least as a Minister piloting Bills through the House. Perhaps it is not proper for me to say so, but he may himself have employed some of the devices that he associates with current Ministers. In any case, he illustrates the fact that this is by no means a simple or clear-cut issue. There is a balance to be considered, and it is very important that we get the detail right—something that I do not suggest I can do in a sentence or two this afternoon.
I turn now to the other recommendations in the report, which can be conveniently grouped in four categories those dealing with the parliamentary week; those concerned with procedures on Bills; a group of three dealing with subordinate legislation; and a fourth group of a more miscellaneous character.
Taking the first group in the context that I have already emphasised—that is to say, a balanced package—I have no difficulty in expressing support for the principle of a 10 o'clock finish as the norm. I do, however, doubt that it would be right for this to be achieved by the rigidity of a formal resolution or Standing Order, and I must, in particular, make clear to the House our reservations about the Committee's specific recommendation that suspension of the 10 o'clock rule be restricted to primary legislation taken as first Order of the Day. That would leave the way open for that first business to be talked out until 10 pm and any other business on the Order Paper scheduled for, say, 7 pm, would fall. That would plainly be very difficult for the Government to accept.
If the House is to rise at 10 pm, it should normally be accepted that the business scheduled for the day, agreed through the usual channels and announced to the House, should be completed by 10 pm on that day. It follows that, in our view, the Government should retain the right to ask the House to continue after 10 pm with Government business entered into before 10 pm. Having said that, sense that the point to which the report attached most importance in this regard was to bring an end to the practice of scheduling completely new business to start after 10 pm. We can certainly accept that aim, when taken with the report's proposal for automatic referral of affirmative statutory instruments to a Standing Committee, which should in itself serve to make much of the business currently done after 10 pm unnecessary other than in exceptional circumstances.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The right hon. Gentleman just said that affirmative statutory instruments would be considered in a Standing Committee. At the moment, such Committees meet on Wednesday morning in the main, and the report also proposes that the House should sit on Wednesday mornings. Does that mean that those serving on Committees dealing with the merits of statutory instruments would be denied the opportunity to be in the Chamber?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman raises just the type of point that we should, sensibly, consider in the debate. Perhaps his point underlines my reasons for believing that a general debate in which such problems could be explored should take place before we sought to table substantive resolutions. The hon. Gentleman's point is an obvious one that should be considered carefully.

841
Thus, with what are quite limited provisos, we would be happy to see 10 pm become the regular finishing time for public business. Whether it worked out like that in practice is for the House to determine. However, with good sense and a spirit of co-operation on all sides, I see no reason why it should not.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Newton: I will give way, but, obviously, my speech will be rather extended.
Mr. Dalyell: Is it not indicative that the proposals come from a Government in which almost uniquely in British political history, neither the Prime Minister nor many of his senior colleagues have ever been in opposition? That has not happened before. They do not know what it is like to be in opposition. I can see the attraction from the point of view of those on the Government Front Bench of streamlining things to make it easier, but if it were to happen that they had the duty of opposing and really meant what they said, rather than going through the motions and posturing, which is a fat lot of use to anyone, would they then take a similar attitude?
I beg the Leader of the House to understand that those of us who have been in opposition for a long time also have feelings about this. Those who have occupied the Government Benches for so long—uniquely in the case of the Prime Minister, who has never been in opposition—should understand precisely what an adversarial system is about.
Mr. Newton: As it happens, I have clear memories of my time in opposition between 1974 and 1979. It is because of my consciousness of the type of point that the hon. Gentleman has raised that I have gone to some length to emphasise in that part of my speech that I have so far been able to deliver that there is a balance to be struck, with consideration on both sides. I am not in any way dismissing, nor have I sought to do so far, the type of considerations that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
I can give general support to the proposal for Wednesday morning sittings, although, as the report acknowledges, the structure of those proposed sittings needs to be carefully considered. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has thrown in another fact that needs to be considered. The Committee recognised the need to avoid Divisions and for that reason, rightly in the Government's view, decided that private Members' Bills should not be taken on such mornings.
The Committee did, however, propose that opposed private business might be taken at a morning sitting, and while I understand the reasoning behind that I see it as presenting rather more difficulty. Opposed private business is by defintion liable to be controversial, with the prospect of Divisions. Although the Committee recognised this and suggested that Divisions could be deferred to a later hour, I doubt whether that would generally be thought to be very satisfactory, and it could undoubtedly be potentially disruptive of the main part of the parliamentary day. I think that we should be looking to establish a position in which business taken at morning sittings is self-contained.
In any event, following the recent changes in the arrangements for dealing with private Bills, the House may
842
feel that this is not the time to propose further changes to the Standing Orders relating to private business. The number of private Bills brought before Parliament is likely to decrease significantly following the recent reforms, and at the very least it would surely be wise to await experience of the new regime before considering whether any further step is needed.
The counterpart to the introduction of morning sittings on Wednesdays is the proposal that 10 Fridays in each session should be designated as non-sitting days. We are ready to accept that recommendation. We find it more difficult to endorse in the same way the other proposal with which it is associated, namely that on Thursdays before non-sitting Fridays the House should rise at 7 pm, which would bring us very close to a position in which for 10 weeks a year the House was reduced to a three-day week for the handling of Government business. Obviously, however, there would be scope, in discussions through the usual channels, to consider the business which might be taken on such Thursdays, with a view to minimising the demands made on Members. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Bolsover has already referred, from a sedentary position, to the difficulty of deciding, as the report suggests, what is non-contentious or noncontroversial. At least, that is what I took him to mean.
The second group of recommendations, which deals with the procedure on Bills—in particular, Ways and Means and money resolutions, and ten-minute Bills—is largely acceptable, subject to the detailed points I have already made about automatic timetabling of Government Bills and the handling of opposed private business.
The recommendations relating to subordinate legislation are generally sensible and right. In particular. we welcome automatic referral upstairs to statutory instruments. The only significant reservation that I must express in this connection relates to the proposal, relevant to what has happened in the past few minutes, that Front-Bench speeches should be formally limited to 20 minutes or 15 minutes in debates on statutory instruments and European Community documents. However desirable such economy may be—I have already made it clear that I am willing to endorse it on a "best endeavours" basis—the potential difficulties of a formal rule are obvious. They have become even more so in the past few minutes.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Newton: I wonder whether hon. Members would now let me get on.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just rose to prove the point—it is made.
Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend has suggested, according to the report, that statutory instruments should go automatically upstairs. Often, those statutory instruments are controversial and the House would prefer to debate them on the Floor. How, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, should they be dealt with?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend raises a point that needs to be considered as we study the details of the report. That was precisely the type of point that I hoped would be elicited as a concern among some Members during the debate. The purpose of the debate is to address such concern. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it.

843
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) should recall that I said that it would be difficult to accept the specific recommendations about a formal 20-minute limitation on Front-Bench speeches precisely because that would constitute a grave inhibition on the type of exchanges that have taken place in the past few minutes. If that is what the House wishes, I would certainly not wish to put a block on it.
Mr. Michael Jopling: May I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 74 of the report:
"It will, of course, continue to be possible to debate the more important and controversial affirmative instruments … on the floor of the House."
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification, but I believe that the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) raised, which he might seek to develop if he has the opportunity to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, relates to what mechanism should be used to determine what is or is not controversial and important. My hon. Friend is concerned about the problem of definition when determining what business should be taken in which way. We should not disguise the fact that there is scope for disagreement and difficulty, because different Members take different views about the importance and controversiality of particular proposals.
Of the other proposals in the report—those which I described earlier as miscellaneous—I judge that those of most interest to the House would be those relating to the notice and timing of recesses, and the making of business statements to embrace two weeks rather than one.
On the first of the issues, I need hardly say that I understand and sympathise with the wish for greater certainty and earlier notice of recesses, but it would be wrong for me to disguise from the House the fact that the setting of immutable dates many months in advance would give rise to problems similar to those I referred to earlier in relation to specific commitments to a 10 o'clock finish to Government business—that is to say, of strengthening too much the scope for mere obstruction of business. Dates that had to be changed could be the worst of all worlds for everyone.
I certainly can and will seek to build on the steps already taken by my predecessors in recent years to try to give the House an earlier and clearer indication of when it is intended that it should rise for the next recess, as was perhaps most clearly exemplified by what my immediate predecessor did when Easter fell late, to give an early indication that the recess would include the week preceding Easter.
I am of course conscious that the date for the summer recess is of particular concern, especially but by no means only to Members from Scottish constituencies with children at school, whose holidays fall earlier than those in England and Wales. I hope that what we have been able to do this year, in terms of both timing and announcement, may be taken as an earnest of good intentions to move as far as I can in the direction the House would wish.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Newton: In the light of the number of times that I have given way already, it would now be appropriate for me to seek to bring my speech to a conclusion.
844
Similarly, although I well understand the wish to see business statements covering a longer period ahead, I am also conscious that a situation in which business was announced on a basis which would inevitably be much more provisional that at present, with a correspondingly much greater risk that it would have to be changed, could prove even more inconvenient than the present convention. Of course, an overall package of reform may reduce the range of uncertainties and make it easier to plan over a longer period with reasonable certainty; but for the moment I think that I must confine myself to an understanding of "best endeavours", and in particular aim for rather more notice of what might be called "setpiece" occasions.
In seeking to set the scene for this debate today, I necessarily sounded some notes of caution, and not least thought it right to emphasise to the House, as I must again in concluding, the central importance of the balance that will have to be struck between the report's proposal on timetabling and many, if not all, of its other recommendations. But I hope that it is clear that I have done so in a constructive and positive spirit that, with co-operation on both sides of the House, can pave the way, in the wake of this debate, for important and worthwhile procedural reform in the interests of Members, the House as a whole and, above all, the essential democratic process which we are all here to serve.
5.22 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: My view that Parliament needs reform is widely shared not only in the House but increasingly outside the House, too. It is in the interests of the reputation of the House of Commons that we should make a serious attempt at reform.
I submitted a memorandum of evidence to the Jopling Committee. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), on managing to secure a unanimous report. I shall not bore the House by reading out all my views but shall simply rehearse one or two to point out that the report falls far short of my views and recommendations to the Committee. I favoured morning sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays; the ending of business at 9 pm from Monday to Wednesday and at 7 pm on Thursdays; no sittings on Fridays; a fixed parliamentary year; and the timetabling of legislation. I made many other recommendations for change.
The House sits for more days, and more hours on more days, than almost any other western democratic legislature. However, there is no evidence that we are conspicuously more effective at checking the Executive, scrutinising public expenditure or stopping Government legislation going through. I can say that with feeling, having spent seven years as shadow Environment Secretary dealing with numerous large and controversial Bills.
In the 1988 parliamentary Session, for example, environmental legislation took up one third of the parliamentary work load in the House, and it was not much different in earlier years. Of the 1,783 hours and six minutes—for what they are worth—for which the House sat, 606 hours were spent discussing environment business and my hon. Friends and I dealt with virtually all that legislation.

845
Almost all the major Bills that one can recall were guillotined sooner or later. The housing finance Bill, the abolition of the Greater London Council and metropolitan counties, many other local government finance Bills, the poll tax Bill and water privatisation all inevitably ran into the guillotine procedure. That was not because hon. Members were filibustering—we were not. I gave up the idea of speaking for its own sake in this place long ago. I favour more effective scrutiny of the Executive, better-quality checks and balances, not simply of the quantity of time spent in this place, whether in the Chamber or in Committee.
Mr. Tim Devlin: My first year in the House was 1988, and I served, as the hon. Gentleman probably recalls, on the Standing Committee on the Local Government Finance Bill. We sat many a late night in the Committee Room for six or more weeks before a guillotine came down on that Bill. We then reached the stage when several hon. Members like myself, who had reservations about various parts of the Bill, were able to start debating many of the issues in later parts of the Bill. Would not it be much better to guillotine all Bills from the beginning so that hon. Members who support the Government would not have to sit silently listening to the first six or eight clauses being exhaustively debated by Opposition Members alone before they, too, can discuss the Bill?
Dr. Cunningham: I shall return to timetabling in a moment. First I wish to make two or three general points.
Many of my constituents and the people with whom I discuss the affairs in the Chamber agree that the antiquity of our proceedings and the inadequacy of the facilities to help us deal with those proceedings are simply bringing Parliament into disrepute. People do not regard this place as effective and it becomes less and less attractive to many people, particularly women, to want to try to operate under the existing rules. It has been my strongly held view for many years that we should do more to attract women into the House.
Improving our procedures can make us more effective watchdogs of the Executive, which is one of our principal reasons for being here, but also more effective in representing our constituencies and the individual constituents who come to us for redress. I make no apology for being in favour of reform.
Mr. Barnes: How can hon. Members act as watchdogs when we are about to go into recess for three months? Avenues of scrutiny and the pursuit of grievances on behalf of constituents will not be available to us. Instead of a three-month break, why do not we spread six or seven of those weeks throughout the year as "constituency weeks"? We would then not have an excessive gap when we cannot keep the Executive in check. The Prime Minister now has the presidency of the European Community for six months and we cannot ask simple questions about it for three months.
Dr. Cunningham: I say this with some deference to my hon. Friend, but if interventions last as long as that we shall all end up making very long speeches from the Dispatch Box.
I do not accept my hon. Friend's basic premise. I do not accept that the work that I do as a Member of Parliament
846
stops because the House of Commons is not sitting. I do not accept for a moment that, if I am not present in the Chamber, I cannot write a letter, demand a meeting with a Minister or take a deputation to see people in Whitehall.
I shall say this as humbly as I can. I remember when Labour was in government—my memory is as good as that—and I had the privilege of serving as a Minister. It is often far more difficult for a Minister to deal with well-researched, well-informed, well-constructed letters from parliamentary colleagues than it is for him to deal with questions at the Dispatch Box. I do not accept that I can act effectively on behalf of my constituents only if the House is in session.
Furthermore, I do not accept that our proceedings are effective only if they take place in the Chamber. That is why I am in favour of more business being dealt with in Committee. The lessons learned from the development of Select Committee work over the past few years have led to an increase in the effective scrutiny of Government Departments, public expenditure and Ministers' conduct of business through Select Committee procedures.
When I became a Member of Parliament in 1970, I volunteered to be a Select Committee member. Some of my colleagues thought that rather odd, if not foolhardy; but I served on a Select Committee for six years. I enjoyed it, and I learnt a great deal about the behaviour of Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall and the tricks that they play. That stood me in great stead. I believe that the House's Select Committee work has been one of its successes. At the time, many people opposed it on the ground that it would diminish the effectiveness of Parliament and take too much important business away from the Floor of the House, but I do not believe that that has happened.
We shall study with care what the Leader of the House has said. He has read a good deal into the record about the Government's attitude to the proposed changes. I am speaking for myself, but I hope that it will be possible for us to agree a way forward. I accept the argument of Committee members, and others on both sides of the House, that unless there is a broad consensus in favour of change, no change will come about. It was, after all, Conservative Back Benchers who wrecked the Crossman changes which were introduced in the 1960s.
Mr. Dalyell: I was the late Dick Crossman's parliamentary private secretary at the time, and I recall that that was done not so much by Conservative Back Benchers as by his Cabinet colleagues. That is another story, but I know quite a lot about it. My hon. Friend need go no further than Lord Callaghan for a explanation: he knows that what I have said is true.
Can my hon. Friend name a single crunch issue in regard to which a Select Committee has been really effective? What happened in the Westland case? At the end of the day, hon. Members gave in to Leon Brittan. Ultimately, party always comes before Government. Arrangements were altered when a guillotine could not be secured on the Floor of the House, and certain Bills were affected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will recall—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions have become progressively longer. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is now becoming a speech.
Dr. Cunningham: As I remember, at the end of the Westland affair. Leon Brittan resigned. My hon. Friend's claim that the inquiry had no effect, or that its only consequence was that hon. Members gave in to the Minister, does not accord with historical facts. I believe that two Cabinet Ministers bit the dust. I do not attribute all that to the work of the Select Committee, but to say that nothing happened is to play fast and loose with the facts.
Let me deal in more detail with the issue of timetabling. I am clear in my own mind, on the basis of my own experience, that if we had agreed timetables, scrutiny of the legislation would have been at least as effective. As a result of an enforced guillotine, reams of Bills were never discussed in Committee by either side. That is the truth, and everyone knows it. I do not accept that timetables should be enforced by the Executive; there must be some agreement—on a Committee-by-Committee basis, through the establishment of an independent Committee or through the extension of an existing Committee's remit.
I want timetabling to include special evidence-taking sessions, so that Committees can call expert witnesses—that is already within the Standing Orders—before the application of a timetable. All that must be the subject of serious and careful negotiation. My hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip does not share my views; nor, for all I know, do most of his colleagues in the Whips' Office. However, I would join my hon. Friends in the Division Lobby to oppose an enforced timetable. There must be fairness between Government and Opposition.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that the efficacy of Opposition scrutiny is part of the essence of parliamentary life. But how can he reconcile what he has said about the Standing Order arrangement—which would give the majority vote on Committees and timetabling to the Government—with what happens to some Bills? There is an arrangement between the usual channels, and a conversational agreement between hon. Members. Surely the great thing about the Standing Order arrangement is that the initiative is largely with the Opposition in Committees; the Government must produce a response. Surely, giving Governments power to provide an arrangement would diminish the power of the Opposition.
Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree. In my experience the initiative was not with the Opposition. Most Secretaries of State—or more commonly, their Ministers—came to Committee stages with a premeditated plan for a guillotine after a certain number of hours of discussion. They did not much care what took up those hours; they simply wanted them to accumulate. We all know that that is the truth. There is not really any argument about it. I have been here 22 years, which is far too long for me to pretend that the system worked in any other way. I do not see why we should disguise the truth from ourselves when we are talking about trying to make our proceedings more effective.
If we are to improve our scrutiny and effectiveness, and if we are to allow ourselves time for further research and better briefing, we need to do something about the hours the House sits. Let me give an example that highlights the weakness of our proceedings. Outside bodies such as pressure groups usually know far more about impending legislation than Opposition Members do. That is partly
848
because Members of Parliament have not sufficient time and/or resources to ensure that they are thoroughly briefed and prepared. For that reason also, I believe that our procedures are in need of change.
The Leader of the House said that he hoped for a quiet afternoon. I never thought that likely; it was a bit of wishful thinking by the right hon. Gentleman. It is clear from our proceedings so far—and we have barely started—that these modest proposals will generate great heat—perhaps more heat than light, I regret to say. In general I endorse the Committee's approach, although I would not agree with every dot and comma. It is good that the Leader of the House mentioned specific proposals for change. They will have to be considered in greater detail than this afternoon allows—but I am certain about one thing: I am on the side of the reformers.
5.39 pm
Mr. Michael Jopling: When we debated the report on 2 March I spoke for 18 minutes and I shall try to be reasonably brief today. I must begin this rerun debate by expressing my gratitude to the Committee members who worked so hard in the autumn and winter of last year and reported to the House earlier this year.
I remind the House that those who served on the Committee were distinguished: the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, the chairman of the 1922 Committee, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and the former Liberal Chief Whip. Our body of members was thus representative of those in positions of influence, especially on the Back Benches. I was particularly pleased that we produced a unanimous report.
I should like to repeat some of the important remarks of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), which also appear in the report. This House sits for more days and more hours than any other Parliament in the larger democracies. Our average finishing time in recent years has been almost precisely midnight. It is therefore clear to me, as it was to the Committee, that something needs to be done, because the present state of affairs is not satisfactory.
This debate is different from the March debate, because Front-Bench spokesmen on both sides have been much more forthcoming about the Committee's report. I am grateful to them for their general support this afternoon.
To judge from the speech by the Leader of the House, I would estimate that the Government have endorsed about 80 per cent. of the Committee's recommendations. The hon. Member for Copeland was good enough to say that he supported the report in general. It would be absurd to put a figure on his endorsement because, understandably, he did not go into detail. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Government for their large measure of acceptance of our recommendations.
I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). It has attracted just short of 220 signatures—about a third of the membership of the House. It, too, endorses the Select Committee's report. A breakdown of that endorsement which the Library gave me last week showed 85 Government supporters and 110 Labour party supporters. I therefore see a great deal of support in the House for our report.

849
I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House told us that the Government will accept many points in the report, but I want to concentrate on the recommendations about which some doubt has been expressed.
My right hon. Friend referred to the difficulties of planning business if a set of time-buffers to Government or any other business is erected. I know that from experience. If we decide to bring business to a close at 10 pm precisely or to get up for the summer recess on 16 July, that offers the Opposition an irresistible temptation to drive the Government into the buffers to ensure that there is unfinished business when the buffers are reached. We all know that that is one of the Opposition's techniques; hence one of the techniques of the Government is not to erect the sort of buffers that provide such an irresistible temptation.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They also appear to offer an irresistible temptation to their Lordships' House.
Mr. Jopling: Over the past year I have had enough problems with the procedures of this House not to get involved in all that.
Clearly, we want these changes. I agreed with my right hon. Friend that we do not want orders put on at 10 pm following a Second reading debate or an Opposition day—that represents totally new business beginning at 10 o'clock. We want that stopped as soon as possible.
Provided all Bills are timetabled sensibly, in line with the Committee's report, it should not often be necessary to continue Report stages on the Floor of the House after 10 pm. That may have to happen sometimes, but, with a sensible timetable system, it should usually be possible to bring a Report stage to a conclusion at or around 10 pm, obviating the need to go on through all or part of the night.
I understand the reluctance of the Government to agree never to sit beyond 10 o'clock, but we want from the Government statements of good will and of honest best endeavours—and we want the same from the Opposition and Back Benchers. Everyone is responsible for seeing that the general intentions of the House in this respect are abided by.
Mr. Spearing: I shall not deal with timetabling, although I take a view different from that of the right hon. Gentleman and of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—it is a Front Bencher against Back Bencher issue.
Did the Committee consider the simple device of the recommittal of Bills, whether guillotined or not, so that commitments and discussions that take place on the record but which are not necessarily a cause of division can take place on a recommitted Bill, not on the subsequent Report stage—which should nevertheless not be prejudiced?
Mr. Jopling: As I recall, the Committee did not spend much time on that, for the simple reason that none of its members was particularly attracted to that argument.
Mr. Dalyell: I marvel at what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. What was he doing about the 10 o'clock rule when he was Opposition Chief Whip? What was he doing to bleary-eyed Labour Ministers who were trying to get Government business through? It is all rather different,
850
depending on whether one is in government or in opposition. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman believed any of this when he was Opposition Chief Whip.
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has a particularly bad memory; I never was Opposition Chief Whip or even Opposition Deputy Chief Whip. For a short time I was the Opposition pairing Whip—a different matter altogether.
Mr. Michael Spicer: What does my right hon. Friend say about the constitutional point that a strong Executive can control the legislature? The only real power of the legislature is on the timing of legislation and debate. The unpredictability of that timing is what gives Back Benchers and Parliament real power over the Executive.
Mr. Jopling: I shall deal precisely with that matter when I reach the part of my speech which deals with timetabling.
The Committee proposes 10 free Fridays. Many Members, and especially those whose constituencies are a long way from London, wanted clear and certain Fridays to enable them to make firm engagements in the constituencies weeks or months ahead without the risk of having to tell their constituents that they had to be in the House. Members who were keen to have free Fridays were also keen to have the freedom to return to their distant constituencies on Thursday evenings so that they had a clear start on Frieday morning.
Mr. Cryer: Will the 10 Fridays to be abolished be those devoted to Government business or private Members' business? With a few exceptions for highly controversial private Members' Bills, for which many people outside want to be sure that we are in the House, by and large most hon. Members can decide whether to be here on a Friday.
Mr. Jopling: The Committee proposes that the Wednesday morning sittings for private Members' business would almost exactly replace private Members' time on Fridays. Therefore, the 10 Fridays would come almost entirely out of Government time. I shall shortly turn to the issue of balance. I accept that a business statement on Thursday and perhaps another important statement would make it difficult to finish by 7 o'clock on Thursdays preceding non-sitting Fridays. There should be discussions on that. The Committee and many hon. Members found such moves desirable and worth while.
There is a proposal for a weekly statement giving details of business for two weeks ahead. I am glad to see that the Government Chief Whip is in his place. I entirely understand the difficulties of presenting such a business statement. I know from experience how often the business changes on Tuesday or Wednesday before an announcement on Thursday. I also know that that often happens at the request of the Opposition. That is why the Committee suggested that it should be done as an experiment to see how it works. The House may find that it does not work because of business announced for the second week having to be changed. However, I ask the Leader of the House to look at the matter again because, although it may not work, we should at least try it.
I shall now deal with timetabling. The Committee spent a great deal of time agonising over a package of proposals that would maintain the crucial balance between preserving the Government's right to get their business and giving the Opposition ample opportunity to oppose. Another consideration was the preservation of the rights

851
of private Members. The transfer of private Members' business to Wednesday mornings leaves it almost exactly intact but spread much more evenly over the parliamentary year.
The Committee believed that it had created a balanced package preserving those priorities. It would be unfair to one side or the other for the House to start to unpick that package by taking bits out and putting bits in. The Government cannot refuse to accept shorter hours and expect the package to remain fair. It would be unfair to the Opposition if the Government said that they would not accept a 10 o'clock finish as a general rule or 10 fewer Fridays. Conversely, it would be unfair to the Government if the Opposition refused to accept timetabling. The Committee looked carefully at the issue of balance and it would be unreasonable to remove bricks from the structure.
Sir Dudley Smith: As a former Chief Whip, does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Government have a workable majority and not too many rebels, they will always get their business through? It is important to have a structured debate on all subjects giving ample time to the Opposition and to Government Back Benchers who are nowadays often inhibited because of time limitations.
Mr. Jopling: I endorse what my hon. Friend says and would have liked time to include the matter in my speech.
There is much work to be done in the recess. The usual channels have a great deal to agree if we are to find methods of changing the rules and introduce the carefully worked out and balanced package in the autumn. I wish them good fortune in their work. If there is the same good will between the usual channels that we had in our Committee, they will succeed—to the benefit of the House as a whole.
5.57 pm
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I shall be brief, as I spoke in the last debate on the report. I am disappointed that this is another open debate. I had hoped that we would be dealing with Government proposals which could be examined and amended so that we could make real progress in the interests of the House.
The past three months have provided ample evidence that the House needs to reform its procedures. There has been little business, but the House has continued to ramble on and sit for long hours when business has not merited it. As a result, the reputation of Parliament has suffered. Discussions this weekend about the manner in which the Whips have handled issues, the make-up of the Select Committees and the discussions surrounding the debate have done little to serve the interests of democratic accuntability and the progress of real democracy.
I confess that I am not greatly enamoured of procedural debates. I am far more interested in debating issues and getting things done. However, I agreed to serve on the Committee because I believe that democracy is becoming almost a sham, and that people outside have less and less faith in the manner in which we conduct our proceedings. We have to take account of that and do something about it.
Changing and reforming the manner in which the Chamber operates will not make life less easy for the Opposition or make the Opposition more effective. I
852
accept that I have been a Member of Parliament only since 1987, but during that time I have disliked the way in which the Government have used the guillotine. Their argument about the Opposition's use of time is irrelevant, because they have not been able to use time themselves. Neither have they discovered an alternative method of effective opposition, which is what is needed. I want to ensure that we have effective control of the Executive. In the past five years, neither Government nor Opposition Back Benchers have found an effective way to do that. Some of the policies which have resulted from that have not been in the interests of democracy. The poll tax is but one instance of that.
I shall also say something about the job of a Member of Parliament and why I do not accept that the way in which Fridays are organised means that one can make up one's own mind what one does on a Friday. Private Members' business is important, but I am forced by the House to make the decision that on a Friday I have to be in my constituency as much as possible. That is because I employ staff in the constituency and I cannot meet them unless I am there on a Friday. I also wish to visit establishments in the constituency which I can visit only on a Friday. That means that I cannot choose to be here to discuss the issues which are debated on a Friday.
I invite hon. Members to consider the pattern of participation in debates on Fridays. It is virtually exclusively the province of southern Members of Parliament and inevitably, therefore, of Tory Members. That is an abdication of the responsibility of democracy.
Mr. Dalyell: May I put a contrary point of view to my hon. Friend? She can go to Durham and do what is necessary in her constituency on a Friday but there are occasions when Scots and others are interested in a particular subject such as toxic waste, Rio or recycling, and have no other opportunity—at least those of us on the Back Benches—
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Those debates will he held in the mornings.
Mr. Dalyell: I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the late Dick Crossman when he introduced morning sittings and—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is not fair to the hon. Member who has the Floor when interventions become speeches, as I have said already this afternoon.
Ms. Armstrong: That is why I say that Fridays must be organised. I, too, am interested in recycling and toxic waste, but I am forced by the House to decide either to fulfil my commitments to my constituency or to take part in the debates. We should organise business so that such choice is not laid upon me. I want both to be involved in those debates and to be able to fulfil my commitments to my constituency.
I accept that things have changed, but constituents do not understand when we are not regularly in the constituency because they know that we can travel easily. We should organise our business here so that private Members' motions and Bills can be debated, but we should also ensure that that takes place in a system which recognises that a Member of Parliament's job is partly in Westminster and partly in their constituency. Furthermore, the House should be so organised that we

853
can make sure that Members of Parliament are much more likely to be listening to and among their constituents in normal times, with the result that we are much more reflective of their aims, aspirations and concerns. The more Members of Parliament are able to become normal—I doubt that we shall ever become totally normal—and the more that we are able to plan family and parliamentary life, the bettter we shall be in increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of democracy.
It is because we are so unrepresentative—
Mr. Dalyell: Crap.
Ms. Armstrong:—that we do not attract more women Members and more Members from ethnic minorities. This will never be a nine-to-five job, but we must ensure that Members of Parliament can both have a family and be here, because that will encourage those people to come here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) uses words that I would not use. If he looks at the women Members of Parliament representing northern and Scottish constituencies, he will see that the majority have no children. That means that we have accepted that doing this job means that we cannot do the job of being a proper parent. That decision does not have to be made by male Members of Parliament or by the partners of lady Members of Parliament. If the House is interested in democratic accountability, we need to have a much more representative and effective membership. I want our debates to be listened to with more care and consideration because people outside see us as being serious about the process of democracy and the issues that we are debating.
6.7 pm
Sir Peter Emery: As the debate proceeds, two features stand out which I have learnt from 32 years in the House and nine years as Chairman of the Procedure Committee—longer, incidentally than any other Chairman this century. First, reform in this House proceeds exceeding slow. It makes a snail look like Nigel Mansell. Secondly, and of perhaps even greater importance, is the fact that the voices and actions of a few Members of Parliament have all too often frustrated reforms. Governments have seemed unwilling to act on procedural matters unless they could obtain almost 100 per cent.—or perhaps even 101 per cent.—acceptance of any changes that they wanted. I hope that that will not happen today.
I urge, I plead, I even demand, that the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister—both of whom I believe to be in favour of trying to streamline the way in which the House deals with public and private business—should get on with reform. That reform seems to receive approval of anyone to whom a Member of Parliament talks outside the Chamber. If Members talk to those who sign resolutions or to those who do the real work in the House, they will find that, with few exceptions, those people are in favour of the recommendations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).
Two years ago, during the summer of 1990, I told the then Leader of the Hosue—my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), now Secretary of State for Transport—that in the coming
854
Session, in the autumn, the Procedure Committee was likely once more to investigate fully the sitting hours of the House and of its Committees. It was then put to me in the autumn of 1990 that the Government might wish to move on these matters themselves. As there was other work for the Procedure Committee to do, we pressed on with that.
Before Christmas 1990, and again in the early spring of 1991, I pressed the then Leader of the House because I wished to know what the Government intended to do. I reported the conversations to the members of the Procedure Committee and then reported to my right hon. Friend the then Leader of the House that I did not believe that they would brook any further delay and that we, the members of the Committee, would proceed unless the Government told us what they intended to do. This they then proceeeded to do, and in May 1991 they announced the membership of the Jopling Committee.
The Procedure Committee accepted the Government's position. It did so because the new Committee was to be established for a specific purpose and was composed of senior and very experienced Members. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, the new Committee proceeded with considerable speed. The objective was to produce a report which could be considered—we hoped that it could even be acted upon—before the general election. The first debate took place in March, and this debate takes place four months into the new Parliament. It is a debate on the Adjournment of the House, so there are no specific motions before us. I know that many Members expected the Government to take the necessary action to which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) referred, which could be agreed by most hon. Members. If the relevant decisions were taken, we could start with the new procedures after we return from the summer recess.
The further delay means that we shall have to have a further debate and the Government will have to table the necessary motions. Is the House so decrepit that we have to lumber along like some tired old tyrannosaurus, hardly able to move forwards? The delay, however, goes much further than that. Exactly half the recommendations of the Jopling Committee are resubmissions or approvals of recommendations made by the Procedure Committee in reports produced in 1985, 1987 and 1989. The longer we wait, the longer it will be before anything concrete is done, and the more we are limited to talk, the greater the likelihood that nothing worth while will be obtained.
Two items in the Jopling report have already been referred for further consideration. I may sound unduly pessimistic, but experience has told me that all too frequently that reform becomes bogged down in inaction. That is not acceptable to the House now.
There are three matters which need to be emphasised, or even re-emphasised. With the normal time scale—that is, not when an early election has been called—over the past 25 years no piece of legislation announced by a Government in a Queen's Speech has failed to take its place on the statute book during the then current Session.
Mr. Don Dixon: Only the Maastricht Bill.
Sir Peter Emery: I was talking about the past. I am not looking into the future, and I do not think that I can be asked to do so.
As I have said, no piece of legislation has been delayed because of the major weapon, as Oppositions believe it to

855
be, of time. The effectiveness of that so-called weapon has been exaggerated to a considerable extent, and I do not speak as someone who has not sat on the Opposition Benches; indeed, a third of my time in the House has been in Opposition.
I can think back, all too clearly perhaps, to the days when the then Conservative Opposition were discussing the legislation which followed "In Place of Strife". We sat in Committee for hour after hour. We began our afternoon deliberations at 4.30 pm, and we would break at midnight. We then continued until about 7 am. At midnight, a group of Conservative Members used to return to my flat, where we would have a quick beer and a shower. We would change our shirts and suits and then return to the Committee Room. We hoped thoroughly to annoy the Government by appearing to be in pristine condition and ready to go on for ever.
Did that really achieve anything? Did that really annoy the then Government so much that they were minded to open up "In Place of Strife"? The answer is that it did not. The real difficulty for the Labour Government was that the then Secretary of State, now Lady Castle, lost the confidence of her Cabinet colleagues. We claimed a victory, but that loss of confidence did not result from anything that the Conservative Opposition had done. If we are honest, we know that that is so. Let us therefore reject the concept that time in the hands of an Opposition has a marvellous effect in altering what Governments do. That is pure "Alice in Wonderland" thinking. In other words, it is not realistic.
Mr. Dalyell: There is another view. The arguments advanced by the Conservative Opposition against "In Place of Strife" created a situation in which James Callaghan could act as he did. Indirectly—I did not welcome this—that was a major factor in the lack of success of the Labour Government and ultimately in bringing them down.
Sir Peter Emery: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he gives the then Opposition much more credit than any of us who considered the "In Place of Strife" legislation in Committee ever believed should be accorded to us. We know that what he suggested was not the case.
Secondly, there is the amendment that I moved in Committee on 18 February. The Committee seemed to be setting out to fit the same amount of work into a different shaped bottle. My amendment reads:
"Up to this point in our enquiry we have rearranged the times of sittings of the House as nearly as possible to retain the same number of working hours spent by Members at Westminster. We have devised methods that really do no more than rearrange the existing working hours of the House into a different working pattern, with little overall loss of parliamentary time. However, if we are to make any major alteration or a substantial change to the demands of Parliament itself, one needs to consider the work pattern of today's Members.
The Committee has accepted that the House sits longer than any other legislature and, in addition, the constituency demands on the Member have become considerable, growing beyond all previous comparisons. Therefore, a reduction in actual sitting time in Parliament, so that a Member may be more in his constituency, must not be interpreted as a decrease in the workload of the Member of Parliament. It is rather an acceptance of present day demands of the electorate to have the MP in his constituency able to consult more and more with constituents and so reflect the demands of a modern democracy."
856
The Committee did not have the time or the ability to consider that proposition if it was to report within the time scale of the previous Parliament. I believe, however, that the House will have to return to these issues. The demands on Members to be in their constituencies, to be seen in them and to be seen working within them, are so different now from 1959 or 1970. Demands have changed. Perhaps pavement politics has brought this about, but it is something that the House must consider.
The Committee's terms of reference precluded our considering the actual size of the membership of the House. Having 651 Members of Parliament makes us the second largest democratic national parliamentary assembly in the world—second only because Germany has brought together the east and west German Parliaments, but it is now taking steps to reduce its size. This House is too large, and there are too many Members of Parliament—[Interruption.] People say that it is impossible for the work load—[Interruption.] It is worth noting—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Too many seated interventions make it difficult for me to hear the Member who has the Floor. If we intend to make reforms, let us start with a little courtesy.
Sir Peter Emery: In talking about the work load of a Member of Parliament, it is interesting to consider the work loads of the leaders of the two main parties. The Leader of the Opposition has an electorate of 55,000; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has 93,000. If we took my right hon. Friend's electorate as the average, we could reduce the membership of the House by almost 200. Many of our problems would then disappear—[Interruption.] It could be done quite easily if both sides announced that it was to happen in 10 years. Natural wastage and those Members coming up to retirement would then work their way through the system. As I have said many times, it is difficult for a chicken to vote for chicken pie, but if we want major reforms we must consider that proposal.
I wish to discuss the recommendations as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has dealt with them seriatim. I wish to consider them as a package because there are balances and counter-balances within that package. There arc ways in which the Opposition would benefit. When there is timetabling, the Opposition can call the tune on what is debated—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may finish my statement. As hon. Members who have served on special Committees know, when a timetable motion has been passed we consider how the time should be allocated. The Minister does not mind how it is allocated; it is the Opposition who decide how the time will be spent. The Opposition are given the power to decide what they want to debate.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have served on a large number of Committees, but I cannot think of one in which the Opposition have not worked out, right from the start, how they want to allocate the time. That allocation may be disrupted as the Bill proceeds, because of developments and changes, but it would be an irresponsible Opposition who did not allocate time, at least in their mind, as the Bill proceeded. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that right to allocate time should be taken away from the Opposition and given to the Government.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I have said. He pays no attention to facts. It is true that when both sides go into Committee somebody—who is not too far away from the Chamber at this moment—has already decided when he needs the Bill out of Committee so that it can go to the other place. Every Minister, whichever party is in government, knows that. Provided that the Bill meets that time scale, the whole thing proceeds normally. If that does not happen, after a certain number of days of debate the Government introduce a timetable motion. It would be better if that timetable were imposed at the start of the proceedings, with the Opposition having a say from the start. It should not be left to the Government—
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I should like to confirm something that the hon. Gentleman said, but in the context of the poll tax Bill. We forced the guillotine on that because the Government wanted an early final day. At home one Sunday afternoon I wrote a timetable motion for the five-day Report stage, which was accepted without quibble by the Minister in charge once the guillotine had been accepted. The opposition had total control over what happened on Report, right down to the last hour. We were satisfied with that, but we were dissatisfied with the early introduction of a guillotine motion.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. That is why there are checks and balances in the packages of recommendations. They arc necessary if we are to go ahead with reforms which make sense both from the Opposition and for the Government. I do not want the Opposition to be weakened—I have been in opposition, and I or my successor is likely to be there again. I am not thinking solely of the power of Government. No one who served with me on the Procedure Committee could level that accusation at me; I have always wanted to ensure power for the minorities and for the Opposition.
Finally, I want to ask for three things. First, now that the debate is virtually over, the Procedure Committee should be reappointed because there is already a queue of subjects with which it needs to deal. I hope that we can get on with that.
Secondly, the departmental Select Committees need to be established. That they have not been established already, despite the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, is a scandal. We have wasted public money. Thank goodness, we should be able to deal with the matter tonight so that those Committees can start their work and operate properly when we return from the recess.
Thirdly, will the Government give me a guarantee that the recommedations of the Jopling Committee will be voted on by the House within 30 days of its return in the autumn? If those three matters can be dealt with, today's debate will have been worth while.
6.27 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I have two brief comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) before dealing with the matter in general. Although some in the House have seen life only from the Government's perspective, and others, like the hon. Gentleman, have seen it from the perspective of both Government and Opposition, some whole parties have seen it only from opposition—
Mr. Michael Brown: And always will.
Mr. Hughes: It is certainly not as it always will be, as it is not as it always has been in the past. Therefore, our comments both today and in evidence, written and oral, come from the perspective of opposition, but do not preclude the idea of them being implemented when we share in or are the Government.
The hon. Member for Honiton painted a wonderful picture of how much more acceptable life would be if there were fewer Members of Parliament. He compared the electorates of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. The logical conclusion of his suggestion that life becomes much easier the larger the electorate is that, with one person representing everybody, there would be no need for debate—[Interruption.] I know that he did not quite suggest that, but some of us believe that we already have enough difficulty adequately representing 80,000 people. Any more than that, especially in urban areas with great social problems, would make life very difficult.
The debate has continued over a long period in different guises, with contributions from our former Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and our previous Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Although all three of us have held a Whip's position—I am currently deputy Chief Whip—I would not want my remarks to be perceived as a Whip's view of life. We try to reflect the views of our colleagues as a whole.
I reiterate the point made in the introduction to the report, which we generally welcome, and I will amplify it in one respect. It is true that we sit for longer than any other Parliament in a comparable democracy—by a long way. We seek to do an enormous amount of work, yet, as others have said, we do not feel that we accomplish it adequately. When studying other Parliaments in democracies during their sitting periods, I have found it interesting that they are generally far fuller than ours is. Members of Parliament elsewhere do not have as many competing demands, so other Parliaments are able to devote themselves more substantially to the significant business of the moment.
Although I would put it differently, I do not dissent from what the Committee identifies as the three principles, which are set out in paragraph 7. First, we have a legislative duty to control and scrutinise the Executive. We have to hold the Executive to account and scrutinise legislation, which is mainly Executive legislation, but also comes from other quarters. Secondly, we have to allow Back-Bench Members to represent interests of concern to them. Thirdly—I make the point rather more widely than the Committee did—we have to allow all parties to put their case as part of the national forum of debate, with the assumption that the Government will get their way in the end. The Committee makes the point about the parties putting their case and also that, at the end of the day, the Government must get their way.
As we made clear in our evidence, we believe that we shall never adequately answer the questions that the report seeks to address—this is no disrespect to the work well done by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and his colleagues—until there is substantial devolution of power and responsibility to the regions and countries of the United Kingdom.

859
The S word at the moment is subsidiarity. Unless there is subsidiarity in this country as well as in this continent, we shall not carry out our functions adequately. People ask me, "What were you doing last Wednesday night or last Thursday night?" The answer may be that we were debating Northern Ireland legislation often of quite significant insularity to that part of the United Kingdom. We may have been debating Scottish legislation in a debate in which only Scottish Members took part because the subject was relevant only to Scottish Members who were the only people with knowledge of it. We may have been debating Welsh legislation.
Unless we come to the conclusion that it is better that such matters are dealt with in Northern Ireland, in Scotland, in Wales or in the regions of England, we shall not be able to shed that work which we try to do along with everything else.
We try to deal with the whole of the international agenda and with the whole of the United Kingdom agenda. We try to deal with the national agendas of Ireland, Wales and Scotland, with the regional agenda and with the local agenda. That is an impossible collection of work. Just as work will gradually go up to the European level and to the European Parliament, so work must gradually go down to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. We could then cope with the work load and we should all feel much happier as a result.
Mr. John Gorst: I do not want wholly to destroy the hon. Gentleman's argument, because I agree with a great deal of it. However, is it not possible that if, rather than devolving government as he suggests, Governments did less, there would be less for us to talk about? The argument for devolution does not stand on its own.
Mr. Hughes: They are separate arguments; I understand that. My late colleague David Penhaligon, when he used to take tours round the House, went into the Lobby, where there are two volumes of the statutes currently in force. One runs from 1265 to 1956 and the other volume, of similar size, runs from 1956 to 1986, the year he died.
We legislate an enormous amount, although that is not always the fault of Government. Many of us put pressure on Government to legislate, and the pressure comes not only from non-Conservative parties, but from Conservative Members. With the best of intentions, any Government, no matter how thin a programme they have, end up legislating far more; I fear that that is the nature of society. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if we thought twice and found other ways in which to deal with problems, it would be better and we could reduce our load in that way. However, that does not detract from my more fundamental constitutional point about it being a better system to decide matters at the appropriate level.
The Leader of the House divided the 26 recommendations into five categories. Fifteen concern our sittings and three concern secondary legislation. A few are about the parliamentary year, and there is a pair of proposals about the timetabling of speeches and about the timetabling of legislation. There are three proposals at the end about various separate and relatively ancillary matters.
My colleagues and I welcome the report generally. We have given our evidence and I do not intend to rehearse what we have said. We would have gone further on certain
860
points; we would not have gone less far on any point. It takes a long time to get movement in the House, but implementing the report would be a step in the right direction. I agree with the hon. Member for Honiton and with the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that the mood of the country is that we should move in that direction. People do not understand why we are left in a time warp.
There is not yet a consensus, although there is a clear better view on the two controversial issues of sittings and of timetabling. I and my colleagues agree with the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) on sittings. The competing demands on Members of Parliament are such that, especially for those representing far-flung parts of the United Kingdom, it is not possible to do the job properly if, on a Friday or a Monday, one is obliged to be in two places at the same time. There may be equally good reasons for a Member to be here and to be in his constituency.
We cannot do everything during the summer or Christmas holidays, we cannot visit everybody, many places are not open on Saturdays and Sundays, and we have constituency obligations. To move to fewer Friday sittings while ensuring that the balance of the week combines some morning sittings with some later sittings until 10 pm seems about right.
I do not agree that the principal reason for continuing to sit from lunchtime until the evening on most days is the jobs and convenience of people in the City or in the law courts. The House will make a decision on the matter excluding the interests of those Members, although there are some interests that militate for such hours.
In view of the time taken in opening our post, dealing with our correspondence and serving on Committees, we must have some time mid-week when we are not sitting in the Chamber. The balance is to sit on a Wednesday morning to deal with less controversial business and to finish generally at the sensible hour of 10 pm.
If people are going far away, they need to get away on a Thursday night. We must allow some people, especially London Members who have obligations, the opportunity to do other things in the evenings. The balance is more or less right. Let us try the proposals and then review them if they are gradually found to be unsatisfactory. We are not writing the proposals in stone for all time.
Mr. Rooker: What are the special obligations for London Members in the evening which bypass the rest of us?
Mr. Hughes: I was making the point that one of the many factors that the report seeks to balance is the fact that different Members in different parts of the country have different time obligations and constraints. I cited the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, who said that she needs to be back in her constituency on Fridays.
There are arguments for keeping some parts of the week free of sittings so that we can perform different constituency obligations. We must arrange our hours differently. I am not asking for special considerations for London Members: I am saying simply that there are many different considerations which mean that we cannot satisfy everyone's best interests by any proposals.
The other controversial matter is timetabling. It is important that the report does not intend timetabling for

861
Bills whose further stages will be taken on the Floor of the House. It is important that constitutional matters are not timetabled and are taken here. We should all be aware that such legislation is excluded from the proposals.
I have not been a Member of this place for as long as some: I have been here for nearly 10 years. However, I believe that, over that time, the Opposition have never gained from trying to trip up the Government in respect of their timetabling. We may prolong a sitting, keep people up all night or keep debates running, but at the end of the day, the Government get their legislation. They normally do that with a guillotine, which means that there is no debate on the later swathes of that legislation.
When the Government have been tripped up over the past few years, it has happened because the view across the Floor of the House has provided a majority against the legislation. That is not a matter of procedure; it is a matter of substance. That happened with Sunday trading. The poll tax came close, and it happened with dog registration. It has occurred with big issues and little issues. In respect of timetabling, it is not that the Government failed to win the tactical, internal procedural battle: instead, they failed to win the battle on the merits of the issue.
Mr. Michael Spicer: It is clearly a matter of fact and part of our constitution that the Government get their business. If they do not, there is a confidence vote and if they lose that, the Government must go to the country. The issue is whether, by having some unpredictability in our timetable or potential rows between the Opposition or Back Benchers and the Government, the Government must then pause for thought and modify their position.
I have been here for 20 years, and I believe that Governments do modify their position. When I was in government, one worked out in advance what issues might cause rows and where one might have to modify the issue, but without giving up one's basic principles. However, the fact that it is not completely predictable that the Government will get their legislation is of some importance.
Mr. Hughes: I understand that, and that is the balance that we must weigh. Is there an overriding advantage in giving Opposition Members and parties that opportunity, or are there more advantages the other way? We believe that, although there are sometimes advantages, by the end of the parliamentary year the Government have got their way on everything, although there may be a little internal manoeuvring.
However, more importantly, there is better and more substantive debate if legislation is timetabled. It is also possible to win some of the arguments. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, timetabling normally means that what the Opposition want to debate is chosen. It avoids silly time-wasting when, to be honest, we do not all have the time to spare to debate through the night for no purpose other than to delay legislation to gain a tactical advantage.
On balance, I am convinced that, although the Opposition are giving away one of their present rights, in the end they are giving it away for something that will produce better legislation, give a greater opportunity to influence legislation and achieve better debate, and will not provide a disadvantage in terms of what is debated. I say
862
that as the hon. Member who, I believe, holds the record for keeping the House going for the longest time since the war, when I forced the House to sit for 37½ hours on the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties. It felt very good at the time, but at the end of the day, the Government got their business a day earlier than they would otherwise have got it. Therefore, to that extent, the delay was not worth it.
I believe that we should timetable legislation and speeches. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made a fair and generous point when he said that there must be fairness in the House between the Treasury Bench and Opposition parties. The one thing that I would want on behalf of my colleagues and me and on behalf of hon. Members who might be members of parties which are not the official Government or Opposition parties, is that any Business Committee that timetables legislation should include representation of that interest—as there is at the moment, quite properly, on the Committee of Selection.
There must also be fairness in respect of allocation of time for speeches. I heard the Leader of the House earlier, and I am aware of the problems with interventions. There must be fairness to avoid what happened in the debate on the common agricultural policy the other day, when the spokesperson for the third party was limited within the 10-minutes rule, but the Front-Bench spokesmen spoke for 37 minutes and 35 minutes respectively.
Fairness for different points of view enhances Parliament as a forum for debate. I hope that one of the things that will come out of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House is that all parties will be involved in the procedures in a way that they traditionally have not been during a generation when there were only two large parties as a matter of British constitutional tradition. I share the hope that we will proceed after this debate, which I accept was a necessary step, to implement the reforms as early as possible when the House returns in October, and certainly so that they take effect no later than 1 January 1993.
6.45 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: My most abiding and vivid impression of my first Parliament, which was the previous Parliament, was not of the Chamber or congested offices, but of the Library where, night after night on occasions, I saw senior Members—both in age and position—aroused from their slumbers in armchairs to vote, vote, return to their armchairs and go back to sleep straight away as though nothing had happened. They would then get up again, vote and go back to sleep.
As a newcomer, I marvelled at that performance. I could not understand how anyone could do that so quickly. I felt as though I was in a state of permanent jet lag, but those supermen and superwomen were able to treat our most anti-social and unusual schedule as though nothing were happening.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that this debate is very much for the new Members. It is a great pity that there are not more of them here. However, we are on a one-line Whip today and many hon. Members will have taken this opportunity, because of the pressures of the business of the House, to be in their constituencies—or perhaps to catch up with their sleep.

863
The procedures that we have seen this summer are not representative of the House in full swing in June or July. New Members would be ill advised to take their decisions on the basis of the business that we have conducted this summer. They have been lulled into a false sense of security; the business can he much tougher at this time of the year.
My belief in reform is absolute. That is why my first act in this new Parliament was to go to the Table Office and table early-day motion 9 to gauge support among hon. Members for reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) generously referred to my motion and to the 85 Conservative Members and more than 100 Opposition Members who signed it. However, there are also many other signatures from the minority parties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale does not know that I have a sheaf of letters from Ministers, Opposition Front-Bench Spokesmen and Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who cannot, by convention, sign my early-day motion. The total of signatures is not 216—the most signatures that any early-day motion has attracted this Parliament; the real support amounts to nearly 300 signatures, which is almost half the House of Commons.
It would be bizarre if this House, which passes reforms that affect all walks of British life, should not apply that reforming spirit to itself. As televising has been thrust upon us, the demands are that much greater, as many hon. Members have said.
Our constituents do not like hon. Members to traipse through the Lobbies during the night, pretending that they are doing something useful when they are not. Because of our archaic procedures, they are simply following the rules that have been laid down to deliver the business. That cannot be the right way, and it must be changed. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) eloquently put the position for women, particularly northern women. She said that many ladies who represent northern constituencies have given up the option to have a family in order to come here. That is absolutely disgraceful.
Mr. Barnes: How many all-night sittings take place and how many hon. Members are expected to be present? Often, a small number of Opposition Members can keep the Government going. The Government require about 120 Conservative Members to ensure that there are 100 to vote on a closure motion, but that is done on a rota. Hon. Members are not always sleeping in the Library. The process is selective.
Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's view. With respect, he is being rather selective, too. If there is a three-line Whip, all hon. Members must be here. What is more, as the hon. Gentleman will know, at times there is pressure to find somewhere to put one's head down. I am not saying that that happens all the time—that would be misleading. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip has said that he has tried to make the procedures easier within the existing constraints. That has been widely welcomed.
I now refer to the substance of the report. The proposals to reduce the number of late-night sittings are excellent. It is sensible, having read previous reports on how the Crossman experiment in respect of morning sittings worked, not to put business down for Tuesday and
864
Thursday mornings, as that would disrupt Standing Committees, but it is eminently sensible to try the experiment on Wednesday mornings.
I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I have some reservations about doing away with so many Fridays. Fridays are good opportunities to be present. We are seldom required to be present. As there is much evidence of the pressure of time, knocking out Fridays is not the way to proceed. The way to proceed is to insist that we can get away at seven o'clock on Thursday evenings and have the option of Fridays. There do not appear to be many days of tough Government business on a Friday—I can hardly remember one.
The report says much about when and how often we vote, but nothing about a reduction in the time it takes to vote—that is, the mechanics of voting. I applaud the idea of putting money resolutions in substantive motions, but it is extraordinary that we have not considered electronic voting. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) complains. I am not suggesting that we should always vote by means of an electronic voting system. I know the arguments about Divisions being great opportunities for hon. Members to meet Ministers and senior Front-Bench spokesmen in the Division Lobbies, but surely we do not need to do that time and again in one evening.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is looking for extra hours to replace the business that he wants to take off after 10 o'clock. Surely we can experiment with electronic voting. I am fortunate because of my eastern European interests. I have been able to observe electronic voting in Parliaments in Moscow, Kiev, Bucharest and Sofia. They believe that electronic voting is a terrific help. The Bulgarian Parliament can conduct a vote in 20 seconds. Surely there is a way of marshalling some votes so that we can conduct them very quickly, thus saving much time. It takes the best part of half an hour for a Division on a three-line Whip.
Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend has mentioned countries that have just managed to emerge on the democratic scene. Is he proposing that as they have had such enormous experience of democracy and have push button voting we should follow them? Surely that cannot be part of his argument.
Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me. Those Governments have examined all the best democratic systems and have formed a view of what is most efficient and what is best. I am not suggesting that for the House of Commons, but we should examine electronic voting as a possible way of reducing the time that we spend voting.
Another option is available under Standing Order No. 39 and that is votes being taken by hon. Members standing in their places in certain circumstances when the Chair believes that a vote would be carried by a substantial number of hon. Members. I have seen that procedure in action once. We should consider using Standing Order No. 39 more often.
Hon. Members have referred to late hours and family pressures. My family is very important to me. All hon. Members' families are important to them. The late hours make family life difficult. The uncertainty about the business of the House is a nightmare from the point of

865
view of trying to look after a family and one's constituents and interests in the House. Not knowing the business for Tuesday until Thursday evening makes life difficult. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for considering the possibility of giving greater notice of business. It is irritating never knowing what we are to do next week.
Surely there is a way of giving one day or two days' business two weeks ahead? Surely my right hon. Friend can give us one day when he can say, "That is a sure two-line Whip." He may not be able to give the business for the whole of the second week, but he might be able to say, "I am certain that Tuesday will be all right, but I cannot be sure about Wednesday and Thursday."
The Jopling report found that 50 per cent. of hon. Members were not happy with the recess times, because of the school holidays, and 72 per cent. of hon. Members were dissatisfied with the uncertainty of business in the House. I agree that the three-month break is absurd. I should like to share a memory with hon. Members. A very great friend of mine, the daughter of a very senior, alas departed, hon. Member told me, when I was contemplating a parliamentary career, how the parliamentary year had affected her family. She said, "I hate to see it. My father comes home at the end of July absolutely drained and exhausted. He then takes three months to wind down completely and then he has to wind himself up again in the autumn." That cannot make any sense, never mind the point about the House not sitting for three months of the United Kingdom presidency of the EC. Hon. Members do not need five weeks to travel by road to their constituencies. That is the reason we have the long recess. It must come to an end.
When the proposals come before the House on substantive motions in the autumn, as I hope they will, I shall urge hon. Members to vote for reform, particularly new Members, to avoid—
Mr. Alan Duncan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Tredinnick: I am sorry, but I shall not give way, as I am finishing my remarks.
My hon. Friend should vote for reform to avoid themselves and their marriages being broken on the wheel of late and all-night sittings.
7 pm
Ms. Joan Walley: I have been saddened by what I have heard so far in the debate. I am reminded how difficult it is to get anything done in this place. Indeed, it was you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who reminded me that, after three years, it is at last possible to have a glass of water available in each Committee Room when Committees are sitting. If it takes that long to achieve that little progress, what hope do we have of creating a Parliament which is worthy of our parliamentary democracy and to which people can come to do the job that they were selected to do—to represent their constituents and play their full part in the proceedings at Westminster?
One of the arguments that we have heard so often this evening is based on almost deliberate misunderstanding. I want to see not merely reform but radical reform, so that
866
women in particular can come to the House and play a full part. When a substantive motion is put before us, we must address the need for Members of Parliament to have one job alone. The time they spend here should be devoted whole-heartedly to the House and the constituency.
Otherwise, we shall always work according to a set of assumptions which decree that we cannot start until 2.30 pm, except perhaps on one day a week if we are lucky. We shall be committed to sittings which continue all night and extend from Thursday into Fridays, for example. We shall not organise ourselves in a competent and efficient way. We should take one step back and ensure that there is no moonlighting. We should be here simply and purely to represent the needs of the people who elected us. That is fundamental.
I shall keep my speech brief, because we have had a lengthy discussion. One further issue must be addressed. I would introduce not merely reform but radical reform. I would introduce a new model for organising our debates. We should not play around the edges and change a Friday or Thursday here and there. My ideal world would be a cycle of four or perhaps five weeks of Committee meetings and opportunities for legislation. We would then have perhaps a week in which we could spend time away from the House legitimately in our constituencies and be in touch with the people we represent, attend meetings, organise surgeries and do all the things that a hard-working, conscientious Member of Parliament should do.
Such a model, which has already been adopted by other European Parliaments, would allow us to deal with the fundamental problem of how best to represent people. I am sorry that, in its deliberations so far, the Select Committee did not feel able to make such radical proposals. The report tinkers with the edges and satisfies no one. It may make matters better for some constituency Members of Parliament in London and the south-east or those who do not have families with whom they wish to spend time. The Committee may have thought that, by changing some of the hours, it could bring about change, but the change will not make it any easier to do the job that we were brought here to do.
I hope that the Leader of the House will table substantive motions early in the autumn. I hope that he will pay particular attention not only to Friday but to Thursday night sittings. What help is it to Members of Parliament who live far away to have 10 Fridays when we can be in our constituencies instead of in this place, if we cannot get away on Thursday night? Members not only from Scotland but from other parts of the country have long journeys home. It may be even more difficult to travel home to one's constituency and family if one cannot simply take a taxi to Heathrow and get on an aeroplane.
Mr. Dalyell: They can go by tube.
Ms. Walley: As my hon. Friend says, they can take the tube. In some parts of the country, we do not have rail services after 8 pm. If we are to have 10 Fridays on which we can make constituency commitments which are not subject to parliamentary business, it is important that we know with certainty that we can get away on Thursday night. It will be no use if we have to spend the night here in London because we cannot get home.
We must have access to public transport to return to our constituencies on Thursday nights, so that we can have

867
meetings all day on Friday, do the business that: our constituents want us to do and be lobbied. Let us face it: our constituents cannot afford to travel down to London to lobby us. In any case, there are no facilities at Westminster for them to make their points to Members of Parliament. I hope that the Leader of the House will take that point.
We should carefully consider the recesses. I was disappointed with what the Leader of the House said. I hope that he will spend the long summer recess reviewing the matter. In my radical alternative, we would have four weeks on and one week off for not eight months of the year, but the whole year. We would have the same holidays as everyone else. If we have any commitment to our constituency, our constituents and our families, what good is it if we cannot even book a holiday or a weekend away? Why cannot we have more detailed information about the summer recess and Easter? I urge the Leader of the House to consider that.
There is a danger that we shall end up with a system which will defeat people who are prepared to serve a constituency. Members of Parliament will end up as clones. It will not matter which side of the House they sit on. We shall end up with only people based in the south-east and London. That is fine if one has a constituency in that area and one can attend essential meetings during the day, but it is not fine if the constituency is some distance from London. We must address the issue urgently.
I do not want a system which allows few women to deal with the strains that being a Member of Parliament necessarily involves for not only women but men. We must ask how it is possible to juggle not merely the usual demands of work and family that everyone faces but the demands of work, constituency and family. Our job requires us legitimately to be in two places at the same time. To spend four and a half days a week at Westminster and an additional eight hours travelling to and from Westminster leaves us with precious little time to be with our constituents, never mind our families.
The House will be a worse place if people are forced to end all the ties with their constituency because they cannot live there as a result of the demand placed on them by Westminster. People will end up in desperate situations with their family life because they do not have the time to spend with their family. If we were prepared to manage our time efficiently and programme the parliamentary timetable, we could make tremendous improvements.
The greatest irony is that we talk about ourselves as the mother of Parliaments yet we positively discourage women from becoming Members of Parliament by having a system with which they cannot deal. I want changes, and I urge the Leader of the House over the summer recess to think about all the people who have resigned from the Government simply because they wanted to spend more time with their family.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Did my hon. Friend believe any of them?
Ms. Walley: I did not believe any of it.
Would it not be far more positive and constructive if people's energies were channelled into finding a way in which Members could come to Parliament to further the aims of parliamentary democracy and do exactly what they were elected for—serve their constituencies with
868
honour? I hope that, no matter how much time we have wasted already, when we debate the matter next time, we shall be in a position to make some real progress. I look forward to that day.
7.8 pm
Mr. Michael Spicer: Some of this debate has sounded like shop stewards meeting to determine improvements in our contracts of employment. Perhaps we should all resign en bloc, study the matter properly, and ensure that our holidays and family relationships are sorted out before we decide whether to come back. As we all know, there is enormous competition to do our jobs, both within our own parties and, at general elections, across the party divide.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) touched on the subject of public opinion. For what it is worth, my view is that the public are somewhat perplexed about why we are increasing our expense accounts and proposing to cut our hours. Public opinion on the matter is rather mixed.
The nub of the problem, which has come out well in the debate, relates to the constitutional question and the relationship between the Executive and Parliament as the legislature. It is better to consider the problem in those terms, rather than in terms of Opposition or Back-Bench interests. A fundamental constitutional issue is involved which is peculiar to this country. We have a strong parliamentary tradition but, unlike the United States, there is no division of powers with separate powers being given to the Executive and to the legislature—powers with their own legitimacies.
We have an integration of powers, in which the Executive control the legislature, and would have to resign if they did not control it. We therefore start with a fundamental constitutional imbalance. Some European countries do not have a parliamentary tradition—the French, for example, have virtually dispensed with their Parliament—so it does not particularly matter. In our country there is at least the myth of a strong parliamentary tradition, but there is an imbalance because of the position that the Executive have built up over many years.
The question is whether that imbalance will be aggravated or worsened by the proposed measures. My submission is that it will. I have listened intently to the debate about time, which has been well argued by both sides. Of course I accept that the Government must have their business—that is part of our constitution. I also accept that we have left behind the romantic ages when we persuaded one another of anything through debate. There is no question of persuasion—we all have our views, we speak about them, and then we rush off to do whatever we have to do. There is no question of hon. Members listening and determining their view as a result of debate.
In many respects, the objective of the report is to improve the detail and honing of legislation. I accept that the proposals might provide extra time for detailed analysis in Committee, and that in the past that may well have been distorted due to the way in which we have conducted matters. However, time is the fundamental issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), among others, said that, since the Government get their way anyway, there is not much point in worrying about time, or even discussing whether

869
Parliament is a check or balance in the constitution. The Government get their way and we must organise things so that everyone can have their say tidily. That is the nub of the argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) shakes his head, but he advanced a similar argument. His speech was well reasoned and argued but as I understood it he said that, despite all their efforts, Oppositions never achieve anything, and instanced various occasions when he had been in opposition. That requires testing, first, from the point of view of whether protest through a row, or the threat of a row, is any check on the Executive.
Having been a member of the Executive for 10 years, I can say that, when we decided on details of legislation or the way in which we should present it or argue it in the outside world, the fact that we thought that there might be a major row which would affect the ease with which we secured the passage of a Bill did have an effect on the way we discussed the legislation. In many cases, the details of legislation and how Parliament should proceed with it were discussed in detail through the usual channels, so it is not accurate to say that the Opposition and Parliament have no control through timing. The unpredictability of timing is the key factor, because that determines whether the Executive must pause for thought before introducing legislation to the House.
One of the reasons why the Executive pause for thought and why the Opposition and other Members are able to discuss issues with the Government is that rows have affected the course of legislation and subsequent history. I was and still am in favour of the community charge, so I can say that. The rows over community charge legislation, many of which were associated with timetabling, percolated out, affected the mood outside, and therefore played a part. I concede it was not necessarily a decisive part and those rows were not necessarily the only constraints on Government. The present untidiness in Parliament is a strength of a constitution in which Parliament is pretty weak.
One of the reasons why Parliament is weak is that most of its Committee structure—certainly the Select Committee structure—is set up to deal with matters after they have occurred in Government. That has been the constitutional position of Parliament for many years. As events now move so fast, especially technological events, increasingly Parliament must have a role in pro-actively considering the options facing Government. That is one reason why I was honoured to take on the chairmanship of the parliamentary office of Science and Technology. That seems to be a new parliamentary organisation which, with staff, can begin to look ahead and to provide Parliament with the options so that it may debate the political dimensions. That aspect did not emerge in the report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), and we should be involved in such activity to a greater extent.
Before I conclude, I cannot refrain from saying that this debate may be academic if the powers of Parliament are transferred to European non-elected institutions, in particular, the Commission, the law courts and a central bank, if there is to be one; then many of these arguments may be fruitless. If that happens, there might well be a case
870
for timetabling ourselves strictly because debate would be a waste of time anyway. However, I do not think that we have reached that situation.
Mr. Tredinnick: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend's arguments. Does he agree that the Maastricht treaty would bring power back to this House? Would it not set the trend to bring back national powers from the European Parliament?
Mr. Spicer: If my hon. Friend is talking about subsidiarity, I thought that we had that already. I do not see the point of having to give away powers before the new institutions and, in particular, the Commission are generous enough to give them back. No doubt we shall debate that at some length in the autumn, or whenever the Government decide to move on the matter. I do not want to anticipate that too much, save to say that this Parliament is worth protecting and preserving.
Parliament is not in a strong position vis-a-vis the Executive or, increasingly, the European non-elected institutions. We should therefore be very wary indeed about doing something which, in my humble opinion, would be good for the Executive and thus almost, but not quite, by definition bad for Parliament. This is a very serious matter and I am highly sceptical about the propositions before us, especially those concerning timetabling.
7.20 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) has just made a very fruitful contribution. Debate in the Chamber is important. In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill drew attention to the difference between putting forward dead dogma and putting forward an argument that was part of a living truth. One may speak the truth, but if people do not listen and if one does not have to justify one's position, the truth may die away, and the reasons for coming to the conclusion may disappear. However, when there is proper debate, even those who take up what are held to be correct positions are on much stronger ground as a result of having tackled other ideas and listened to other arguments.
That is what should happen in this House. We ought to have genuine debate. It should not be simply a question of blocks of Members doing their 10 minutes while everybody else waits around, nobody listening to what anybody else says. It should not simply be a matter of proceeding to votes as quickly as possible. If it were, everything could be worked out by machines. This ought to be a living Chamber, in which Members can alter situations by debate and discussion. Even if one were unable to influence a decision about a specific piece of legislation, one might alter attitudes in the House and in the country at large.
Mr. Dalyell: I would not interrupt my hon. Friend if his speech were limited to 10 minutes. That would be discourteous to a colleague. One may interrupt hon. Members—opponents or one's hon. Friends—if one knows that their time is not limited, but if my hon. Friend were time-limited, I would not muck up his speech by interrupting.
Mr. Barnes: That is how my hon. Friend behaves, but there are hon. Members who would interrupt. Of course, I could refuse to accept interventions, and could be just as rough as those seeking to intervene.
We often talk too much about our own concerns and problems, and too little about the needs of our constituents. I realise that, if we are half dead as a result of the way in which we do business, we cannot look after our constituents' interests properly, but there is a great deal of mythology. The problems are exaggerated.
Let me refer in particular to all-night sittings. It may be that debates involving three-line Whips that take place at one o'clock in the morning could be organised for more sensible times, but how often do we have all-night sittings for which all hon. Members are expected to be present? Last week, we put out a story that something called the Consolidated Fund Bill kept us here all night. In fact, the few people lucky in the draw and duty Front Benchers were the only ones involved. Those who did not put their names down, those who were unlucky in the draw and those who, like myself, came so far down that they withdrew their names were able to pop off and get to bed.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the last time there was consensus between the two Front Benches in respect of changes in the House was the occasion on which the Consolidated Fund Bill debate ceased to be a proper debate? We secured a major concession in terms of legislation. Under the previous system, debate was virtually open-ended. The current curtailment is due entirely to the conspiracy of consensus between the two Front Benches, and that appears to be very much the case tonight.
Mr. Barnes: I accept what my hon. Friend says—not because I was in the House at the time, but because he has already told me and I have not heard any counter-argument.
Mr. Rooker: I was in the House, on the Government side, when at 3 o'clock in the morning, during a debate on a Consolidated Fund Bill, there were 100 Members on the Opposition side. They learned the lesson. The Conservatives, in opposition, used the Consolidated Fund Bill, but having got into government, they made damn sure that that would not happen to them. The incident to which I refer took place about 1976.
Mr. Barnes: Obviously there will be 100 or 120 Members present for open-ended debates—for instance, for the Report stage of a Bill. In such circumstances, the Government must have 100 Members available so that a closure motion may be carried. Members may filibuster, intentionally or unintentionally, but the Opposition do not require massed ranks in those circumstances. A dozen people can keep things going, and the pressure is on the Government to close debate at a certain stage. But that is fruitful pressure, which does not necessitate the presence of all Government Members for the purpose of going through the Lobbies.
Arrangements are made to have people on duty at different times. We hear about people sleeping in libraries, but the difficulties ought to be put into perspective. We can all tell sob stories, but adding them all together creates a false impression. We do not often have all-night debates necessitating the presence of the massed ranks of Members. A few weeks ago, we had an all-night debate
872
about Maastricht, but the number of people who wanted to get on the record was relatively small. They were the ones involved in those matters—although others may have wondered whether they ought to turn up.
Mr. John McFall: As a member of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, I am very much aware of the fact that the 10 o'clock recommendation relates to primary legislation taken as the first Order of the Day. Does my hon. Friend agree that this place is really a museum, and anachronistic? We are arguing about the terms for all-night sittings. Surely, in the 20th century, we could finish our business by 10 o'clock. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult to tell constituents that we cannot complete our business during the day and rise at a reasonable time? The current situation simply adds to the mystique of this place. It is absolute nonsense to argue that all-night sittings are necessary.
Mr. Barnes: It depends on what we are trying to do on behalf of our constituents. The Report stage of a Bill, for instance, may involve amendments that we have put down in the interests of constituents. It may be in the early hours of the morning that we have an opportunity to get a response from a Minister. Indeed, we often get quite favourable responses—favourable in the sense that they are levers that can be used in the future, if not promises to accept the arguments that have been advanced. Obviously I am in favour of sensible sitting arrangements. It might be helpful if we were able to start earlier and finish earlier, but hon. Members' involvement in Committee work has to he taken into account. Often, the people who are most active in Committee are the ones who are willing to stay late at night. They do not want to lose the opportunity to argue on behalf of their constituents.
We keep hearing about how this legislature has longer sittings than any other legislature in the world. The current Session will have included two summer recessions and a general election, and by mid-October next year, the House of Commons will have sat for 27 out of 63 weeks.
I do not think that that is too burdensome for hon. Members. We should tackle the problem of lengthy recesses—
Mr. Rooker: Those figures take account of two summer recesses.
Mr. Barnes: Yes, I accept that—
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend would be more open with the House if he said what the figures would be by the time we reach next June, because they would include two parliamentary years and two summer recesses, rather than two summer recesses and one parliamentary year. We can do arithmetic, Harry.
Mr. Barnes: I was open with the House, because I said that the figures related to a 63-week period, which included two recesses and a general election. Of those 63 weeks, we will have been here for just 27. I know that some adjustments to the figures should be made, but the big problem behind those figures is the two summer recesses. One of them lasted three months and the other for about 11 weeks.
Those lengthy recesses present us with a great problem, because they mean that our constituents, through their Members of Parliament, are denied avenues of scrutiny and the means to pursue grievances. It is all very well for

873
my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to say in answer to me that I can write letters to Ministers or organise deputations during a recess. I can write such letters when the House is sitting—I do so regularly—and seek to organise delegations. However, if a request to meet a delegation is refused by a Minister, it is much easier to try to reverse that decision if the House is sitting, because I can then use the various available avenues to pursue that matter.
The beauty of the House sitting is not so much that Ministers are present and respond to questions as that civil servants are available to respond on behalf of Ministers, because they try to protect Ministers from criticism. If they know that a Minister is to be criticised in the House, they will respond to that. During the recess, if I write a letter to a Minister and do not receive an answer, all I can do is to write again or telephone the Minister's private secretary to try to get a response. If the House is sitting, I can table a written question bout when I will receive a proper answer. One is always then told that the formal answer is on its way, or that it is in one's pigeonhole awaiting collection. Hon. Members may be able to write to Ministers, ring a private secretary, try to organise a delegation or issue a press release, but the success of such procedures is much more likely if the House is sitting.
We should not have a break of three months when avenues of representation are denied our constituents. We should follow the pattern advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), of a parliamentary Session of four weeks, followed by a week's break, which could be called a "constituency" week. During that week, constituency meetings, activities and visits could be organised. If the House does not sit for a week, the other avenues of representation available to us—early-day motions and questions—are not greatly harmed. A three-month break does terrible harm to them.
A six-week summer recess, which allows for a holiday and a party conference, would be sufficient, as long as that break was built into the year so that we knew when it would occur. If we had a constituency week, hon. Members would no longer be able to argue with the Whips about why they should be away from the House because of pressing constituency duty. The Whips could then say that such Members should perform that duty in the constituency week, just like everyone else. In that way, the House would be more of a hive of activity.
We should not be concerned to debate our private lives and problems in public; we should be much more concerned about our public lives and the public avenues that we seek to use in the House on behalf of our constituents. If we do not want to build a pattern for the work to be done, there are masses of people who are willing to stand for Parliament to do it. It is amazing how people struggle and fight to get here, but, as soon as they do, they want to introduce measures to allow them to get away from the place altogether, or they seek membership of a Select Committee so they can pay visits all over the world. They do their best not to involve themselves in parliamentary procedures, but they are the justification for their presence here in the first place.
7.34 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I agree with a great many of the prosposals in the report and I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestion that we should sit on Wednesday mornings. I also accept that we should have a certain number of so-called "free" Fridays, designated well in advance. Of course, they would not be free Fridays, but we would be able to make appointments in our consituencies, well in advance, without the danger, which we all face now, of having to cancel them at the last minute because of parliamentary business.
I agree with the suggestion that we should try to announce the dates of the recesses earlier than has been the practice. I confess that, on that issue, I am influenced entirely by my personal and family convenience. I do not think that that should be decisive in our consideration of the report, but this is one issue about which we can safely do something to contribute to our personal and family convenience without damaging our parliamentary functions.
It has been suggested that, if we announced further in advance the date on which the House would rise for a recess, it would establish a buffer. It was argued that that would constitute a challenge or temptation to the Opposition of the day to try to ensure that they ran the Goverment's business up and over that buffer. I cannot see any greater danger of that happening if the date of a recess is established six months in advance rather than just four weeks in advance.
Any advance knowledge of the recess date is a buffer—the present buffer is this Thursday. If the Opposition want to delay parliamentary business so that the Government are faced with the choice of either losing some of their business or suggesting to the House that we should rise at a later date, it is perfectly possible for them to do so. We can make a change to current practice, which would suit us all, without causing any damage to the important role that we like to think we play in the House.
I fear that I disgree with the real kernel of the report: that the House should rise regularly at 10 pm, or at 10.30 pm if one takes into account the Adjournment. I disagree with the natural corollary of that suggestion—that business should be automatically timetabled. Any attempts to establish an arbitrary limit on the time which debates can take can only have one effect—whether or not that is the intention, and I am sure that it is not—which is to curtail the range of opinion expressed and to reduce the scrutiny that we can apply to legislation.
We are all influenced in this matter by our personal experience of the business of the House. Last month, we had a debate on Maastricht, when I was called at about 6.30 am. I was delighted to be called then and to have that opportunity to take part in the debate.
I am only too well aware that, had I not been called at 6.30 am, the alternative for someone like me, who is not a member of the Government, a Privy Councillor or similar grandee, would have been not to participate at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The fact that Opposition Members would he pleased to know that I could not be called in certain debates is the greatest form of flattery. I appreciate it and take the opportunity to thank them. It is the most sincere flattery that I could expect to receive from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr Cryer).
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is not entirely clear to whom the hon. Gentleman is giving way.
Mr. Davies: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Bradford, South.
Mr. Cryer: The comments from these Benches were not derogatory. We were echoing the fact that a Conservative Back Bencher, who is not a Privy Councillor, had an opportunity of being called to speak because the House sat until a late hour. There is considerable resentment on both sides of the House at the fact that, although we are all elected equally, Privy Councillors have more access to the Chamber than the vast majority of hon. Members. Every Back Bencher should have an opportunity to be called in important debates. We were echoing support for the hon. Gentleman's view that the long hours of debate gave him that opportunity. It also gave some of us the opportunity.
Mr. Davies: It was not personal flattery but political support from the hon. Gentleman, and I value that, too, very much.
Mr. Dalyell: However deeply my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South and I may disagree with the substance of the hon. Gentleman's trite phrase, we would defend to the death his right to say it in the House of Commons.
Mr. Davies: Naturally, I reciprocate that sentiment and hope that it is one of the principles that bind hon. Members, from whichever party they come.
Mr. Jopling: I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend said about being called at 6 o'clock in the morning in the Maastricht debate. He implied that he was afraid that he could not have done that had the Committee's 10 o'clock recommendations been implemented. May I therefore direct his attention to paragraph 30 of the report, which says:
"We accept that it should continue to be possible for the Government by means business of the House orders to extend or otherwise alter the time of sittings to meet the general wish of the House, for example, to accommodate those Members wishing to speak in debates involving constitutional or other matters of high importance."
The Maastricht debate in particular caused us to include those words in the report so that we could preserve the right of hon. Members to speak at 6 o'clock in the morning if they wish to do so.
Mr. Davies: I am grateful for that limited assurance in the report and to my right hon. Friend for drawing my attention to it. I did not miss it when I read the report, as I did with great attention and interest, but I wish that that protection were available for all Bills decided in the House because they are all important. Some may be more important than others, but our views will differ on the relative importance of Bills. As a Back Bencher, I do not accept that the Government should decide whether a Bill is so important or raises issues of such fundamental significance that it may be possible to allow even the most humble hon. Member to express an opinion on it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) triggers my memory about another personal experience. A few days ago, I was able to propose an amendment to the Finance Bill in Committee
876
shortly before breakfast time. I have no doubt that, had his proposals been implemented, I would not have had the opportunity to do so, because the Bill does not raise matters of fundamental constitutional importance.
I described this matter as the kernel of the proposals because it is about the House's ability to act as a check on the Executive and to conduct its traditional role of scrutinising legislation and the day-to-day governance of the nation by the Executive. Those issues were lucidly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer).
I recognise that there are abuses in the present system. In some ways, the abuses have inspired the desire to look again at our procedures and we should not be afraid to review them. The abuses form the bases of the report, and we all know what those abuses are. They have been referred to several times this afternoon.
There is a degree of filibustering in this place and I thought that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was a little self-righteous in saying that he had given up filibustering many years ago. He may not know that his party has not given it up in the past few years. Since I have been in this place, I have often listened to filibusters on private legislation here in the Chamber, and in Committees on public Bills upstairs, and they can be excruciating in the early hours of the morning, as they are intended to be. To respond to filibustering and to get their business through, the Government must naturally and rightly introduce a timetable motion—a so-called "guillotine". They have had that possibility for 100 years or so.
Those two factors are linked—one is the logical and necessary converse of the other. Both are undesirable, and I deprecate them. But the way to solve an abuse is not necessarily—still less ideally—to throw over the whole system. It is to deal with the abuse and limit, if not totally exclude, that abuse without totally destroying the merits of the system.
Although this is not the right time or place to examine proposals for dealing with abuses, we should look again at your right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of your colleagues to introduce a 10-minute rule on speeches. At present such a rule is limited to two hours in the evening. Perhaps you should have the right to impose that rule at any hour of the day or night, and Committee Chairmen should also have the right to impose that rule if hon. Members are wasting time and the only alternative is a guillotine motion.
Many of us would regard the imposition of a 10-minute rule on speeches as undesirable, as it is in many respects. Although the hon. Member for Copeland made it clear why it is undesirable, it would be more desirable than maintaining the dialogue of filibuster and guillotine, which too often happens. It would be much more desirable than the institution of a timetable motion, not as an exceptional measure but as part of the normal Standing Orders that govern our business, as proposed in the report.
That is my view on the substance of the report. A secondary point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South was not about the substance of the proposals and the likely practical consequence of implementing them but about the appearance of the proposals and the signal that will be received outside the House, intended or not, if we change

877
our Standing Orders along the proposed lines. I agree.with my hon. Friend that people would receive an unfortunate signal.
We live in a world in which far too many people find excuses for doing less. The hon. Member for Bradford, South will be on his feet again when I say that the European Community is proposing a working time directive in an attempt to make it illegal for anyone to work more than 48 hours a week. The trade unions are arguing for 37 or 35-hour weeks—as short as possible. A certain number of general practitioners are currently lobbying and writing to me suggesting that they be relieved of their 24-hour, round-the-clock responsibility for their patients. I note, however, that in many other contexts doctors are only too ready to insist on exclusive responsibility for their patients.
I fear that, if the House agreed to measures that would limit our hours or, at least, cut debate arbitrarily at a certain time, it would be thought—no doubt unjustifiably—that we had adopted those measures largely for our own convenience, rather than for the benefit of those whom we serve, or for the greater efficiency of the institution that we are all proud to serve. That would be very unfortunate; but, in the final analysis, we should take account of such factors. We must be governed in this matter, as in others, by our political and constitutional principles and our view of the likely impact on the workings of the House of any alteration in its procedures. Nevertheless, I feel that it would be wrong for a debate such as this to contain no reference to what is admittedly a secondary aspect.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and his colleagues: they have produced an excellent report and there is no doubt that they have satisfied a widespread feeling in the House that a review of our operations was needed. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend will understand when I say that, in the light of the considerations that I have mentioned, I shall find it necessary to oppose the essential elements of the proposal if they come to a vote.
7.51 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I apologise for my absence at the beginning of the debate. I found myself in a position in which many hon. Members are caught: as a member of the Select Committee on Information, I was required to attend to provide a quorum. It is a little ironic that hon. Members can be torn between the requirements of a Select Committee and the desire to be in the Chamber to comment on a report such as this.
I very much enjoyed sitting on the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, and I also enjoyed the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). What emerged chiefly from the report, however, was the absence of a consensus. The best that could be hoped for was give and take on both sides, and some progress on the basis that most people were dissatisfied with our present hours. Given all the pressures, it was not a bad report, and I put my name to it for that reason; but I should much prefer the House to sit regularly much earlier in the day. I think that 11.30 am would be a much better starting time, and that Question Time would
878
be better reported then. Many of my constituents would like to be able to watch our proceedings on television at lunchtime rather than in the middle of the afternoon.
Let me stress that most members of the Select Committee—and, I suspect, most hon. Members—do not want shorter hours; they want better hours. We do not object to the length of time for which the House sits. Many of us recognise the importance of expressing minority points of view, especially in the case of debates such as the one on Maastricht. We should, however, prefer as much debate as possible to take place during daylight hours, when it is likely to be reported, rather than late at night—on occasion, well into the early hours of the morning.
Having said that I am firmly in favour of better hours, let me add that I believe that that can be achieved without the timetabling of all Bills. It was unnecessary to bring that into the report. If we are to scrutinise the way in which Bills are handled, we should do so in some detail, rather than introducing the subject by the back door. Timetabling would transfer a great deal of power from Opposition to Government, which would prove very unsatisfactory.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and others have claimed that they can find no examples of the Opposition stopping a Bill's passage by using time—filibustering, perhaps. Of course that should not happen: if a Government have a majority, they should be entitled to get their legislation through. Nevertheless, I could cite many instances in which sensible use of time by the Opposition has persuaded the Government to modify legislation, and a useful exercise has resulted.
An example is the Education Act 1980. The Committee stage—when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was on the Front Bench—took long enough to enable people outside to organise opposition to the proposals to remove free school travel. Campaigns by the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches were not sufficient to persuade enough Conservative Members to throw out that part of the Bill, but they did persuade enough of their Lordships to do so, and it was lost. I believe that, if that Bill had been timetabled from the beginning, the Government would have insisted on pushing it through in a shorter time, and it would have been impossible for outside organisations to act.
A less controversial example is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I were members of the Committee, and Denis Howell—now in the other place—was on the Front Bench. Denis Howell did not want to be in the building a minute after 10 pm if he could avoid it, but on that Committee he carefully paid out the time to the Government. On some occasions, he stopped the Committee; on others he kept us on one point for the whole morning. As a result, he secured a number of concessions. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow managed to keep us up for nearly two hours after midnight on one occasion: again, concessions were obtained from the Government. The Bill was not fantastically controversial in party political terms, but I would argue that that was a sensible use of time by the Opposition. Improvements were made as a result.
Just before the election, we debated the Transport and Works Bill 1992, whose aim was to rid the Chamber of private Bills. We nearly secured an agreement between the Front Benches; the Bill could have been dealt with in four sittings without much difficulty. My hon. Friends the

879
Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), and one or two other Opposition Members, were not very happy with that proposal. After they had taken up nearly a whole morning with points that the Minister did not find particularly exciting, he suddenly decided that, given the approaching election, he had better have a look at the points that we were making about representations from the Inland Waterways Board and so forth. Within virtually one sitting, he had produced a number of concessions.
That too, was a good use of time. A coupe of academics outside the House told me that they were very puzzled by what had happened: a whole morning was taken up with pointless debate, and, following a rushed procedure in the afternoon, the Minister made a series of what were in effect concessions. That made no sense to people outside the House, but every member of the Committee understood what was going on. The threat of lengthy proceedings concentrated the Minister's mind, and we knew that he had to make some attempt to meet the Opposition's demands.
It would be a mistake to hand power from Opposition to Government, mostly because the House now deals with Bills in a very inadequate way. We need to examine our whole method of dealing with public Bills. If it then seems more sensible for the House to impose a timetable, let us do that; but we must examine the procedure first, rather than imposing a guillotine on all Bills and continuing to deal with them inadequately.
I stress that there is far too short a time between publication of a Bill and Second Reading in this House. Outside groups hardly have a chance to get hold of a Bill, let alone to read it; they certainly do not have time to put their case to Members of Parliament before the Second Reading debate. Furthermore, sometimes, when a Second Reading debate takes place on the Monday of one week, the Bill goes into Committee the following week, so it is extremely difficult for outside organisations to make their representations. There should be more time between publishing a Bill and Second Reading, and between Second Reading and Committee stage.
Committee proceedings can also be a farce. Many people outside want to make representations about a Bill. On the whole, t hey have to make them through Opposition Members, although sometimes they will find one or two willing Conservative Members to make them. Would it not be far better to set up a public system so that these people can make representations directly to the Government and to members of the Committee? Such a procedure came into being with Special Standing Committees. It was used about three times, and because Ministers felt that they did not do very well out of it, it was not used again.
It would be far better to put all Bills through that system of scrutiny than to continue making people outside submit representations at second hand to Members, who then try to dream up amendments—often only dodgily in order—to make their point. It would be far better to have a Special Standing Committee to examine a Bill—a great improvement, in short.
After the Committee comes the Report stage. When I came to the House, I thought that Report stages were well attended, but for several recent Bills, those stages have badly attended. Half the members of a Committee do not bother to come, and virtually no other Members turn up. Report stages have been devalued in many senses. The first part of a Report stage—dealing with representations made
880
in Committee—could be effected by the recommittal of the Bill. At that time, we could find out whether the Government had met the undertakings that they gave in Committee. There is no need for the whole House to go into that sort of detail. Points of principle should of course be dealt with on the Floor of the House.
In recent years, Report stages have often been hijacked by people interested in a subject that is only tangential to a Bill. A couple of environment Bills, covering a wide range of environmental issues, have been dominated on Report by the issue of dogs. That is extremely important, but I can well understand the resentment felt by members of the Committee, who, having gone through all the detailed work on the Bill, find that a new clause on dogs dominates the Report stage. We need carefully to examine the opportunities to bring in new clauses on Report.
Report stages can also be hijacked by people running a wholly different exercise, which has nothing to do with the Bill but something to do with another argument between Opposition and Government. We ought to leave the timetabling of Bills out of any discussion of improving the hours and let the Procedure Committee be set up again with the task of scrutinising the manner in which Bills are dealt with, to try to improve our scrutiny of them. Unless that is done, we could begin to rush into timetabling Bills, with the result that they are discussed far worse than they were before.
I must tell enthusiasts for guillotines that it is always possible to manipulate them. Once a line has been drawn, it is always possible to ensure that the debate that comes first after the line is not the debate of major substance—the latter gets squeezed. With timetable after timetable, I have seen Ministers encouraging Back Benchers to spend half an hour or 45 minutes on minor amendments so that the crucial one on which the Opposition want to concentrate the Minister's mind and the press's attention is squeezed out and not given as much time as it deserves. If we go in for the regular timetabling of Bills, more and more of this manipulation will occur.
As long as Bills are not timetabled, the Opposition are left with an area in which they can exert pressure on the Government. We have our formal proceedings, and we also have informal proceedings under which the usual channels meet to argue over how time should be allocated, when the Government should make a statement, and so on. The Government can always claim that they have a majority and can get their legislation through. The Opposition's only power is to be awkward and to make a nuisance of themselves.
Sometimes, when one or two of my hon. Friends have been involved in the Front-Bench negotiations, they have asked me to cause a bit of trouble and raise a few points of order—we all know that they are really points of disorder. They have asked me to make a row in the Chamber, thereby possibly enabling them to get a Minister to come and make a statement or give an answer. It is very difficult to keep such points in order while including a political message. An advantage of keeping Bills open-ended is that, instead of causing a row in the Chamber, we can threaten a series of votes. It is much better for the dignity of the House to be able to call a series of votes and to be able to make it clear that the Opposition are not happy with the negotiations through the usual channels than to raise points of order and make a row in the Chamber.

881
The more we remove the opportunities for the Opposition to make these points, the more we will end up like some other domocratic assemblies, in which Members have to be thrown out or sittings suspended. If the House wants to retain an effective safety valve, it should look very closely before introducing guillotines on all Bills. That would merely remove one more way in which the Opposition can show their displeasure.
I hope that, in the next 12 months, the Government will try to reduce the likelihood of our having to sit after 10 pm. I hope that we can try Wednesday morning sittings. I should like to adopt a much more radical approach and have the House meet each morning at 11.30. But it would be too high a price to pay for improving the hours if all legislation were to be guillotined. That would greatly reduce the powers of the Opposition legitimately to oppose the Government.
8.7 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: Originally, I had no intention of speaking in this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Until the Whips told you to."] Funnily enough, that was not the reason—I have been spurred into making this modest contribution by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and by what I detect to be a relentless pressure from some quarters to change the procedures of the House for social rather than for good procedural reasons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, who has temporarily left the Chamber, referred to the new boys perhaps needing more time to consider the changes proposed—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that my hon. Friend has returned. On my own behalf and, I suspect, on behalf of many other new Members on both sides of the House, I must point out that we revere the procedures of this House. Indeed, it was the reputation and historic fame of this Chamber which prompted us to seek election in the first place.
Mr. Tredinnick: I said that the debate was about giving new Members a chance to speak on the topic.
Mr. Duncan: I take my hon. Friend's point.
To many of us who have just been elected, there can be no greater compliment than to be called a parliamentarian. Anyone who adds to the reputation of the House deserves a higher compliment than many who have held the highest offices of state, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on the evident sanity of his Committee's recommendations. However, I endorse them with some reluctance, because I do not want to see fast changes. Morning sittings are totally inconsistent with having members of the Executive also Members of the legislature.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: That is poppycock.
Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend says that that is poppycock. When she was a Minister how could she have organised her busy diary if she had been liable to be called here at any moment under the legitimate procedures of the House?
Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is doing very well so far. I was called here. Ministers are frequently called to various Committees—including, for example. the new European Standing Committee, of which I am a volunteer member.
Mr. Duncan: I bow to my hon. Friend's greater experience. Nevertheless, if the House is in permanent session in the morning, that will increase the difficulty of organising ministerial diaries.
Mr. Cryer: I give the organisation of ministerial diaries a low priority. However, on Tuesdays and Thursdays there are morning sittings of Standing Committees, which are often attended by Ministers. There are also morning Committees on Wednesdays at which affirmative resolutions are often dealt with. It would be difficult to organise morning sittings of the House and enable hon. Members to work in Committees as well on those three mid-week mornings.
Mr. Duncan: For once, I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Any proposal for morning sittings in the Chamber merely compounds the problem that he has properly described.
The Committee does not propose electronic voting, but we have to look to our public because such voting is widely discussed. I abhor such voting. We have not been elected to sit in a queue pressing buttons. How can we know that the right person is pushing the right button'? What procedural problems will arise from a blown fuse? Anyone who is prepared to register his vote should hold his head high, march through the Lobby and be seen to register his opinion on the record of the House. Electronic voting is no more desirable than the replacement of the Speaker by a robot.
A fixed-term Parliament was discussed, and was also raised during the election campaign. I totally reject it. What could be more dangerous to democracy than the Opposition's knowledge that an election would not be called for four or five years? What better encouragement could there be for the Opposition to lie idle and not attack the Government than the knowledge that they will not be called to account in a general election at any time? The proposal is inconsistent with the traditions of the House.
My main argument is that, after 13 years of Conservative government, there is a great danger that any proposal to reform the procedures of the House will be influenced by the stability that the House has enjoyed during that time. In shaping amendments, we must look many decades ahead to possible changes in the party system and to the more acute balance of influence in the House which would make procedure of paramount importance for the workings of the democratic process in the country at large.
After I left school, I watched the debates in 1976 when Government and Opposition were in a delicate balance. I remember the tied vote on the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Act 1978. Some would argue on good procedural grounds that the vote was not tied at all. I remember the debate on the confidence motion in 1979. In those matters, every procedural device used by the Opposition was of the utmost importance. Perhaps those devices now have limited effect, but we cannot foresee when they might become of supreme importance and perhaps of value to us or to the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) should continue to filibuster, using every device he can

883
find, because, who knows. in the far distant future that may be of use to my hon. Friends and to me. I am for the reforms, but I say, "Thus Far, but no further."
8.16 Pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: The great merit of the speech by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is that it was made by a new Member. We were told that the debate was for new Members to assess the position following the election and that that was why no decision was taken in the previous Parliament. However, until 10 minutes ago no new Members attempted to speak. The hon. Gentleman finished by saying he supported the recommendations. That was a surprise in view of what he had said earlier in his speech.
I did not come to speak, but, except for two minutes, I have been here for the whole debate. Before I came to the House just over 18 years ago, I heard a Member who is no longer in the House say that we represented our constituents at Westminster and not Westminster in our constituencies. That may have been true in the past, but it is not the case today. I am held as much to account in my constituency for what happens here as I rely on my constituency for the material that I use here to represent my constituents. There is some merit in arguing for constituency days or weeks.
Some years ago I learned about the way the Australian Parliament works. I hasten to add that I did not learn that from a visit there. Because of the distances, it sits for only four weeks at a time so that Members can return to their constituencies. There is some merit in that. I do not accept the argument about the length of recesses. When Parliament is convened after an election it should remain in being. However, it should not be in continuous session.
I have never understood why we cannot table written questions during a recess and have them answered. I have never understood why we cannot table early-day motions during the recess and get them printed on an Order Paper. The one crucial thing we lack during a recess is parliamentary privilege. We have it in a partial, qualified way through letters from Members to Ministers. However, if key issues arise, we should be able to raise them and, by a combination of written questions and early-day motions, with an Order Paper and a weekly Hansard, we could overcome many difficulties.
I do not wish to argue about the number of hours we sit, but, as we are the most centrally governed country in Europe, it is bound to be the case that we sit longer. The Government hold the power in our unitary state. It is not divided as it is, for example, in Germany, which is a federal country. France has an independent form of local government, so it is not necessary for the French Parliament to sit for long hours.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton reminded us of 1976, but I was going to use the example of 1977. When I served on the Committee examining the Finance Bill in 1977 and took part in the debates on Report, I did not need time, I did not need to filibuster and I did not face the threat of a guillotine to stop me and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who then represented Coventry, South-West, to amend the Budget. We were told that we should not have done it, but it was probably one of the most popular moves to benefit the low-paid that we ever made.
884
We used parliamentary procedure, but we used a device that has not been used by Conservative Members in this long period of stability. I will not use the word "courage", because it did not take courage, but we were prepared to use our vote in the way that we saw as best for our constituents. We put them before the Government of the day, not before our party because our party policy was clear. In the past 13 years, not enough Conservative Members have been prepared to do that. I remember the Monday on the Report stage of the poll tax Bill, when we debated the Mates amendment. The Opposition had agreed that it should be debated on that day. The Government's majority was 25, so obviously many Conservative Members voted against the Government, but such examples are few and far between.
We boast that we are the oldest Parliament in Europe, implying that we are the best, but we are the only Parliament in western, industrialised, old-style, democratic Europe that works on the basis of the whipping system, patronage, Orders in Council and guillotines by the Government of the day. That is a powerful combination. It is difficult for us to boast to other parliamentarians about how good and strong our Parliament is when the Executive have at their disposal all the weapons to manipulate Parliament, to snuff out opposition and to create circumstances in which Government Back Benchers do not feel free to speak and vote as they ought to.
I am not in favour of rebellion every day. That is stupid, because one devalues one's vote and one's voice. However, all rebellion has been snuffed out over the past 13 years, and that is sad.
Mr. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend accept that the attraction of the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment was that the Government of the day could not gag my hon. Friend because there was no procedure for timetabling the Committee stage of the Finance Bill? Therefore, as long as my hon. Friend had the courage to stick to the amendment, it was bound to be debated and there was bound to be an opportunity to have a vote on it.
Mr. Rooker: That is the case. The Government of the day accepted the amendment and it was never challenged on the Floor of the House. That is unusual, because normally Governments seek to overturn defeats in Committee. On that occasion, they did not do so, but that was probably because they knew that they were going to lose because the amendment was so popular. My hon. Friend is right. The guillotine was never a threat. It did not figure in our calculations. We tabled an amendment and we chose to vote for it or to abstain.
It is a pity that the Leader of the House is not here, because we supported his amendment on that occasion. The first amendment on upgrading tax allowances was his, but, because we voted for it, he never got the credit for it. The indexation came later in the day during a whole series of votes. I am sure that the Leader of the House remembers it, because I saw him look across the Chamber at an earlier speaker.
After 18 years here, I am still a reformer, but I would not go for electronic voting. I see merit in what is perceived as our arcane system of voting. However, I would go for timetabling of Bills. When we talk about timetabling, we think about guillotining, because that is what we are used to dealing with. However, if the timetable were based on an end date—by and large, the Government of the day will

885
get their way provided that they can carry their Members with them—we could agree on the way that the available time was used. I do not mean just a number of hours but the time between one day of debate and another.
The amount of time devoted to the Bill should be within the control of the Opposition, and if we chose to debate all through the night on one occasion, that would be our decision. If we had the final decision on how the time was divided, we could choose the key subjects, as I said earlier in an intervention.
The poll tax Bill spent 200 hours in Committee, but, out of 200 clauses, we debated only about 40.
Mr. David Blunkett: Only 21.
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend reminds me of how few it was; he served on the Committee with us.
We hardly got anywhere. We never debated any of the business taxes or other important matters. However, when we had five days on Report under the guillotine, the Opposition chose what was debated each day and we chose what time matters were debated each day. On behalf of the Opposition, I drafted the business statement. Ministers did not care. They told us that we had five days and should use them as we liked. We raised all the issues that we wished to raise, although we felt deprived because we had not raised them in Committee. That is an inefficient way to do it, but if we were given an end date and the Opposition were given some control over the way the time was used, that would be a good system.
I agree that there should be longer time between the publication of a Bill and Second Reading and then between Second Reading and the Bill going into Committee. That is crucial. This recent nonsense of the Bill being published on a Friday, Second Reading being on the Monday a week after, 10 days away, the Committee of Selection meeting on the Wednesday and the Bill in Committee on the following Tuesday has to stop, especially for important Bills. That procedure is an affront to those outside on whose behalf we are legislating. Any agreed arrangement on timetabling must include an improvement on that practice.
The idea of Fridays off is a good one, but it must go with early Thursday evenings. The one without the other would be ludicrous. We can all swap our diaries showing what we do on Fridays. It has been said that we can choose to come to Friday debates is we wish, but it is not like that. Many of us are terrified of entering the ballot for motions for Fridays when we look at what is in our diaries for Fridays. We know that we will have given a firm commitment to a whole series of people and organisations—chambers of commerce, schools and others whom we cannot meet on a Saturday or Sunday.
Many more Members of Parliament enter the ballot for motions to be debated on Mondays because that does not interfere with their constituency time, which is extremely valuable. Front-Bench speakers have a similar problem. They do not know whether they will be called for Front-Bench duty because the subject chosen—a choice out of their control—is one on which they have to reply. That is true of the Consolidated Fund as well. There is a compromise to be reached, whether we do it by the Select
886
Committee report recommendation or by the more radical proposal of a week off every four or five weeks. There is scope for compromise, but it must be reached quickly.
I fear that we shall return in October and face a delay of a few weeks before there is a substantive debate. We shall then be told, "We cannot alter the Sittings of the House this Session. The revised sittings must start in November 1993 because of the legislation that is already under way. We must consider Ministers' diaries and the programme of parliamentary questions and answers. Days have already been set aside for private business on Fridays." We shall be under pressure to delay the implementation of anything that we agree until the beginning of the next Session after we return in October. That will be sad. There should be best endeavours to implement the maximum number of agreed recommendations from January next year. That would be to the benefit of Members and of those whom we are here to represent.
One or two Members have spoken—it is their prerogative to do so—as if we are proceeding for our convenience. We are all privileged to be elected to represent our constituents. We are the last port of call for many of them. In many instances, we are the only voice they have in our archaic electoral system. That is something that I do not propose to go into. I could have been misled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, who talked about fixed-term Parliaments, a subject which is not part of the report. If it were, I would have tabled amendments with a view to securing a longer debate.
We Members are transient; we are passing through. It is important that we think about our procedures for the future and learn the lessons of the past. I am glad that I have had the experience of sitting on both sides of the Chamber. I fear for those who have sat on only one side of it. When I listened to the previous debate on these matters—it took place before the general election—I thought, "There are going to be some new Ministers with a bit of luck after 9 April. Will this be good or bad?" The issue is whether changes will be good or bad for Parliament. It does not matter whether they will be good or bad for the party which is in opposition or in government. Some of the recommendations will be to the advantage of the Government, but others in the package will be of advantage to the Opposition. As a package, they are of advantage to the House. That is the basis on which we should arrive at our decisions.
We all have experience both inside and outside the House and I hope that we are all mature enough now—we have been able to talk about these matters in two debates and we have listened to at least one new Member voice his opinions, an opportunity which the debate was designed to present—to make some early decisions and to sell them to the country.
I caution any hon. Member who has not attended the debate and who has the temerity to enter the Chamber tomorrow to say, "Well, you spoke and voted for shorter hours of sitting and shorter weeks yesterday and you want more money tonight." We shall get ignorant contributions of that sort tomorrow from Members who have not been in their places this evening. The fact is that we need better resources. We need a better-informed House so that we are able more effectively to challenge the Executive. I say that on behalf of both Opposition and Government Back-Bench Members. Hours of sitting and resources are separate matters.

887
Over the past 13 years, since a Conservative Government have been in office, I have spent 11 years on the Opposition Front Bench. One of my reasons for having two years off it was to get some experience of Select Committee work. The two years that I spent on the Public Accounts Committee taught me more about the machinery of government than all the time that I spent on the Opposition Front bench. Those two years were extremely valuable. I know that that view is shared by many hon. Members.
There were many times on Mondays and Wednesdays when I regretted that I had to leave the Chamber to attend sittings of the PAC. The fact is, however, that that business is crucial. The Committee was able to bring civil servants to account. It was not possible to exert that discipline over Ministers because they do not appear before the Committee. As I have said, the work of the PAC is extremely valuable. We must take cognisance of that and, as individual Members, take a decision. We cannot be in Committee and on the Floor of the House at the same time.
On the other hand, that is no excuse for saying that we should not change the sitting hours of the House because it would mean that it would not be possible to do our work in Committee. It is vital that we should accept the Wednesday morning experiment. If that means that the parliamentary Labour party has to change the time of its meetings, that is neither here nor there. It will be able to find another slot in the week.
By and large, I support the package before us. What can be agreed must be implemented from January 1993. There must be no messing about with delays until the next Session. We can make adjustments to the decisions that are already being made about Friday sittings to meet everyone's convenience when it comes to private Members' Bills. That can be done without any difficulty. I implore the Government—it is in their gift—to organise our procedures to ensure that that happens.
8.36 pm
Mr. Derek Conway: The fact that I stand in my place in splendid isolation has more to do with my being at the tail end of a flu virus than interest in the report. The thing that worries me is that I agree with just about everything that was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—a unique experience in my nine years in the House. The hon. Gentleman's contribution was thoughtful and I cart think of few points which would cause me to disagree with him.
I think especially of the hon. Gentleman's warning to my right hon. and hon. Friends about thinking of being on the Government Benches for ever. I fear that there is a tendency for some of my colleagues to think that their present position will ever he so. That is why it is important that the House should proceed with great care when it comes to change its procedures. That applies especially to those of us who sit on the Government Benches in the belief, perhaps, that we shall always occupy them. The same point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). I suspect that, by the time he finds himself on the Opposition Benches, he will be the Father of the House, so he has some time to prepare himself.
I was intrigued to see how the Committee had come to terms with and arrived at a balance between those who are
888
primarily London-based Members—sadly, not all of them represent London constituencies, but they are capital-based Members—and those of us who, perhaps by perversity of nature, insist on being thought to be, and adamantly continue to be, provincial Members.
I have always been a reluctant reader of the Evening Standard because I do not wish to be sucked in, as some Members are, to living in London and being in London. I suppose that that is why my wife and I have always ensured that our small flat is an especially grotty one and not one in which we wish to spend a great deal of time. Like many Members—perhaps younger Members—my family remain in my constituency, which is in Shropshire. Anyone who has visited Shropshire—particularly Shrewsbury, which I am blessed to represent—will understand immediately why it is preferable to be thought of as a provincial Member and to be based in such a place to being a London Member who makes the occasional visit to his constituency to make sure that ail is well.
I suspect that the days are long since gone when Members could get away with an annual visit to their constituencies, with the station master meeting the train wearing a bowler hat and white gloves. The pressures upon Members—this is certainly the view of colleagues who have been in the House for far longer than myself—have undoubtedly increased considerably. That is why I am particularly pleased with the Committee's conclusions on morning sittings and the fact that it did not plump for the four mornings per week option. Those of us who live in our constituencies and spend three, four or five hours travelling to London need Monday mornings to get to Westminster. If those mornings were not available to us, we would have to travel on Sundays.
The press comments on how the House works and the long summer recess, which it describes as a holiday. It often does not focus on our working week. Over 25 years in politics and nearly 10 years in the House, I have seen no reference to the fact that many Members spend at least a day a week getting backwards and forwards from their constituency to the House. It seems to be thought that we materialise in the House at will.
As I have said, I was intrigued to see how the Committee would arrive at a balance between those who have families in London and therefore are probably quite keen to be away from the House at 6 pm, and those of us who have families in constituencies away from London, whose wives are probably not too keen on the idea of our being footloose and fancy free after 6 pm. One of my wife's great attributes is that she has steadfastly refused to take a close interest in politics. She has been concerned that the House will change its routine and that I shall be able to go—perhaps with my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), whom I see in his place, and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—into the wilds of Soho to be led astray, for want of parliamentary business to keep me occupied.
On behalf of Mrs. Conway, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Committee, that she is glad that the House will not adjourn too early in the evening, so she will know exactly where I shall be during an evening in London alone.
I am pleased to note that recommendation 47 will give the House the opportunity to meet on a Wednesday morning. As I was not in the House when the experiment was tried some years ago, I have no idea how it will work, but many of us are looking forward to it. It is a cautious attempt, but it is worth a try.

889
I am also pleased with recommendation 82—something about which my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is less enthusiastic—on the setting of the parliamentary year. For many hon. Members, much depends on the ages of their children, whether or not they are at school and even whether they want their company. I remember that, in my first year as a Member of Parliament, I was cautioned by a senior and outgoing Member about my enthusiasm for the House to rise early in the summer so that I could see my children during the summer recess, rather than going into recess only couple of weeks before they were back at school. He predicted that within two decades I would be wishing that the House would sit throughout the entire summer period so that I had an excuse not to return to the family. I am glad to say that I have not quite reached that stage.
The media will write tomorrow night about secretarial allowances, just as they have written about summer recesses. I am not sure what they mean by "summer holidays". When I was a new Member of Parliament, I visited a factory in Shrewsbury—a large employer—during my first summer recess. Its marketing director was giving a presentation about the work of that wonderful organisation. He summed up by saying to me, "While you are on your summer holidays, we are keeping the wheels of industry turning."
I have had enough of that twaddle. My idea of a summer holiday is to be in my Shropshire garden with the children, not sitting in a factory listening to its tales of woe, however justifiable they may have been. That chap spoke as though sitting listening to him whining was a holiday. It is quite a perverse view, but many of our constituents reading the newspapers think that the summer recess is a summer holiday. Since that experience, I have not been afraid to remind my constituents that it is not.
The House sat until 2 August one year during my time here. As many people know, the Scottish schools return quite early, and even schools in England are now returning earlier than they used to. The amount of time available to a Member to spend a holiday with his young children is nothing like the length of the summer recess, which the editors of the tabloids would have our constituents believe is a holiday. The recommendation to specify the Christmas, Easter and Whitsun recesses is welcome, and will be even more so for those Members with young children.
Recommendation 84 to rise by mid-July is good. I hate being in London in July. I know why we have to be here, but it has nothing to do with parliamentary business or the timetable of Governments—
Mrs. Currie: It is the garden parties.
Mr. Conway: It may be because of the Buckingham palace garden parties, or even the Prime Minister's receptions, but I think that it has more to do with the timing of the party conferences. The Labour and Tory party conferences are held in October—the Liberal Democrats have theirs in September—and the House cannot sit during those great occasions. Instead, we have to be in a sweltering London in July and fight our way through the crowds of tourists, mostly American, to get to the House. That enables us to be present and to cheer at our party conferences, which we all loyally love to do. The
890
recommendation to rise by mid-July is not over-ambitious. Indeed, if it were to be early July, so much the better. If that also gave us an excuse not to attend the party conferences, that would be even more welcome.
The proposal to announce two weeks' business in advance is helpful. The hon. Member for Perry Barr spoke about organising constituency events. It is difficult for our constituents to understand the short notice of proposed business. Most of them have no idea that we find out the following week's business on the previous Thursday. They cannot believe that we operate in such an inefficient and unclear way, but we do. Even if the House takes a long time to push through the report—which it shows every sign of doing—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary will look kindly on introducing that reform of his own volition. I do not think that it would require a change in the procedure of the House and it would be a welcome gesture. Most hon. Members enjoy being in their constituencies and want to plan for that.
The old adage that we have to be in Parliament to represent our constituency, rather than representing it in the provinces, is still frequently heard, but times and demand have changed and constituents will no longer put up with an absentee Member of Parliament. Anyone who goes about his business in that way will get short shrift, not only from his constituents but from his constituency party. The demands upon Conservative Members have changed during my 25 years in politics. Perhaps the Labour party has always ensured that its Members of Parliament are accountable to its organisational structure, but that is a fairly recent innovation for the Tory party—although it is clearly growing. The House must take account of that and respond to it.
I have my doubts whether the proposed changes will make us a more effective legislature. I often think that, as a Chamber, our only way to control the Executive would be to make talking or any form of communication between the usual channels a capital offence. Then Members of Parliament might have some small say in the way in which the House regulates itself and tries to monitor what the Executive are doing.
This is a thorough report, which we considered before the general election and are considering again today. I share the view of many hon. Members that the recommendations should be introduced soon, rather than drifting on towards next year or even the end of the session. It is not an over-radical report, so it should not worry Members. Provided that the House accommodates Members of Parliament with independent spirits and minds, such as the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), and allows them to keep us here—even those Members who support the Government—when we do not want to be here so that they can make difficult comments, the system cannot be too bad. It is not a radical report, but it is long overdue. The sooner the House endorses it, the better.
8.46 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: Consensus in this Chamber is the worst aspect of Parliament at work. I well recall the day in 1981 when it was agreed that the Consolidated Fund should be changed to a series of Adjournment debates and that the holiday Adjournment

891
debates should he limited to three hours. The debates used to be open-ended and people could come here in the knowledge that they could take part in a debate. The Consolidated Fund Bill debate lasted all night and was regulated by hon. Members. They would put down their names to speak on a particular subject and those subjects would be debated for three, four or five hours, while smaller debates were over in half an hour. The system worked extremely well.
There was an awkward point—the Government had to get 100 Members here for the closure motion in the morning and 100 for the closure motion on the holiday Adjournment debates. That was just a little inconvenient. One day, the Labour Opposition ran away with the debate and took the Consolidated Fund debate through the night and the next day. We said to the Government, "Give us some concessions on the Housing Bill or we will keep running." We gained important concessions.
What did we do then? We said that there was a strong chance that at the next election in 1983 we could form the Government, so it would he awkward to have to find 100 Members for the closure motion in the morning. Therefore, the Labour party agreed with the Conservatives to abolish that practice and instead have a series of fixed Adjournment debates. That was very neat and tidy, but we can no longer run away with the debate. That gives the Government an advantage.
There is a rich stench of that around the report. A number of Labour Members thought that the report was not a bad idea and that the timetabling of Bills would be very neat and tidy when we formed the Government in April. Of course, the election did not turn out as was intended. That is one of the problems with democracy—we can never be sure of the outcome. Now that things did not turn out as we expected, Labour Members are changing their minds and retreating. That is right and proper.
The name of the Chairman of the Committee was announced before the membership of the Committee, which is pretty unusual. The reason was that the Committee was chosen to produce a result. The result was intended to be to make everything here neat and tidy. One of the great advantages of this place is that it is not neat and tidy. I have been in a neat and tidy place for five years; it is called the European Parliament. I call it an assembly because it is not a legislative body. Everything there is organised by the parties. It had electronic voting which used to break down regularly, although it was state of the art electronics, and which was the subject of an enormous amount of fiddling.
Simple systems may be old-fashioned and unpopular. Going through the Lobbies is a simple system and if one supports the Government, one can get hold of Ministers. If one is an Opposition Member, one can also get hold of Ministers if one wants to twist their arms about something. It is very difficult to cheat. That is not much of an issue at the moment, but if there is a minority Government or a Government with a majority of two or three, cheating may become an important issue on special occasions. We should not ignore that factor in modernising Parliament because of considerations of fashion.
Mr. Oliver Heald: One of my first experiences here was the debate on the Ways and Means resolutions. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may recall that he forced Conservative
892
Members through the Lobbies time after time. Opposition Members clocked up between nine and 15 votes each time, whereas my hon. Friends clocked up about 250 votes. If we had had electronic voting, the whole procedure could have gone through in a short time. In the event, it took more than three hours. That time could have been used for useful debate. Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that it was rather a waste of time and that electronic voting would have helped?
Mr. Cryer: I do not want to go too far down that road because the subject is not part of the report. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that in this place, we have the old platitude of checks, balances and leverage. The opportunity of voting 10 times is often a useful lever with which the Opposition can gain some concessions from the Government. There are, for example, 10 orders tonight which are to be taken forthwith, which means that they can be voted on. That can be handy if the Opposition want to gain some concessions. It may be relatively trivial, but over a period of weeks it could make things difficult for the Government. I take the view that we could run this place ragged if we set our minds to doing so. It would be awkward, but it is a possibility.
I do not make that comment in a macho spirit of male assertion. Long speeches and voting are nothing to do with assertion of masculinity. They are intended to get concessions from the Government. Hon. Members do not undertake long speeches for the sake of it; the purpose is to try to obtain concessions. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out that the Opposition used that tactic on the Transport and Works Bill, which was going to go through on an agreed basis in a couple of neat and tidy sittings. As some of us did not like that idea, we spoke lengthily on the sittings motion and we went into detail. Eventually the message got through to the Minister and his hon. Friends that it would be a long and difficult Committee unless some co-operation were established and unless some concessions made. Concessions were produced, the Committee proceedings were good and the Bill was much improved after the Committee stage. That is an important point.
People accuse me—I wince at this—of being a good parliamentarian—[HON. MEMBERS: " Never."] It is pretty dreadful, but they do say that. I have a private list of people who make such accusations. My emphasis is always on the constituency. I have always been a Member of Parliament for marginal seats and I always emphasise the importance of constituency work. In my present constituency, I maintain a full-time office. I do not say that Parliament is everything and then ignore the constituency. My constituency is important, but I do not see that it is necessary to have 10 Fridays off per Session to provide a compulsory opportunity to be in the constituencies.
As I said in an intervention, there is an opportunity for hon. Members to be in their constituencies on many Fridays. People in Bradford, South do not say to me, "Why were you not down there speaking on the disposal of Welsh toxic waste last Friday?" It is not a subject which is greatly debated in Bradford, South. Last Friday was an opportunity for me to spend as much of the day as I could in my constituency. Such opportunities often occur. Fridays provide a valuable opportunity for hon. Members—last Friday, it was Welsh Members—to raise constituency matters in the most important assembly in

893
the country. Getting rid of 10 Fridays is potentially wrong. As usual, it is not the Government who will suffer: it will be Back-Bench Members who suffer. They will also suffer in other ways.
The Committee started off on the wrong basis. There are a few paragraphs at the beginning of the report to justify the Committee's course. It should have begun by asking, "Is Parliament doing a good job? Is it scrutinising all aspects of Government work and ensuring that there is an element of accountability? Can we improve that if we change the hours?" The Committee started, because of the composition of the membership, on the basis of changing the hours and then fitting the scrutiny with the changed hours. The approach was back to front.
The proposals were made under the cloak that women would be more attracted to the idea of entering Parliament if the hours were changed. I do not share that view. People may say, "Of course he would not." I have discussed the matter extensively with my wife, as I am bound to do, and I have not taken a narrow male view. We both take the view that there will always be difficulties for provincial Members. Underlying the report is the convenience of London-based Members, not the convenience of provincial Members.
It is up to the political parties to determine that women should come into this place. There are many able women who are willing and eager to come into Parliament and to serve their party and their constituents here. For a variety of reasons, they do not get in here. Women on the national executive committee of the Labour party must be more determined to put women on short lists. I well recall—this is no reflection on my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), who ran an excellent campaign—that two women were nominated for the by-election short list. Neither was even proposed by any women members of the national executive committee of the Labour party.
Until that kind of omission is rectified, women will find great difficulty in getting elected to this place.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given way to a provincial female Member of Parliament. I believe that it is exceedingly important that we should be able to rely on Fridays to do things like visit schools. One cannot expect a headmistress to suddenly jack in everything because one is coming to visit the next day because our business has been changed.
We should be able to plan ahead for visits to schools or factories. We should not have to tell people at the last minute that we are descending on them. Such planning is very important for me. Yorkshire may be a little closer to this place, but I have a five-hour journey to get to my constituency and I will value those 10 Fridays.
Mr. Cryer: I disagree with the hon. Lady. I believe that hon. Members can plan visits in advance on most Fridays. However, it would be difficult for hon. Members to get away on some Fridays, particularly when there are debates on controversial private Bills. People outside this place may press hon. Members to be present for such debates because of their controversial nature.
I do not believe that the Select Committee report deals adequately with statutory instruments. Many detailed aspects of people's lives, including their benefits, housing
894
and construction and use of motor vehicles are dealt with in statutory instruments. The vast majority of legislation is carried out through delegated legislation: between 1,500 and 2,000 statutory instruments are produced every year.
In 1990–91, just over 100 statutory instruments were prayed against because hon. Members thought that they should be debated and voted on in the Chamber. The Government granted 25 such debates. If hon. Members pray against a negative procedure instrument, unless that prayer is tabled by a Front-Bench spokesman, there is virtually no chance of a debate.
Affirmative statutory instruments are debated automatically. However, the House treats delegated legislation with a significant lack of scrutiny and that is appalling. The Select Committee did not address that problem, although I gave evidence on that. The Committee dismissed my concerns too easily.
It is proposed that, instead of being debated on the Floor of the House late at night, affirmative resolutions should be sent to a merits Committee on a Wednesday morning because that is when such Committees meet. However, private Members' business is also proposed to be taken in Wednesday morning sittings. What happens if hon. Members wish to speak in both debates? They cannot be in both places at the same time. If we are to deal with the affirmative resolutions that are dealt with in this place and with those that are dealt with in Committee, many hon. Members will be involved in those Committees. That proposal is incompatible.
It is unfair that hon. Members should face the alternative of exercising a self-denying ordinance by removing themselves from the Chamber so that they can serve in Committee. The Select Committee report will place more obstacles on the 150 or 200 people in this place who are the workhorses of Parliament. They staff the Committees and frequently take part in debates. If we are to have morning sittings on Tuesdays and Thursdays, there will be more problems if Standing Committees meet at the same time.
There was an agreed timetable on the Broadcasting Bill which was a major piece of legislation. People argue that the timetable procedure ensures that all parts of a Bill are debated. That was not true for the Broadcasting Bill, even though the timetable was voluntary. Large chunks of that Bill were not considered because the Government wanted their business on the Floor of the House. In return for our timetable concessions, we had an extra day on the Floor of the House. The procedure does not work perfectly.
I do not cavil at the timetable on the Broadcasting Bill, although that was not a path that I would have followed. That timetable was introduced by agreement. However, the idea of compulsory timetables gives the Government a big incentive. A Conservative Member said earlier that he and his colleagues were going to speak. Of course they are. Conservative Back Benchers usually do not speak, because they do not want to take up time to justify a guillotine on the Floor of the House.
There was another confession, in this evening of confessions, from a former Minister who said that the thought of a row over a guillotine on a particular subject influences Ministers. It is therefore worth bearing in mind that we can exert pressure in this place.
It is true that some of my hon. Friends do not think that those pressures have been effective, but, when we face a Government with a huge majority of 150 over Labour and 110 overall, it is very difficult to make any indentations on

895
their political progress, but we can do so if we keep up the pressure and keep our wits and eyes about us. We will not do so if we hand an important power to the Government. Conservative Back-Bench Members will then use up the available time under the guillotine and we will lose one of our most important powers. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear:] I am not used to being surrounded by such support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned patronage being used to influence procedures. He claimed that comparative European Governments do not have the patronage that exists here through the whipping procedure. They have a system of patronage that is called proportional representation. Proportional representation is of concern of my hon. Friend. When the additional member system or any other list system applies, the relevant political party has enormous patronage. Other Parliaments do not have the problems that we have, because the people who are sent to other Parliaments, having been chosen by the machinery of the party, are clones of the leadership. All the dissidents are sorted out first of all. They never get on to the list in order to be electable. The result is safe, sound, dull assemblies which act as rubber stamps for anything that the leadership puts forward. Patronage comes from outside and makes its will felt inside before one runs into trouble.
One of the strengths of this place is that it is awkward. It is not neat and tidy, but we can use it as a platform—we can state our ideas. Sometimes it is difficult for a party leadership to stop ideas being expressed in this place. That makes it a bit awkward from time to time, but democracies are about awkwardness, about ideas being raised, and about clashes of opinion—even clashes of opinion on the same Benches. We will have clashes over the Maastricht Bill if the Government are silly enough to bring it back.
I do not believe that the report will advantage anybody except London-based Members who want to get home at seven o'clock, safe and sound and in time for tea and crumpets. If one lives in Bradford, that would involve a 400-mile round trip, and one cannot manage to do that. We have a decent system in which we utilise time to the maximum. We can have improvements in Parliament, but not in that respect. The Committee was set up for a certain purpose. I do not think that it is satisfactory. If the report comes back to this place, I hope that there will be lots and lots of amendments—in fact, I want to see it buried under amendments.
9.8 pm
Mr. John Bowis: No doubt the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will keep us up through the night when the matter comes back to the House. We shall look forward to that. I represent a London constituency, but I do not work near enough to go home for tea and crumpets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South summed up my views on the report. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham pointed out many reasons why we need sensible reform of our hours in this place. Equally, the hon. Member for
896
Bradford, South rightly highlighted some reasons for our procedures. We need to get the balance right when we consider the report.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the members of his Committee, from both sides of the House, who considered the matters that we have discussed tonight on their attempt to make agreed proposals which might at some point get through the House. However, we should be careful about welcoming those proposals and examine them carefully before we go overboard accepting them.
I hope that hon. Members heard clearly the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). He referred to the danger that hon. Members might come late to the proceedings and start talking about Members voting themselves shorter hours. It is not a question of that, and I hope that that will not be written in any newspaper columns. We are talking about making this place more efficient. It is not a question of time off. We seek to ensure that Parliament can do its job, but that legislation is not produced by a set of zombies—as can occasionally be the case when we have been here too many hours and days on the trot.
We seek a double balance. The Executive have a right and a duty to get their business through the House. One way in which they can do that is to produce less business so that it can go through at a more orderly pace and in a shorter time. We must seek a balance between that and the right of Parliament to careful scrutiny of legislation.
The other balance is between the mandate of a Government and the opportunities for opposition in Parliament. I do not refer only to opposition across the Floor of the House, although that is crucial to parliamentary democracy. If the Opposition do not have any weapons within the parliamentary system, there ceases to be any reason for them to be here. That is why I urge caution on my colleagues about removing the weapon of time from the parliamentary Opposition. If that weapon goes, there is some danger that opposition will leave this place.
I refer also to opposition between ideas. We have often seen private Members' Bills blocked. My Bill was blocked because Members talked it out. That was their absolute right. I disagreed with their tactics and their view, but it was a perfectly reasonable use of parliamentary time to block the progress of a Bill by talking it out. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was correct when he said that often the judicious and sensible use of time produces amendments and concessions which can make for better legislation or, indeed, stop legislation and give time for second thoughts.
Like the hon. Member for Bradford, South, I do not like the idea of morning sittings. Parliament has other duties in the mornings. It is not that I have an outside job; I do not. My morning work is connected with my parliamentary duties. Like those of many hon. Members who represent inner-city seats, vast numbers of my constituents write to me. I have some 50 casework letters every day. That is not unusual among inner-city Members. We need time to deal with that case work. Ministers also need time to deal with work in their Departments.
I slightly resent the time when I have to sit upstairs in Committee while a debate is taking place in the Chamber in which I wish to take part. That happens often enough now, when debates in the Chamber and in Committee clash only after 4.30 pm. It would be doubly bad if debates

897
took place in the Chamber in the mornings, even if only on Wednesdays. I therefore urge caution also on Wednesday morning sittings.
The recommendation to timetable Bills makes sense up to a point. Timetabling of the Report stage would probably make good sense. It might answer the suggestion made during the proceedings of the Select Committee that Report stages should be limited and the Bill sent back for a further stage of consideration in Committee. The sensible timetabling of the Report stage would ensure that all the issues that should come out in the debate did so.
I suspect, however, that the timetabling would have to be decided according to a procedure other than the whims and wishes of the two Front Benches, especially the Opposition Front Bench. We must ensure that the wishes of the House determine the subjects to be debated.
It is reasonable for us to consider ending earlier on Thursdays, but the House might consider the following alternative. Recently there have been many debates on the Adjournment on Thursdays, and Members have not had to be here to vote. I wonder whether it would be a better use of parliamentary time if it were the normal procedure to have a debate on the Adjournment on Thursdays, enabling us to finish at the normal time. Such debates are often more informed than others.
Perhaps we should also consider having concurrent debates, as is often the practice with orders. Several related subjects could be debated at the same time, with separate votes at the end.
I agree with the proposal that there should be more 10-minute limits on speeches. From reading the report, I am pleased to learn that that would apply to our most senior colleagues as much as to us more ordinary mortals. I am also pleased with the suggestion that the 10-minute rule for Bills should be left alone.
I am pleased at the proposals on proxy votes for the sick who are genuinely unable to attend. I look forward to finding out how those will be defined to avoid any of the voting abuses that have been mentioned. I suspect that there might be some challenges to those proposals.
I am unashamedly one of those Members who wish us to continue to troop through the Lobby. It is right that we should not be able to hide how we vote but should do so in person, except in the case of illness. The first time one votes against one's party certainly concentrates the mind, although I do not recommend that we do it too often. I vividly remember the first occasion when I did so. I think that it might have been a vote on your amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, opposing the Government on the ending of dog registration. I did not go through the Lobby lightly. That is one of the procedures and traditions of the House that we should keep, although we might consider our procedures on multiple votes. There have been occasions when we have had to stand up and sit down in the Chamber with fair regularity. Perhaps we could consider group voting through the Lobby.
I welcome the report, and I look forward to the motions which will stem from it. Like the hon. Member for Bradford, South, I hope that we shall be able to vote on the various measures proposed because like him, I suspect that I may agree with some but wish to oppose others.
9.17 pm
Mr. John McFall: As a member of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, it gives me pleasure to speak on the report in this new Parliament. My feelings on the report are characterised by one word—timidity. It is not quite like changing the deckchairs on the Titanic, but it is not far from it.
The report is timid in many respects. First, respect for this place is overwhelming. One should be respectful of history and tradition, but in this place respect goes as far as the ridiculous. We refer to our constituents in the Gallery as strangers, but none of us referred to any of them as strangers in March and April. Not only were they friends, they were deep friends as they trooped loyally to put their cross for us in the general election so that we could represent them here. Then we have the cheek to call them strangers for the next four or five years before we ask for their vote again. That is one example of the anachronistic practices of this place. It is a museum: it is not designed for the needs of the 20th century.
The report is timid in that, for reasons of time, it did not tackle the wider pressures on the House and Members. Considering the pressures that Members are under in the House and in our constituencies, I feel that our modest contribution could be swept away in the tide of external demands that Members have to face in fully representing our constituents in the latter half of the 20th century.
Fridays have been mentioned. It is proposed that there should be 10 Fridays on which we would be allowed not to be here. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, "Yes, a four-day week." I challenge my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have made that point. There is no question of our having a four-day week. Indeed, we ought to be off every Friday to enable us to go about constituency business. The newly elected hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) nods in agreement. He is a humble Conservative Back Bencher, as I am a humble Labour Back Bencher. During the previous Parliament I went to the school where he was a humble teacher to tell modern studies pupils all about Parliament. That is the kind of thing that I can do only on a Friday: it is a necessary aspect of the job to speak to our young constituents. Reference to Members attending Monday to Thursday as working a four-day week is not only gross cheek but amounts to gross insensitivity to the demands that Members of Parliament face. I for one would not be in any way shy about debating that matter anywhere at any time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to the fact that power is flowing from the Floor of the Chamber to Committees. As a Member elected in 1987 I can say that my most fruitful work here has been done not in the Chamber, where on occasions it is very frustrating trying to be called to make one's points, but in the Committee rooms, where civil servants and Ministers—the people who hold the power—can be scrutinised. There is insufficient scrutiny of the Executive. Often on the Floor of the House, all we have are artificially long debates in which we get nowhere in terms of scrutinising the Executive. That could be changed, but unfortunately it is a matter which the Committee did not tackle.
We do not have sufficient opportunity to raise matters on behalf of our constituents. I should have liked to see the Committee suggest, for example, a period of 10 or 15

899
minutes at the beginning of each sitting when Members could have the Floor of the House for one minute to speak for constituents with pressing needs. Ten or 15 Members could be given that opportunity every day. It would be a service not only to those Members but to their constituents.
I welcome the idea that we should work towards a 10 o'clock vote. It is not shorter hours, but more sensible hours, that I want. I do not want to curtail the expression of opinion; I want to encourage more scrutiny. Why cannot we have more sensible working arrangements? Why do we start our business at 2.30 in the afternoon?
Mr. Cryer: We do not.
Mr. McFall: Business on the Floor of the House starts at 2.30.
The Committee's recommendation that there be one morning sitting a week—on Wednesdays—is timid. Why should not we sit every morning? Many, but not all, Members do not commit themselves to full-time membership. In saying so, I refer more to Conservative Members. If we had a commitment to full-time membership we could certainly have more orderly hours. We are told that this Parliament has more sitting days per year than any other Parliament in western Europe. That is true. But why do not we sit more than 161 days and spread the sittings out? That would be more sensible.
What are the drawbacks of our present system? Let me give two personal examples arising in the present Parliament. Last week, a very serious constituency problem—possible privatisation measures in relation to the Clyde submarine base—was brought to my attention. If the matter had been put to me next week or the week after that, I should have been unable to do anything about it, as the Executive cannot be scrutinised during the long parliamentary holidays. However, I was able last week to address the problem in the summer Adjournment debate. The Leader of the House passed my comments to the Ministry of Defence, and on Wednesday morning I am having a meeting with the Minister.
One week later, that effort would have been futile. I would not have had the opportunity to put my concerns to the Ministry. Once we came back in October, we could not have addressed that issue. It is a burning one presently, but in October when we return the decisions will have been taken.
Two weeks ago I was fortunate enough to have the Adjournment debate, but it took place at 7·45 am. The Minister replied at 8.10. I was up all night, I went to my flat at 9.15 and was back here to see constituents at 11 am. Back-Bench Members cannot give of their best in such circumstances, so what can Ministers do? We need to make far more radical changes to our procedures, but we have not taken the opportunity to do so.
I too have been taken in by the history and tradition of this place. I moved an amendment in the Select Committee on Sittings of the House to cease business in mid-July for our summer holidays. I felt that I was rather bold to move that amendment and I was happy when it was accepted. However, the next week the Chancellor gave his Budget speech and told us that the Treasury was changing the financial year so that the Budget would no longer be set in March. Experienced Members told me intially that I could not get away with the mid-July proposal and that, if I did, I would get away with murder. But a week later the
900
Chancellor stumped us all. That is another example of the way in which our respect for this place makes us myopic so that we cannot see the real issues. In this instance, I am as guilty of that as anyone else.
Why is the Leader of the House unable to give us more than two weeks' notice of forthcoming business? Last year, the secretary of a women's guild in my constituency wrote to me and gave me nine months' notice of a meeting she wanted me to address. I thanked her for her letter, but I had to say that I would write on the Friday before the meeting—in nine months' time—to say whether I could come. My action might seem sensible to my right hon. and hon. Friends, but does it make sense to the secretary of the women's guild in my constituency? I think not.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Did my hon. Friend go?
Mr. McFall: Yes I did, but it should be possible for me to organise my parliamentary diary more sensibly. It is not sensible to be told of parliamentary business with less than one week's notice, as at present.
I also moved an amendment in the Committee to introduce proxy voting, which summarised the difference between its experienced and inexperienced members, such as myself. We do not need to remind ourselves of the grotesque circumstances that prevailed in the 1970s when Labour Members were dragged from their sickbeds to vote here. At the time when the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill went through, George Cunningham, then a Member, recounted how three hon. Members had been dragged from their sickbeds to vote, any one of whom could have died in this Palace that night. The House insists that hon. Members should be here to vote, but that grotesque arrangement should stop.
My amendment was accepted by seven votes to six. Thew seven who voted in favour were, generally speaking, the least experienced Members of the Committee. The experienced Members warned us, "No, no, no. We cannot do anything about it. We cannot tell when a Member is sick." It was suggested that a doctor might give a sick line to someone who was not sick. It appears that we cannot apply the finest minds, which grapple with the problems of the nation, to defining when someone is sick. However, the inexperienced Members of that Committee voted in favour of my amendment. I remind the Leader of the House that we asked for a Speaker's Conference on that issue. We should have that conference as soon as possible.
The Committee also interviewed the previous Speaker about which proposed changes he would regard as beneficial. He said that, from his long experience, all reports recommending change had given more power to the Executive. I realise that that is a danger of this report. There is a democratic deficit in this country at present because the Executive power has grown and, to some extent, Parliament has become a spectator. I ask hon. Members, in voting and recommending the measures tonight, to bear in mind the words of the previous Speaker and ensure that the change gives not more power to the Executive but more power of security to Members.
9.29 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: As a new boy coming to the House for the first time, I was struck by one rule at an early stage: the 10-minute rule imposed while I made my maiden speech. As a result. I did not have an

901
opportunity, which I intend to take now, to say a few words about my constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I will only be short. I had an opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Am I right in assuming that the hon. Gentleman has made his maiden speech?
Mr. Heald: Yes.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case, and given the hour, the hon. Gentleman should confine his speech to the subject in hand.
Mr. Heald: In general, the 10-minute rule is extremely good, despite the difficulty that I have experienced in that connection. If one cannot say something in 10 minutes, it is probably not worth saying.
It may have been right in former times for the House regularly to sit until the early hours, but it is now the centre of national debate in a rather different way. Given the measures taken in the past few years such as televising the House, and the development of public interest in our debates, with more people attending debates than previously, the House should carry out its business when the public are available to take an interest. Regularly to sit beyond 10 o'clock is no longer a sensible way to proceed when people at home wish to visit the House and hear our debates and to see them on television.
I welcome the recommendation that the sittings of the House should end at 10 o'clock if possible. It is not only a question of the reporting of the House and its activities, and the fact that people can see the House operate, but a question of the life style of Members of Parliament and the people who can be attracted to put forward their names to attend the House.
Members who live in the shires close to London, or in London, could then have a prefectly normal life style, going home to their families at night. It is ridiculous to stop that happening and continue with unnecessary late-night sittings. It puts off many people, especially women and those with young families who might otherwise be interested in putting their names forward. Such restrictions should not exist.
The House is not simply a focus of national debate, but a place where representative individuals can put forward their view on behalf of their constituents. I am particularly concerned about the Maxwell pensioners. and it seems ridiculous that the major debate on IM RO and the supervision of occupational pension funds should have taken place at 5 am, when that subject is at the centre of national interest and should have taken place during normal hours.
Similarly, my experience so far has been that constituency work can be undertaken on Fridays. For example, last Friday I visited the Howard Cottage Society in Letchworth, which is putting forward plans for 110 new dwellings in Letchworth. It has a range of schemes for the disabled. At my surgery on Saturday, I was able to say with experience to someone with a housing need that that was the institution to go to for help. Such basic constituency work must take place on Fridays, when such institutions are open. Factories, too, can only be visited on
902
Fridays. We would be wrong not to allow such opportunities regularly, thus allowing diaries to be filled in advance.
Schools are currently very interested to hear hon. Members talk about the workings of the House of Commons. That should be encouraged: we want school children to know about such matters. Schools are also interested in the environment, and want to know about environmental measures, the Rio conference and so on. We should protect Fridays for that purpose, too.
I accept that the voting system does not feature in the motion, but it strikes me that we spend hours voting on, for instance, ways and means motions, when there is no serious challenge to the measures in question. Nine, 10 or 11 hon. Members will be voting on one side and 250 on the other. Hours that could be used for debate are being wasted so that hon. Members can troop through the Lobbies. I hope that the House will either introduce electronic voting or, if that is not considered suitable, at least come up with a measure that addresses the problem. Perhaps the voting system suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) could be introduced. If debates are to end at 10 pm, every hour of precious debating time will need to be saved.
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that my original thought that I could mention the towns in my constituency rather more fully than I had done previously was not in order.
9.37 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and I wish to ask the Leader of the House a question. If there are to be Wednesday morning sittings and—heaven help us—Tuesday and Thurday morning sittings, what will happen to all our constituents who visit the House from other parts of the country?
Following the perceptive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, I have some questions to ask about Friday sittings. We have heard a lot of cant on the subject. Last Friday we had a debate about toxic waste, which related especially to Wales. What other opportunities will the Welsh have to discuss Pontypool and its problems in the House? On the Friday before that, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) raised the issue of special educational needs. When did the House of Commons ever have an opportunity to discuss that issue, except on Fridays?
Before that, there was a debate on action for the countryside. I agree with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald): Rio is important. That was my only opportunity to raise, at some length, issues arising from it.
Before that, there was a debate on recycling. The House has never had an opportunity to discuss that properly. The Friday before that, there was a debate on the common agricultural policy. When have we ever had a relaxed debate on the common agricultural policy?
Ms. Armstrong rose—
Mr. Dalyell: I will give way, but my hon. Friend will forgive me if she gets a sharp answer.
Ms. Armstrong: Is the time on Wednesday between 10 am and 2.30 pm significantly different from the time that we have on a Friday? It seems to me that there is only half an hour's difference.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has asked the wrong friend. I was the late Dick Crossman's parliamentary private secretary when he tried to bring in morning sittings. The Leader of the House when I was first here was lain Macleod, a man whom I admired greatly and who was personally extremely kind to new Members, including Opposition Members. He warned that morning sittings would end in fiasco—and so they did.
To return to my hon. Friend's question: the parliamentary Labour party hold its weekly meetings on Wednesday morning; when is it to hold them if we sit then?
All these issues are of minor importance compared with a much more fundamental one about which I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. It concerns the rights and effectiveness of the Opposition. We have an adversarial system in this House and in the British political system, so what weapon besides time do the Opposition have? As the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) pointed out, the use of time can be a threat, and it would be removed from us. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South about John Silkin—the pass was sold, although de mortuis nil nisi bonum. It was all a matter of convenience; and once we make the House more streamlined and less inconvenient, the powers of the Opposition will be diminished.
I should like to offer some concrete instances. Only once in Mrs. Thatcher's early days as Prime Minister was a Government decision changed. That was when some of us—very few of us—decided to talk all night about retrospective Iranian sanctions. The Leader of the House may remember the occasion. The change came about—the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will remember this only too well, because the Whips were involved—because of effective opposition.
After the event that I have just described, there was a truncated debate in the House, when the usual function of the Chamber was distorted and the rules were broken. The date was 3 April 1982; the occasion, the Falklands debate. Dissent was ruled out: there was no time for it. As George Thomas states in his memoirs, he decided that, in the short time available, the Prime Minister had to be supported. Had there been a six-hour debate, other voices would have been heard. Had they been heard, the battle fleet might not have gone south with the imprimatur of Parliament and some of the ridiculous statements made from the Labour Front Bench by Michael Foot and John Silkin would at least have been challenged. Things would have turned out very differently.
So much is arguable; what is not arguable is what happened in the 1960s. I am one of the dwindling band of Members who remember—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will contradict me if he thinks that I am terribly wrong—our late colleagues Jack Mendelson, Michael Foot and a number of others below the Gangway, arguing the case day after day against committing British troops to Vietnam. Because of the set-up in the House which allows the dissenters to have their say, this country, rightly or wrongly—rightly as some of us passionately believe—was kept out of the Vietnam war.
904
If there had been box-like 10-minute speeches of the type to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred, what would have happened over Suez? How could there have been opposition, rightly or wrongly, with its effect on political history if Members had been straitjacketed into speeches which no one interrupted? Such speeches are neat and tidy contributions which have little effect on the outside world. The House should not be unduly tidied up, because when we are tidied up we become much less effective. There is a dilemma between so-called efficiency and effectiveness. Warts and all, I would rather be effective.
9.45 pm
Mr. Newton: The truest comment in this fascinating debate was made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has apologised for not being able to stay until the end of the debate. He said that in this area it was clearly impossible to satisfy everybody's interests. I think that I have quoted him correctly. That has been clearly borne out in the debate. As I said in opening the debate, I was endeavouring to accord with what I took to be the spirit of the House by confining my speech to the magic 20 minutes recommended in the Jopling report. However, I found the widespread and entirely legitimate demand for interventions incompatible with limiting myself to 20 minutes. That is an interesting illustration of the sort of balance that we must strike in these matters.
Manifestly, whatever general importance the House attaches to short Front-Bench speeches in the interests of wider opportunities for Back Benchers, Members value the opportunity to get directly at a Minister by way of an intervention rather than in a later speech. Therefore, I would have upset the House more if I had attempted to stick to 20 minutes than I did by going beyond that time and seeking to answer some of the interventions. That would be accepted by anyone who has been present throughout the debate.
It has been an interesting debate, from which it is singularly difficult to draw clear and firm conclusions. Very strong cross-currents have emerged in all parts of the House—more than I expected when it was decided to have the debate. At times, those cross-currents almost became altercations. I shall have an abiding memory of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) shouting to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that he should remember that some of us were capable of doing arithmetic. That was because the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East quoted statistics which included two summer recesses. The hon. Member for Perry Barr thought that that was an overstatement of the extent to which Parliament does not sit. Such differences have emerged on both sides of the debate.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke from the Dispatch Box in the place customarily occupied by the spokesman for the official Opposition. The hon. Gentleman has apologised for not being here for the winding-up speeches. He said that was speaking pretty much in a personal capacity. I am glad to see the two Opposition Whips nodding. The hon. Gentleman made it fairly clear that there are what I have delicately called cross-currents among those on the Opposition Front

905
Bench as well as among those on the Benches behind them. That is one of the factors that both sides of the House will need to note and bear in mind.
On the Opposition Benches, the hon. Members for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) broadly supported the proposals, although neither of them said a great deal about the timetabling provisions. They were focusing more on other aspects of the proposals.
I am afraid that I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Perry Barr, but I am told that it was supportive of the report. I am not sure that he referred to the famous Rooker-Wise amendment to a Finance Bill in the late 1970s. I do not think that I was an Opposition Whip then. I think that I was simply a Back-Bench Member. As far as I could discern from what I was told about the hon. Gentleman's speech, he was suggesting that the amendment was mine and that he had simply hijacked it. I am not sure whether I regard that as supportive in all the circumstances, but it was an interesting time.
There was considerable support, going beyond what he described as the "timid" proposals in the report, from the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who was a member of the Committee.
Against that were some very strong arguments that cannot be dismissed—I entirely accept that—from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, who was pretty militantly opposed to the report, and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who made his reasons clear. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who spoke with such force a few moments ago, also strongly opposed it. I am not in a position to answer his question about what would happen to people seeking to visit the House of Commons if morning sittings were to take place on Wednesdays. Ultimately, that will be a matter for the House, but if our existing rules about the line of route were maintained, Wednesday mornings would be more limited, if not disappear altogether, as an opportunity for visiting the House. That would have to be considered by others.
I also cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question about where the Labour party's weekly meetings would take place. I am quite happy to leave that to his right hon. and hon. friends. However, and more seriously, the hon. Gentleman raised queries, which were answered by sedentary interventions, about the opportunities to debate the important subjects which he referred to as having been debated on recent Fridays. The answer is that the report envisages that the Wednesday morning sitting should be used for precisely that purpose. It may be that the opportunities for discussing these issues will be as great or even greater.
Mr. Cryer: The Leader of the House will bear it in mind that the difference between Friday and Wednesday is that there are no Committees sitting on a Friday, so people are free to concentrate on the Chamber, whereas on Wednesdays there are competing responsibilities of merits Committees and, under the Committee's proposals, more people will be involved in those Committees. Inevitably, more will be faced with a choice between attending the Committee and attending the Chamber and that is surely wrong.
Mr. Newton: I understand that point. I was trying only to comment on the suggestion by the hon. Member for Linlithgow that opportunities for debate on such subjects as come up on Fridays would disappear. I agree that Wednesday morning sittings raise questions of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but they are not entirely unique and new. Similar problems already arise from Standing Committees and Select Committees sitting in the afternoon. They should not be seen as insuperable, although I accept that that is one of the points that need to be considered in deciding what the way forward might be.
Matching the differences of opinion and concerns expressed on the Opposition Benches were comparable differences and concerns expressed by my hon. Friends. There was, first, the understandably strong support expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), which was endorsed very much by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who rightly reminded us of his long experience as Chairman of the Procedure Committee and of the extent to which earlier work of that Committee underlay the work of the Jopling Committee. There was strong support, too, from my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), though he expressed some reservations. In some respects they were perhaps surprising in view of his early-day motion. There was support, too, from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald).
Against that support, concern was expressed—I recognise that the arguments advanced cannot be dismissed—by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), by my hon. Friend the Member and, for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). who said that he would not feel able to support some of the proposals should they come to that stage. There was also my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—
Mr. Grocott: The Leader of the House made an ominous remark when he said. "should they come to that stage." He was talking about some of the proposals. Perhaps he will answer a question that has been raised many times during the debate, bearing in mind the fact that this is the second debate that we have had on these matters. When will specific motions be brought before us so that the House, which is admittedly divided on many of the issues which have been raised, can reach a decision on important matters? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a date and a time when he plans that to happen?
Mr. Newton: I cannot go beyond what I said in my opening speech, which was that I would be setting out in reasonable detail the Government's thoughts on the report. I said that I would, as I think I can claim faithfully to have done, pay careful attention to the views expressed during the debate with a view—I shall repeat what I said because I think that it is important and I suspect that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), the Opposition Chief Whip, will agree—to identifying a basis for agreement that can thereafter be discussed through the usual channels, with the aim of being in a position to bring forward substantive motions at an early stage after the House resumes in the autumn. I think that that is reasonably clear and I think that it is also a reasonable way in which to proceed.

907
In the concluding minutes of the debate, there are two fairly broad conclusions that I would draw. First—I take some comfort from this in view of the reservations expressed in some quarters—it has been right to have a wide-ranging general debate in the new Parliament before attempting to come to detailed decisions and to bring forward detailed motions. The quality and range of the debate have demonstrated the importance of proceeding in that manner.
Secondly, there have been differences of opinion—not least on the Opposition Benches—about the consequences of some aspects of the report if they were implemented. For example, the hon. Member for Perry Barr strongly took the view that they would assist the Opposition in scrutinising legislation more effectively, doing their job better and putting more pressure on the Government. There is the equally strongly held view of the hon. Member for Bradford, South and a number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Linlithgow, that they would gravely weaken the capacity of the Opposition to do the job that they wish to pursue. That is perhaps an illustration of the difficulty of achieving the consensus that would be required to carry matters forward in the way that we would all wish in a general sense.
The exact effect of what is eventually proposed will depend very much on detail, which can be achieved only by talking matters through in detail and not in a general debate of this sort. I would not wish to disguise from the House my own prejudice, which corresponds with some earlier parts of my experience. It picks some of the remarks that have been made about the absurdity of some aspects of that which our present procedure imposes upon us. As a Government Whip in the early 1980s, I have a clear recollection of going into Committee with the sole aim of clocking up enough hours to justify a guillotine. I do not think that many people would regard that as a sensible way of approaching the consideration of Bills in Committee.
Mr. McFall: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment to convene a Speaker's Conference on the proxy voting issue?
Mr. Newton: You are sitting in the Chair, Madam Speaker, and I think that I would be right in saying that a Speaker's Conference is a matter for you rather than for me. I have no doubt that you have studied the recommendations in the report and heard—or will be made aware of—the comments of the hon. Gentleman and a number of others during the debate.
Among all the difficulties that I face in replying to the debate is the fact that alongside the differences of opinion about the proposals in the report, there has been a wide range of proposals that are not in the report and, in some cases, have been suggested as substitutes for it. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who has now departed—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I propose to put together the motions on statutory instruments and EC documents.
Hon. Members: Object.
Madam Speaker: Then I shall put them separately. The Question is the next motion on the Order Paper.
Hon. Members: No.
Madam Speaker: Order. The motion must be put forthwith. I can accept an objection. Is there an objection to the motion?
Hon. Members: Yes.
Madam Speaker: In that case, we come now to the third motion—
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that we can vote on the motions, so a vote must be taken.
Madam Speaker: I am sorry. There can be no debate, but if the House wishes to divide, it can do so. Does the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) wish to divide the House on motion No. 2?
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

Statutory Instruments, &c.

  COMPANIES
  That the draft Companies (Single Member Private Limited Companies) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
  The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 77.

  Division No. 61]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Alexander, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Congdon, David

  Ancram, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bates, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Devlin, Tim

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dicks, Terry

  Booth, Hartley

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bowis, John

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Dunn, Bob

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Eggar, Tim

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Butcher, John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Butler, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Butterfill, John

  Faber, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Cash, William

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Churchill, Mr

  Forman, Nigel

  909

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Freeman, Roger

  Norris, Steve

  Gale, Roger

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Paice, James

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Patnick, Irvine

  Garnier, Edward

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Pickles, Eric

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gorst, John

  Redwood, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Riddick, Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hague, William

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Harris, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Sackville, Tom

  Heald, Oliver

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hendry, Charles

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Sims, Roger

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Jack, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spring, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Stephen, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Stewart, Allan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Streeter, Gary

  Knapman, Roger

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Thomason, Roy

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Leigh, Edward

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Tredinnick, David

  Lightbown, David

  Trend, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lord, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Waller, Gary

  Maclean, David

  Ward, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Watts, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Wells, Bowen

  Mans, Keith

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Wiggin. Jerry

  Mates, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Merchant, Piers

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mills, Iain

  Yeo, Tim

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Moss, Malcolm

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Needham, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ashton, Joe

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Austin-Walker, John

  Allen, Graham

  Bayley, Hugh

  Alton, David

  Beggs, Roy

  910

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lewis, Terry

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Bradley, Keith

  McAllion, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  McKelvey, William

  Burden, Richard

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Callaghan, Jim

  McLeish, Henry

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Maginnis, Ken

  Clapham, Michael

  Mahon, Alice

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Connarty, Michael

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Meale, Alan

  Cryer, Bob

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Morley, Elliot

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Pickthall, Colin

  Etherington, Bill

  Pike, Peter L.

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Rooney, Terry

  Flynn, Paul

  Salmond, Alex

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Simpson, Alan

  Galloway, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gapes, Mike

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Trimble, David

  Hain, Peter

  Tyler, Paul

  Hall, Mike

  Watson, Mike

  Hanson, David

  Welsh, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Wise, Audrey

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

  Janner, Greville

  Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  COAL INDUSTRY
  That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  CALEDONIAN MACBRAYNE LTD.
  That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1922, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approyed.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 50.

  Division No. 62]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brazier, Julian

  Alton, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ancram, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Burns, Simon

  Baldry, Tony

  Burt, Alistair

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butcher, John

  Bates, Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butterfill, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cash, William

  Booth, Hartley

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  911

  Churchill, Mr

  Hendry, Charles

  Clappison, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Congdon, David

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Couchman, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cran, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Key, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dicks, Terry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Eggar, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Evennett, David

  Lord, Michael

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Faber, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maclean, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Maginnis, Ken

  Forman, Nigel

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Malone, Gerald

  Forth, Eric

  Mans, Keith

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Mates, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gale, Roger

  Merchant, Piers

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mills, Iain

  Garnier, Edward

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gill, Christopher

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Moss, Malcolm

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Needham, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hague, William

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Page, Richard

  Hannam, Sir John

  Paice, James

  Harris, David

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Harvey, Nick

  Patnick, Irvine

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pickles, Eric

  Heald, Oliver

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  912

  Redwood, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Riddick, Graham

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thomason, Roy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Trend, Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Trimble, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sackville, Tom

  Tyler, Paul

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Salmond, Alex

  Viggers, Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waller, Gary

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watts, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Welsh, Andrew

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spring, Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stephen, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Lewis, Terry

  Allen, Graham

  McAllion, John

  Ashton, Joe

  McFall, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McKelvey, William

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Burden, Richard

  Mahon, Alice

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Clapham, Michael

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Meale, Alan

  Cox, Tom

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Cryer, Bob

  Mullin, Chris

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dalyell, Tam

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Etherington, Bill

  Raynsford, Nick

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Rooney, Terry

  Flynn, Paul

  Simpson, Alan

  Galloway, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hain, Peter

  Tipping, Paddy

  Hall, Mike

  Watson, Mike

  Hanson, David

  Winnick, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Wise, Audrey

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Janner, Greville

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Harry Barnes.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Madam Speaker: Motions Nos. 5 to 10. Not moved.

  Departmental Select Committees
  Madam Speaker: Before we proceed with motions 11 to 26, it might be helpful to the House to indicate the procedures to be followed on the 16 motions for the nominations to Select Committees. First, there will be a joint debate on the motions and selected amendments, which may last for one and a half hours. The amendments selected are to motions 17 on health and 18 on home affairs.
  At the conclusion of the debate, I shall put separately the question on each motion. Before putting the main question on motions 17 and 18, there will of course be an opportunity for the amendments to be moved formally and to be decided upon. In each case, the amendment to leave out a name will be decided first, because it is obvious that, unless a vacancy is created, a new name cannot be proposed.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You gave a ruling earlier today. Does that ruling apply to all the names on the Order Paper this evening? Should everyone have been consulted as per your ruling?
  Madam Speaker: We have to proceed on the assumption that all Members have been asked, in accordance with the Standing Order to which I referred earlier.
  10.26 pm
  Sir Marcus Fox: I beg to move,
  That Mr. Richard Alexander, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Paul Marland, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. George Stevenson, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mrs. Ann Winterton be members of the Agriculture Committee.
  Madam Speaker: As I said, with this it will be convenient to discuss the next 15 motions on the Order Paper:
  That Sir Nicholas Bonsor, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Frank Cook, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Neville Trotter and Mr. Peter Viggers be members of the Defence Committee.
  That Sir Paul Beresford, Mildred Gordon, Mr. David Jamieson, Mrs. Angela Knight, Lady Olga Maitland, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. David Porter, Dr. Robert Spink, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Sir Malcolm Thornton and Mr. Dennis Turner be members of the Education Committee.
  That Mr. Ian Bruce, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Oliver Heald, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ron Leighton, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Richard Spring and Mr. David Young be members of the Employment Committee.
  That Mr. John Battle, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Barry Field, Helen Jackson, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Eric Pickles, Mr. Nich Raynsford, Mr. Gary Streeter and Mr. Roy Thomason be members of the Environment Committee.
  That Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Mike Gapes, Mr. David Harris, Mr. David Howell, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. Jim Lester, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir John Stanley, Mr. David Sumberg and Mr. Robert N. Wareing be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  That Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. David Congdon, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Alice Mahon, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Roger Sims, the Reverend Martin Smyth, Mr. Michael Trend and Audrey Wise be members of the Health Committee.
  That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Hartley Booth, Mr. Peter Butler. Mr. Edward Gamier, Mr.
  914
  John Greenway, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Keith Vaz and Sir John Wheeler be members of the Home Affairs Committee.
  That Mr. Joe Ashton, Dr. John G. Blackburn, Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Paul Channon, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Bryan Davies, Mr. John Gorst, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Gerald Kaufman and Mr. John Maxton be members of the National Heritage Committee.
  That Mr. Spencer Batiste, Dr. Jeremy Bray, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Cheryl Gillan, Mr. William Powell, Sir Giles Shaw, Sir Trevor Skeet, Dr. Gavin Strang, Sir Gerard Vaughan and Mr. Alan W. Williams be members of the Science and Technology Committee.
  That Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Eric Clarke, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, Dr. Liam Fox, Mr. Phil Gallie, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. George Kynoch, Mr. William McKelvey, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Raymond S. Robertson and Mr. Andrew Welsh be members of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
  That Mr. Michael Bates, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. David Faber, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Tessa Jowell, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. David Shaw and Mr. David Willetts be members of the Social Security Committee.
  That Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Richard Caborn, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. Jim Cousins, Sir Anthony Grant, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Adam Ingram, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Stanley Orme and Mr. Barry Porter be members of the Trade and Industry Committee.
  That Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Mr. Matthew Banks, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Terry Dicks, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. David Marshall be members of the Transport Committee.
  That Ms. Diane Abbott, Sir Thomas Arnold, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Nicholas Budgen, Mrs. Judith Chaplin, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Barry Legg, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. John Watts be members of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee.
  That Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Jonathan Evans, Mr. Roger Evans Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Rod Richards, Mr. Mark Robinson, Mr. Walter Sweeney and Mr. Gareth Wardell be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
  Sir Marcus Fox: For the benefit of our new colleagues, I must explain that it is nothing new for me to be standing here occupying a bed of nails. Since I took over about eight years ago, it has been just that—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have helped to make it worse.
  May I remind hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I do not mind going on for an hour and a half, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I mind very much. We have only one and a half hours for this debate. Let us proceed in good order.
  Sir Marcus Fox: To illustrate my remarks, I shall take hon. Members' minds back to a similar occasion on 2 December 1987 when we were faced with exactly the same situation. I shall quote my own remarks because they are relevant for those hon. Members who suggest that we have somehow introduced a new idea by thinking that there should be a time limit. I said:
  "I shall describe how the Committee works. Select Committees are a nightmare".
  for those of us who have to do the selection. The Members who volunteer are many.
  "Without any doubt, there is a surplus of possible members. It is impossible to give people their first choice. Many excellent colleagues are listed on the Order Paper. There may be more brilliant ones who have not been successful this time. We have to strike a balance between acknowledging the experience of certain hon. Members and giving other colleagues an opportunity to serve … When we make our recommendations, the choice rests absolutely with my four colleagues and myself. We represent the Government

  915
  party on the Committee and we take full responsibility for our nominations … In November 1979, my predecessor, Sir Philip Holland, said, as recorded in 'Erskine May'—that
  `the Committee enjoyed full discretion and was under no obligation to consult, to take advice or to indicate any criteria of choice.'
  It followed, therefore, that the Committee was procedurally free to choose whom it liked on whatever basis it thought applicable, subject to the eventual verdict of the House".—[Official Report, 2 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 1042.]
  Mr. Gerald Malone: It would be helpful if my hon. Friend were to clarify a point early in the debate. During the weekend there was much talk about conspiracy theories. Can my hon. Friend confirm that on the Committee of which he is Chairman there serve the Labour deputy Whip, the Labour pairing Whip and the Liberal Whip, but no Government Whips?
  Sir Marcus Fox: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. The fact that we do not need that sort of advice makes the Opposition suspicious.
  We can make changes of this type only immediately after a general election, and we do so by means of motions such as those on today's Order Paper. Between now and the next general election in four or five years' time, we shall be unable to make any changes, other than as a result of promotion, the creation of PPSs or resignations for other reasons. It is therefore important that we should establish, once and for all, why we have seen fit to operate as we have.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I should like the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to address a particular case. By what process of debate, discussion and agonised thought did the Committee come to the conclusion that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) should be on not one Select Committee but two?
  Sir Marcus Fox: The answer is quite simple: he is a man of considerable ability. And, just as important, he happens to be a friend of mine. It is obvious that, with interventions like this, we shall make good progress.
  There is confusion in many areas, but particularly in respect of Select Committees. We are repeatedly blamed for the membership of Committees for which we have no responsibility. We do not mind if people serve on the Public Accounts Committee, the Select Committee on Members' Interests or the Liaison Committee; we are concerned purely with the 16 departmental Committees. Some people have suggested that we should have crossed the names of some colleagues off the list, having added up alll the other Committees for which the Whips have responsibility. If there is such confusion, if people do not understand the Committees for which we are responsible, it is not surprising that they imagine that outside influences are brought to bear on us.
  Mr. Frank Field: Is the confusion in our minds or in the hon. Gentleman's own? He says that the Committee of Selection is not concerned with certain Committees. Presumably he means that he is not tonight moving a motion about the process of selection. Can he confirm that the membership of the Committees to which he has referred comes before the Committee of Selection and that a motion setting out their composition appears on the Order Paper?
  Sir Marcus Fox: No. Unusually, the hon. Gentleman has got it entirely wrong. Apart from the Standing Committees that deal with Bills, the only ones in respect of which I have responsibility for vacancies are the departmental Committees.
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman puts forward the selections for Standing Committees. He is not concerned merely with departmental Committees. It is a very wide brief.
  Sir Marcus Fox: I am awfully sorry. I accept, of course, full responsibility for Committees on Bills, statutory instruments and all the others. We were given the departmental Select Committees and the other, older Select Committees were left with the Whips. Those Committees are nothing to do with me, I have a big enough cross to bear as it is. I am glad that the issue about those Members who were supposed to serve on those Committees was not pursued.
  I must assure the House that there is a clear distinction between the two types of Select Committee—some seek to blur it, for obvious reasons. I want to make it clear that the Government names on the motions are the total responsibility of my four colleagues and myself. I understand that there is a phrase going around—I think that it is a figment of the press's imagination—called the "Whips' rules", which is something to do with only serving in three Parliaments. That is not how it happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I notice that a quality newspaper said that the Whips' influence meant that three new Members who had applied to serve on Select Committees were kept off them because they had signed the anti-Maastricht early-day motion. I have checked early-day motion 174 and guess what? Nine colleagues on the 16 Select Committees signed it. Now, if the Whips had control, do hon. Members think that any of those Members would have been on those Select Committees?
  In 1987, we considered introducing a time limit on how long one could serve on a Select Committee. We decided not to do so, for the simple reason that one could argue whether a term of eight years was long enough to justify a change. We thought not. Five years on, however, there are many good reasons why we should say that 13 years is long enough and that someone else should take part.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his wisdom. Could he tell us whether the entire Select Committee on Selection consider whether that rule should be introduced? Was that matter discussed? Was there a vote? Was it unanimous? If it was not, why does this co-called ruling, which my hon. Friend now denies, apply only to those on the Government Benches?
  Sir Marcus Fox: My hon. Friend is also under a misapprehension. The Government always have the Chair of the Committee of Selection. The way in which the Opposition select their members of the Select Committees is entirely a matter for them. I repeat that it is entirely a matter for the five Conservative Members of the Committee of Selection as to how we select people. The quote that I read out from December 1987 made it clear—obviously some colleagues do not listen—that we do not have to explain our procedures. [Interruption.] I take it from the Opposition that there is never any question about their hon. Friends who serve on those Select Committees.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: The Committee of Selection does not need to explain its procedures because we can guess at them. Is my hon. Friend a Chairman of a Select Committee, because he is telling the House that he is only responsible for the Government Members on the Committees? If so why does the Committee of Selection not have a joint Chairman to represent the Opposition parties?
  Sir Marcus Fox: My hon. Friend must read up on that Committee of Selection. When Norman St. John Stevas introduced the system in 1979, it was fully explained that the Government would have the Chair of the Committee but that each party would operate independently in nominating Members. The point that I was making was that, if Members could object to nominations to a Standing Committee on a Bill and we had to produce a reason for choosing one Member rather than another, we would never get a Committee set up.
  In spite of the rulings that I have given, I pay tribute to those five colleagues who, whether Chairman or Members of those Select Committee, have made an outstanding contribution during those years. What we are trying to do takes nothing away from their contribution.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I have no wish to attack my hon. Friend for his integrity. Will he assure the House that, as per the Speaker's ruling given earlier today, all those hon. Members named on the Order Paper were consulted before their names were tabled?
  Sir Marcus Fox: Certainly—they are volunteers. On the Government's side of the Committee, all hon. Members under the motions in my name notified me that they wished to serve.
  The real principle is whether those Committees were set up with the intention that Members should continue to serve year after year without limit. Is it fair to exclude those who are just as anxious to share that work? We came to the conclusion that we must at least create some vacancies because there were more than 200 applications for 96 vacancies on the Government side. Surely 13 continuous years on a Select Committee must be sufficient to bring about change.
  Mr. Peter Fry: Is my hon. Friend trying to say that it is wrong to be on one Select Committee for 12 to 13 years, when one would presumably gain expertise in a subject, but perfectly right to serve 12 to 13 years on a number of Select Committees consecutively? Many people feel strongly about that. If people are to be told that they must leave a Select Committee after 12 to 13 years, the same should apply to anyone who serves 12 to 13 years consecutively on a number of Select Committees.
  Sir Marcus Fox: If my hon. Friend would like to give me an example of a Member who has served 13 years consecutively on two departmental Select Committees, I shall discuss it with him.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I wish to speak to my amendment, but first, may I apologise to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) for choosing her name to be the one deleted from the Order Paper? It was not, as some hon. Members said it should have been, because the hon. Lady was a Minister, and ex-Ministers should play no part in the affairs of Select Committees. That is not a valid rule.
  918
  Back-Bench Select Committees give us an opportunity for a career structure in the House as an alternative to being on the Government or Opposition Front Bench. It was because the hon. Lady has been in the House for a considerable time, is known and respected and has a considerable number of friends in the House. As two new Conservative Members were on the Health Committee, I thought it proper that we should remove the name of the person in a more powerful position rather than that of a new Member without the hon. Lady's following. Using that procedure meant that we had to choose a name.
  Let me begin by dealing with some of the—in my view—allacious arguments that have been advanced since it became known that an amendment would be tabled. It has been suggested, for instance, that I am merely doing the bidding of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), because on a previous occasion he tabled a motion to include me on what was then the Social Services Committee. It is true that, since Freud, none of us know ourselves fully, and perhaps I am kidding myself; but I have not moved the amendment simply as a pay-off for a kindness that was done to me—although, if that were the case, I should have moved it for reasons of friendship and loyalty, and I do not think that the House should discount such values.
  More important issues are at stake, however. Although the amendments are linked to certain names, they are not about the hon. Member for Macclesfield. His name features, but we are dealing with more important questions than his fate. I hope that hon. Members will vote not on the basis of whether the hon. Gentleman is liked or disliked, popular or unpopular, but on the basis of the debate that they will have heard about the role of Select Committees and their development in our constitution.
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it desirable for Opposition Members to seek to determine Conservative membership of the Select Committee? Would he find it acceptable for Conservative Members to try to interfere with Labour selections?
  Mr. Field: I think that we have already heard the answer this evening. I was somewhat shocked by what the hon. Member for Shipley said about putting his friends on to the Committee, and about the votes that he controlled. I think that on some issues it is necessary to take a view for the House of Commons itself, rather than a strict party view. As taking a non-strict party view sometimes gets me into trouble with my hon. Friends, it is interesting that that stick should now be wielded on the Conservative Benches.
  We heard an extraordinary introduction to the debate from the hon. Member for Shipley. He explained a great deal about the working of the Committee of Selection, which will give many people a lot to think about. None the less, I cannot but contrast the performance of the brave sparrow who would regularly appear on the "Today" programme when running for chairmanship of the 1922 Committee, assuring Tory Members who might be listening that he was the man to stand up to the establishment and to ensure that their views were represented, with the performances that we have heard in private and again tonight.
  If someone who has colleagues around him in the Committee of Selection can behave in that way and then present a report as we have heard this one presented tonight, the Patronage Secretary clearly will not have

  919
  many problems when the Chairman of the 1922 Committee comes to represent the views of Conservative Members. The man who told Brian Redhead that he was a man of great integrity who would fight Back Benchers' battles, protect their privileges and ensure that their views were known, rolled over at the first hurdle, and the Patronage Secretary managed to tickle his chest.
  When hon. Members build up reputations and then do not quite live up to them, the convention of the House is to draw a curtain around the matter and not to dwell on it. Perhaps we should do that with the performance of the hon. Member for Shipley.
  I come now to what appears to have gone on. Long before the final meeting of the Committee of Selection, we heard that the hon. Member for Macclesfield would be "got" because he had not written a letter asking to be on the Committee. I believe that the hon. Gentleman then wrote his letter. So another rule had to be found. Someone quickly discovered that the hon. Member had served in three consecutive Parliaments. Clearly, no further homework was done at the time; had it been, the other motions on the Order Paper tonight taking off Conservatives—we understand that the Chairman is not worried about Opposition Members; he is concerned only with policing his own hon. Friends—would not have been necessary.
  So following the failure of the "get Nick" campaign and the failure of the letter rule, another rule had to be thought up: the three consecutive Parliaments rule. Instead of voting on the hon. Member for Macclesfield tonight, we should vote on whether we want the Government or the Chairman of the Committee to introduce motions at some later date taking our views on this matter into account.
  For instance, I should like the House to consider the consequences of the three-Parliament rule. It will not operate only in this Parliament. If the hon. Member for Shipley is still here in the next Parliament, and if he remembers his rule, it will presumably operate against a certain party; and it will have a cumulative effect with each passing Parliament. The rule of the hon. Member for Shipley will de-skill our Select Committees. Those who have built up expertise on them will walk the plank—at the end of three terms, their time will be up.
  For this and other reasons, the House should agree to our amendment. If this limitation is operated, it will destroy one of the main reasons given for the Select Committees in the 1979 Parliament—that they offer an alternative career structure for those not in government and for Conservatives who will not never have a chance to hold office. We shall curtail that career structure with no compensating curtailment on the careers of those who hold office.
  Sir Marcus Fox: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, come the next general election in five years' time, some Members on the Committees will have served 18 years but only six will be affected, if the Committee takes the same view then?
  Mr. Field: Only six! Six people with the most experience will have to walk the hon. Gentleman's plank into oblivion.
  920
  This rule, arbitrarily dreamed up when other rules to "get Nick" failed, will weaken our democratic process. The role of the House of Commons has changed. is changing and will continue to change. In the past century, our job as Back Benchers was to make and unmake Governments. The party systems were in their infancy then, and there was a large number of smaller parties. As we moved into this century, our role changed. Since 1931 at any rate, the function of the House of Commons has not been to make and unmake Governments, although Prime Ministers can certainly be made or unmade by Members in this Chamber.
  Rather, the House has witnessed the unfolding of general election campaigns. Both sides have set out their wares over four or five years, trying to present to the voters what the issues at the next election will be. [Interruption.] I am pleased to note that I have the attention of the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who may laugh and joke during this debate. He would be walking the plank under this parliamentary rule if he had not gained Government office.
  The major opposition party has failed to win in four general elections, and there is now a question mark over our ability to win. That changes the function of the House. [Interruption.] I hope that those who so readily agree with me will join me in the Lobby. If the normal crucial check on Government—the fear of losing an election—appears not to have worked, at least for the moment, it is crucial to build up other checks and balances to prevent the Government from becoming arrogant and arbitrary in their use of power. None of us can sec clearly now where that evolving debate will lead, but in it the Select Committees have a crucial part to play.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Select Committee system should make up for the deficiencies of the Opposition?
  Mr. Field: No. I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House. Plainly, he performed better at the hustings than he is performing in the debate.
  I do not argue that by itself any one move makes good that crucial check in our constitution. Governments become fearful of losing their power and influence and their red boxes and cars. I say that it is one crucial check. I shall not move the amendment with the idea that the House could do without Whips because, without a whipping system, the House could not operate. But sometimes the Whips are insensitive to the needs of the House. Because they are anxious to complete the day's business, they inevitably take a short-term, day-to-day view rather than a year-to-year or a five-year parliamentary view.
  When we vote, I hope that the House, unlike the Whips, will decide that it wishes to see the Select Committees develop with the help of the Whips but not controlled by them. I hope that, when we face the electorate at the next election, the Select Committees will have reached that crucial next stage in their development. That stage begins with tonight's vote.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I welcome the fact that at long last these measures have appeared on the Order Paper. That is a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has been anxious to ensure their appearance. We have made it by the skin of our teeth. That means that it will be possible for the Select Committees to meet before the recess, elect Chairmen, arrange a programme and provide work for the Clerks. At least we have done somewhat better than in the last two Parliaments.
  There is no reason why the negotiations could not have been concluded earlier. We have not succeeded in achieving the time limit suggested by the Procedure Committee. We should consider a mandatory time limit for the future so that we do not get into the situation of the past few weeks. At all events, we have made progress.
  I am deeply concerned about the way in which hon. Members appear to have been, or are said to have been, selected for the Select Committees. That brings me to the role of the Whips. It is a feature of our departmentally related system that the usual channels must be involved to some extent; otherwise, with a Government majority on all the Committees, one would be unlikely to have any Opposition Chairmen. That has always seemed to me to be an important all-party aspect of the system.
  That having been said, choosing the Chairman must be a matter for the Committee concerned. It is wrong that the Whips should become involved, as they have increasingly become involved in the past 10 years, in the question of who is selected to serve on the Committees. I take the point that the Committee of Selection includes two Opposition Whips and one from the Liberal Democrats, but Whips should not be involved in the way they are. Furthermore, it is important that the Committee should act as a Committee of the House, representing all parts of the House. The party division suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) undermines the basic all-party nature of the Select Committee system.
  This brings me to the controversy of the past few days, and to the fact that we were told that there is a rule that members should not serve on a Select Committee for more than a limited period. It is wrong that this rule should have been announced to the media rather than to the House of Commons. However, it is not surprising that that is so, because there is no such rule. The device has been invented at the last minute to justify a series of selections. The traditional practice, where the Committee of Selection gives no reasons for its selection, is the right way to set about it; whether it has any internal view as to how it should set about its task is a matter for it.
  The effect of applying that rule—although there is no such rule of the kind described—has been to remove some choice. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) is clearly the best candidate for Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. In all events, the Committee should have the right to decide whether it wishes to continue to have him as Chairman. The Committee of Selection has removed a desirable degree of flexibility as to who is chosen. It is tying the Committee's hands by the kind of announcement that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.
  922
  Of course it is important that Committees should have a balance between new Members of Parliament and Members with greater experience, but we should not necessarily circumscribe the question of who those Members with experience are. I am in favour of more ex-Ministers and more members of the Opposition Front Bench teams serving on, or becoming members of, Select Committees. That would give the Committees greater weight in the inquiries that they carry out. The crucial point is that we get the right person for the job. Imposing the kind of rule suggested will not allow that flexibility.
  We are moving in the opposite direction from the United States, which is sometimes taken as a model and where the seniority rule is supreme. If we are to have this rule, it must be determined by the Procedure Committee, debated and examined in length, and the House should be able to decide whether it wants such a rule. I have consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who was Chairman of the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament, and I gather that in the elaborate discussions that the Committee had on the matter there was not even a suggestion that there should be any such rule—still less had the Committee considered the matter or made any such recommendation.
  I am deeply concerned about the way in which the matter has been handled. It is difficult for us to express our concern other than in this debate and the Divisions that will follow it. One of the reasons why this is of great importance to the House is the fact that, in the past 10 years or so, we have seen a major change in the constitutional position of the House. That is reflected in the Committees, and the importance that the House attaches to them is one of the reasons why it is a matter of concern to the Whips. It is important that these matters should not be handled in such a way. Instead, they should be dealt with on an all-party basis. I hope that, in the light of the debate, we shall consider what should best be done in future. At present, it is wrong to suggest that there is a rule which has determined decisions. As I have said, these matters should not be handled in such a way.
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I wish only briefly to contribute to the debate. First, I should confess that I am a member of the usual channels and serve under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) on the Selection Committee. I was unable to attend the Committee's meeting last week because—luckily, perhaps—I was ill in bed. I saw the difficulty coming, and I took fever from the fright.
  There are important issues at stake, and they have been set out at some length by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). As I am a member of the usual channels, I think that it is important that it is clear in our own minds that in our own parties and in our own ways we have means of bringing forward names to serve on departmental Select Committees. I am not especially interested what Members are put up by the other Whips on the Selection Committee, as that is a matter for the parties whom those Whips seek to serve.
  There should be grave concern, however, if suggestions have been made by the 1922 Committee to produce the names of Conservative Members who have been put forward for the Select Committees. Surely that is a mistake. As the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr.

  923
  Higgins) has said, a ludicrous claim has been made that a rule exists when it does riot, but if names have been put forward by the 1922 Committee for the Conservative party, that is not something that would have caused any opposition—even though the decisions may have been mistaken—from myself or any other representatives of the minority parties. As a shop steward for those parties, I speak on their behalf to the best of my ability.
  We must understand that, at the end of the day, it is the Executive, through the Whips, who come along with names. That is exceptional, wholly wrong, disreputable and objectionable, and a substantial breach of the procedure as I understand it.
  Mr. Higgins: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting his speech. I wish only to make my own position clear if I failed to do so earlier. I did not wish to continue to be a member of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. That is important lest what I said a short while ago is considered to be special pleading on my behalf.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I wish it to be understood that, from a minority party point of view and from my own position, I feel that the Government have not handled the nominations in the right way. At the same time, the House should recognise that the Whips have a function in bringing forward their party recommendations to the Selection Committee. If they did not do so, the Committee's job would be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain.
  As a shop steward for the minority parties, I think that it is wrong that the Select Committees should consider setting up machinery to monitor eight principal Departments, including the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Departments of the Environment and Employment, without having a member of the minority parties within it. There are precious fewoccasions in debate on the Floor of the House when that is the position. The minority parties have only about 40 Members in the House and we suffer from overstretch, but we try to the best of our ability to submit names for Standing Committees. We try as a group to play our full part in the House, yet we are denied places in major departmental Select Committees. That is something that will have to be considered.
  Mr. John Gorst: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kirkwood: No. I do not have time to give way.
  There are amendments in the names of the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that my colleagues will support simply to make the point about the minority parties being denied places in major departmental Select Committees. It is right that we should do so.
  It is also right that Select Committees are an important part of the procedures of this place. They are an evolving scene and the new Members nominated to serve on them have an important job in protecting the interests of the House in their deliberations. I hope that they will discharge their duties well, and I wish them every success.
  11.9 pm
  Sir John Wheeler: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this short debate and I shall certainly try to be brief. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) has invented a new rule, which we have just heard about tonight. It comes as a surprise to me and, had I known about it, as an honourable Member of this House I would not have put my name forward for membership of the Home Affairs Committee.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend is making exactly the point to which we should all pay attention. Should not the rule have been laid down, in an authoritative way, before hon. Members were invited to offer themselves to serve on any particular Select Committee?
  Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.
  I was glad to find my name on the Order Paper on 9 July. In accordance with my expectations, and I think I may say fairly the expectations of many other hon. Members, I fully expected to resume my duties as a member of the Home Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley telephoned me at 12 noon on 9 July to say that a mistake had been made and that my appointment was to be cancelled; hence the amendment on today's Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). Incidentally, I sincerely congratulate him on his nomination to the Science and Technology Committee. I am sure that he will serve with distinction.
  All that I can say about the rules of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is that they remind me of the unfortunate occasion when one steps on bubble gum deposited on the footway—tacky, sticky and lingering long after the event. I remind the House that, if we agree to motion 27, which refers to the interests of Chairmen and members of Select Committees, the proposed composition of the Home Affairs Committee will mean that nine of its lawyer members will not be able to inquire into such subjects as legal aid or the Crown prosecution service, as they would have a conflict of interest. I remind the House that, by a resolution of the last Parliament, that Committee has a responsibility for the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  It is a privilege to serve the House as a member of a Select Committee. Any hon. Member who is selected for that service, which is quite properly unrewarded in any sense, undertakes an enormous burden of extra work, which it is a privilege to do. It has been my privilege to serve as a member of the Home Affairs Committee for 13 years, from 1979 until the general election this year. During my period of service, I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee since February 1980 and of the main Committee since 1987. It has been an immense privilege for me to make a contribution to the work of the Home Office and the Select Committee system.
  Since the Committee was established, it has produced 67 reports, averaging 64 paragraphs in length. It is difficult for me to single out just one significant contribution to public policy, but I am especially proud of my work in 1981, in the aftermath of the inner-city riots, when the Sub-Committee prepared a substantial report on racial

  925
  disadvantage. I like to think that the report made an important contribution to policing and good race relations in this country.
  More recent reports have included one of the British racing industry which, to my delight, has resulted in the Jockey Club and others proposing to establish a more broadly based committee for racing which will help to take that industry forward to a more successful future. Many of the Committee's recommendations and ideas on the structure and management of the police have been accepted or are in the course of being accepted.
  No Select Committee and no Chairman could be successful without the wholehearted commitment and enthusiasm of the Clerks of the House. I know that they do not like to be referred to in debates in the Chamber. However, I have been fortunate to have worked with 10 splendid people during the time in which I have served on the Home Affairs Select Committee. All have been magnificent in their devotion to the work of the Committee and I am sure that it is right to thank the Clerks for their service during my chairmanship.
  I am glad to be able to tell the House that the conclusion of my service was not apparently occasioned by any perceived lack of zeal on my part, by any lack of enthusiasm for the duties I voluntarily accepted or by my lack of attendance at meetings. I am proud to tell the House that, since my first appointment in 1979, I am recorded as having attended 489 meetings of the Committee and its Sub-Committee, with only 13 absences. Two were occasioned by illness and 11 by overseas duties. it is a record of service which I believe may stand comparison with that of any other hon. Member. I take this opportunity to wish every success to hon. Members who are privileged to be selected for that service. I shall observe the continued progress of the Select Committee with much interest.
  I want the House to know that my name is on the Order Paper tonight and that I have neither sought nor canvassed any opinion on my behalf, as I should think that improper. I am content to leave the matter to the judgment of the House. I am satisfied that, over the 13 years in which I have had the privilege to serve on the Home Affairs Committee, I have done my duty to the best of my abilities.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Those of us who are used to addressing debates on Select Committees in the House with gatherings of 10 or a dozen are delighted to see the intense interest this evening, including a massive attendance by members of the Government. I have spotted four or five Cabinet Ministers, and I hope that that augurs well for interest in such debates in the future.
  We all know what the debate is about. In intruding from the Opposition Front Bench, there is an element of feeling that I am intruding in what is essentially a private matter for the Conservative party. From what we have heard so far this evening, there will be considerable interest in the votes that take place later. There should be no apology from any Opposition Member who takes part in the debate because at has been most noteworthy for the heroic, but failed, attempt by the hon. Member for Shipley
  926
  (Sir M. Fox) to reconcile the irreconcilable—his responsibilities to the Committee of Selection which he chairs with his responsibilities to the Conservative party.
  I welcomed the contribution by the hon. Member for Shipley if only because he coined the memorable phrase that 13 years is quite long enough. That apart, he failed to make any convincing case which any hon. Member could understand for the new three-term doctrine. That is the best way in which to describe it. As he was speaking, I wondered whether the three-term doctrine accounted for the departure of Lady Thatcher, or whether it will apply to members of the Government in future. Will their time be up after they have served for three terms? Or is this—as we know it is—a device in the Conservative party to deal with a particular local difficulty which has nothing to do with constitutional principle?
  Mr. Barry Porter: As I gather that the hon. Gentleman objects to the rule, does he also object to the rule, apparently between the usual channels, about who should be Chairman and which party should chair a particular Committee, or has that rule been thrown out of the window as well?
  Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the oddity about the rule enunciated by the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) is that he enunciated it as a member of a Committee, but it applies only to certain members of the Committee. It is not for me to determine how Members should vote on an issue of this kind.
  Mr. David Marshall: With regard to the points made by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who was a very fair and excellent Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member suggested that the chairmanship of Select Committees should be left for the members of those Committees to decide for themselves. Does my hon. Friend agree with that? If so, would that be advantageous for the House, because it would put an end to the trading that goes on behind the scenes?
  Mr. Grocott: If my hon. Friend reads the debate on the Select Committee that took place two weeks ago, he will know how much I admired his work as Chairman on the Select Committee on Transport in the last Parliament. That was spelt out in Hansard two weeks ago.
  Mr. Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Grocott: No, I will not give way again. I intend to speak for five minutes, which is five minutes longer than the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Fry rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) has made it clear that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Grocott: I want to use my remaining minute to refer to the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests which referred to Select Committees and their Chairmen. That will be the subject of a motion later tonight, but it relates strongly to this debate.
  I put it to the Leader of the House and to the Government that it is clear from earlier debates that the House believes that the rules governing the interests of

  927
  members of Select Committees, and particularly of Chairmen of Select Committees, need tightening and strengthening. There should be orders for that to obtain.
  Given that the later resolution may go through on the nod, it is absolutely essential that newly appointed members of the Select Committees should, before a decision is taken about their Chairmen, be given clear information by the Leader of the House and the Government to ensure that they know the new rules that have been agreed by the House before they decide who their Chairmen should be. That is an important development and the House should recognise it, even though there have been no formal resolutions in that respect.
  I will not be voting on the resolutions concerning the changes in Select Committee membership, although I doubt whether I will manage to convince many of my hon. Friends on that. I will not be voting because, so far as I am concerned, the membership that the Tory party proposes for its Select Committees is a matter for the Tory party. I do not apologise for giving the Tory party little lectures on democracy. In my view, we in the Labour party do things in a far more democratic way than the Tories.
  Mr. Fry rose—
  Mr. Grocott: No, I will not give way.
  When the Labour party argues about members of Select Committees, we do it on the basis that each individual Bank-Bench member of the party puts forward their preferences. Preferences are determined partly on the basis of geography and partly on the basis of seniority, and then the whole matter—this is anathema to Conservative Members, but they can listen to it none the less—is put before a full meeting of the parliamentary Labour party and is subject to debate and reference back if necessary. That seems to me to be a dramatically better way of dealing with matters than Conservative Members' method.
  I hope that we reach a conclusion on this matter fairly rapidly tonight. I hope that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection has learnt a few lessons from tonight and from his dual responsibilities. I hope that, when they are established, the Select Committees do the proper job of scrutinising the Government, which they will do much more effectively now that there are far more Labour Members on them.
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I rise with a very heavy heart and with considerable sadness to contribute to this important debate, which is really about the future effectiveness of this House of Commons. The Select Committees were set up to enable the House to monitor and scrutinise the Departments of government—the major Departments of government. It is indeed quite correct that the usual channels have a part to play in the allocation of chairmanships, but for the reasons advanced by hon. Members, once that decision has been taken., the usual channels should have no part whatever to play in relation to those who serve on the Committees and the person whom each Committee chooses to be Chairman from the party which has been allocated the chairmanship.
  The Select Committee system is the only effective form in which this House can effectively monitor the Executive. At Question Time, one has only one question; statements,
  928
  again one question; private notice questions, really only one opportunity to come back to the Minister. The only effective way to hold Ministers, civil servants and others to account is the Select Committee system, which primarily involves Back Benchers of this House.
  I believe that that is very precious. In fact, I go so far as to say that the Select Committees of this House are the last bastions of the defences of the country against excessive government. Perhaps I can say that from the Conservative side of the House after nearly 14 years of Conservative government, because I believe that, year after year, government can create an arrogance which can lead to dictatorship. I believe that that is what is happening in this House.
  I am afraid, too, that the Committee of Selection has been severely compromised by what has occurred during the past week. I say to the Chairman of the Selection Committee that he now lacks credibility and integrity, and the sooner he is gone the better. The Chairman of the Selection Committee is supposed to chair the Committee and decide, of all those who apply to him and to his Committee, who should go forward and be appointed. I know from the contact that I have had with the Whips Office that that did not happen. I know that a list was submitted by the Deputy Chief Whip to the Selection Committee and that that list went through undiscussed, unamended and without debate, in less than a quarter of an hour.
  I can only say that the Selection Committee Chairman is wrong. He talks about those who have served on a Committee for 12 years or three Parliaments. I wonder whether he is aware that the Health Select Committee has been in existence for only two years—not 13 years or 12 years. Indeed, I say to the House, as I say to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, that I have served on Select Committees of the House for 18 years, and I am proud of it.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), I am proud of the contribution that I have made as a member of the Select Committee. Unlike my hon. Friend, I chaired the Health Select Committee for only some 15 months, but it is an experience that I shall never forget. [Interruption.] If the House cannot forget it either, I have succeeded in my job.
  Mr. Robert Adley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Winterton: No, I shall not give way to my hon. Friend.
  My sadness is not that, by some devious, unfair, undemocratic strategems, I and other have been deprived of our places on Select Committees. My sadness is that I have made great friends with members of that Committee over the years and I shall miss their comradeship, their support and their co-operation.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North, I pay tribute to the staff of the Health Select Committee and its predecessor Committee. I wish to name Helen Irwin, who now serves another Committee. She was a wonderful Clerk to the Select Committee on Health and Social Services. I also name the current Clerk, Paul Evans, the Assistant Clerk Fergus Reid, and the Assistant Mike Clark as well as Carol Auchterlonie, the Committee specialist assistant and researcher. They are wonderful

  929
  staff. The relationship between the members of the Committee and the staff proves that the Select Committees work, and work as a team.
  If I have anything to say tonight which I hope will be heeded, it is that the Committee of Selection of the House has made a real mess of the selection of people to serve on the departmental Select Committees. It has done so because it has succumbed to the blandishments and pressure of the Government Whips Office. That does no service to the House and no service to parliamentary democracy. Increasingly it appears to me that an independent view and freedom of speech are gradually being squeezed out of the House. I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, as the safeguarder of the privileges of Back Benchers, agree that that surely cannot be a good thing for the people of Britain.
  I leave the House with three quotations. Two are from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with whom I entered into correspondence in February 1991 about Select Committees, the way in which Chairmen were chosen and the interference of the Whips. My right hon. Friend said in reply:
  "I was grateful to you for letting me know the terms in which you propose to conduct the Chairmanship of the Health Select Committee. I have no doubt"—
  he underlined those words in his own writing—
  "that you will bring your own skill, knowledge and commitment to that task and that you will do it excellently."
  Clearly, knowledge and experience and doing a job well have no further part to play in this place.
  My second quotation from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is important. I have about one minute to go. He said:
  "Every Member of a Select Committee is free to vote for the person of his or her choice if a vacancy arises for the chairmanship. That has always been the case and will continue to be so."
  I am delighted to see my distinguished Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) in his place. His Committee reported:
  "Committees should be left to elect whichever Member from the designated party they see as best fitted to discharge the responsibility of Chairman".
  I hope that in the future the House of Commons will exercise its authority over the Select Committees,which are its only way of monitoring and scrutinising the Executive.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I shall make three brief points. First, I hope that the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) will forgive me for saying that I found his explanation for why the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) was serving on two Select Committees simultaneously rather unconvincing. I know that attendance in Select Committee is not always as high as it should be, but presumably they are set up with a view to trying to give Members the opportunity to attend. I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross will find it very difficult to do justice to both the Select Committees on Defence and on Scottish Affairs simultaneously.
  I do not know how many Conservative Members wanted to serve on the Defence Select Committee. I presume that it was quite a few. I imagine that that
  930
  Committee was over-subscribed. I should have thought that fewer wanted to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee, but none the less, if the widespread suggestion that a place on the Defence Committee was the price of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross for serving on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee is true, it does the Committee of Selection no credit whatsoever.
  If the Committee of Selection and the Government Whips have to go to such lengths to preserve an artificial Government majority on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, does the hon. Member for Shipley not think that it would have been better to abandon the idea that the Government must have a majority, rather than having the ridiculous spectacle of projecting the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross on to two Committees simultaneously, as he will not be able to do either any justice?
  The Liberal spokesperson, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned my second point—the rights of minority parties in the House. When the arithmetical balance was being drawn for Select Committees, the Government's numbers in the House did not justify their having an automatic majority in each Committee. They needed an extra six Government places to guarantee a voting majority on every Select Committee, their argument being that each Committee must give the Government a majority and must reflect the balance of the House of Commons.
  If that argument is being pursued, there can be no defence for not having a Member of one of the six minority parties in the House on each Select Committee.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman not find it strange that the Democratic Unionist party, which has the same number of Members in the House as his party, has been left out altogether, even though it made strong representations to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection? Will he remember that, on the proposal of the Chairman, the House voted me and a colleague of mine off the Selection Committee? I understand that the member appointed instead attended one meeting of that Committee.
  Mr. Salmond: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The Democratic Unionist party is entitled to representatives on Select Committees. I also believe that the Social Democratic and Labour party is entitled to representatives. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and myself is not for any individual party, but to enable the six minority parties in the House, which collectively represent 7 million voters after the recent election, to have the basic entitlement of one representative on each departmental Select Committee. That does not seem to be an unreasonable request to make to the majority parties in the Chamber.
  According to the Government's rules, if a Select Committee is to reflect the balance of opinion in the House, surely it must have a minimum of one representative from the minority parties.
  Thirdly, anyone who has followed the interchange, or what has been going on in the Lobby, will know that it has been an exercise in total and utter fantasy. Two lists are available—a Government list and an Opposition list. Without exception, the Committee of Selection, chaired by the hon. Member for Shipley, has accepted those two lists, supplied either directly or indirectly by the Whips Office.

  931
  That is the reality of what we are debating. Therefore, I and the other representatives of the minority parties will take the opportunity to vote against Committees that do not have a minority representative.
  11.39 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I had no intention of speaking in this debate, and I shall take up only a very short time. There are certain facts that ought to be put before the House, as there are probably 300 Members who were not here when the departmental Select Committees were originally set up in 1979–80.
  The first fact is that, until that time, the Committee of Selection appointed Members only to the Standing Commitees. The membership of all Select Committees was arranged through the usual channels, and the motions were tabled in the name of the Leader of the House. It was to get away from that, to try to ensure that the Members appointed to the departmental Select Committees were representative of all sections of the House and were not nominees of the Whips, that the appointments were given to the Committee of Selection. What has happened since then is history, but it is proper that the facts of the intention of the House when the departmental Select Committees were set up should be recorded.
  The second important matter, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) referred, is that once it has been decided, through the usual channels, which party the Chairman of each Committee should come from, it should be left to the Committee to decide which member of that party should be the Chairman. The appointment should not be arranged before the first meeting of the Committee. In fact, that was recorded. When the Procedure Committee was reviewing the work of departmental Select Committees it received clear evidence that this had not happened in the past. The Procedure Committee therefore made the situation perfectly clear.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee will have no option but to select and elect the individual nominated by the Labour party for the chairmanship, even if that person questions the right of the House of Commons to have its way in Scotland?
  Sir Peter Emery: I do not wish to comment. I am merely trying to set out for the House the facts of the recommendation or of the procedure recommended. It seems to me that these things ought to be known to the House before it votes on any of the motions.
  11.42 pm
  Dr. John Gilbert: One can be a little too squeamish about thuggery by the Whips. I speak as one who was sandbagged off a Select Committee at the beginning of the previous Parliament—a matter in respect of which I bear absolutely no malice towards my Chief Whip. We had a very pleasant conversation on the subject, and I found myself on another Committee, which was very congenial. Lest it be thought that I, like the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), am on my feet because I am not to be on a Select Committee on this occasion, let me assure the House that that was the result of further consultation with the Chief Whip.
  Mr. Higgins: In an earlier intervention I sought to clarify the situation. I have made it quite clear that I did not wish to be renominated for membership.
  Dr. Gilbert: The right hon. Gentleman has not been listening very carefully. What he has just said was understood by me. It is for precisely the same reason that I am not to be on a Select Committee in this Parliament.
  In these matters, neither side is without blemish. I take the point that it is unfortunate that Opposition Whips are on the Committee of Selection, and it is unconscionable that the Chairman of the 1922 Committee is Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I do not endorse all the propositions that have been put forward tonight on either side of the House. There is no reason why Conservative Members should not choose their Select Committee members by rules and conventions that seem fit and proper to them. Whether they discuss the subject among themselves is a matter for them, and not for the Opposition.
  Mr. Gorst: There is a big distinction between the Whips in the opposition parties having a hand in selection and the Government Whips having a part. Select Committees monitor and scrutinise what the Government do and, therefore, because we are not examining what the Opposition do, the Opposition Whips do not commit a foul. It is quite a different matter when the Government are not only the culprit, but act as judge and jury by influencing membership of those Select Committees.
  Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which should be referred to the Committee of Selection. Realistically, the Whips will always have a hand in such matters, whether they are on the Committees or not.
  I do not understand all the fuss about who should be selected to be Chairmen of the Committees. It is totally within the power of any Select Committee to choose any of its members to be Chairman on any occasion. It may change that choice during any Parliament. We can only blame ourselves if we complain that the Whips choose the Chairmen for us. It is entirely in the hands of Members on both sides of those Committees to decide who shall be and who shall remain the Chairmen of them.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing about the shoddiness and ineptness displayed in the selection process on this occasion. I was totally unimpressed by the remarks of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, and I am equally unimpressed by the half acre of green Bench where the Government Chief Whip normally sits. If he seriously thinks that he can delude the House into thinking that he has no responsibility for what has gone on in the past few days, he must take us for complete idiots. We know perfectly well what has happened and it brings no great credit to the House.
  I have never thought that longevity was a reason for staying on a Select Committee. Intelligence, application, diligence and ability to prosecute a line of inquiry are far more important characteristics of a successful Committee member than experience. However, I hope that, if any rule about senior Labour Members of Committees, such as that which has been put forward by the Conservative party, were put to my colleagues, they would consider it thoroughly obnoxious.

  933
  The way in which this matter has been handled can only pander to those who take a most cynical view of our affairs. I sincerely hope that the Select Committee on Procedure will consider it with dispatch and diligence.
  11.47 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: The last thing that I want to do, Madam Speaker, is to add to your burdens and duties, but it seems to me that you may have a future role to play in this matter.
  The way in which the system has worked till now does not fill us with confidence. I believe that the Selection Committee should be chosen in the same way as the panel of Chairmen, who preside over Standing Committees on Bills, are chosen. The Whips do not play a part in that system. Doubtless they make comments, as they are fully entitled to do, but the choice of Chairmen lies with you, Madam Speaker, and your deputy. Because the House has total confidence in your independence and utter impartiality—if it did not, you would not be in the Chair—those whom you choose to do the job are more likely than others to share that reputation.
  We must be realistic and accept that we cannot change the system until the new Parliament. However, when we go through the rigmarole again, the process should be under your jurisdiction, Madam Speaker, or, in the sad event of your not being in the Chair, your successor. If the Selection Committee were appointed by the Speaker, everyone could have total confidence in the system and the result.
  11.49 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: Some hon. Members are cynical about Select Committees. I used to be in that camp until I had cause to change my mind. One of the reasons for doubting whether an effective monitoring job can be done is the remarkable fact that the Committees set up to monitor the Government contain a majority of Conservative party members.
  I changed my mind because it was demonstrated to me that in the process of Select Committee work—the taking of evidence, the cross-questioning of Ministers and civil servants, and the bringing of other expert voices into the House—useful and interesting things happen. The process is extremely valuable, partly because we publish the evidence. No Select Committee member likes to think that his or her report will look like rubbish alongside the evidence.
  The disciplines imposed on Select Committee members work well, but the whole process is brought into disrepute by what has happened on this occasion. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) to say that Tory Members are a matter for the Tory party, but I disagree, because it is a question not of the Tory party but of the Government. I do not believe for a minute that the Tory party is responsible for those machinations; the Whips acting as agents for the Government are responsible. That calls into question whether Select Committees can do an honest monitoring job in future.
  It is remarkably politically inept of the Government because it gives the Opposition a weapon—to ask what is going to happen to the national health service between
  934
  now and the next general election which makes the Government feel that they cannot stand honest scrutiny and must try to fix the Select Committee membership.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: Will the hon. Lady explain to the House why the Labour party Whips took the chairmanship of the Transport Committee away from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and the poor chap did not know about it until the day after they did it although the Conservatives knew about it?
  Mrs. Wise: I am not responsible for any Whips. Although I may hold views about that chairmanship matter, the Labour Whips have not removed a person from a Select Committee. The hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) will be removed from the Committee altogether. They will have no role to play because, we are told, they have served for too long. Long service may not be a sufficient qualification for membership, but I cannot believe that it is a sufficient qualification for removal either. Surely it is not a disqualification for membership.
  The hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) made it seem as though the membership of those Committees is set in concrete. Anyone who has served on a Select Committee knows that vacancies frequently arise as Members resign or go on to their respective Front Benches. Those vacancies could be taken by newer Members. The hon. Member for Shipley proved that there are few long-standing Select Committee members when he said that, at the end of this Parliament, only six people would be disqualified. That is six out of a large number of Select Committee members—96 on the Government side. That surely suggests a lack of long-standing expertise rather than a surplus, so what the hon. Member for Shipley has said is—not to put too fine a point on it—baloney.
  The best speech in support of the amendment was made by the hon. Member for Shipley himself, because his speech treated the House with contempt. I prefer to believe that the House does not deserve such treatment, and I hope that many hon. Members who value the role played by Back Benchers will join me in the Lobby.
  11.55 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: I wish to speak to amendments (a) and (b) motion 18, which stand in my name, on behalf of the Committee of Selection. It gives me no pleasure to do so.
  As hon. Members will know, at the time of its proceedings last week the Committee was not aware of the long service given to the Select Committee on Home Affairs by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). It had been told that he had joined the Committee in 1983; only after the meeting was it discovered that he had joined in 1979. His long service is beyond price and, as he himself recognized—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put the Questions which she was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Order [3 July].
  Question agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Richard Alexander, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Martyn Jones,

  935
  Mr. Paul Marland, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. George Stevenson, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mrs. Ann Winterton be members of the Agriculture Committee.

  DEFENCE
  Ordered,
  That Sir Nicholas Bonsor, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Frank Cook, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. John McVv'illiam, Mr. Neville Trotter and Mr. Peter Viggers be members of the Defence Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  EDUCATION
  Motion made and Question put,
  That Sir Paul Beresford, Mildred Gordon, Mr. David Jamieson, Mrs. Angela Knight, Lady Olga Maitland, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. David Porter, Dr. Robert Spink, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Sir Malcolm Thornton and Mr. Dennis Turner be members of the Education Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 44.

  Division No 63]

  [11.57 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Congdon, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Ancram, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cox, Tom

  Ashton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baldry, Tony

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Devlin, Tim

  Bates, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dixon, Don

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bell, Stuart

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dowd, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Blunkett, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Boateng, Paul

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Booth, Hartley

  Enright, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Etherington, Bill

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Boyes, Roland

  Evennett, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Faber, David

  Bright, Graham

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Forman, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric

  Butcher, John

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Butler, Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Byers, Stephen

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fraser, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Freeman, Roger

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fry, Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gale, Roger

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Gapes, Mike

  Chapman, Sydney

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Churchill, Mr

  Garnier, Edward

  Clapham, Michael

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Clappison, James

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Gorst, John

  936

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Needham, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Hanson, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hardy, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Page, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hendry, Charles

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Home Robertson, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Redwood, John

  Hutton, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Illsley, Eric

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Janner, Greville

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Short, Clare

  Lightbown, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Soames, Nicholas

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Maclean, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McMaster, Gordon

  Spring, Richard

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Meale, Alan

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Merchant, Piers

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Miller, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Mills, Iain

  Trend, Michael

  937

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Wilshire, David

  Waller, Gary

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Joan

  Wood, Timothy

  Ward, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watson, Mike

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. Bob Dunn and Mr. George Gardiner.

  Wells, Bowen

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Livingstone, Ken

  Alton, David

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Austin-Walker, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Barnes, Harry

  Marek, Dr John

  Beggs, Roy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cryer, Bob

  Raynsford, Nick

  Dafis, Cynog

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Salmond, Alex

  Faulds, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan

  Flynn, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Tyler, Paul

  Hoey, Kate

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. David Trimble, and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

  Lewis, Terry

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,

  EMPLOYMENT
  That Mr. Ian Bruce, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Oliver Heald, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ron Leighton, Mr. lain Mills, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Richard Spring and Mr. David Young be members of the Employment Committee—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Ordered,

  ENVIRONMENT
  That Mr. John Battle, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Barry Field, Helen Jackson, Mr. Robert B. Jones. Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Eric Pickles, Mr. Nick Raynsford, Mr. Gary Streeter and Mr. Roy Thomason be members of the Environment Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Ordered,

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS
  That Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Mike Grapes, Mr. David Harris, Mr. David Howell, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. Jim Lester, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir John Stanley, Mr. David Sumberg and Mr. Robert N. Wareing be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  HEALTH
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. David Congdon, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Alice Mahon, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Roger Sims, the Reverend Martin Smyth, Mr. Michael Trend and Audrey Wise be members of the Health Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Amendment proposed: (a) leave out 'Mrs. Marion Roe'.—[Mr. Frank Field.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 210.

  Division No. 64]

  [12.10 am

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Ainger, Nick

  Janner, Greville

  Allen, Graham

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Alton, David

  Jowell, Tessa

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Battle, John

  Leighton, Ron

  Bayley, Hugh

  Lewis, Terry

  Beggs, Roy

  Livingstone, Ken

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Bell, Stuart

  Macdonald, Calum

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McFall, John

  Betts, Clive

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Blunkett, David

  McMaster, Gordon

  Boyce, Jimmy

  McNamara, Kevin

  Bradley, Keith

  McWilliam, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Maginnis, Ken

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Mahon, Alice

  Burden, Richard

  Marek, Dr John

  Byers, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Caborn, Richard

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Meale, Alan

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Cann, Jamie

  Miller, Andrew

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Clapham, Michael

  Morley, Elliot

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Clelland, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Cousins, Jim

  Pickthall, Colin

  Cox, Tom

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cryer, Bob

  Prentice, Mrs Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Dalyell, Tam

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Purchase, Ken

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

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Dowd, Jim

  Radice, Giles

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Raynsford, Nick

  Enright, Derek

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Etherington, Bill

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Rogers, Allan

  Faulds, Andrew

  Rooker, Jeff

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Rooney, Terry

  Flynn, Paul

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Salmond, Alex

  Foulkes, George

  Sheerman, Barry

  Fraser, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Gapes, Mike

  Short, Clare

  George, Bruce

  Simpson, Alan

  Gerrard, Neil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Snape, Peter

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Gunnell, John

  Spellar, John

  Hain, Peter

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

  Hall, Mike

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hanson, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Trimble, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Turner, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Hoey, Kate

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Home Robertson, John

  Walley, Joan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Watson, Mike

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Winnick, David

  Hutton, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  939

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wise, Audrey

  Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Alexander, Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Amess, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Ancram, Michael

  Hague, William

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Baldry, Tony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Harris, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bates, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Batiste, Spencer

  Heald, Oliver

  Bellingham, Henry

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hendry, Charles

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Bowis, John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Bright, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Jessel, Toby

  Burns, Simon

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Butcher, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Butterfill, John

  Key, Robert

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clappison, James

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward

  Congdon, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Conway, Derek

  Lightbown, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Couchman, James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Maclean, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Devlin, Tim

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Dicks. Terry

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Malone, Gerald

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mans, Keith

  Duncan, Alan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Eggar, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Merchant, Piers

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Mills, Iain

  Evennett, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Faber, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Moss, Malcolm

  Forman, Nigel

  Needham, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Freeman, Roger

  Norris, Steve

  Gale, Roger

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Page, Richard

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Paice, James

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Patnick, Irvine

  940

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Stephen, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Stewart, Allan

  Pickles, Eric

  Streeter, Gary

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Sumberg, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Redwood, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Trend, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Ward, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Watts, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wood, Timothy

  Soames, Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Robert Dunn and Sir Michael Neubert.

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main question agreed to.

  HOME AFFAIRS
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Hartley Booth, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Keith Vaz and Sir John Wheeler be members of the Home Affairs Committee—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Amendment proposed: (b), leave out 'Sir John Wheeler'.—[Sir Giles Shaw.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 139.

  Division No. 65]

  [12.21 am

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Congdon, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Conway, Derek

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baldry, Tony

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cryer, Bob

  Bates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Beggs, Roy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Devlin, Tim

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dicks, Terry

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brazier, Julian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bright, Graham

  Eggar, Tim

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Etherington, Bill

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Butcher, John

  Evennett, David

  Butterfill, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Cash, William

  Forman, Nigel

  Chapman, Sydney

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Clapham, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Clappison, James

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Freeman, Roger

  941

  Gale, Roger

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Norris, Steve

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Paice, James

  Hague, William

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pickles, Eric

  Hayes, Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Redwood, John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jack, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sackville, Tom

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lightbown, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stewart, Allan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Maclean, David

  Thomason, Roy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thurnham, Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Trimble, David

  Mans, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mates, Michael

  Ward, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Meale, Alan

  Watts, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Wells, Bowen

  Mills, Iain

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wilshire, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wood, Timothy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Yeo, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Needham, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Mr. Bob Dunn and Sir Michael Neubert.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Alexander, Richard

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Alton, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Ancram, Michael

  Cousins, Jim

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cox, Tom

  Ashton, Joe

  Dafis, Cynog

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Battle, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bayley, Hugh

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

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dowd, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Duncan, Alan

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Boyes, Roland

  Faber, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Byers, Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Fry, Peter

  Churchill, Mr

  Gapes, Mike

  942

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mullin, Chris

  Garnier, Edward

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  George, Bruce

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Gerrard, Neil

  Page, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Gorst, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Gunnell, John

  Radice, Giles

  Hall, Mike

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hannam, Sir John

  Riddick, Graham

  Hanson, David

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Harris, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Heald, Oliver

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hendry, Charles

  Salmond, Alex

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hoey, Kate

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Home Robertson, John

  Simpson, Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Sims, Roger

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Janner, Greville

  Spellar, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Spring, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Kennedy, Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

  Turner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tyler, Paul

  Lewis, Terry

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Livingstone, Ken

  Viggers, Peter

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Waller, Gary

  McFall, John

  Walley, Joan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Welsh, Andrew

  McMaster, Gordon

  Wicks, Malcolm

  McWilliam, John

  Winnick, David

  Mahon, Alice

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Wise, Audrey

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Peter Brooke.

  Morley, Elliot

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendment made: (a), after `Mr. John Greenway', insert 'Sir Ivan Lawrence'.—[Sir Giles Shaw.]
  Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Hartley Booth, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Edward Gamier, Mr. John Greenway, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mrs. Barbara Roche and Mr. Keith Vaz be members of the Home Affairs Committee.

  NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Joe Ashton, Dr. John G. Blackburn, Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Paul Channon, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Bryan Davies, Mr. John Gorst, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Gerald Kaufman and Mr. John Maxton be members of the National Heritage Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Spencer Batiste, Dr. Jeremy Bray, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Cheryl Gillan, Mr. William Powell, Sir Giles Shaw, Sir Trevor Skeet, Dr. Gavin Strang, Sir Gerard Vaughan and Mr. Alan W. Williams be members of the Science and Technology Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Eric Clarke, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, Dr. Liam Fox, Mr. Phil Gallie, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. George Kynoch, Mr. Willian McKelvey, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Raymond S. Robertson and Mr. Andrew Welsh be members of the Scottish Affairs Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Michael Bates, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. David Faber, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Tessa Jowell, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. David Shaw and Mr. David Willetts be members of the Social Security Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Richard Caborn, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. Jim Cousins, Sir Anthony Grant, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. Doug. Hoyle, Mr. Adam Ingram, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Stanley Orme and Mr. Barry Porter be members of the Trade and Industry Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 43.

  Division No. 66]

  [12. 34 am

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cox, Tom

  Alexander, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Allen, Graham

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amess, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Ancram, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dixon, Don

  Ashton, Joe

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan, Alan

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bates, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bayley, Hugh

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evennett, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Faber, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowis, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling;

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Graham

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Freeman, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Fry, Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Gale, Roger

  Butcher, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Butler, Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butterfill, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Byers, Stephen

  Garnier, Edward

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chapman, Sydney

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clappison, James

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Gunnell, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hague, William

  Congdon, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Conway, Derek

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hanson, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Harris, David

  944

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hayes, Jerry

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heald, Oliver

  Pickles, Eric

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hendry, Charles

  Portillo. Rt Hon Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Redwood, John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Home Robertson, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hutton, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jack, Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sackville, Tom

  Jessel, Toby

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Spellar, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McFall, John

  Stephen, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  Maclean, David

  Sumberg, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thomason, Roy

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Malone, Gerald

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mans, Keith

  Thurnham, Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Tredinnick, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Trend, Michael

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Viggers, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Merchant, Piers

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Miller, Andrew

  Waller, Gary

  Mills, Iain

  Ward, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wareing, Robert N

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Watson, Mike

  Moss, Malcolm

  Watts, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Wells, Bowen

  Needham, Richard

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wilshire, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Yeo, Tim

  Norris, Steve

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Paice, James

  Mr. Bob Dunn and Sir Michael Neubert.

  Patnick, Irvine

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beggs, Roy

  Cryer, Bob

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dafis, Cynog

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dalyell, Tam

  945

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Flynn, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoey, Kate

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Janner, Greville

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &S)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Trimble, David

  Lewis, Terry

  Tyler, Paul

  Livingstone, Ken

  Welsh, Andrew

  Macdonald, Calum

  Maginnis, Ken

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mahon, Alice

  Ms. Liz Lynne and Mr. Alex Salmond.

  Marek, Dr John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  TRANSPORT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Mr. Matthew Banks, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Terry Dicks, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. David Marshall be members of the Transport Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE
  Ordered,
  That Ms. Diane Abbott, Sir Thomas Arnold, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Nicholas Budgen, Mrs. Judith Chaplin, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Barry Legg, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. John Watts be members of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee.[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Jonathan Evans, Mr. Roger Evans, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Rod Richards, Mr. Mark Robinson, Mr. Walter Sweeney and Mr. Gareth Wardell be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  SELECT COMMITTEES (INTERESTS)
  Ordered,
  That this House takes note of the First Report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests of Session 1990–91 (HC 108) relating to the interests of Chairmen and Members of Select Committees, and approves the recommendations of the Committee relating to declaration of interest in Select Committees (paragraphs 8 to 16), withdrawal from Committee proceedings (paragraph 24) and procedures prior to the election to a Chairman (paragraph 25).—[Mr.
  Newton.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 15th July, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Patten relating to Education not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon; and the said Motion may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Newton.]

  Social Security Fraud
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  12.46 am
  Mr. David Evans: Little did I think, when I applied for this Adjournment debate, that it would follow such an exciting evening. I hope that my contribution can match up to the proceedings so far.
  After two world wars—in particular the last—Great Britain was destitute. Rationing had become a way of life. The aim of the welfare state was to create a land fit for heroes. Today, unfortunately. it has produced a land fit for scroungers. As this country has become richer, our spending on welfare programmes has accelerated. By far the largest item of national expenditure is the £71,000 million that we spend each year on social security. For many, that sustains a gravy train that they have been riding all their lives.
  The system is open to massive abuse. The head of the organised fraud unit at the Benefits Agency has said that it is easier to counterfeit a benefit book or a giro cheque than to go into a bank with a shotgun. There are fewer risks, and the returns are just as good. A criminal with 100 stolen security books could draw £8,000 a week.
  Tonight, however, I shall concentrate not on elaborate frauds but rather on the routine deceptions perpetuated by millions of people every day. Throughout the country, thieves, cheats and criminals exploit the benefit system. It caters for greed, not need. By tackling the problem with forceful measures, the Government would not be kicking people who are down; rather they would be ensuring that a bigger slice of the cake was available to those who genuinely need it.
  Since 1979, the Government have provided people with a multitude of incentives to work. For instance, they have reduced the basic rate of tax from 33p to 25p in the pound, and they have taken 1·5 million out of tax payment altogether. However, as well as waving a carrot, we must brandish a stick at those who scoff at such incentives and shy away from earning an honest living. It is about time the nanny state bared its teeth.
  Essentially, social security fraud involves two types of criminal. The first may be called simply the layabout. At present, there are 841,000 long-term unemployed people—men and women who have been out of work for more than a year. I believe that, of those, 500,000 have no intention whatsoever of ever working again. They blatantly milk the system, and have probably not missed an Oval test match or a set at Wimbledon for years.
  I am delighted that this problem is recognised even by Opposition Members. Indeed, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) recently said:
  "Labour has been linked with freeloaders for too long."
  Who would argue with that? The hon. Gentleman continued:
  "I … know ordinary folk who expect rewards for hard work. They have no time for people who lie in bed when they are fit and able to get a job."
  Constituents write to me and say that layabouts in their street laugh at them for going to work. They rightly resent having to subsidise their neighbours' extended leisure time. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall quote part of a letter that I received only this week:
  "Dear Mr. Evans,
  The attached newspaper cut about your efforts on the

  947
  perpetually unemployed was interesting. My son, sad to say, is one of the long-term unemployed. He is 29, and he and his live-in girlfriend of like persuasion draw £150 a week for themselves and two children. He scorns people who go to work and gives this reason: a job at £3 an hour would be less than he gets now, £4 an hour would mean going to work, and £5 an hour would start paying tax."
  That is the sort of scrounger I am talking about. The letter goes on:
  "The rest of us in the family are workers. My wife and I retired recently from a very successful business that we ran. My daughter has simply no time for my son's life style, yet there must be a million like him."
  That gentleman is absolutely right.
  To help to combat the problem, the Government should offer rewards to people who shop layabouts to the authorities. The potential saving to the British taxpayer is enormous—probably £1,000 million. People up and down the country know of a least one person in their street who dodges work and claims benefit. Rewards would encourage citizens to round up these cheats. In our communities, we should have dole posses as well as neighbourhood watch schemes. That would certainly increase the prosecution rate.
  There were only 4,379 prosecutions for social security fraud last year, which represented only one quarter of all the cases detected. These people, categorised as layabouts, should have to report every morning to the local authority for community work before being entitled to benefit. For each year of unemployment over two years, one week's benefit should be stopped. Alternatively, why should we not have identity cards? Why should we not be able to identify those who have a legal right to social security benefits?
  The other category of social security criminal is made up of the persons—there are millions of them—who claim unemployment benefit while working. This applies not only to the black economy but to regular work also.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: I will not.
  I believe that £1,000 million a year is stolen by these people. Staff in benefit offices say that these cheats even come to claim their money wearing a suit or overalls, ready to go to their place of work. They prefer to sign on early so as not to disrupt their working day. Instead of requiring claimants to call in at a set time, we should institute spot checks. Social security staff should be able to contact a claimant at a moment's notice.
  Greater pressure should also be put on employers who take on people who are obviously working the black economy. In May, a racket was uncovered in Surrey, where gang masters were providing unemployed labour to fruit farmers for £5 an hour. There cannot be a cheat without a collusive employer who allows that person time off to sign on.
  At present, 2,658 full-time equivalent staff are employed on duties relating to social security fraud. That number should be greatly increased and more staff should be used to weed out employers who are costing this country a fortune, lining their own pockets by using illegal labour.
  Instead of sending cheats, dodgy employers and layabouts to prison—they would probably relish the opportunity to put their feet up—they should be made to undertake unsavoury community service. Alternatively,
  948
  we could make them attend the Labour party conference—perhaps some of them already do. Repeat offenders should be sent to the Liberal Democrat conference—at least there are plenty of available seats. They would then think twice about swindling the taxpayer.
  The tragedy is that many of the fraudsters are not ashamed of their actions, and many others in our society turn a blind eye to them. If they mugged an old lady for money, they would be condemned, but when they are indirectly taking money from pensioners via the benefit system, many do not bat an eyelid at their fraud. They are sent before magistrates, who administer little more than tea and sympathy.
  The mandatory sentence for those committing fraud should be a turn on the good ducking stool in the local river—a good public flogging would he even better. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has a good suggestion; he thinks that a ball and chain should be put on offenders—the larger the offence, the larger the ball and chain.
  All things considered, it is little wonder that this country has become the focus of the European Community leisure industry. Forget EuroDisney: London is the place to have fun, all at the expense of the British taxpayer. According to figures produced by the Department of Social Security for 1990–91, some 220,000 foreign citizens came into Britain and registered for social security benefit. How many of them were genuine?
  Most of them were from the EC, which is not surprising. Britain is attractive because it is the only place in Europe where claimants are entitled to unemployment benefit for a full year. They draw that benefit while working in the black economy. They can also seek housing benefit amounting to the full cost of accommodation, plus allowances. The total sum can run to considerably more than £150 per person, per week.
  In contrast, an Italian claiming in Italy is entitled to 20 per cent. of his average daily wage in the four weeks preceding unemployment for up to six months. If he received no earnings in those four weeks, he gets no money.
  The purpose of the single European market was to create free movement of labour. Instead, it seems to have produced free movement of cheats and layabouts, with Britain as the land of milk and honey. In common with the United States, we should refuse entry to all people from the EC unless they can prove that they have a bona fide job or sufficient funds to keep them during their stay. Why should my constituents subsidise Italian playboys on the make in London?
  I have said it before and I shall say it again: I do not believe that anyone who comes to this country should receive any benefit until he has worked and paid taxes for five years.
  I recognise that the Government have made considerable strides in combating fraud. I was delighted to learn that anti-fraud staff saved £416 million from fraud last year, and have set a target of £460 million this year. So my figure of £1,000 million is not too far adrift. Ministers have clearly realised that investing in detection provides a high rate of return, which is why more resources must be committed to it.
  The huge army of scroungers out there must be brought to book. We owe it to the taxpayer, the staff who are abused daily in benefit offices and, above all, those who

  949
  genuinely require state assistance. If somebody genuinely needs our help, we shall help them. But those who work the system—no way.
  I hope that the Minister will assure the House that she is aware that a social security fraud problem exists and will do even more than has been done already.
  1 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Government's approach to tackling social security fraud [Interruption.] The frivolity with which Opposition Members have greeted this subject would not be shared by their constituents.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, in the traditions of Adjournment debates, I shall not.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the debate on public expenditure—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I realise that this debate has tested Opposition Members' self-control, but I should like to hear the Minister in peace.
  Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that I shall make no further impositions on their fragile self-control.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the debate on public expenditure on 7 May that one of his key priorities was to bear down on fraud and abuse. It is an important subject and an essential element in any social security system, but it attracts too little serious attention and perhaps occasionally attention of the wrong sort.
  Why is it one of our top priorities? It is not out of any sense of suspicion towards genuine social security beneficiaries, but because social security fraud and abuse harm the very people whom social security was designed to help—people on low incomes, people in genuine need and people who have spent their life working and paying national insurance contributions in the expectation that when they retire they will receive a decent pension. Fraud and abuse harm those people by stealing the money that they pay or have paid in taxes and national insurance, reducing the resources which can go into social security, bringing social security into disrepute, and making people in genuine need think twice about claiming.
  Fraud comes in any number of guises. At one extreme are the people who drift into fraud out of the misplaced belief that perhaps one small lie does not matter. Then there are determined fraudsters who work while signing on as unemployed, invent extra children, discover how to invent a fictitious identity for themselves, or fail to disclose an earning partner.
  At the farthest extreme are the so-called professional criminals, who burgle offices to steal blank order books, counterfeit instruments of payment, and run rackets involving multiple false identities and many different benefit claims. Their numbers are not great, but they represent a worrying element which calls out for tough action. Increasingly, we are beginning to see violent
  950
  criminals involved in that type of fraud. They prey on the naive and vulnerable by using them as runners to cash order books and take the risks.
  Fraud is also a constantly changing field of action and counter-action. When we erect one barrier to fraud and abuse, the determined fraudsters will try to find a way round it. When we counter that new technique, they think up something else.
  So how do we bear down on fraud and abuse? There are four planks to our strategy. There is deterrence—stopping fraud from happening in the first place; detection, to which my hon. Friend referred—finding it and stopping it when it does happen; recovery, so that we get back the money that people have stolen; and, in certain cases, prosecution—we take the most serious cases to court.
  Deterrence is obviously crucial: its importance cannot be overrated. It is the most effective way of controlling fraud. We need constantly to improve our defences. By introducing the new income support computer system, we closed one avenue to fraud. People would claim income support at several different offices simultaneously; now, because the system is automated, they have to use more ingenuity and take more risks to create and maintain false identities.
  More recently, we introduced a staff awareness package, "Fraud in Focus", to train staff in what to look out for and how to identify suspicious claims. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that we are working with the Post Office on a similar fraud awareness package for its counter staff, to teach them how to spot false or amended order books and giro cheques and to ascertain what evidence will verify a genuine identity.
  However, as with many decisions on fraud, a balance must be struck between deterring fraud and running a social security system which allows people with genuine need to gain access to it. However strongly my right hon. Friend may feel, I am sure that he will agree that, if we turn ourselves into Fort Knox, we shall defeat the whole object of social security. Our strategy, therefore, is to put in sufficient checks and levels of verification to deter fraud, but not to be so intrusive as to deter genuine claimants.
  Inevitably some people will slip through the net, and that is where detection comes in. We employ around 2,800 people to work against fraud, and most of them work on finding it and then stopping it. We have recently reorganised them to make them as well trained and effective as possible. Most fraud staff are now organised into sector teams, which are managed separately from benefit-paying operations but have a local presence. We also run regional fraud teams, which specialise in the most serious cases of social security fraud. We are developing new performance measures for our fraud staff to make what they do as effective as possible.
  As my hon. Friend has pointed out, these measures are working. Last year, as he said, our fraud staff stopped some £416 million-worth of fraud—an increase of £83 million on the previous year. As he also said, this year's target is the best part of half a billion pounds, and in the first three months we are well on the way to achieving it.
  When we find and stop fraud, we aim to recover the money that has been overpaid by deducting it from the fraudster's remaining benefit, or by civil recovery action. In a proportion of cases, we prosecute. We do not aim to prosecute everyone; it is a very labour-intensive exercise, and it would tie up manpower which could be used more

  951
  effectively in detecting and stopping more fraudsters. Nor would universal prosecution be necessary for its deterrent effect. The real possibility of being taken to court is the deterrent, and we are grateful to local papers which cover social security cases and ensure that word gets around.
  In many cases of petty fraud, there would be little point in prosecution. Fines do not work well when a fraudster is on a low income and cannot pay them. Gaol sentences would often not be given because of the pettiness of the offence, and would in many cases leave the family on social security. We therefore aim to prosecute serious cases of fraud—taking the social, domestic and medical circumstances of the offender into account, rather than small-scale fraud. We do not, however, rule out prosecution as a last resort, if the circumstances warrant it. Last year, we took nearly 4,500 cases to court—a quarter of the confirmed fraud cases discovered—and our prosecution success rate was around 95 per cent.
  As I have said, fraud is constantly changing its nature and there are always more areas to tackle. An example in the past few years has been the upsurge in abuse of the social security system by bogus asylum seekers. We have worked with the Home Office on better ways of identifying and controlling claims for asylum seekers, and we have reduced the order book period for asylum seekers from 20 to six weeks. We have also put resources into detecting multiple false claims by people masquerading as asylum seekers. We believe that, with the Home Office, we are now getting the problem under control.
  There will, however, be other problems to tackle. Determined fraudsters can he very resourceful. The answer to this lies in effective ties between all the agencies involved in countering fraud—our own fraud staff, local authorities, the Department of Employment, the Home Office, and the police, with whom we enjoy an excellent relationship. It lies also in constantly learning from experience and ploughing back the lessons into training and new procedures; and it lies increasingly in information technology.
  We already make substantial use of our computer systems to pick up and track fraud. The departmental central index, which holds details of claims to most social security benefits. is a very valuable resource. However, we believe that we can do a lot more to tap the full potential of this most potent asset within the letter and the spirit of the Data Protection Act 1984. In the coming years, we shall be using information technology more and more to deter fraud and to help detect it, by making it easier to cross-check details of claims and to identify suspicious claims.
  My hon. Friend has spoken about abuse of the system, where people are not claiming fraudulently but neither are
  952
  they making serious efforts to find work. I well understand my hon. Friend's concern. We take all abuse of social security seriously. That is why we have made it a condition of getting unemployment benefits that people must be actively seeking work. It is not enough merely to sign on every fortnight. The Employment Service interviews every new claimant in depth. It reviews all claims for claimants who have been unemployed for more than 13 weeks, and it interviews at this stage all claimants who appear to need an in-depth discussion about their efforts to get back into work.
  We introduced the restart programme in 1986 to guarantee an advisory interview every six months and ensure that claimants know and get a fair share of the employment and training opportunities available in their locality. After two years, everyone has to attend a restart course. An unemployed person who refuses a job offered or refuses to go for an interview can be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for up to 26 weeks.
  The signs are that we are winning the battle. Twenty years ago, people thought that it was smart to drink and drive. Now they do not, and even young people believe that it is morally wrong to put lives at risk in that way. A similar shift, although it is hard to detect in the attitude of Opposition Members tonight, is occurring in attitudes to social security. During the 1960s, some people began to think there was nothing wrong with abusing social security—that it was their right to live off the taxpayer if they so chose.
  I believe that that attitude is now far less prevalent. Since the Conservatives have been in power, our unambiguous approach to abuse has had its effects. However, there are still those who believe that they can expect the taxpayer to support them. We need effective controls to stop those people exploiting a system designed to help genuine need.
  In summary, the message that I should like to get across tonight to the vast majority of genuine social security beneficiaries and the small number of fraudulent ones is as follows. We are not a soft touch. People who are honest and in genuine need have nothing to fear and should exercise their right to claim benefit. The system is here to meet their needs. But those thinking about claiming benefit fraudulently should not do so, because we shall find them, catch them, and make them repay what they have stolen, and they risk being taken to court and fined, or being sent to prison.
  I commend the measures to my hon. Friend and to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past One o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  European Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has for his Department to celebrate in 1993 the European Year of the Elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I have no such plans.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in his Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  The Attorney-General
  I have no plans to relocate any civil servants in the legal secretariat to the Law Officers or the Serious Fraud Office. The property division of the Treasury Solicitor's Department—nearly one quarter of the total staff—was relocated to Taunton in August 1991 but no further parts of the office are suitable for relocation. Some 90 per cent. of the staff of the Crown prosecution service are located near to the courts throughout England and Wales which deal with the criminal cases prosecuted by the service. The scope for devolving headquarters posts to locations outside London is kept continuously under review.

  British National Party
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the evidence submitted to the Crown prosecution service following the search of the British National party premises in Welling in January.

  The Attorney-General
  A police report was submitted to the Crown prosecution service following the execution of a search warrant on 9 January 1992 at premises at 154 Upper Wickham lane, Welling in Kent.

  Having given careful consideration to this report and taken the advice of Treasury Counsel, the Crown prosecution service decided not to initiate proceedings, on the basis that the available evidence was not such as to give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction for offences contrary to part III of the Public Order Act 1986.

  I have also considered this matter and have concluded that the decision by the Crown prosecution service is entirely justified.

ENVIRONMENT

  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish a consultation document on the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 19 June,Official Report, column 693.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to review the outstanding permission for mineral extraction which affect sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 placed a duty on mineral planning authorities to review mineral sites in their area, including environmentally sensitive sites such as SSSIs, and to make such orders revoking or modifying permissions as they considered necessary. The Government announced in the environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" their intention to review the legislative framework governing the updating of minerals permissions. We have already taken action in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 to deal with the problems caused by Interim Development Order permissions granted in the 1940s and we are consulting on options for updating mineral permissions granted in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

  Protected Birds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will strengthen statutory provision for protection for vulnerable habitats and protected species in the United Kingdom along the lines proposed to him by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

  Mr. Maclean
  The RSPB has made a number of representations to my right hon. and learned Friend, to me and to my officials about the protection of habitats and species. I am always pleased to receive its proposals and take them fully into account in my considerations of policy for nature conservation.

  Vacant Public Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to develop vacant and derelict public land for recreation purposes.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have recently announced our intention to establish an Urban Regeneration Agency with powers to reclaim vacant, derelict and underused land in urban areas. As indicated in planning policy guidance note 17 "Sport and Recreation", published in September 1991, the Government encourage the development of sport and recreation in the widest sense and advises local planning authorities on the policies they should incorporate in their development plans for the provision of space and facilities for sport and recreation. The Urban Regeneration Agency will promote the use of land it reclaims for these purposes where appropriate.

  "Agenda 21"
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new United Kingdom contributions to international scientific programmes he proposes to establish as a result of the "Agenda 21" chapter on science for sustainable development agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Maclean
  This chapter has four programme areas—strengthening the scientific basis for sustainable development, enhancing scientific understanding, improving long-term scientific assessment, and building up scientific capacity and capability. The United Kingdom is already extremely active in these areas working with developing countries both directly and through governmental and non-governmental international bodies. We are, for example, playing leading roles in a range of international programmes on climate change and its consequences. Some of the additional funds committed by the United Kingdom by replenishing the global environmental facility will no doubt be deployed on projects covered by chapter 35. More specifically. the United Kingdom initiatives on satelite monitoring, on technology, transfer, and on biodiversity—the Darwin initiative—will add significantly to our inputs to promoting science for sustainable development. I understand that new Natural Environment Research Council initiatives in training and research in taxonomy and in biodiversity, are designed to strengthen the United Kingdom science base thus underpinning existing and new applied work with developing countries.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in his Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  Mr. Howard
  The need for civil servants in my Department to be located in central London is kept under review, in accordance with Government policy. We continue therefore to look for further opportunities to move posts to other parts of the country, in addition to looking at the suitability of posts to be moved to docklands.

  Gipsy Sites
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pending the publication of his consultation paper on the law relating to gipsy sites, he will suspend further approval of local authority applications for the funding of pitches on council sites and any decisions on applications for designation of areas under sections 10 and 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Mr. Baldry
  I do not think that it would be appropriate to do so.

  Abstraction Licences
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority about the provision of funds for the revocation of abstraction licences.
  400
  Mr. Maclean
  The funding implications of the authority's proposals for this and other water resources capital expenditure were among the issues I discussed with my right hon. and noble Friend at our recent meeting on the authority's corporate plan.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of household waste has been recycled by Chelmsford borough council in each of the last three available years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the recycling activities of individual local authorities is not held centrally at present. Recycling plans are now being prepared by every waste collection authority in the country as a result of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The plans are due to be submitted in draft to the Secretary of State by 1 August. they will contain information on the quantities of waste which the council expects to deal with by separating, baling or otherwise packaging it for the purpose of recycling it. The plan for Chelmsford has not yet been received.

  Council House Exchanges
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council tenants sought advice from their council about how to exchange their home with a tenant in a different local authority area in the six months from October 1991 to March 1992; and how many mutual exchanges took place in this period.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information is not collected centrally about the number of council tenants who seek advice from their local authority about exchanging their home.

  Information about the number of mutual exchanges is reported by local authorities on their annual housing investment programme returns—HIP1. The latest available information records that 46,100 dwellings were let through mutual exchanges in the period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991.

  Private Sector Leases
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to assist local authorities in tackling homelessness by reducing the cost of private sector leases.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. It is for local authorities to negotiate the cost of leases with landlords on an individual basis. My Department is, however, providing assistance of £20 million this year to the local authorities most affected by the recent change to finance short-term leases from outside the housing revenue account.

  Council House Waiting Lists
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many names are on the waiting lists for tenancies of council houses in England.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities report the number of households on their council housing waiting lists in their annual housing investment programme—HIP1—returns.

  The figures as at 1 April 1991 are in colum B5 of the "1991 HIP1 All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Vacant Public Sector Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many years it would take to get rid of the surplus vacant public sector land; and how much it would cost to run the register for that period if no extra land was added to the register;

  (2) what is the regional breakdown of land on the surplus vacant public sector land register with no potential, low potential and moderate/high potential, on a percentage basis;

  (3) how many acres of unused and underused land are at present in the ownership of British Rail, the urban development corporations, local authorities, government departments, the residuary bodies and British Coal;

  (4) how many acres of unused and underused land have been entered onto and also removed from the surplus vacant public sector land register in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Secretary of State's register of unused and underused land has for most purposes been superseded by registers maintained by each public sector owner and since 1989 has been maintained only in connection with requests to order the disposal of sites. The central register is therefore too out of date to be used as a basis for meaningful analysis.

  The Department does not hold detailed information about the amount of land on the registers maintained by owners or the quality and development potential of individual sites. Nor can we make estimates of the costs incurred by owners in maintaining the registers.

  Town and Country Planning
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what benefits he expects to accrue to the United Kingdom from the inclusion of town and country planning in the Maastricht treaty as a new EC competence.

  Mr. Baldry
  The benefit to the United Kingdom is that the inclusion clarifies the competence of the Community on this aspect of environmental policy as well as the decision-making procedures to he followed on proposals from the Commission.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many permanent jobs have been created in each urban development area(a) since 1981–82 and (b) since 1987–88, net of losses.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Estimates of employment in urban development areas are derived from surveys commissioned periodically by urban development corporations, and refer to the period since the designation of the areas. The figures below give the latest net estimate of permanent jobs created since inception in all UDAs except Merseyside. The figures for Merseyside UDA relate to the period since the area was extended in 1988.

  UDA

  Date Established

  Estimated number of permanent jobs created (net of losses)

  London Docklands

  1981

  26,000

  Merseyside

  extended 1988

  2,000

  Trafford Park

  1987

  8,231

  402

  UDA

  Date Established

  Estimated number of permanent jobs created (net of losses)

  Black Country

  1987

  3,000

  Teesside

  1987

  6,025

  Tyne & Wear

  1987

  9,237

  Central Manchester

  1988

  750

  Leeds

  1988

  3,875

  Sheffield

  1988

  5,902

  Bristol

  1989

  4,483

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what levels of borrowing have been undertaken by each urban development corporation in each year since 1985–86.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is as follows:

  Amount

  Bristol

  —nil

  Black Country

  —nil

  Central Manchester

  —£350,000 in 1991–92

  Leeds

  —nil

  London Docklands

  —£3,100,000 in 1985–86

  Merseyside

  —£605,000 in 1985–86

  —£55,000 in 1986–87

  —£10,000 in 1987–88

  Sheffield

  —nil

  Teeside

  —£227,000 in 1988–89

  Trafford Park

  —nil

  Tyne and Wear

  —nil

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much grant in aid has been made available to each urban development corporation since 1981 as a cash sum(a) at current prices and (b) 1981 prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Only two urban development corporations have been in existence since 1981, London Docklands and Merseyside. Their total grant in aid since 1981 is:

  £ million

  (a) at current prices;

  London Docklands

  1,317.51

  Merseyside

  268.22

  (b) at 1981 prices;

  London Docklands

  1,994.65

  Merseyside

  361.68

  For the total grant in aid made available to the other urban development corporations from their inception, I refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 24 June 1992, Official Report, columns 195–96.

  Area Cost Adjustment Scheme
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will redistribute the money made available under the area cost adjustment scheme to south-east authorities outside London in a manner which would treat all local authorities equally; and what sums would be made available to other authorities by such redistribution.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The area cost adjustment within standard spending assessments reflects the additional
  403
  employment costs faced by authorities in London and the south-east in providing the services for which they are responsible at a standard level. There are no plans to remove this adjustment for authorities in the south-east but we are always willing to consider any evidence brought forward.

  If the money made available under the area cost adjustment to south-east authorities outside London were to be redistributed to all authorities outside London the sum available would be £15 per adult.

  Planning and Compensation Act 1991
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to bring into force the remaining enforcement provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: On 27 July we shall bring into force—

  (1) the new breach of condition notice (section 2 of the Act), enabling the local planning authority to enforce compliance with planning conditions more economically and efficiently;

  (2) the revised enforcement "immunity" rules (section 4 of the Act), establishing new time-limits for the planning authority to initiate enforcement action; and

  (3) the new "lawful development certificate" provisions (section 10 of the Act), enabling the planning authority to decide, on an application to them, whether present or proposed development of land is lawful for planning control purposes.

  A joint Department of the Environment and Welsh Office circular is being issued today, explaining how these provisions are intended to operate.

  These provisions complete the implementation of the Government's thorough overhaul of planning authorities' powers for enforcing planning control over all types of unauthorised development of land. Provided that planning authorities use these new and strengthened powers vigorously and quickly, whenever their use is justified, they should now be able to remedy unlawful development whenever it is unacceptable on planning grounds. We intend to review the effectiveness of the strengthened enforcement regime once it has been in operation for a reasonable period.

  Recycling
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements will be made for evaluating the environmental impact of recyclable materials in products before a Europewide standard for recycling comes into force.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have no reason to believe that a Europewide standard for recycling is coming into force, or being contemplated. However, my Department has commissioned Warren Spring laboratory to carry out research into the environmental impact of recycling. In addition, the recyclability of materials used in products may feature as one of the criteria for the award of ecolabels under the recently agreed EC ecolabelling regulation.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made for exchange of manufacturing information relating to recyclable materials across Europe.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have been asked to reply.
  404
  No arrangements of a formal nature have been put in place, but my Department and the Department of the Environment participate in international and EC conferences, seminars and workshops at which recycling issues generally are debated, and views exchanged.

TRANSPORT

  Shipping
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of(a) foreign earnings by British shipping, (b) earnings of British shipping from the United Kingdom cabotage trade and (c) the City of London's maritime earnings, for each of the last 20 years;

  (2) what estimate he has made for the earnings of United Kingdom-owned vessels from cross-trades for each of the last 20 years, respectively;

  (3) what latest figure he has for the percentage of United Kingdom shipping earnings that come from cross-trade.

  Mr. Norris
  The table sets out the available figures. It does not include estimates of earnings on United Kingdom cabotage, information on which is not readily available.

  (1) Total International Revenue

  (2) Revenue from Cross Trades

  (3) Cross Trades as percentage of total

  (4) City of London Maritime earnings

  1970

  1,648

  848

  51

  —

  1971

  1,921

  1,023

  53

  —

  1972

  1,863

  928

  50

  —

  1973

  2,357

  1,215

  52

  —

  1974

  2,993

  1,413

  47

  —

  1975

  2,875

  1,205

  42

  —

  1976

  3,447

  1,527

  44

  —

  1977

  3,558

  1,594

  45

  —

  1978

  3,174

  1,427

  45

  —

  1979

  3,840

  1,812

  47

  218

  1980

  3,747

  1,776

  47

  204

  1981

  3,577

  1,754

  49

  319

  1982

  3,184

  1,303

  41

  283

  1983

  2,993

  1,205

  40

  279

  1984

  3,191

  1,308

  41

  297

  1985

  3,175

  1,125

  35

  254

  1986

  3,260

  1,309

  40

  245

  1987

  3,444

  1,390

  40

  249

  1988

  3,683

  1,406

  38

  352

  1989

  4,076

  1,678

  41

  450

  1990

  3,957

  1,465

  37

  694

  Notes:—Column 1 includes earnings from United Kingdom passengers and freight on United Kingdom imports.

  Column 3 covers ONLY earnings from overseas residents by Baltic Exchange and Lloyd's Register of Shipping. Estimates of earnings from maritime insurance are not readily available.

  Estimates for 1991 will be available in the latest edition of the CSO Pink Book ("UK Balance of Payments"), to be published within the next two months.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many seafarers are currently employed on vessels which are beneficially British-owned on, respectively, the United Kingdom register, the Crown dependencies register, British dependent territories register, and any other register, on the latest date for which he has figures, and on each year for the last 20 years.

  Mr. Norris
  Employment figures which distinguish between United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom flagged ships are not available for years prior to 1986. Separate statistics for the Crown dependencies and
  405
  dependent territories registers are not produced. The annual statistics available to the Department do not include seafarers employed by companies which do not belong to the Chamber of Shipping.

  With these provisos, the table shows the information requested:

  Total

  31 December

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  19911

  United Kingdom flag

  14,969

  12,500

  11,671

  9,996

  10,053

  Non-United Kingdom flag

  6,742

  7,799

  8,485

  9,296

  10,343

  Back-up United Kingdom flag

  8,308

  8,473

  8,460

  7,136

  8,056

  Back-up non-United Kingdom flag

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3,595

  Registry:

  France

  Germany, FR

  Greece

  Norway2

  Denmark3

  1972

  1,390

  2,546

  2,241

  2,826

  1,331

  1973

  1,376

  2,234

  2,536

  2,758

  1,362

  1974

  1,341

  2,088

  2,651

  2,689

  1,349

  1975

  1,393

  1,964

  2,743

  2,706

  1,371

  1976

  1,388

  1,957

  2,921

  2,759

  1,413

  1977

  1,327

  1,975

  3,344

  2,738

  1,407

  1978

  1,317

  1,999

  3,666

  2,646

  1,397

  1979

  1,247

  1,926

  3,827

  2,531

  1,315

  1980

  1,241

  1,906

  3,922

  2,501

  1,253

  1981

  1,199

  1,820

  3,710

  2,409

  1,169

  1982

  1,171

  1,782

  3,501

  2,409

  1,152

  1983

  1,173

  1,769

  3,169

  2,340

  1,112

  1984

  1,174

  1,813

  2,904

  2,271

  1,101

  1985

  1,136

  1,816

  2,599

  2,219

  1,070

  1986

  984

  1,752

  2,255

  2,107

  1,063

  1987

  954

  1,414

  1,948

  1,979

  1,256

  1988

  930

  1,233

  1,874

  2,078

  1,240

  1989

  921

  1,185

  1,839

  2,304

  1,256

  1990

  900

  1,179

  1,814

  2,557

  1,260

  1991

  910

  11,522

  1,863

  2,577

  1,290

  1 Includes the former German Democratic Republic.

  2 Includes the Norwegian International Register, NIS.

  3 Includes the Danish International Register, DIS.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what figure he has for the number of beneficially British-owned vessels registered, for each of the last 20 years respectively in(a) the Crown dependencies, (b) British dependent territories, (c) the United Kingdom and (d) none of the above;

  (2) if he will list the number of vessels, not beneficially British owned, which have been registered on the United Kingdom register, the registers for Crown dependencies and the registers of British dependent territories, in each of the last 20 years respectively.

  Mr. Norris
  Information is only available from 1988 onwards, as follows—vessels over 100 gross registered tons:

  Number of United Kingdom parent owned vessels, by registry and year1

  Registry

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  21992

  United Kingdom

  1,720

  1,668

  1,584

  1,557

  1,542

  Crown Dependency

  83

  68

  87

  91

  91

  Dependent Territories

  149

  141

  117

  120

  119

  Foreign

  528

  536

  674

  698

  709

  TOTAL

  2,480

  2,413

  2,462

  2,466

  2,461

  1 As at 31 December.

  2 As at 31 March 1992.

  406

  Total

  31 December

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  19911

  Total

  30,019

  28,772

  28,616

  26,428

  32,047

  1 1 June 1991.

  2 Not available.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of vessels registered on the(a) French, (b) German, (c) Greek, (d) Norwegian and (e) Danish registers in each of the last 20 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested, as at 1 July, is given in the table.

  Number of non-United Kingdom parent owned vessels, by registry and year1

  Registry

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  21992

  United Kingdom

  290

  268

  279

  262

  257

  Crown Dependency

  79

  69

  49

  46

  45

  Dependent Territories

  779

  660

  619

  603

  604

  1 As at 1 January.

  2 As at 31 March 1992.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what calculation he has made of the average age of the United Kingdom-owned fleet registered in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Crown dependencies and (c) the dependent territories at the latest date for which figures are available; and what estimate he has of the average age of vessels of the United Kingdom's main merchant navy competitors.

  Mr. Norris
  Figures for British-registered fleets and for the fleets of other major shipping registers, are shown in the tables:
  407

  Average age1 of the United Kingdom owned trading2 fleet: by registry: 31 March 1992

  Average age

  Registry

  Years

  Months

  United Kingdom

  16

  1

  Crown Dependencies

  14

  2

  Dependent territories

  12

  7

  Foreign registries

  15

  5

  All United Kingdom owned ships

  14

  8

  1 Average age of total deadweight.

  2 Trading vessels are those which carry cargo or passengers for commercial purposes. Certain vessel types, for example, dredgers and fishing vessels, are therefore deemed "non trading".

  Average age1 of trading2 fleets owned in other countries: 31 March 1992

  Average age

  Years

  Months

  United Kingdom

  14

  8

  Denmark

  8

  9

  France

  13

  6

  Germany

  9

  6

  Greece

  15

  6

  Italy

  12

  9

  Netherlands

  9

  6

  Spain

  13

  4

  All European Community owned ship;

  12

  5

  Liberia

  13

  3

  Panama

  12

  1

  United States of America

  19

  3

  Cyprus

  15

  11

  Norway

  13

  0

  Japan

  8

  10

  All ships

  13

  4

  1 Average age of total deadweight.

  2 Trading vessels are those which carry cargo or passengers for commercial purposes. Certain vessel types, for example, dredgers and fishing vessels, are therefore deemed "non-trading".

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the percentage of, respectively, officers and ratings who are British nationals on United Kingdom vessels on(a) the United Kingdom register, (b) Crown dependency registers, (c) British dependent territory registers and (d) foreign registers.

  Mr. Norris
  The most recent figures relating to seafarers employed by companies which belong to the Chamber of Shipping show that, at 1 June 1991, 97 per cent. of officers and 90 per cent of ratings of United Kingdom-flagged, British-owned, vessels were United Kingdom nationals. The equivalent figures for British-owned, foreign-flagged, vessels, were 85 and 63 per cent. respectively.

  Merchant Navy
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the regulatory requirements currently laid upon the British Merchant Navy which he is currently examining with a view to their possible removal or easing;

  (2) if he will list the regulatory requirements laid upon the British Merchant Navy which have been removed or eased in each year, respectively, for the last 20 years.

  Mr. Norris
  We are committed to reducing the regulatory burden on the shipping industry as far as is compatible with continued high safety standards. This is a continuous process. Recent achievements include the 408
  introduction of new type approval arrangements to facilitate the entry of vessels into the United Kingdom register. We are also currently reviewing the rules which govern the nationality of senior officers on British merchant vessels.

  Vehicle Testing
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the regional information held by all district offices of his Department's vehicle inspectorate about public vehicle testing, including the percentage failure rates at initial annual tests and re-tests and the most common failure items.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information will be placed in the House Library at the earliest opportunity.

  M6
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for the renovation of the sign on the northbound cross carriageway of the M6 at exit 20.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Yes.

  Cycling
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the statutory provisions regarding cycling on the pavement; what are the exemptions for young riders on very dangerous roads; and when the law was enacted.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Cycling on the footway is an offence under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, as amended by section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888. It currently carries a maximum penalty of £100. There are no exemptions for young riders.

  Alternative Fuels
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress the national transport laboratory has made in the field of alternative fuels for transport.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department's Transport Research Laboratory is currently reviewing national and international research and experience in the use of a wide range of alternative fuels and engines for road vehicles. The review is scheduled for completion by end of November 1992 and the findings will be published in due course.

  In addition to the TRL review, my Department continues to keep abreast of developments worldwide and to encourage technological developments aimed at reducing the environmental impact of vehicles.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the percentage of the British-registered shipping fleet which is owned by the 20 largest British-owned shipping companies(a) by number of vessles and (b) by tonnage, at the latest available date.

  Mr. Norris
  The 20 largest British direct-owned shipping companies own 40 per cent. by number and 77 per cent. by tonnage of the total United Kingdom registered fleet.

  Medical Advisory Council
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who are the members of the Medical Advisory Council who advise him on withdrawal of driving licences on medical grounds; and what are their qualifications.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Secretary of State is advised by a number of expert medical panels. I understand that the question specifically relates to the Secretary of State's honorary advisory panel on driving and disorders of the nervous system. Its membership and individuals' qualifications are:

  Dr. C. J. Ear (Chairman)—Consultant Neurologist

  Mr. J. G. Brice—Consultant Neurosurgeon

  Dr. S. D. Shorvon—Consultant Neurologist

  Dr. D. W. Chadwick—Consultant Neurologist

  Dr. R. A. Cooper—Consultant Physician

  Professor C. P. Warlow—Professor of Medical Neurology

  Mr. A. E. Richardson—Consultant Neurosurgeon

  Dr. M. J. Parsonage—Consultant Neurologist

  Professor W. B. Jennett—Professor of Neurosurgery

  The chairman is nominated by the president of the Royal College of Physicians and appointed by the Secretary of State.

  Railway Preservation
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the railway preservation movement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The railway preservation movement has been growing in strength and importance. The Government acknowledge the movement's contribution to the railway heritage. The Department made 10 light railway orders for steam railway lines in 1991 and expects to determine perhaps a further six in 1992. We welcome this evidence that the movement is thriving.

  London Underground
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's 5 July 1991 report on London Underground Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground Limited is today publishing its 12-month response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report detailing the progress which has been made in implementing the report's recommendations.

  Since the publication of the report last year, LUL has made good progress with implementing the wide-ranging recommendations made by the MMC. Work on 58 of the report's 114 recommendations is now complete. Of the others, only one has been rejected altogether, and work is under way to implement the others, which are of a longer-term nature.

  In its report, the MMC identified scope for improvement in a number of important areas which have subsequently been addressed by both the Government and the management of the underground.

  The MMC concluded that the underground was suffering from the effects of long-term underfunding. In response to this, last year's IFR settlement provided for a record £3.7 billion grant to be given to London Transport over the three years from 1992–93, the vast bulk of which
  410
  will go towards investment on the Underground. The MMC also identified scope for management improvements and efficiency savings. The underground responded to that finding with the publication last November of its company plan, designed to bring about a step change in the efficiency and quality of underground services, through improvements to working practices and an extension of contracting out. This plan has the Government's support.

  Another key finding in the MMC's report was that there was inadequate political commitment to the underground's planning processes. As was announced at the publication of the Government's three-month response to the report, the Government and LUL are now working together on the preparation of a 10-year strategic plan for the underground.

  On 27 May, the Government set the underground 12 new quality-of-service targets. These took on board the MMC's recommendation that new targets should be based on outputs rather than inputs and, where possible, should be measured in terms of customer satisfaction.

  I am confident that LUL is committed to continuing to build on all these initiatives, and fulfilling the promise made in its response to
  "transform the services provided so that London will have an Underground to be proud of".

  Copies of LUL's response have been placed in the Library. I will be continuing to pay close attention to progress on implementing the remaining recommendations. A third and final response will be made in two years' time.

  Car Alarms
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to issue amendments to the construction and use regulations to improve noise standards from car alarms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: The Government have approached representative organisations for their views on a consultative draft of the regulations. We have also been awaiting possible regulatory developments in the European Community. The draft regulations are currently being revised to take account of progress in both these areas, and I expect to make them later this year.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which non-departmental public bodies are sponsored by his Department; which of these are audited by the National Audit Office; which firms of private accountants audits each of the others; by what method of tendering contracts to such firms are awarded; and for what duration.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: Bodies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, and their audit arrangements are listed in "Public Bodies 1991", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Since the entries were prepared, the only executive body then not subject to audit by the National Audit Office, the Red Sea Lights Company, has been dissolved and a new non-departmental public body, the Traffic Director for

  411
  London. has been established. The latter will be audited by private accountants to be appointed by competitive tender. The initial appointment will be for two years.

  Transpennine Roads
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department received the transpennine roads study; and when it will be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on Friday 3 July at column 730. The Department received the consultants' findings on the transpennine roads study during February 1992.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in his Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  Mr. Norris
  About 85 per cent. of the Department's staff are now located outside London. Next year, we plan to relocate up to 250 posts in marine to Southampton and 200 posts in central services to Hastings. There are separate reviews under way of the future location of 525 posts in highways, safety and traffic command and the Department's headquarters accommodation needs and options. Decisions are expected to be taken later this year.

  Liverpool Air Travel
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance he is prepared to give to the establishment of a regular Liverpool to London docklands air flights service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  It is a matter for airlines' commercial judgment which services they should operate. Any application for a new air service between Liverpool and

  1991

  January to March 1992

  Type of decision

  Appeals allowed

  Appeals dismissed

  Appeals allowed

  Appeals dismissed

  1. Exclusion—Appeal at port

  20

  243

  3

  81

  2. Exclusioiv—External appeals

  64

  1,277

  13

  268

  3. Refusal of Certificate entitlement

  41

  233

  6

  41

  4. Refusal of entry clearance for temporary purposes (not husbands or wives or fiances or fiancees)

  1,495

  6,515

  524

  2,233

  5. Refusal of entry clearance for employment, business or independent means (not husbands, wives, fiances or fiancees)

  27

  217

  10

  40

  6. Refusal of entry clearance requested by wives and children, other dependent relatives and returning residents

  466

  1,405

  150

  457

  7. Refusal of entry clearance requested by female fiancees

  27

  42

  11

  27

  8. Refusal of entry clearance requested by husbands

  598

  1,313

  138

  434

  9. Refusal of entry clearance requested by male fiances

  221

  523

  34

  107

  10. Variation of landing conditions (including curtailment of stay or duration of conditions of leave to remain given to persons previously exempted (S.14(2))

  21

  179

  8

  50

  11. Refusal to vary leave to enter

  198

  5,691

  57

  1,332

  12. Decision to make deportation order

  23

  661

  6

  187

  13. Refusal to revoke deportation order

  1

  20

  1

  11

  14. Giving of removal directions

  2

  21

  1

  6

  15 Destination only appeal

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  3,204

  18,340

  962

  5,274

  412
  London would be for the Civil Aviation Authority to decide on, in accordance with its statutory air transport licensing responsibilities.

  I cannot comment on the merits of such an application, since it could he the subject of an appeal to the Government under statutory procedures.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide a table of the number of appeals to the immigration appeals tribunal allowed and dismissed in 1991 and the first quarter of 1992.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is as follows:

  Appeals to the immigration appeals tribunal

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  19911

  130

  224

  January to March 1992

  60

  103

  1 Because of an administrative error at the immigration appellate authorities no figures are available for the period October to December 1991. Estimated figures have therefore been provided for 1991 based on the number of appeals allowed and dismissed from January to September 1991.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide a table showing the number of appeals to the immigration adjudicators allowed and dismissed in 1991 and the first quarter of 1992 broken down according to the nationality of the appellant and the type of decision appealed against.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information concerning the nationality of appellants is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The number of appeals to immigration adjudicators allowed and dismissed in 1991 and the first quarter of 1992, broken down according to the type of decision, is given in the table.
  413
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average delay, listed by each immigration appeals hearing centre, (i) between receiving the explanatory statement and papers about a case(a) from a British post overseas and (b) from the Home Office and sending those papers to an appellant or his or her authorised representative and (ii) between the hearing of an immigration appeal by an adjudicator and the dispatch of the determination to the appellant or authorised representative.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The immigration appellate authorities are able to dispatch copies of the explanatory statement and case papers to an appellant or his or her authorised representative within five says of their receipt from a British post overseas or the Home Office. The current average time between the hearing of an immigration appeal by an adjudicator and the dispatch of the determination to the appellant or authorised representative is as follows for each hearing centre:

  Weeks

  Thanet House, London

  5

  Harmondsworth

  5

  Birmingham

  6

  Manchester

  10

  Leeds

  7

  Glasgow

  4

NATIONAL FINANCE

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had in the EC Council of Ministers about progress towards the Madrid conditions for moving to stage III of European monetary union; and what priority he attaches to this matter during the EC presidency.

  Mr. Nelson
  Progress towards convergence is covered at Ecofin's bi-annual discussions on multilateral surveillance, the last of which took place in February. Also, since last September Ecofin has examined the convergence programmes of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Germany and Spain.

  The United Kingdom attaches a high priority during its presidency of the EC to encouraging member states to take the necessary action to achieve convergence.

  VAT (Heritage Buildings)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remove VAT on the repair of heritage buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  When we agreed the EC sixth VAT directive we accepted that we would not extend the scope of our current zero-rating. Our policy is to use discretionary repair grants to target help where it is most needed.

  Business Investigations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the manner in which inspectors are appointed to investigate businesses under the Financial Services Act 1986.
  414
  Mr. Nelson
  Persons may be appointed by the Securities and Investments Board under sections 94 and 106, and by the Secretary of State for Trade under sections 94, 106 and 177 of the Act.

  Taurus Programme
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account has been taken of the requirements of private shareholders in the Taurus development programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The needs of the private shareholder are being very much taken into account in the development of Taurus. The London stock exchange, as Taurus operator, has built high levels of system security and investor protection into the system. The Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1992, which set out the legal and regulatory framework for Taurus, contain a number of safeguards for private shareholders. These include the requirement for each company to appoint a company controller who will hold a person's entitlements to shares at no cost to himself, together with the 'locking up' arrangement, the complaints commissioner and the compensation scheme.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the ratio between receipts from and contributions to the European Community budget for each of the member states in the current year.

  Sir John Cope
  The ratio for the United Kingdom in 1992 is forecast to be 1:1.9—taking account only of receipts coming to the public sector. As no details of individual member states' receipts in the current year are available, it is not possible to calculate the ratio for other member states.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC budget this year and what it was in each of the last 10 years; and what it would have been if the Fontainebleau rebate mechanism had not been in operation.

  Sir John Cope
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Net contribution before abatement £ million

  Net contribution after abatement £ million

  1982

  606

  606

  1983

  647

  647

  1984

  656

  656

  1985

  1,974

  1,808

  1986

  2,273

  572

  1987

  2,874

  1,721

  1988

  2,956

  1,362

  1989

  3,469

  2,315

  1990

  4,172

  2,475

  1991

  3,042

  545

  11992

  4,480

  2,599

  1 Forecast.

  Source: Relevant Statement on the Community Budget.

  European Community Legislation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the direct consequence of the implementation of EEC legislation on United Kingdom public expenditure in each year ending 31 March since 1987.

  Sir John Cope
  The United Kingdom public expenditure costs of EC legislation with a direct effect on Community budget spending are best measured by reference to the United Kingdom's gross contribution to the Community budget, less abatement, as follows:

  United Kingdom gross contribution less abatement

  Year

  £ million

  1986–87

  3,778

  1987–88

  3,769

  1988–89

  3,567

  1989–90

  4,487

  1990–91

  4,573

  1991–92

  3,700

  United Kingdom public sector receipts, mainly in the form of agricultural support and the structural funds, generally offset increased United Kingdom public expenditure resulting from Community programmes.

  No central estimate is available of the aggregate effect on United Kingdom public expenditure of the implementation of Community legislation which does not have a direct effect on Community budget spending.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in his Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  Mr. Nelson
  Following the review in 1991 the then Economic Secretary announced on 18 December that about 200 posts in CCTA—the Government centre for information systems—would be relocated to Norwich over the next three years.

  Overseas Assets
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total of the United Kingdom's net assets overseas—assets less liabilities—at the end of each calendar year from 1987 to 1991; and what is the latest estimate.

  Mr. Portillo
  The estimated levels of identified overseas assets and liabilities from the end of 1987 to the end of 1990 are shown in table 8.1 of the Pink Book, "1991 UK Balance of Payments", published by the Central Statistical Office. Further estimates for the levels of identified net overseas assets at the end of 1990 and 1991, based on information available at March 1992, are shown in paragraph 3.47 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1992–93, the Red Book. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the findings of the Treasury's recent staff review of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
  416
  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: The chief executives of English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales commissioned a report from the Treasury's consultancy and inspection services division. The review covered a number of organisational and management issues as well as staffing in the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's scientific and secretarial support unit. The report is an internal management document and it is for the chief executive to consider how to take it forward.

  Bingham Report
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with Lord Justice Bingham concerning the timing of the receipt of his report.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: Lord Justice Bingham's inquiry is independent of the Government and the timing of his report is a matter for him. I understand that he hopes to complete his report before the end of this month.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which non-departmental public bodies are sponsored by his Department; which of these are audited by the National Audit Office; which firms of private accountants audit each of the others; by what method of tendering contracts to such firms are awarded; and for what duration.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: All the NDPBs sponsored by Her Majesty's Treasury are audited by the NAO. These are the National Economic Development Council, and various pay review bodies: the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, the Doctors and Dentists Review Body, the Nurses Midwives and Other NHS Professionals Review Body, the Pharmacists' Review Body and the Top Salaries Review Body.

  Customs Searches
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from hon. Members about the treatment of constituents at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Manchester airports by customs officers.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 9 July 1992]: During April, May and June of 1992 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received representations from hon. Members concerning the treatment at Heathrow on behalf of seven of their constituents. These related to one complaint about customs clearance of a postal package and six by passengers. No representations have been received in respect of Gatwick or Manchester airports during this period.

  EC Agricultural Reform
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions have been held in the Council of Finance Ministers of the comments by the Court of Auditors on the potential for fraud in the MacSharry proposals for agricultural reform; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lamont
  [holding answer 9 July 1992]: The Council of Economic and Finance Ministers had a preliminary

  417
  discussion of the Court of Auditors' special opinion, which was produced in connection with the review of Community future financing, on 9 June. However, it was not possible on that occasion to discuss all aspects of the report and the Council did not focus on the potential for fraud in the reformed common agricultural policy.

  The Government are committed to the fight against fraud and welcomes the warning note given by the Court of Auditors about the control risks associated with CAP reform. We are pressing strongly for the inclusion of robust anti-fraud provisions in the regulations governing the reformed CAP.

  Tackling fraud in the Community is a priority for the United Kingdom presidency.

  VAT (Whisky)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what offset agreements in respect of harmonisation of VAT rates were agreed to in the Council of Ministers as part of the agreement on Scotch whisky; and what effect the VAT agreement will have on the maintenance of each existing zero rate.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 8 July 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 3 July 1992, at columns 755–56.

  All the United Kingdom's existing zero rates are fully safeguarded by the sixth VAT directive. That protection is reinforced by a provision in the draft VAT rates and structures directive.

  Currency
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the date for the issue of the reduced size 10p piece; and when he expects standard versions of the new £2 currency coin to be available from banks.

  Mr. Nelson
  The new, smaller 10p coin will be issued on 30 September 1992. A £2 coin to commemorate the tercentenary of the Bank of England will be issued during 1994. No decision has been made as to the exact date that the standard version of this coin will be available from banks.

  Consultancy and Research Costs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on consultancy and outside research capacity in his Department for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nelson
  My Department spent some £2.69 million on consultancy and outside research in 1991–92. This figure includes the costs of consultants working for CCTA—the Government centre for information systems—economic research and other consultancies.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on ministerial transport in his Department, for the last year for which the information is available.
  418
  Mr. Nelson
  My Department spent £360,661 on ministerial transport in 1991–92. This covers travel abroad and within the United Kingdom and payments to the Government car service.

  Hospitality Costs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on hospitality in his Department for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nelson
  The total expenditure on entertainment by my Department in 1991–92 was £115,541. This includes the costs of the several international conferences and other large intergovernmental meetings.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional loans, support credits and other facilities are made available to countries entering the narrower bands of the ERM; and what additional responsibilities fall on the member Governments.

  Mr. Nelson
  If one currency is at its limit against another in the ERM, the central banks of both currencies each have an unlimited obligation to buy or sell at the limiting rates during European business hours. The EMS provides for a very short-term facility (VSTF) under which credit is automatically available in unlimited quantities to finance such obligatory intervention at the limiting rates. If intervention is undertaken when one currency is not at its limit against another in the ERM, the VSTF can be made available, but not automatically. VSTF credits have to be repaid within a period of three months.

  The amounts available under the VSTF do not differ between wide band and narrow band currencies.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what loans, support credits and other facilities are made available under the terms of ERM entry to Britain to maintain the pound within the 6 per cent. bands; to what extent these have been called on since Britain joined; and at whose cost these aids are provided.

  Mr. Nelson
  On the first part of his question, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him today.

  Since becoming a member of the exchange rate mechanism, the United Kingdom has not had recourse to these credit facilities.

  Where intervention is carried out at the limits of the ERM bands, interest on drawings under the very short-term facility (VSTF) is paid by the central bank of the currency at its lower limit.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the method of calculation of the British balance of trade and payments figures following the inauguration of the single market; how deficits with the whole of the EEC and with individual countries in it will be measured; how British external balances with countries outside will be assessed; and how borrowing and regional aid levels necessary to balance trade flows can then be assessed.

  Mr. Nelson
  The only change in the methodology used to estimate the United Kingdom balance of payments
  419
  accounts resulting directly from the completion of the single market at the end of this year concerns the data on trade in goods.

  A new system, known at Intrastat, linked to VAT returns is being introduced throughout the European Community to measure trade in goods between member states. The present system, based on custom's documents, will continue to be used to measure trade with countries outside the Community.

  There will be a transitional period while Intrastat becomes fully established, but after this the trade figures will be available in the same detail as at present.

  Advisory Staff
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of staff employed in directly providing advice, research and policy development for Ministers in his Department; and what is the cost of such staff for the last year for which the figures are available.

  Mr. Nelson
  As noted in my departmental report—Cm. 1918—some 860 staff in central Treasury are engaged in the process of providing policy advice to Ministers. CCTA—the Government centre for information systems-also employs a further 300 staff in non-support roles, bringing the total to 1,160. The pay costs of these staff amount to some £28.4 million.

  These figures do not include staff in central support services within central Treasury and CCTA. Staff in Forward—the civil service catering organisation—and in Chessington computer centre—which deals largely with payroll—have also been excluded.

  Financial Services
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the grounds on which recognised professional bodies are permitted to have a different authorisation procedure under the Financial Services Act 1986; and if he will review these.

  Mr. Nelson
  The arrangements for authorisation of members of recognised professional bodies reflect the fact that their members' investment business is incidental to the practice of their profession, in which they are subject to the rules of the body concerned. I have no plans to review these arrangements.

  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the new rules on disclosure of the Securities and Investments Board; what discussions he has had with the SIB about these; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Rules on disclosure are a matter for the Securities and Investments Board. As part of its review of retail regulation under the Financial Services Act, the board published a policy statement on disclosure and standards of advice in May 1992.

  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the workings of the Financial Services Act 1986 as it affects the retail sector; and what discussions he has had with a view to changing the rules governing the disclosure of commission by tied agents and the disclosure of commission, charges and expenses by all financial retailers and intermediaries.
  420
  Mr. Nelson
  Rules on disclosure are a matter for the Securities and Investments Board. As part of its review of retail regulation under the Financial Services Act, the board published a policy statement on disclosure and standards of advice in May 1992.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on consumer protection and consumer understanding of requiring providers of bundled products to disclose separately how much of an investor's money goes to each constituent part.

  Mr. Nelson
  This is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

  Iraqi Funds
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total of Iraqi funds currently blocked in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  The total sum of Iraqi assets held by United Kingdom banks is estimated to be £580 million.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to release blocked Iraqi funds in order to settle the claims of creditors who conducted legitimate business in Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

  Mr. Nelson
  Any company who conducted legitimate business in Iraq prior to 4 August 1990 and is owed money, should apply to the Bank of England for permission for payment to be made. The bank will normally grant permission in these circumstances. However, the request for payment also has to be made by the Iraqi entity involved, and we have no powers to compel them to make such an approach.

  Trinidad Terms
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to extend the remit of the Trinidad agreement to cover middle-income countries.

  Mr. Nelson
  No. Trinidad terms are specifically designed to address the debt problems of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 226, on imports and exports of manufactured goods whether he will now publish in the Official Report the figures requested.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 9 July 1992]: Further to my reply of 24 June, Official Report, column 226, the information is regularly published in table A9 of the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" and table D5 of its annual supplement. The latest figures available from the Central Statistical Office database are as follows:

  United Kingdom Trade in Manufactures Balance of Payments basis

  Exports

  Imports

  £ billion

  Per cent, of total trade

  £ billion

  Per cent, of total trade

  1977

  25.6

  81

  19.7

  57

  1978

  27.7

  79

  22.7

  62

  1979

  31.0

  76

  28.2

  64

  421

  Exports

  Imports

  £ billion

  Per cent, of total trade

  £ billion

  Per cent, of total trade

  1980

  34.9

  74

  29.4

  64

  1981

  34.9

  69

  30.4

  63

  1982

  37.3

  67

  35.2

  66

  1983

  40.1

  66

  42.9

  68

  1984

  46.6

  66

  51.1

  67

  1985

  52.2

  67

  56.0

  69

  1986

  54.4

  75

  60.6

  73

  1987

  60.5

  76

  68.8

  75

  1988

  64.6

  81

  80.0

  78

  1989

  75.1

  81

  92.3

  79

  1990

  82.6

  81

  94.2

  78

  1991

  85.1

  82

  88.5

  78

  Audio Tapes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from voluntary associations representing the blind in regard to the difficulties that would be posed by the European Commission's proposal to levy tax on all blank audio tapes.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have been asked to reply. There have been numerous representations from both national and local voluntary groups since the European Commission's intention to propose a levy on blank recording tapes, to compensate copyright owners for home taping, became known in January 1991. The Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Talking Newspaper Association of the United Kingdom, many local talking newspaper associations and numerous individuals have made their concerns known. The Government will take these representations fully into account when deciding its negotiating position on the proposal, which has not yet been published.

WALES

  Pembroke Power Station
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the probable effect on acid rain in Wales of an increase in utilisation of Pembroke power station from recent levels of 10 to 15 per cent. capacity to 60 per cent. capacity; and how this would be affected by the burning of orimulsion rather than other fuels.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The environmental effects of the burning of orimulsion fuel at Pembroke power station including the consequences of any increase in utilisation of the station are currently being considered by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in relation to the application by National Power under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It would not be appropriate for me to comment, in view of the Secretary of State's appellate role under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has received from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution about the pollution control equipment that would need to be installed at Pembroke power station, in particular to reduce levels of sulphur dioxide emissions, if orimulsion were to be burnt al this station.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This issue is currently under active consideration by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution 422
  which is considering under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, National Power's application to burn orimulsion at the Pembroke power station. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further in view of the Secretary of State's appellate role under the Act.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the value of financial assistance offered or given by his Department towards the cost of drawing up the application for trust status or any other ways of promoting a move to trust status by(a) Clwyd Community and mental health services, (b) Glan Clwyd district general hospital and associated hospitals and (c) Wrexham Maelor hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Following the invitation to prepare a formal application to become an NHS trust in April 1993, a contribution of £38,000 was made available to each of the three health units in Clywd to help meet costs incurred within the application process.

  Health Targets
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish targets for Wales which are directly comparable to each of the targets set by the Government in the document "The Health of the Nation".

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The aim in setting targets across a wide range of health gain areas is to take Wales into the 21st century with a level of health on course to compare with the best in Europe. This forms the cornerstone of all our efforts in Wales and to accomplish this we intend to reach and if possible surpass the range of health goals we have set outselves.

  We have identified 10 health gain areas for specific attention against five in England. The targets already set reflect the specific circumstances of Wales with technical differences noticeably in starting points/levels, age groupings, classification categories and time series. Where direct comparisons with the English strategy are possible, for example in smoking and alcohol, our targets are more ambitious than those in "The Health of the Nation".

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to revise his targets for health gain in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is my intention that targets contained in the Welsh Health Planning Forum's protocols for investment in health gain and in the Health Promotion Authority for Wales's "Health for all in Wales" strategy will be reviewed approximately every three years in the light of advances in health care and developments elsewhere.

  Acid Deposition
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the(a) current and (b) future levels of acid deposition in Wales; and what action he (i) has taken or (ii) proposes to reduce levels of acid deposition in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 22 June, at column 66.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those schools in each education authority which have expressed interest in grant maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There has been a significant increase in the number of schools interested in grant-maintained status. My Department has received inquiries from around 40 schools since April. It would not, however, be appropriate for me to make such information public until such time as the views of parents on whether to apply for grant-maintained status have been sought through the ballot box. Ballots have already taken place at Ysgol Emrys ap Iwan, Abergele, and Ysgol Caergeiliog, Anglesey.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  UNCED
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the effect on projects in Africa supported or sponsored by the Overseas Development Administration of the agreement achieved at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development of(a) the statement on forestry principles and (b) the desertification initiative.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There will be no direct effect on current projects, which we believe to be consistent with the UNCED forest principles. We will respond to requests from developing countries for assistance with implementing the agreements reached at UNCED, including in the areas of forests and land degradation or desertification.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce the financial crisis and debt burden faced by the Government of Zambia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have pledged or disbursed £40 million in balance of payments grants, in addition to a programme of technical assistance costing some £15 million this year, and have rescheduled service payments totalling £4.1 million due in 1992 on past British aid loans. We have also told the Zambian Government that, provided its economic reform programme remains in place, we are prepared to consider cancellation of all its outstanding aid debt to the United Kingdom.

  Other official debt owed to the United Kingdom and other government creditors will be considered in the context of the Paris club. Subject to International Monetary Fund approval of Zambia's economic reform programme, adherence to which would result in the clearance of Zambia's arrears to the IMF, we shall be pressing for Zambia to receive Trinidad terms at the Paris club's July meeting. These terms resulted directly from proposals made by the Prime Minister, in 1990, to relieve the burden of debt on the poorest, most heavily indebted countries.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government regarding 424
  debt relief for Zimbabwe; and if it is his intention that Zimbabwe should be eligible for the full Trinidad terms following the meeting of the Paris club on 23 July.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Zimbabwe has consistently serviced her debts in full and, as a result, has maintained her creditworthy status. Our understanding is that the Government of Zimbabwe are determined to continue this policy, and do not intend to apply for any debt relief.

  Our approach has been to focus on Zimbabwe's overall financing needs. We are supporting Zimbabwe with a substantial aid programme which totalled over £53.4 million in 1991.

  Guyana
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that none of the environmental projects that the Overseas Development Administration funds in Guyana should involve logging or deforestation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I gave details of the projects the ODA is currently funding in my reply to the hon. Lady on 9 July.

  The ODA's policy on development projects in tropical forest areas is set out in our manual of environmental appraisal, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. The manual makes it clear that natural forests should be managed on a sustainable basis and that aid projects should aim to conserve forest resources and should avoid indiscriminate logging or deforestation. It would not be right, however, to rule out all forms of tree-felling, for example logging on a trial or experimental basis, designed to demonstrate that controlled economic use is compatible with conservation, and part of sustainable management.

  European Parliament Development Committee
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings of the European Parliament Development Committee will be held, and when, during the course of the British presidency; and what are the key themes that Her Majesty's Government will be raising at these meetings.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Development Committee of the European Parliament will meet five times during our presidency; 13 to 15 July, 21 to 23 September, 14 to 16 October, 4 to 6 November, and 1 to 3 December. The Minister for Overseas Development will address the committee at its July and December sessions, and will take the opportunity to discuss the main themes which will feature in the Development Council on 18 November: Community development policy to the year 2000, population, the follow-up to UNCED, the untying of aid, and the use of non-governmental organisations in Community aid.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in the Overseas Development Administration who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentalising Government departments.
  425
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The location of the work of the ODA has been reviewed on a number of occasions, most recently before the ODA's London HQ moved in 1991 to new accommodation. A number of additional functions were then transferred to ODA's HQ in East Kilbride. Over 60 per cent. of ODA staff work outside London. The ODA's London HQ comprises an integrated core of policy and programme departments which must remain together and with the Minister.

  South Africa
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money in pound sterling the European Commission contributed to the South African Council of Churches and related bodies between 1986 and 1990; what was the purpose of this funding; and what steps have been taken by the European Commission to establish how the cash has been used.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The European Community committed the equivalent of a total of £77 million, at current exchange rates, during the period 1986–90 for specific projects recommended by the South African Council of Churches, the South African Catholic Bishops' Conference, the Kagiso Trust and certain trades unions. The purpose of this expenditure was to support organisations providing assistance to South Africans disadvantaged by apartheid, focusing largely on education and community and social development. All the funds were channelled through European non-government organisations, which were required by the European Commission to report on their use and to provide satisfactory accounts. The Commission also carried out physical monitoring on a sample basis.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research Councils
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much the research councils will be allocated from the science budget 1992–93; and what percentage increase is proposed for the next two years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In 1992–93 the research councils will for the first time be allocated £1 billion—£1,030 million. The science budget for 1993–94 and 1994–95 is planned to increase in real terms by 1.8 per cent. and 2.6 per cent., excluding the effect of the dual support transfer.

  British-trained Scientists
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are being taken to encourage British-trained scientists to remain in this country.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  There have always been British scientists living abroad whom we would like to see back working in Britain; just as there are non-British scientists working in Britain who will be welcomed back home by their countries of origin. The fact remains, however, that the guidance of university appointments indicates that Britain has consistently had a favourable net balance of trade at all levels in the brain trade in the 1980s.

  Science and Technology
  Mr. Duncan-Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the Vice-President of the European Commission to discuss science and technology issues.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I met Vice-President Pandolfi on 23 June, to discuss the European Commission's research and development framework programme, and again on 1 July, when the European Commissioners visited London on the United Kingdom's assumption of the presidency of the European Community.

  British Rail
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to extend the charter promulgated by British Rail.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Revised performance targets for 1993 will be set during the autumn. The Government and British Rail will also be reviewing the achievements of the current passengers charter once we have had more experience of its operation to see how these can be built upon.

  Scientific Research
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps have been taken to promote science research and activity in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government provide funds for the promotion of science research and activity in, and for the benefit of, the United Kingdom as a whole, including Leicestershire.

  Citizens Charters
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if citizens charters will be published in looseleaf form to permit amendments.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We intend to set increasingly tougher standards for public services; and further improve their quality and responsiveness to the public. Each public service organisation will determine bow best to publicise its own improved standards of service.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many times so far he estimates that individuals have availed themselves of provisions in citizens charters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The citizens charter aims to provide better quality service, greater customer choice, published standards of service and accessible means of redress, to all users of public services. Published, measurable standards ensure the public know what quality of service they can expect to receive; compare this with other service providers, and measure performance in achieving the standards required.

  Over time, we will set even tougher service standards; and further improve the quality and responsiveness of public services. For example, the patients charter set maximum two-year waiting times for NHS operations; these will be reduced to 18 months from April 1993 for hip and knee replacements and cataract operations.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when Her Majesty's Government will publish the 1992 annual review of Government-funded research and development; and what steps will be taken to ensure widespread distribution of the report.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The "1992 Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development" will be published on 28 July. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and made available to relevant Select Committees and to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Publication will be marked by a press conference and the review will be on sale at HMSO bookshops.

  Intestacy
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the charitable donations for the last five years arising from funds of intestate deceased residents of the county palatine.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A list of charitable donations made by the Duchy over the last five years would run to several hundred items.

  Donations made from the duchy benevolent fund during the last five years are as follows:

  £

  1987

  61,063

  1988

  81,122

  1989

  99,805

  1990

  119,124

  1991

  129,653

  1992

  178,814

  1Up to 30 June 1992.

  The duchy's policy has been not to reveal the identity of a recipient or the amount given. This is the usual policy of charitable foundations. However, the duchy would of course have no objection to a recipient giving this information.

  Substantial amounts have been given to educational establishments, including universities, in the county palatine; to ecclesiastical causes, to the elderly and infirm and various youth projects.

  Many small donations have also been made, usually after seeking local advice, to individuals or to causes worthy of assistance.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in his Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Parts of my Department have already been relocated to provincial centres. The headquarters of the Occupational Health Service was relocated to Edinburgh in August 1989. In addition, the Civil Service College, Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency and Her Majesty's Stationery Office are based outside London: at Sunningdale, Basingstoke and Norwich respectively. The Central Office of Information has a regional network across the country. I see no scope for further relocation of the remaining small central core.

  Nuclear Structure Facility, Daresbury
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) of 2 June,Official Report, column 417, what representations he has received from the scientific community about the successor arrangements for nuclear physics research following the closure of the nuclear structure facility at Daresbury.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My office has received two letters on this subject.

PRIME MINISTER

  Whaling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake to raise Japan's continuing whaling activity with the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Kiichi Miyazawa, when he meets him this week; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minsiter if he will discuss the ban on commercial whaling and the proposed whale sanctuary in the Antarctic with the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Miyazawa, during his visit to London; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I expressed the Government's concern at the continued hunting of Minke whales and urged Japan to continue to work within the International Whaling Commission.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to veto entry into the EC of any country which carries out commercial whaling; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom supports membership of the Community for European countries which want to join and can take on the obligations. Commerce in whale products by EC member states was prohibited by a specific Council regulation—348/81—which was subsequently subsumed and extended by EC CITES regulations 3626/82 and 3418/83, implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—New applicants will be expected to apply the EC CITES regulation.

  European Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what action Her Majesty's Government will be taking to mark 1993 as the European Year of the Elderly;

  (2) what plans he has for his Department to celebrate in 1993 the European Year of the Elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are well advanced with plans for the European Year of the Elderly. The Department of Health, in co-operation with the Department of Social Security, has overall co-ordinating responsibility in the United Kingdom. Following wide consultations, a group has been set up to advise on the programme for the year. The group involves representatives of a wide range of organisations reflecting the interests of older people, including the National
  429
  Pensioners' Convention, and will take direct account of the views of older people themselves. The programme in the United Kingdom will focus on four major themes: combating "agism" and promoting positive images of aging; volunteering; health promotion and active leisure, including remaining mentally active; social integration, including problems of isolation and loneliness, information needs and housing, transport and community care issues.

  Four task groups have been set up to put forward specific proposals, and to implement them once agreed, with particular reference to promoting better relations between the generations and multicultural aspects.

  There will he a core programme involving high-profile national events and a general programme, including activities being organised by individual organisations, but not co-ordinated through the official structure.

  The Departments of Health and of Social Security are providing funds for the costs of a secretariat, based at Age Concern England's headquarters, to co-ordinate the official programme and disseminate information. A total of £65,000 has already been committed in the current year.

  The European year 1993 will be launched in the United Kingdom at the Age Resource awards presentation in London later this year.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to remove the age limit of 70 years on membership of(a) community health councils, (b) jury service and (c) other similar bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The age limit of 70 for appointment to community health councils is a recommendation of the Department of Health, not a requirement. Active participation in CHC affairs can be both time-consuming and taxing, and those appointing members must ensure that the individuals appointed can remain active and committed without detriment to themselves or the work of the CHC, during their term of office.

  The upper age limit for jury service was increased from 65 to 70 in 1988. We have no current plans to make further changes.

  Age limits for appointment to other bodies will depend on the nature of the tasks carried out by those bodies.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for funding citizens advice bureaux from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of Public Service and Science.

  The Prime Minister
  Citizens advice bureaux are funded directly by local authorities. The Department of Trade and Industry provides grant-in-aid to the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and Citizens' Advice Scotland which provide the support services to citizens advice bureaux. The Government do not believe that it would be helpful to separate the funding of either body from the wider consumer protection role of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  British National Party
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Prime Minister what the outcome was of the submission of evidence to the Crown prosecution service, to which he referred in his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 462.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General today.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will announce his timetable for the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside on 13 May to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) at column 125.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received about the effects of United Nations sanctions upon Libyan health services.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister under what circumstances Libya may seek a temporary lifting of the United Nations sanctions against it.

  The Prime Minister
  Sanctions will be lifted when Libya has complied in full with United Nations Security Council resolutions 731 and 748.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what information he has on the number of occasions which Libya has sought permission from the United Nations sanctions committee to operate flights on grounds of significant humanitarian need.

  The Prime Minister
  According to the information made available to us by the United Nations, Libya has not sought such clearance.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the monitoring by the United Nations of sanctions against Libya.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 July 1992]: United Nations Security Council resolution 748 established a sanctions committee to oversee the efficient implementation of the sanctions against Libya. The committee relies on member states to provide its information on national enforcement of the regime and in highlighting any reported breaches. It has met eight times to date.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to inform the public about the implications for them of the Maastricht treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Memoranda produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Her Majesty's
  431
  Treasury outlining the content of the treaty have been published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and are publicly available. The Government are considering whether to issue additional information about the treaty and its benefits.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received from the general public supporting a national referendum on the Maastricht treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received approximately 700 representations supporting a national referendum on the Maastricht treaty.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister, following the interim ruling of the European courts, on Sunday trading, if he will make a statement; and whether the Government will now provide official support for the Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) which seeks to amend the Shops Act 1950.

  The Prime Minister
  On 8 July, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice—ECJ—gave his opinion in the cases concerning the law on Sunday trading in England and Wales which had been referred to the ECJ by English courts. The opinion is not a judgment of the ECJ, and the cases before it remain sub judice. Our position on the Bill in question therefore remains as I explained in my reply on 30 June at column 709.

  EC Meetings (Publicity)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 1992,Official Report, column 17, if he will set out the reasons why he does not intend to seek to change the rules concerning publicity for Council and COREPER meetings held during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council.

  The Prime Minister
  The proceedings of the Council and of COREPER cannot be made public without the unanimous agreement of all member states. I therefore see no prospect of a change to these rules in the foreseeable future.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention during the EC presidency to promote acceptance of the definition of subsidiarity as the minimum of interference.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: The principle of subsidiarity is clearly defined in article 3b of the treaty on European union. It contains a presumption of activity at national level. Work will be undertaken during our Presidency on practical steps for implementing the principle of subsidiarity in line with the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council.

  Brazil (Street Children)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to launch his personal initiative to raise funds for the Brazilian street children; what follow-up initiatives he has taken since his visit to Sao Martinho in Rio de Janeiro; and what information he has about the well-being and 432
  whereabouts of street children removed from the streets of Rio de Janeiro in preparation for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: I am looking into what might be done to help Brazilian street children and am in touch with a number of interested parties. This is a serious problem which requires sympathetic handling.

  Uruguay Round
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the communique on the Uruguay round issued by the Cairns group Ministers on 28 June; what further action the Government will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: The Government welcome the communique issued by the Cairns group Ministers, and support the points they make about the importance of the Uruguay round. At the Munich summit, the G7 leaders recognised the progress made in recent months. We expressed their conviction that an agreement is now within reach, and could be achieved before the end of 1992. The United Kingdom will continue to work hard for this during our presidency of the European Community.

  EC and EEC
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the different ways in which the initials EC have been used(a) by Government and by Government Departments and (b) by European institutions, giving the dates between which each usage has been current and the source and meaning of each alternative usage.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 July 1992]: The initials EC are used by the Government and other bodies mentioned to stand for the European Communities, for example, the European Coal and Steel Community—ECSC—established in 1951, the European Economic Community—EEC—and the European Atomic Energy Committee—Euratom—both established in 1957. This is the correct usage. The Maastricht treaty on European union contains an article saying that the term European Economic Community will be replaced by the term European Community abbreviated as EC.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the different ways in which the initials EEC have been used(a) by Government and by Government Departments and (b) by European institutions, giving the dates between which each usage has been current and the source and meaning of each alternative usage.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: The initials EEC are used by the Government and other bodies mentioned to stand for the European Economic Community, established by the treaty of Rome in 1957. Since at least the Single European Act, however, the initials EC have been used as a convenient shorthand. The Maastricht treaty on European union contains an article saying that the term European Economic Community is to be replaced by the term European Community, abbreviated as EC.

  Tibet
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has recently held with the leaders of other member states of the Security Council of the United Nations concerning the issue of human rights in Tibet; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 July 1992]: I raised human rights in Tibet with Premier Li Peng in Peking last September. I also raised human rights in his discussions with him in New York in January and in Rio de Janeiro in June. At the recent Munich summit leaders of the G7 countries called on the Chinese to make considerable further improvements in human rights.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cameroon
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has discussed the subject of human rights recently with the Government of Cameroon.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government of the Cameroon are aware of the importance we attach to human rights. We have made representations to them about human rights, on several occasions both in Yaoundé and to the Cameroon ambassador in London. We shall continue to monitor the situation closely, and make representations whenever necessary.

  Radiation Research
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what technical or financial support the United Kingdom has pledged to the radiation research programme of the International Sakharov College of Radioecology in Minsk.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The British Government have not been approached to pledge technical or financial support.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the other signatories of the partial test ban treaty of 1963, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty of 1970 and the threshold test ban treaty of 1974 to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 3 July 1992, at column 757.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress being made for a comprehensive nuclear weapons test ban treaty to be negotiated.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A comprehensive test ban treaty is a long-term objective. We participate actively in discussion 434
  of test ban issues in the conference on disaramament in Geneva. These take place on the basis of a non-negotiating mandate. Progress can only be made on a step-by-step basis taking into account a number of factors including verification.

  India
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what opportunities he has taken to raise with the Indian authorities the human rights concern of widespead custodial violence.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I raised this with the Indian high commissioner in May and our high commissioner did so with the Indian Home Minister in New Delhi in early June.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will be reimbursing the Ministry of Defence for transporting humanitarian aid to Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The extra costs to the MOD of providing airlift to the interim operation to relieve Sarajevo will fall to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Financial responsibility for the provision of aid once the airport is open to non-military flights will lie with the Overseas Development Administration.

  West Tripura
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest information he has on the mass rape in Ujan Maidan village, West Tripura, by members of the Assam Rifles, during a cordon and search operation in the district between 31 May and 2 June 1988; and what information he has about investigations into the circumstances of the women's rape and measures taken to bring those responsible to justice.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  An Indian commission of inquiry into this incident submitted its report in December 1991. This confirmed that at least eight tribal women in Ujan Maidan had been raped by soldiers of the Assam Rifles. We do not know how or whether those responsible were punished and have asked the Indian Government for information.

  Czechoslovakia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what details he has received from the Government of Czechoslovakia of particular ecclesiastical items stolen, and placed on the west European art market.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At the request of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for National Heritage, our embassy in Prague has approached the Czechoslovak Ministry of the Interior to obtain details of stolen ecclesiastical items. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also raised the issue with senior colleagues of President Havel during his visit to Czechoslovakia in May. The embassy subsequently followed this up with a further call on the Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry has confirmed that it is in the process of drawing up a list which should be completed shortly. This will be forwarded to the relevant authorities and art trade associations in London upon receipt.

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the present waiting times until first interview for all categories of applicant in each country and at each post in the Indian subcontinent.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The estimated present waiting times to first interview (in months) are:

  Settlement

  Subcontinent post

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Islamabad

  3

  3

  6

  9

  Karachi

  1

  3

  4

  7

  Dhaka

  3

  6

  8

  9

  New Delhi

  0

  3

  7

  10

  Bombay

  0

  4

  9

  12

  Madras

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Calcutta

  1 week

  1 week

  1 week

  1 week

  Visitors

  Due to seasonal high demand, applicants for visit visas in Islamabad requiring a full interview can expect to wait between five and seven days. Elsewhere they are dealt with on day of interview.

  Settlement queues are organised as follows:—

  Q1 Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years, special compassionate cases.

  Q2 All spouses and all children under 18 years.

  Q3 Fiance(e)s and others applying for the first time.

  Q4 Re-applicants.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long a person applying for entry clearance for settlement at the British post in(a) Manila, (b) Accra, (c) Lagos, (d) Kingston, (e) Nicosia, (f) Cairo, (g) Bangkok and (h) Rabat on 31 March or the lastest convenient date could expect to wait for (i) interview, (ii) referral of the case to the Home Office and the requested information being received by the post, (iii) decisions and (iv) an explanatory statement prepared by the post in the event of an appeal against a refusal to be despatched to the immigration appellate authorities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As at 30 June the timings required at (i), (ii) and (iv) were as follows.

  The information requested at (iii) is not available. Times vary according to the circumstances of individual cases. Many decisions are made on the day of interview.

  Post

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iv)

  Manila

  4 weeks

  3 months

  5 months

  Accra

  2 days

  2 months

  3 months

  Lagos

  1 day

  3 months

  3 months

  Kingston

  4 weeks

  2–3 months

  1 week

  Nicosia

  1 day

  3 months

  3 months

  Cairo

  1 day

  3 months

  1 month

  Bangkok

  8 weeks

  2–3 months

  2 months

  Rabat

  1–14 days

  4 months

  3 months

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a), men, (b) women and (c) children were waiting in each queue at each post in the Indian subcontinent on 31 March or the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of men, women and children waiting in the settlement queues for interviews in the Indian sub-continent posts at 30 June is:

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Islamabad

  Men

  2

  520

  83

  498

  Women

  6

  405

  82

  50

  436

  Ql

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Children

  9

  64

  l

  45

  Total

  17

  989

  166

  593

  Karachi

  Men

  0

  38

  9

  7

  Women

  0

  53

  11

  0

  Children

  0

  5

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  96

  20

  7

  Dhaka

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  351

  1,580

  214

  275

  New Delhi

  Men

  0

  85

  99

  64

  Women

  0

  194

  142

  44

  Children

  0

  44

  10

  1

  Total

  0

  323

  251

  109

  Bombay

  Men

  0

  16

  106

  74

  Women

  0

  315

  125

  33

  Children

  1

  139

  0

  8

  Total

  1

  470

  231

  115

  Madras

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  0

  11

  0

  0

  Calcutta

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Total

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Totals ISC

  370

  3,471

  882

  1,099

  1 Breakdown not available.

  Queue 1. Persons with a claim to the right of abode. Dependent relatives over 70 years old. Special compassionate cases.

  Queue 2. All spouses and all children over 18 years.

  Queue 3. Fiance(e)s and others applying for the first time 101 settlement.

  Queue 4. Reapplicants.

  There are no queues for visit applications other than in Islamabad, where due to seasonaly high demand, applicants requiring a full interview can expect to wait 5–7 days.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long a person applying for entry clearance on 31 March or the latest convenient date at each post in the Indian subcontinent could expect to wait, in each queue, for(a) first interview, (b) referral of the case to the Home Office and the requested information being received by the post, (c) decision after first interview and (d) the explanatory statement prepared by the post in the case of appeal against any refusal to be dispatched to the immigration appellate authorities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  (a) As at June the estimated waiting times for settlement interviews (in months) were:

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Islamabad

  3

  3

  6

  9

  Karachi

  1

  3

  4

  7

  Dhaka

  3

  6

  8

  9

  437

  Ql

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  New Delhi

  0

  3

  7

  10

  Bombay

  0

  4

  9

  12

  Madras

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Calcutta

  1 week

  1 week

  1 week

  1 week

  Settlement queues are organised as follows:

  Q1 Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years, special compassionate cases.

  Q2 All spouses and all children under 18 years.

  Q3 Fiance(e)s and others applying for the first time.

  Q4 Re-applicants.

  Visit visa applications are dealt with within 24 hours except in Islamabad which, due to seasonal high demand, applicants requiring a full interview can expect to wait five to seven days.

  (b) If referred to the Home Office, inquiries concerning applications may take from one to 12 months depending on individual circumstances.

  (c) Decisions after first interview are taken within 24 hours in the majority of cases in Indian Sub-Continent posts.

  (d) Dispatch times of explanatory statements are, at 30 June:

  Settlement

  Non-Settlement

  Islamabad

  12 weeks

  4 weeks

  Karachi

  8 weeks

  4 weeks

  Dhaka

  12 weeks

  12 weeks

  New Delhi

  12 weeks

  4 weeks

  Bombay

  8 weeks

  4 weeks

  Madras

  12 weeks

  4 weeks

  Calcutta

  4 weeks

  4 weeks

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many explanatory statements related to entry clearance appeals were awaiting typing at each post in the Indian subcontinent in Manila, Lagos and Accra, on the latest available date; how many staff are employed, both full-time and part-time, to type statements; and when he expects any backlogs to be cleared.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is given in the following table, as at 30 June,:

  Post

  Number1

  Number2

  Islamabad

  0

  11

  Karachi

  1

  1

  Dhaka

  176

  5(3)

  New Delhi

  41

  4

  Bombay

  4

  (11)

  Madras

  Nil

  1

  Calcutta

  11

  (1)

  Manila

  83

  2

  Lagos

  4

  3

  Accra

  22

  1

  1 Number of explanatory statements awaiting typing

  2 Staff whose duties include typing explanatory statements; staff also employed on other typing duties shown in brackets.

  The posts in Dhaka and Manila estimate that they should clear the backlogs in three months and two months respectively.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British Dependent Territories' citizens from Hong Kong have(a) applied for and (b) been granted the status of British national (overseas) in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Details of the number of British dependent territories' citizens applying for British national (overseas) status are as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Applications

  53,222

  80,213

  101,534

  67,947

  Granted

  49,519

  78,265

  107,423

  64,080

  1 To 30 June 1992

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for naturalisation as British dependent territories citizens on the basis of a connection with Hong Kong have been(a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused for each year since 1989 and to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Details of the number of applications for naturalisation as British dependent territories citizens by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong are as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Received

  3,098

  12,543

  7,588

  1,293

  Granted

  1,098

  11,699

  11,463

  5,673

  Refused

  73

  95

  399

  310

  1 To 30 June.

  In any one year the number of British dependent territories citizens naturalisation applications received and the numbers approved/rejected cannot be compared directly. This is because the processing time can result in applications from one calendar year being finalised in a different year.

  Tibet
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the parliamentary delegation announced in March by the Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Qichen is leaving for China; how long they will spend in Tibet; what parts of Tibet and Tibetan autonomous areas in Qinghai and Sichuan provinces they propose to visit; whether they will be free to visit any place they wish and if he will provide an independent translator fluent in Tibetan, Chinese and English and an independent expert on Tibetan affairs to accompany them.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The high-level study group agreed between the Prime Minister and Premier Li Peng under the leadership of Lord Howe is to visit China later this year. Details of its itinerary and membership have still to be settled.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in his Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  Mr. Goodlad
  An internal investigation in 1988 into the viability of relocating parts of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing outside central London considered a number of relocation sites, including Glasgow and Cardiff. Hanslope Park, an estate near Milton Keynes owned by the FCO, was chosen for the 245 posts then identified for possible relocation. The number of posts has since fallen to 166 because of the subsequent abolition of some posts and reorganisation of FCO departments. This relocation programme is well advanced and is due to be completed by mid-1994.

  European Political Parties
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made on the effects for the United Kingdom of article 138a of the treaty of Rome, inserted by the treaty of Maastricht, dealing with pan-European political parties.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We welcome contacts at the European level between national political parties, including in the European Parliament. But there is no provision in article 138a of the treaty on European union for any specific action by member states or the Community in relation to political parties.

  Iraq
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are taking place with his European Community counterparts about their release of blocked Iraqi funds for(a) the financing of trade in goods not embargoed under United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 and (b) for settling creditors' claims; and what sums have been released in the case of each Community country, including the United Kingdom under each head.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We regularly exchange views with our European Community partners about all aspects of policy towards Iraq. Iraq continues to refuse to export oil to pay for essential humanitarian supplies and to meet claims for compensation as provided for in UN Security Council resolutions 706 and 712.

  In conformity with the ruling of the United Nations sanctions committee we released £70 million of Iraqi funds frozen in the UK for the purchase of humanitarian goods of British origin following the release of Mr. Ian Richter in November 1991. We do not plan to release further assets.

  There is a general agreement among our EC partners that Iraqi funds should remain frozen until Iraq meets its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions. We have no figures of any frozen Iraqi funds released by our partners.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of the Vienna talks between representatives of the United Nations and the Iraqi Government.
  440
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Despite a further round of talks between the United Nations and the Iraqi Government in Vienna in June the Iraqi Government still refuse to export oil to finance the purchase of essential humanitarian supplies as provided for in United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Vietnam about the detention of prisoners of religious conscience; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We continue to raise with the Vietnamese authorities, both bilaterally and with our EC partners, individual human rights cases, including prisoners of religious conscience. I also raised our concern about Vietnam's human rights record with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister during the latter's visit to Britian in June.

  France (Road Blockades)
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the French authorities on behalf of those British citizens stranded in France as a consequence of the blockade of roads by demonstrating farmers and truckers.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am glad to say that the blockades have almost all now been lifted. My right hon. Friend has kept in close and regular contact with his French counterpart Mr. Bianco on behalf of British coach and lorry drivers and British holiday-makers caught up in the blockades. Consular staff in France have given assistance to British citizens where necessary.

EDUCATION

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in his Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  Mr. Forman
  The Department keeps under review the balance between its staff in central London and those in its Darlington offices.

  Schools Information
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of parents have received in the past 12 months(a) a written report on their child's progress in school, (b) a publication with comparable information about all schools in their locality including examination results, truancy rates and destination of school leavers and (c) a reminder of their right of appeal and how to use it in cases where the local education authority or school governors refuse them a place for their child in the school of their choice.

  Mr. Forth
  The parents charter, published in September 1991, promised that steps would be taken to ensure that all
  441
  parents would receive or have access to the information mentioned. All these promises have been or are in the process of being implemented. New reporting regulations, introduced in May, require annual written reports to be sent to all parents on their child's educational progress. Comparative tables of public examination results will be produced this autumn; in 1993 these will also cover national curriculum assessment results, truancy rates and school leavers' destinations. Since February of this year, all LEAs and governing bodies of LEA-maintained schools have been required by law to remind parents of their right of appeal when informing them of a decision not to allocate a place for their child at their preferred school. The model articles of government for grant-maintained schools were amended in January this year to include this requirement.

  Computer Networks
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what steps are being taken to draw together the research in the United Kingdom and other European countries on high band width computer networks;

  (2) if he will use Britain's presidency of the European Community to initiate an EC-wide network for connecting basic and applied research laboratories and universities.

  Mr. Forman
  The information systems committee of the Universities Funding Council—UFC—is participating in a European multi-protocol project to connect European countries via high band width computer networks. Fifty of the 200 sites connected to the United Kingdom joint academic network—JANET—already have full multi-protocol access. The United Kingdom and Germany are taking the lead in the European multi-protocol project. Several other European countries have expressed an interest in joining.

  The SuperJANET initiative will enhance United Kingdom development providing very high band width multi-protocol computer networking to United Kingdom academic sites.

  The UFC and the DTI have jointly funded United Kingdom participation in the EUREKA COSINE project. This has recently completed a successful pilot project in academic computer networking across Europe and will move to a higher performance production service later this year.

  The European Community is actively pursuing the provision of pan-European networks for academic sites through its consultations with the European Consultative Forum on Research Networking, which represents academic and research networking interests in the Community.

  Schools, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will write to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight to provide the advice which he undertook to supply following the meeting on 26 February and the visit of his regional team to Lake, Sandham and Nodehill schools.

  Mr. Forth
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Youth Service Funding
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for funding the voluntary sector youth service in London.

  Mr. Forman
  I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Blatch, said in another place on 6 July,Official Report, columns 981–84.

  Rural Primary Schools
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has had about the consequences of future trends in devolved school budgets under local management of schools for the viability of small rural primary schools; what safeguards exist to protect such schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has received a number of representations within the last four weeks on issues arising from the local management of schools—LMS—including the funding of small rural schools. Under LMS, local education authorities—LEAs—can provide additional support to small schools in two ways: they may offer salary protection to schools with fewer than 330 pupils, and they may build factors into their formulae which allow for the higher costs of providing a balanced curriculum in small schools.

  Special Needs
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the 10 local education authorities in England which spent most per pupil on the education of pupils with special needs, with the average amounts spent for each such authority and(b) the 10 local education authorities with the greatest number of pupils with special needs, with the number in each case, for the last year for which the information is available.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest year for which information on local education authorities—LEAs—actual spending is available is 1989–90. Information is not collected separately on LEAs' spending on special needs within mainstream schools, nor on support services for special needs. Table 1 lists the 10 LEAs in England which spent most per pupil in maintained or non-maintained special schools, hospital schools, or receiving education other than at school. Table 2 indicates the 10 LEAs providing education for the greatest number of such pupils. To provide a reasonable match with spending data, pupil number data are for January 1990.

  Table 1

  Special education spending1 per pupil2

  1989–90

  Local education authority

  £

  Solihull

  14,665

  Harrow

  13,970

  Merton

  13,750

  Barking and Dagenham

  13,090

  Cumbria

  12,455

  Somerset

  12,330

  Ealing

  12,205

  Bradford

  12,180

  Oxfordshire

  12,035

  Waltham Forest

  11,480

  443

  Table 2

  Number of pupils2 receiving special education

  January 1990

  Local education authority

  Number

  Inner London education authority

  6,954

  Kent

  4,160

  Hampshire

  4,132

  Lancashire

  3,968

  Essex

  3,047

  Birmingham

  2,721

  Nottinghamshire

  2,321

  Hertfordshire

  2,232

  Avon

  2,133

  Devon

  2,114

  1 Total expenditure other than capital financing costs and inter-authority recoupment payments, less income other than from specific Government grants and inter-authority recoupment receipts.

  2 Pupils in special schools, hospital schools or receiving education other than at school, January 1990.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary schools there are in England with(a) fewer than 50 pupils and (b) between 50 and 75 pupils; and how many secondary or middle schools there are with (i) fewer than 200 pupils and (ii) between 200 and 300 pupils, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Maintained schools in England by size: January 1991

  Full-time pupils

  Schools

  Primary

  0 to 50

  1,293

  51 to 75

  1,247

  Over 75

  15,955

  Middle

  0 to 200

  154

  201 to 300

  378

  Over 300

  511

  Secondary

  0 to 200

  45

  201 to 300

  69

  Over 300

  3,292

  Subjects Allied to Medicine
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what criteria will be used by the Higher Education Funding Council for the funding of subjects allied to medicine; and what account such funding will take of the relative costs of the subjects within that category;

  (2) what steps he will take to ensure adequate funding for the clinical training of university students of optometry under the future arrangements proposed by the Higher Education Funding Council.

  Mr. Forman
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England is consulting institutions on the funding methodology for teaching and on the academic subject categories to be adopted from 1993–94. The council has adopted the general principal that the number of subject categories should be relatively small so as to maximise institutions' management freedom. The precise coverage of academic subject categories will be the subject of further 444
  consultation. It will be for individual institutions to determine the level of funding for particular courses within each category, taking account of cost differences.

  Sex Education
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what aims and standards his Department has for the teaching of sex education to all children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 requires the curriculum of maintained schools to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. As part of that preparation, all pupils are now required to be taught those aspects of sex education contained in national curriculum science. Beyond that statutory requirement, school governing bodies are responsible, under the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, for deciding whether any further sex education should be included in their school's curriculum; and for maintaining a written record both of that decision, and the content and organisation of any sex education they decide should be provided. In addition, section 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 requires that any sex education which schools provide—whether or not it is required as part of the national curriculum—should be given in such a manner as to encourage pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. Detailed decisions about how such education is delivered in the classroom should take full account of local circumstances, the particular needs of pupils and the views of parents.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) in what circumstances sex education can be excluded from the teaching of human biology within the national curriculum;

  (2) if he will give details of the circumstances in which teachers and parents may withdraw children from lessons about HIV and AIDS.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no statutory right of withdrawal from the secular curriculum: pupils may not be withdrawn from the teaching of any aspects of sex education provided by their school, whether or not these are required by the national curriculum. Schools should be ready to discuss with parents both their policies and approaches to sex education, and to consider any anxieties or suggestions which individual parents may have.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of school children at the ages of 11, 14 and 16 years have received sex education.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Environmental Initiatives
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new environmental initiatives he intends to promote for the European Community during his term as President of the European Agriculture Council.

  Mr. Curry
  We intend to press forward our initiative to integrate environmental protection requirements into the common agricultural policy.

  Seagulls, Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what radiological surveys of the seagulls killed by British Nuclear Fuels at Sellafield in the cull carried out in June have been carried out by the scientific services in his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Set-aside
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what flexibility will be applied to the new 15 per cent. set-aside scheme to take into account field layout and cost structure.

  Mr. Curry
  We have stressed to the Commission the importance of providing flexibility in the implementing regulations for the scheme. I hope that this will be reflected in the final text of these regulations.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what experiments have been undertaken to see if meat from bovines suffering from BSE is infective; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Experiments in which mice have been inoculated with muscle tissue from cows confirmed to have BSE are in progress. Two of these have passed the end point for these studies and no clinical evidence of a scrapie or BSE-like disease has resulted. The results so far show that, as in all other naturally occurring transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, there is no detectable infectivity in muscle tissue and thus meat.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy for each year since 1986, and the latest figure for 1992 for the total number of cattle diagnosed that were(a) under two years of age, (b) aged two to three years, (c) aged three to four years, (d) aged five to six years and (e) aged seven or more years.

  Mr. Soames
  There were 847 cases of BSE confirmed in Great Britain prior to the disease becoming notifiable on 21 June 1988. Since then the number of confirmed cases is as follows by year of report.

  Number

  1988

  2,185

  1989

  7,136

  1990

  14,179

  1991

  25,013

  19921

  13,430

  1 to 3 July.

  The distribution of confirmed cases of BSE as at 10 July 1992 with a date of onset of disease between January and June 1992 of known age is as follows:

  Age band (yrs)

  Number of cases

  2 and less than 3

  1

  3 and less than 4

  1225

  4 and less than 5

  3,734

  446

  Age band (yrs)

  Number of cases

  5 and less than 6

  2,132

  6 and less than 7

  737

  7 and over

  340

  1 These animals will have been born during the period from 1 January 1988 to 30 June 1989.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will invite the Royal Society and the Royal Colleges of Medicine to carry out a wholly independent study of the epidemiology of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Soames
  No. The spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee—the Tyrrell committee—already exists to look at all matters relating to spongiform encephalopathies.

  Dogs and Cats
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) dogs and (b) cats are exported and imported for breeding purposes each year; and how many (i) dogs and (ii) cats are imported for scientific experiments each year.

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not available.

  Sugar Quota
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to protect the British sugar industry from cuts in its quota.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on July 6,Official Report, column 62.

  Agricultural Support
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of Government spending was allocated to agricultural support in(a) 1962, (b) 1972 and (c) the most recent year available; and what equivalent proportion is estimated to be required in 1995.

  Mr. Curry
  The figures for 1962 and 1972 are not readily available. The most recent year for which figures have been published is the financial year 1991–92 when the proportion of Government spending allocated to agriculture was 0.7 per cent. There are no estimates available for what the equivalent proportion will be in 1995.

  Fisheries Conservation
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he sent his consultation paper for new fish conservation proposals to(a) the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation Ltd. and (b) the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation Ltd.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department of Agriculture, for Northern Ireland issued the consultation paper on effort control and decommissioning to both Northern Ireland producer organisations on 30 April 1992.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he received any representations from(a) the Northern Ireland Fish Producers

  447
  Organisation Ltd. and (b) the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation Ltd. prior to the publication of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill and after he published his consultation paper for the fishing industry.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland received comments from both organisations in June after the publication of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Bill.

  National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions when, where and with whom in each of the last five years he, his predecessors in that office, Ministers in his Ministry and their predecessors have officially met representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.

  Mr. Curry
  I have had regular meetings with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations since I came to the Ministry three years ago. I recently attended its executive committee in Cheltenham on July 4 and I offered the federation a further meeting on 7 July.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in his Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and dencentralising Government Departments.

  Mr. Curry
  Some 78 per cent. of the Ministry's staff are based outside London. Planning is at various stages of development for moving 1,000 posts away from a number of locations in London and the south-east.

  Salmon
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland about further measures to protect British salmon stocks.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department maintains close and regular contacts with the Scottish Office on matters relating to British salmon stocks and their protection.

  Farm Workers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average number of farm workers employed per hundred hectares on farms of(a) under 100 hectares, (b) 100 to 200, (c) 200 to 300, (d) 300 to 400, (e) 400 to 500, (f) 500 to 600 and (g) 600 and over hectares.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is as follows for the latest available date, with separate details for the total farm labour force and regular hired workers.

  Average number of persons per 100 hectares of total area England and Wales June 1991

  Total area of holding1 (hectares)

  Total labour force2

  Regular hired workers3

  Under 100

  7.8

  1.4

  100—<200

  2.9

  0.8

  200—<300

  2.3

  0.9

  448

  Total area of holding1 (hectares)

  Total labour force2

  Regular hired workers3

  300—<400

  2.1

  1.0

  400—<500

  1.7

  0.9

  500—<600

  1.7

  1.1

  600 and over

  1.3

  0.8

  All holdings

  4.5

  1.1

  NUMBER OF PERSONS ('000s)

  486.0

  115.0

  1 Based on main holdings in the annual June census.

  2 Includes all whole-time and part-time workers on the holding in June 1991, i.e. farmers, partners, directors, spouses, managers, regular family and hired workers, seasonal and casual workers.

  3 Whole-time and part-time.

  Cerone
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the approved shelf life of the pesticide product(a) Union Carbide cerone, (b) Embetec cerone and (c) ICI cerone, MAFF registration numbers 3467, 04416 and 00463, respectively;

  (2) how long the approved shelf life of the Union Carbide product cerone was for the years 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Soames
  For a pesticide product to gain full approval under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 evidence of two years storage stability at ambient temperature must be supplied. Only if such evidence is not forthcoming will a shelf life be specified on the approved product label. The information on cerone is as follows:

  (a) Union Carbide cerone (MAFF 00464)—This product has been commercially withdrawn. From 1981 to 1986 it held approval (No. 3467) for efficacy under the former Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme (ACAS) with no specified shelf life on the label.

  (b) Embetec cerone (MAFF 04416)—This has been replaced by Rhone-Poulenc's cerone which holds provisional approval, with no specified shelf life on the label.

  (c) ICI cerone (MAFF 00463)—This has provisional approval with no specified shelf life on the label.

  Badger Baiting
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of badger baiting there have been in Essex in each of the last three available years; and what action is being taken to enforce the laws against badger baiting in Essex.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1988 there were seven prosecutions and one conviction in Essex under the Badgers Act 1973, although it is not possible to say how many of these involved alleged cases of badger baiting. There were no prosecutions under the 1973 Act in Essex in 1989 or in 1990, the last year for which statistics are available.

  The enforcement of the law in Essex is an operational matter for the chief constable.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Residential Requirements
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what residential requirements he sets for the payment of DSS benefits; whether he plans any changes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  People who do not have a fixed abode, and who meet the entitlement conditions for a benefit, will often have to come to a social security or Employment Service office in person to collect their girocheque or notification to pick up their order book from a post office. In some cases they are posted to an address nominated by claimants. For unemployed people the entitlement conditions include being available for, and actively seeking work. These conditions are rigorously checked by Employment Service staff. Social security and Employment Service staff are careful to verify the identities of all claimants, and our computer systems will show if someone is making a duplicate claim at another office.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 428, to the hon. Member for Harwich, (Mr. Sproat) about appeals against disability living allowance decisions, if he will make a statement on the factors which account for the delay in resolving the appeal of the constituent of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, Ref. YR691 179c.

  Miss Widdecombe
  An appeal to the social security commissioner was made by the hon. Member's constituent on 18 November 1991 and leave to appeal was granted by the commissioner on 23 January 1992. A submission by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was sent to the office of the social security commissioners on 19 February 1992 and the appeal is now awaiting a date for hearing. Hearings by the social security commissioners are a matter for my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the. Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people with learning difficulties have been awarded the lower rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance;

  (2) how many people with visual impairments have been awarded (a) the lower rate care or (b) the lower rate mobility component of the disability living allowance;

  (3) how many awards of the higher rate mobility components made since 3 February were made (a) on the grounds that the person was severely mentally impaired and displayed severe behavioural problems and (b) under the deaf-blind provisions;

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available figure for the number of people awarded the higher rate mobility component on the grounds of severe mental impairment is 116. The other information is not yet available.

  Mr. Flynn
  'To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of the numbers awarded the disability living allowance to date by(a) those awarded the higher rate of the care component, (b) those awarded the middle rate of the care component, (c)
  450
  those awarded the lower rate of the care component, (d) those awarded the higher rate of mobility component and (e) those awarded the lower rate of the mobility component.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available figures for components awarded on new claims and top-up claims, including claims made on the grounds of terminal illness, are as follows:

  Numbers

  Highest rate of the care component

  8,700

  Middle rate of the care component

  9,900

  Lowest rate of the care component

  27,800

  Higher rate of the mobility component

  24,400

  Lower rate of the mobility component

  31,600

  There is some overlap the categories because some new claims result in dual awards of both a care and mobility component.

  Mr.Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many requests for a review of an adjudication officer's decision on attendance allowance and mobility allowance received by his Department prior to 3 February remain outstanding; how many have been decided: and how many, and what percentage, of reviews decided resulted in the award of the lower rate of disability living allowance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of successful disability working allowance applicants by(a) people already working and (b) people who started working shortly before making an application for benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Up to 30 June the number of successful applications for disability working allowance was 1,130. Of these we estimate that about 5 per cent. started work as employees in the week of the claim.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of successful disability working allowance applicants by(a) average hourly earnings, (b) average hours worked, (c) average age, (d) sex, (e) marital status, (f) householder status and (g) qualifying benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the householder status of applicants is not available. The table provides estimated figures derived from a provisional analysis of claims up to 31 May.

  Successful claims

  Average hourly earnings

  £3.12

  Average hours worked a week

  29.8

  Average age

  36

  Number of awards to men

  468

  Number of awards to women

  357

  Number of awards to single people

  536

  Number of awards to couples

  289

  Householder status

  not available

  Qualifying benefits:

  Invalidity benefit

  80

  451

  Successful claims

  Severe disablement allowance

  43

  Income support with disability premium

  118

  Housing benefit with disability premium

  70

  Disability living allowance

  86

  Attendance allowance and other benefits

  659

  NOTE: Customers may have more than one qualifying benefit.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people claiming the disability living allowance had help completing their claim forms either(a) from the telephone claims completion service of a regional disability benefits centre or (b) from his Department's visiting service;

  (2) how many applications for the disability living allowance have been received by his Department to date; and if he will provide a breakdown by (a) the number and percentage of these that resulted in an award, (b) the number and percentage of these that were refused broken down by grounds for refusal and (c) the number and percentage of these that are awaiting a decision;

  (3) what is his Department's policy regarding the notification of income support, housing benefit and community charge departments when someone is awarded the disability living allowance; and whether such notification distinguishes between the mobility and care component and the rate of these components, respectively;

  (4) how many applications for the disability working allowance have been received by his Department to date; and if he will provide a breakdown by (a) the number and percentage of these that resulted in an award, (b) the number and percentage of these that were refused and (c) the number and percentage of these that are awaiting a decision;

  (5) if he will provide a breakdown by number and percentage of the total number of claims for disability working allowance received by his Department that were refused on the grounds that (a) the claimant was not in remunerative work, (b) the claimant's income was above the limit, (c) the claimant was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit, (d) the claimant was receiving family credit, (e) the joint income of the claimant and his or her partner exceeded the limit, (f) the claimant was working less than 16 hours a week or (g) for other reasons;

  (6) how many claims for disability living allowance included a report by an examining medical practitioner; and if he will break this down by (a) the number and percentage of successful claims, (b) the number and percentage of unsuccessful claims and (c) the number and percentage of cases where the claimant had already completed the self-assessment application form;

  (7) how many requests for reviews of disability living allowance have been received by his Department breaking these down by (a) numbers seeking a review of a decision to refuse benefit and (b) numbers seeking a review of the rate of benefit awarded; and if he will provide a breakdown of this total by (i) successful reviews, (ii) unsuccessful reviews and (iii) reviews not yet decided.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Low Incomes
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the recommendations made in the publications of the University of Bristol's statistical monitoring unit in 1991 and 1992 about the measurement of low incomes have been followed by his Department in preparing the report on households below average income in 1989.

  Mr. Burt
  The methodology of the forthcoming report on households below average income—HBAI—in 1989 is based on the recommendations of a technicl stocktaking exercise in 1991. During this exercise external analysts were consulted, including Professor Peter Townsend of the university of Bristol. A member of the Bristol statistical monitoring unit also attended a follow-up seminar in February 1992, along with independent analysts from established and authoritative institutions. The use in HBAI of equivalence scales, allied to sensitivity testing, was supported by all independent analysts from other institutions. This methodology has accordingly been adopted in the forthcoming edition of HBAI.

  Although the university of Bristol statistical monitoring unit's views on some key issues are not shared by the majority of independent or Government expert opinion, the Department has of course given them due weight, as it does all advice on methodological issues.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to make available and publish the results of the households below average income analysis for 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  The households below average income analysis based on 1990–91 data should be available in mid-1993.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the other countries which have adopted his Deparrtment's equivalence scale in measuring low incomes.

  Mr. Burt
  Equivalence scales can be expected to vary from country to country. However, I understand that equivalence scales, with relative rates for singles and couples similar to those employed by the households below average income analysis—HBAI—have been employed in studies in Finland, Sweden, Ireland and France. The approach incorporated in the 1992 edition of HBAI is to produce results on a central set of equivalence scales and subject these to extensive sensitivity testing. This approach was recommended in the report of last year's HBAI stocktaking review, a copy of which is available in the Library. It has been endorsed by almost all the external analysts consulted.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been submitted to date for(a) disability working allowance and (b) disability living allowance from claimants in Wales; and, of these claims, how many have been refused since the introduction of the allowances.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of disability working allowance and disabilty living allowance are
  453
  matters for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in his Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are 662 posts being relocated from the south-east to Leeds over the next year; the first staff from DSS moved into the new Leeds building, Quarry house, last week. In addition 3,000 new posts will be created outside London in 1993, when Child Support Agency centres are established in Belfast, Birkenhead, Dudley, Falkirk, Hastings and Plymouth.

  Disability Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals have been heard by disability appeal tribunals to date; and if he will provide a breakdown of these by(a) outstanding mobility allowance, (b) outstanding attendance allowance arid (c) disability living allowance appeals.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of disability appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the president of the Independent Tribunal Service, his honour Judge Holden, and the hon. Member may wish to contact his office to obtain this information.

  Table 1

  Unemployment benefit actual rates

  Date

  Single unemployed person

  With dependent spouse

  With dependent spouse and two children

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  November 1979

  18.50

  29.95

  33.35

  November 1980

  20.65

  33.40

  35.90

  November 1981

  22.50

  36.40

  38.00

  November 1982

  25.00

  40.45

  41.05

  November 1983

  27.05

  43.75

  44.05

  November 1984

  28.45

  46.00

  —

  November 1985

  30.45

  49.25

  —

  July 1986

  30.80

  49.80

  —

  April 1987

  31–45

  50–80

  —

  April 1988

  32.75

  52.95

  —

  April 1989

  34.70

  56.10

  —

  April 1990

  37.35

  60.40

  —

  April 1991

  41.40

  66.95

  —

  April 1992

  43.10

  69.70

  —

  Table 2

  Equivalent value of unemployment benefit at April 1992

  Date

  Single unemployed person

  With dependent spouse

  With dependent spouse and two children

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  November 1979

  42.62

  68.99

  76.83

  November 1980

  41.25

  66.72

  71.72

  November 1981

  40.14

  64.94

  67.80

  November 1982

  41.98

  67.92

  68.93

  November 1983

  43.32

  70.07

  70.55

  November 1984

  43.42

  70.20

  —

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for invalidity benefit, sickness benefit, severe disablement allowance and income support were referred to the regional medical services in each month since January 1992; how many of these cases resulted in medical examinations; and what were the outcomes(a) where examinations took place and (b) where they did not.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available for these benefits is in the table.

  References to the regional medical services cleared during quarter ending 31 March 1992

  Number

  Incapable of work (without examination)

  127,745

  Claim terminated before examination—no opinion given

  3,571

  Failed to attend examination

  14,664

  Incapable of work (after examination)

  51,545

  Capable of work (after examination)

  9,332

  Capable of work within limits (after examination)

  14,785

  Total number of references cleared

  221,642

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will show the level of unemployment benefit(a) in real terms at 1992 prices and (b) as a percentage of the equivalent average wage for (i) a single unemployed person, (ii) an unemployed person with a dependent spouse and (iii) an unemployed person with a spouse and two children for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables:
  455

  Date

  Single unemployed person

  With dependent spouse

  With dependent spouse and two children

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  November 1985

  44.06

  71.27

  —

  July 1986

  43.84

  70.88

  —

  April 1987

  42.88

  69.33

  —

  April 1988

  42.97

  69.47

  —

  April 1989

  42.14

  68.12

  —

  April 1990

  41.44

  67.01

  —

  April 1991

  43.17

  69.82

  —

  April 1992

  43.10

  69.70

  —

  Table 3

  Unemployment benefit as percentage of average earnings

  Date

  Single unemployed person

  With dependent spouse

  With dependent spouse and two children

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  November 1979

  16.21

  26.25

  29.23

  November 1980

  15.28

  24.72

  26.57

  November 1981

  15.05

  24.35

  25.42

  November 1982

  15.57

  25.19

  25.56

  November 1983

  15.69

  25.38

  25.55

  November 1984

  15.18

  24.55

  —

  November 1985

  15.26

  24.69

  —

  July 1986

  14.60

  23.61

  —

  April 1987

  14.04

  22.70

  —

  April 1988

  13.32

  21.54

  —

  April 1989

  12.88

  20.82

  —

  April 1990

  12.64

  20.43

  —

  April 1991

  12.98

  20.99

  —

  April 1992

  12.77

  20.65

  —

  Notes:

  1. Child dependency additions were abolished from 26 November 1984.

  Average earnings are taken from Gross Adult Males All Occupations (New Earnings Survey).

  Over 70 per cent. of those registered unemployed are in receipt of Income Support.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish the study on the social fund by York university; and if he will make a statement.
  456
  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on 8 July at column 224.

SCOTLAND

  Tourism
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the budget of the Scottish tourist board is currently spent outside the United Kingdom on the marketing of Scotland as a tourist location.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1991–92, 19.6 per cent. of the Scottish tourist board's gross expenditure was spent on overseas promotion. The estimate for 1992–93 is 20.3 per cent.

  Health Service (Consultants)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the names of the consultants holding a merit award and its grade.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is of a personal and confidential nature and cannot therefore be made publicly available.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the prison population in Scotland at the latest available date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at Friday 3 July 1992, the prison population in Scotland was 5,294.

  Grampian Healthcare
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received an application for national health service trust status from Grampian Healthcare; and if he will say from which date the statutory 90 days consultation period will commence.

  Mr. Stewart
  I can confirm that an application for NHS trust status has been received from Grampian Healthcare. The Secretary of State intends shortly to instruct Grampian health board to carry out formal consultation on the application on his behalf. The board will decide the date on which the three month consultation period will commence.

  Training
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each local enterprise company area in Scotland and for Scotland and Great Britain as a 'whole, for the latest available period, the wages earned by employment training trainees who three months after leaving were(a) in a full-time job, (b) in a part-time job and (c) self employed.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The information requested is not available, in all the categories requested, for individual local enterprise company areas. Data about leavers are obtained through a survey which started in July 1989. Returns from leavers are incomplete; and information is therefore only available at the level of Scotland and for Great Britain. The survey shows that for trainees leaving the programme between August 1990 and July 1991 and in employment six months afterwards net weekly earnings were as follows:
  458

  percentage

  Area

  up to £100

  up to £200

  £200 and over

  prefer not to say

  Scotland

  Full-time work

  26

  47

  13

  15

  Part-time work

  81

  7

  1

  11

  Self-employment

  54

  17

  6

  23

  Great Britain

  Full-time work

  24

  53

  10

  14

  Part-time work

  78

  10

  1

  11

  Self-employment

  42

  19

  8

  30

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the level of private sector financial contributions to government training schemes; how many youth training places have been offered by the private sector in each of the past five years; and what has been the average cost to public funds of a youth training place in real and actual terms in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 16 June 1992]: Information about the level of private sector financial contributions to Government training schemes in the last five years and about the number of youth training places offered by the private sector from 1987–88 to 1990–91 is not available. The number since April 1991 is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the youth training leavers survey—to which not all leavers respond—shows that, in Scotland in 1991–92, an estimated 61 per cent. of youth training leavers trained with employer-led organisations or other private sector training providers. Information about the average cost to public funds in each of the past five years of a youth training place, in actual terms and at 1992–93 price levels, is available only for Great Britain as a whole and is set out in the table.

  Youth Training unit price per annum in Great Britain for 1987–88 to 1991–92

  £

  Actual

  At 1992–93 price levels

  1987–88

  2,600

  3,595

  1988–89

  2,527

  3,258

  1989–90

  2,620

  3,169

  1990–91

  2,375

  2,656

  11991–92

  2,732

  2,855

  1 Provisional figure, subject to revision.

  A 1991–92 figure for Scotland will be available when checking of the relevant information has been completed and I will write to the hon. Member on that point.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently on(a) youth training and (b) employment training in Scotland; and how many of these training programmes involve work experience with an employer.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: In Scotland, the latest available information indicates that at the end of May 1992 there were 35,206 people on youth training and 16,402 on employment training. The majority of trainees receive work experience as part of their training; however information about the exact numbers receiving such experience is not held centrally.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: As the responsible Minister I shall, over the next 12 months, follow-up commitments in the White Paper Cm 1200 "This Common Inheritance" and its successor CM 1655 "The First Year Report". In particular, the Scottish Office will develop an environmental housekeeping strategy for its accommodation and purchasing.

  Over the next year and beyond I shall seek to achieve greater integration of environmental concerns into wider policy-making. I shall also continue to ensure that Scotland's environment is further safeguarded through the influence of Scottish Natural Heritage, Historic Scotland and the creation of a Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

  Region/Supply Zone

  Standards not fully met

  Compliance Date for Zone

  Borders

  Ale

  Aluminium

  1998

  Cockburnspath

  Iron

  2005

  Earnscleugh

  Aluminium

  1995

  Tweedsmuir

  Bact1

  1994

  Watch

  Iron

  2005

  West Linton

  Trihalomethanes

  1993

  Central

  Alloa

  Aluminium, Lead

  1997

  Ardeonaig

  Trihalomethanes

  1995

  Balquhidder

  Trihalomethanes

  1995

  Bo'ness, Blackness Whitecross

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Bonnybridge, Camelon, High Bonnybridge

  Aluminium

  1995

  Bridge of Allan

  Aluminium

  1995

  Cowie, Plean, Airth Stirling (part)

  Aluminium

  1992

  Cumbernauld

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Falkirk, Larbert, Carron Stenhousemuir, Skinflats

  Aluminium

  1997

  Kirkintilloch (part), Lenzie

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Kirkintilloch-Waterside

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Lennoxtown, Milton of Campsie Torrance, Balmore

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Areeming (Lochenkit) North

  Iron, pH, Colour, Manganese, Aluminium, Bact1

  1992

  Areeming (Lochenkit) South

  Iron, pH, Colour, Manganese Aluminium, Bact1

  1992

  Auchnneel

  Aluminium, pH, Trihalomethanes

  1995

  Black Esk

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1995

  Carsphairn

  Bact1

  1992

  Castle Douglas

  Trihalomethanes

  1992

  Creetown

  Trihalomethanes

  1992

  Euchan

  Aluminium, pH, Bact1, Trihalomethanes

  1995

  Glengap

  Trihalomethanes

  1992

  Glengap/Ringford Borehole

  Trihalomethanes

  1992

  Killylour

  Aluminium

  1994

  Killylour/Terregles Borehole

  Aluminium

  1994

  Lochfoot

  pH, Aluminium

  1995

  Lochinvar

  Trihalomethanes

  1992

  New Abbey

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1995

  Newton Stewart

  Trihalomethanes

  1992

  Palnure

  pH, Trihalomethanes, Bact1

  1992

  Penwhirn

  pH, Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1995

  Sanquhar

  Trihalomethanes

  1992

  Winterhope

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1995

  Fife-

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state, by region or island water authority, the water supply zones which do not fully comply with the requirements of the EC drinking water directive, stating for each the parameters concerned and expected compliance date in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 incorporate the requirements of the EC drinking water directive. The zones listed in the table are currently subject to improvement undertakings given by water authorities because one or more of the standards set in the regulations has been infringed in the past. Details of current water quality in individual supply zones are available in public registers maintained by water authorities.

  In the zones listed, reported results continue to show that, in many cases, breaches of the standard are marginal or infrequent. It is also clear that many of the zones listed are not experiencing difficulty in achieving the standards concerned, and in these cases the undertakings are simply precautionary. In the majority of zones the contravention relates to only one of the 57 standards set.
  461

  Region/Supply Zone

  Standards not fully met

  Compliance Date for Zone

  Auchterderran

  Iron

  2008

  Buckhaven

  Iron

  2018

  Cleish

  Iron

  2002

  Cowdenbeath

  Iron

  2001

  Dunfermline

  Iron

  1999

  Dunfermline South

  Iron

  1995

  East Neuk

  Iron

  2003

  Falkland

  Iron

  2017

  Fordell

  Iron

  2007

  Glenrothes North

  Iron

  2014

  Glenrothes South

  Iron

  2017

  Kinross

  Iron

  2017

  Kirkcaldy

  Iron

  2013

  Newburgh

  Iron

  2019

  North East Fife

  Iron

  2007

  North Fife

  Iron

  2003

  St. Andrews/Pipeland

  Iron

  2019

  Tayport

  Iron

  2020

  Grampian

  Auchengoul

  Iron

  2010

  Buckie

  Iron, Aluminium

  2010

  Cairnbulg

  Iron

  2010

  Forehill (Except Peterhead)

  Trihalomethanes

  1994

  Fraserburgh (Bogensourie)

  Aluminium

  1993

  Fraserburgh/Hillhead

  Iron

  2010

  Glendye

  Aluminium

  1996

  Glenlatterach

  Aluminium

  1994

  Keith (Herricks)

  Aluminium

  1994

  Kennethmont

  Iron

  2010

  Largie (Insch)

  Iron

  2010

  Lossiemouth (High Level)

  Aluminium

  1994

  Peterhead-Forehill

  Trihalomethanes

  1994

  Highland

  Achaphubuil

  Bact1

  1997

  Acharacle

  Bact1

  1994

  Achiltibuie

  Iron, Colour, Aluminium Turbidity, Manganese, Bact1

  1997

  Achmelvich

  Bact1

  1995

  Achmore

  Bact1

  1995

  Achnasheen

  Bact1

  1995

  Aird of Sleat

  Bact1

  1997

  Altnaharra

  Bact1

  1997

  Applecross

  Bact1

  1995

  Ardgour

  Bact1

  1995

  Ardneaskin

  Bact1

  1997

  Ardvasar/Daraich

  Bact1

  1997

  Ardvasar/Uisdein

  Bact1

  1997

  Armadale

  Bact1

  1997

  Arnisdale

  Bact1

  1997

  Aultbea

  Bact1

  1994

  Badachro

  Bact1

  1994

  Badcaul/Dundonnel

  Bact1

  1994

  Ballaculish (South)

  Bact1

  1992

  Balmacara

  Bact1

  1994

  Balnain/Bearnock

  Bact1

  1995

  Beasdale

  Bact1

  1997

  Bettyhill/Meadie

  Bact1

  1995

  Bettyhill/Mor

  Bact1

  1997

  Blaich

  Bact1

  1995

  Bohuntin

  Bact1

  1997

  Bonar Bridge/Ardgay

  Iron, pH, Aluminium, Colour, Turbidity, Bact1

  1996

  Bracadale

  Iron, Colour, Bact1

  1995

  Braes

  Bact1

  1995

  Caithness except Wick

  Iron, Aluminium, Manganese

  1996

  Cannich

  Bact1

  1995

  Carbost

  Bact1

  1995

  Carnoch/Glencoe

  Bact1

  1994

  Corpach

  Iron, Colour, Manganese

  1998

  Corpach/Caol/Loy

  Aluminium, Colour, Iron, pH, Turbidity, Manganese

  1998

  Culrain

  Aluminium, Bact1, Colour, Iron, pH, Manganese

  1997

  Diabeg

  Bact1

  1997

  Dores

  Bact1

  1997

  Dornie

  Bact1

  1994

  Dornoch

  Aluminium, Colour, Iron, Manganese, Turbidity

  1996

  Drimnin

  Bact1

  1997

  Drumbeg

  Bact1

  1997

  462 463

  Region/Supply Zone

  Standards not fully met

  Compliance Dale for Zone

  Drumfearn

  Bact1

  1997

  Durness

  Bact1, Turbidity

  1995

  Easter Ross and Black Isle/Assynt

  Aluminium, Bact1, Colour, Iron, Manganese, Turbidity

  1994

  Elgol

  Bact1

  1997

  Elphin

  Bact1

  1995

  Fassfearn

  Bact1, Colour, Iron, Manganese

  1997

  Ferness

  Bact1

  1997

  Fort Augustus

  Bact1

  1994

  Fort William

  Colour, Iron

  1998

  Foyers

  Bact1

  1994

  Gairloch

  Bact1

  1992

  Garve

  Aluminium, Bact1, Colour, Iron, Manganese, Turbidity

  1995

  Glenachulish

  Bact1

  1994

  Glendale

  Bact1

  1995

  Glenelg

  Bact1

  1995

  Glenfinnan

  Bact1

  1995

  Glenuig

  Bact

  1997

  Glenurquhart/Allt Coilte

  Bact1

  1994

  Glenurquhart/Nam Bat

  Turbidity

  1998

  Golspie, Brora

  Aluminium, Colour, Turbidity

  1996

  Gorthleck

  Bact1

  1994

  Grantown on Spey (Dreggie)

  Colour, Iron, pH, Turbidity

  1995

  Harrapool/Broadford

  Bact1, Colour, Iron, Manganese

  1994

  Helmsdale Ord

  Bact1

  1992

  Helmsdale/Caen

  Bact1

  1992

  Inveralligin

  Bact1

  1997

  Inverasdale

  Bact1

  1995

  Invergarry

  Bact1

  1994

  Inverinate

  Bact1

  1997

  Inverinate (Forestry)

  Bact1

  1997

  Inverrnoriston Ness

  Bact1

  1995

  Inverness/Balmore

  Colour, Iron, Manganese Turbidity

  1998

  Inverness/Oldtown

  Colour, Iron, Manganese, Turbidity

  1908

  Isle of Ornsay

  Bact'

  1995

  Kentallen

  Turbidity

  1992

  Kilchoan

  Bact1

  1994

  Kilmaluag

  Bact1

  1997

  Kilmuir

  Bact1

  1994

  Kingussie

  Bact1

  1994

  Kinlochewe

  Bact1

  1995

  Kinlochleven

  Bact1

  1992

  Kishorn

  Bact1

  1997

  Kyleakin

  Bact1, Turbidity

  1995

  Kylesku

  Bact1

  1997

  Laggan Bridge

  Bact1

  1997

  Laid

  Bact1

  1997

  Laide

  Bact1

  1995

  Lairg

  Bact1, Colour, Iron, Manganese, Turbidity

  1992

  Letterfearn

  Bact1

  1997

  Lochaline

  Bact1

  1994

  Lochend

  Bact1

  1997

  Lochinver

  Bact1

  1992

  Loth, Portgower

  Bact1

  1997

  Mellon Udrigle

  Bact1

  1997

  Melness

  Bact1

  1995

  Melvich, Strathy

  Bact1

  1994

  Nairn

  Aluminium, Colour, Turbidity

  1995

  Nedd

  Bact1

  1997

  North Erradale

  Bact1

  1997

  Onich

  Bact1

  1992

  Oykel Bridge

  Bact1

  1997

  Penifiler

  Bact1

  1997

  Poolewe

  Bact1

  1995

  Raasay

  Bact1

  1995

  Ratagan

  Bact1

  1997

  Rogart Muidhe

  Bact1

  1995

  Rogart Upper

  Bad1

  1994

  Rosehall/Invercassley

  Bact1, Colour, Iron, Manganese, Turbidity

  1997

  Rosemarkie

  Bact1

  1994

  Roskhill, Dunvegan

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1992

  Roybridge

  Bact1

  1995

  Salen

  Bact1

  1997

  Sallachy

  Bact1

  1997

  Sconser

  Bact1

  1997

  Scourie

  Bact1

  1994

  Shiel Bridge

  Bact1

  1997

  Shieldaig

  Bact1

  1997

  464 465

  Region/Supply Zone

  Standards not fully met

  Compliance Date for Zone

  Skerray

  Bact1

  1997

  Spean Bridge

  Bact1

  1994

  Stoer

  Bact1

  1994

  Strath Halladale

  Bact1

  1997

  Strath Naver

  Bact1

  1997

  Strathcarron

  Bact1

  1997

  Strathnairn

  Aluminium, Colour, Iron Manganese

  1994

  Strollamus

  Bact1

  1997

  Strontian

  Bact1

  1994

  Tarscavaig

  Bact1

  1997

  Teangue

  Bact1

  1997

  Tomich

  Bact1

  1997

  Tongue

  Bact1

  1994

  Torridon

  Bact1

  1997

  Torrin

  Bact1

  1997

  Trislaig

  Bact1

  1997

  Uig/Glenuig/Earlish

  Bact1

  1994

  Uig/Idrigill

  Bact1

  1997

  Waternish

  Bact1

  1995

  Waterstein

  Bact1

  1997

  Wick

  Aluminium, Colour, Iron, Nitrite, Manganese, Turbidity

  1996

  Lothian

  Alnwickhill Joppa

  Bact1, pH

  1992

  Alnwickhill, Leith

  Bact1, pH

  1992

  Alnwickhill, Newington

  Bact1, pH

  1992

  Alnwickhill, Portobello

  Bact1, pH

  1992

  Balgreen

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1994

  Castlehill

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1997

  Chalkieside

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1994

  Deans

  Aluminium, Bact1, Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Dechmont

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Dechmont Law

  Aluminium, Bact1, Trihalomethanes

  1998

  East Craigs

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Fairmilehcad Direct

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1997

  Fairmilehead Gilmerton

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1997

  Firhill Mid

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1997

  Firhill North

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1997

  Firhill South

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1997

  Firhill West

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1997

  Fountainhall

  Aluminium, Bact1, pH

  1995

  Garleton

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1995

  Harburnhead

  Bact1

  1993

  Harlaw, Marchbank

  Bact1

  1993

  Hillend

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1997

  Hopes

  Aluminium

  1995

  Kingslaw

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1994

  Kinleith

  Bact1

  1993

  Latch

  Bact1

  1993

  Pateshill Direct

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1994

  Pateshill District

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1994

  Pateshill Longridge

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1994

  Preston

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Stobshiel

  Aluminium, pH

  1995

  Torduff

  Bact1, pH

  1993

  Traprain

  Aluminium, Bact1,

  1995

  Waterston

  Aluminium, Bact1 Trihalomethanes

  1998

  West Mains

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1994

  Whittinghame

  Aluminium, Bact1

  1994

  Orkney

  Mainland North and West

  Aluminium

  1997

  Mainland South and East

  Aluminium

  1994

  Mainland, Kirkwall

  Aluminium

  1996

  Sanday

  Aluminium

  1995

  Westray

  Aluminium

  1994

  Shetland

  Aith

  Aluminium

  1995

  Burra Isle

  Aluminium

  1993

  Gulberwick and Quarff

  Aluminium

  1995

  Reawick and Skeld

  Aluminium

  1997

  Sandness

  Aluminium

  1996

  Sandwick

  Manganese

  1994

  Walls

  Aluminium

  1996

  Whalesay

  Aluminium

  1996

  466 467

  Region/Supply Zone

  Standards not fully met

  Compliance Date for Zone

  Strathclyde

  Airdrie (South), Calderbank, Coatbridge (South)

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Alexandria, Bonhill, Renton, Balloch (Leven Valley)

  Trihalomethanes

  1999

  Ardeer

  Aluminium Lead

  1993

  Ardrishaig, Lochgilphead

  Aluminium Lead

  1995

  Ardrossan and Environs

  Aluminium

  1992

  Ayr

  Aluminium

  1993

  Baillieston

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Bearsden, Faifley, Yoker, Clydebank

  Aluminium

  1996

  Bellshill, Mossend and Holytown

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Blackwaterfoot, Shiskine, Machrie

  Trihalomethanes

  2002

  Bowling, Bonhill, Old Kilpatrick

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Bowmore, Port Ellen (Islay)

  Aluminium

  1993

  Brodick

  Trihalomethanes

  2000

  Caldercruix and Plains

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Campbeltown

  Aluminium

  1994

  Carradale

  Aluminium

  1992

  Catacol

  Trihalomethanes

  1997

  Clachan

  Aluminium

  1994

  Coatbridge

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Craighouse (Jura)

  Trihalomethanes

  1999

  Croofur, Newton Mearns

  Aluminium

  1995

  Darvel Valley

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1993

  Dervaig

  Trihalomethanes

  1994

  Dumbarton Town

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Furnace, Minard

  Aluminium

  1994

  Garelochhead, Rhu, Rosneath

  Trihalomethanes

  2003

  Girvan and Environs (South)

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1994

  Girvan and Environs (North)

  Aluminium, Lead

  1993

  Greenock Town

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1996

  Holyloch, Kilmun, Inellen and Dunoon and Environs

  Aluminium

  1993

  Inverary, Bridge of Douglas

  Aluminium

  1994

  Inverclyde West

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1996

  Irvine

  Aluminium, Lead

  1993

  Kilbirnie (North)

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1992

  Kilmarnock (North)

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1993

  Kilmarnock (South)

  Aluminium, Lead

  1993

  Kilmaurs

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1993

  Kilmelford

  Trihalomethanes

  1993

  Kilmory (Legg) Sliddery

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Lamlash

  Trihalomethanes

  1996

  Lenzie, Millerston, Muirhead and Stepps

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Motherwell (Loch Lomond Supply)

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Muirkirk

  Trihalomethanes

  2001

  Neilston/Uplawmoor

  Aluminium

  1996

  Newarthill (East)

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Paisley (North)

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Paisley (Town)

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1994

  Pirnmill

  Trihalomethanes

  1997

  Prestwick

  Aluminium, Lead

  1993

  Renfrew East, Clarkston, Giffnock, North Mearns area

  Aluminium

  1995

  Renfrewshire South

  Aluminium

  1994

  Renfrewshire West

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Ross of Mull

  Trihalomethanes

  1994

  Rothesay

  Aluminium

  1994

  Saddell

  Trihalomethanes

  1998

  Saltcoats and Stevenston

  Aluminium, Lead

  1993

  Skelmorlie

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1995

  Stewarton and Environs

  Aluminium, Trihalomethanes

  1993

  Strachur

  Aluminium

  1995

  Tarbert

  Aluminium

  1994

  Tayinloan

  Trihalomethanes

  1999

  Tayvallich

  Trihalomethanes

  2000

  Tobermory

  Aluminium

  1993

  Troon, Dundonald (Kilwinning)

  Aluminium, Lead

  1993

  Whitehouse

  Trihalomethanes

  2001

  Western Isles

  Leverburgh

  Lead

  1997

  Northton

  Lead

  1997

  Rodel

  Lead

  1997

  1 "Bact."—microbiological parameters.

  Note: "Compliance dates" are latest dates by which all parameters in zones will comply. Individual parameters may comply earlier.
  468

  Hospitals (Tertiary Referrals)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision is made for the enumeration of tertiary referrals in hospital(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient treatment as separate consultant episodes; from what date this was done and what arrangements were made for reference back to fund-holding general practitioners for renewed authorisation; if he will estimate the impact of the change in recording and enumeration methods on achieving consistent time-series statistics on numbers of cash treated in hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: Provision for the recording of information on in-patient tertiary referrals is included in the SMR 1 scheme which was introduced in 1961. The scheme, which records the information by consultant episode, has identified the referring general practitioner practice number since 1 January 1991.

  Type of birth

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Twin

  658

  611

  607

  677

  665

  681

  721

  721

  706

  617

  731

  709

  Triplet

  4

  7

  6

  2

  10

  9

  10

  10

  9

  13

  16

  24

  Quadruplet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  2

  Quintuplet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sextuplet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total maternities

  68,689

  68,865

  65,963

  64,776

  64,800

  66,342

  65,456

  65,839

  65,842

  63,090

  65,556

  66,630

  Information on the number of multiple births in Scotland attributed to assisted reproduction is not available. Some information on these matters is published in the first annual report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and in earlier annual reports of the interim licensing authority, copies of which are available in the Library.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sporting Attainment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has for improving levels of sporting attainment among young people in inner cities.

  Mr. Key
  We want to encourage young people to higher levels of sporting achievement both in inner city areas and elsewhere. The Sports Council promotes good practice and partnerships in the inner cities by supporting a range of local initiatives. I am greatly encouraged that the 1993–94 city challenge bids contain significant proposals for improving sports provision.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has held with the chairman of English Heritage about the proposed move to Nottingham.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I discussed the proposed move with the chairman in May.
  470
  Tertiary referrals to out-patient departments are separately identified on the SMR 0 return which was introduced on 1 April 1991. The return identifies the referring general practitioner practice number.

  It is for individual health boards or trusts to consider what arrangements shall be introduced for reference back to fund holding general practitioners for renewed authorisation.

  There have been no recent changes to the data collection methods which have affected the consistency of time-series on the number of cases treated in hospitals.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of(a) sets of (i) twins, (ii) triplets, (iii) quadruplets, (iv) quintuplets and (v) sextuplets born in Scotland in each year from 1980 to 1991, (b) maternities in Scotland in each year and (c) multiple births of each type in each year which were conceived as a result of (1) IVF, (2) GIFT and (3) other forms of assisted conception.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is as follows:

  Sports Participation
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what survey his Department has carried out of the proportion of adults in the United Kingdom regularly participating in sporting activities.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what study his Department has carried out of the proportion of adults in the United Kingdom regularly participating in sporting activities.

  Mr. Key
  My Department pays for the inclusion on a three-year cycle of questions in general household survey relating to participation in sport. These questions will next appear in the 1993–94 survey. In addition the Sports Council, which is funded by my Department, was a joint sponsor of the Allied Dunbar national fitness survey the results of which were published on 15 June.

  European Festival of Arts
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will outline his plans for the European festival of arts taking place during the British presidency of the EC.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will outline his plans for the European festival of arts taking place during the British presidency of the EC.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have sent each hon. Member a personal copy of the programme for the European arts festival, which contains details of more than 600 events across the United Kingdom.
  471
  In addition, a schools and youth programme is being prepared for publication for the start of the autumn school term. This will include special workshops, visits to exhibitions and performances, competitions for special curriculum awards and a wide range of topic and project work. More than 2,000 schools have so far expressed interest in taking part. I shall send hon. Members a copy when it is available.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultation was undertaken to determine the programme for the European arts festival.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Festival Director, John Drummond CBE, has consulted extensively in preparing the programme for the European arts festival, including the four arts councils, the regional arts boards, the Museums and Galleries Commission and a large number of arts organisations and others. He has also been supported by a widely based festival committee. In addition, all primary and secondary schools have been invited to participate in the education and youth programme.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration was given to the scheduling of more than one event in the European arts festival for North Staffordshire; and if he will make it his policy to consult Staffordshire county council and the Stoke on Trent city council twinning officer to ensure that youth events and events in schools are scheduled for Stoke on Trent, North constituency.

  Mr. Mellor
  The festival programme has very wide coverage. North Staffordshire is one of 250 locations attracting 600 events. Two thousand primary and secondary schools are also involved in the education and youth programme. The festival organisers have been in touch with all local education authorities in the United Kingdom.

  Tourism
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will take steps to encourage the flow of tourists to Leicestershire.

  Mr. Key
  Nearly half the Government's grant in aid to the English tourist board is devolved, under contract, to help the developmental and promotional work of the regional tourist boards. The East Midlands tourist board, which covers Leicestershire, will this year receive over £400,000 from the ETB. That is a more than 12 per cent. increase over 1991–92.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps the Government are taking to encourage a wider regional spread of tourism.

  Mr. Mellor
  It has always been the policy of this Government to encourage the widest possible geographical spread of tourism. This is reflected in the policies and activities of the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board. Nearly half of the English tourist board's grant-in-aid received from my Department goes to support the work of the regional tourist boards. This year these boards will receive a total of £6.89 million—double the sum of only three years ago.

  BBC
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet the chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation to discuss the method of appointment of the director general.

  Mr. Mellor
  None. This is a matter for the BBC governors.

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met representatives of local authority organisations to discuss the functions of his Department.

  Mr. Mellor
  I met the Association of County Councils on Wednesday 17 June.

  Football
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had about the implementation of the Taylor report.

  Mr. Mellor
  I completed on 3 July a round of consultations with interested parties on proposals to re-examine the all-seating requirement for Football League grounds. I announced the conclusions of my re-examination last Friday, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).

  Public Art
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives he is considering to promote public art and support for art schemes.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of National Heritage already funds a scheme administered by the Royal Society of Arts known as "Art for Architecture" to encourage the integration of works of art and craftwork into new and refurbished buildings at the planning stage. Since its launch in 1990 the scheme has contributed to 17 projects and has received Government funding totalling over £0.25 million.

  In addition, I welcome the lead taken by the Arts Council in promoting the principles of support for art which also emphasises the fact that art should be integral, rather than peripheral, aspect of new buildings. But at the same time I would like to reaffirm the Government's view that these schemes must be voluntary.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate he has made of the ratio of public to private funding for the arts for the most recent available period.

  Mr. Mellor
  Total Government funding for the Arts in the current year stands at £253 million. Annual business sponsorship of the arts, including corporate membership, was more than £57 million in 1990–91—the latest year for which firm figures are available. The arts also gains substantially from the patronage of businesses and individuals; from grants made by the Foundation for Sport and the Arts; and through the gift aid scheme.
  473
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of his Department's spending on the arts goes to the professional arts and what proportion to the voluntary or amateur arts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Precise figures are not available. The Arts Councils and, particularly, the regional arts boards support the amateur arts in a variety of ways, for example by making grants to festivals and other community events, and by meeting the costs of the involvement of professional artists with amateur groups.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of the national lottery income he expects to be spent in Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  Arrangements for the distribution of national lottery funds have not yet been decided. The proceeds will be used to benefit good causes and worthwhile projects throughout the nation.

  Fitness
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has had regarding the recent Sports Council-Health Education Authority national fitness survey.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Allied Dunbar national fitness survey was published on 15 June 1992. To date we have received no representations.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in his Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is the Government's policy to relocate Government offices outside London in those cases where it is possible and appropriate to do so, taking into account such factors as effectiveness, efficiency, value for money and accessibility of the site. Of the approximately 1,000 civil servants in the Department of National Heritage, 397 are appropriately located in the Historic Royal Palaces Agency at Hampton Court Palace and other royal palaces, 168 are members of the Royal Parks constabulary and 40 are royal parks staff also appropriately located on site in the royal parks. The remaining 360 senior officials and other policy staff form the central core of DNH. A variety of options for rehousing them are currently under consideration and I shall be making a statement in due course.

  British Sports Forum
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support he intends to give to the British Sports Forum.

  Mr. Key
  I welcome the formation of the British Sports Forum which will create a tough, authoritative voice for non-governmental sports organisations in the United Kingdom. I itend to invite a member of the forum to sit on the proposed United Kingdom Sports Commission.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent by public sector employers on training in each year from 1979 to the latest date available on the same basis as shown in "Training Statistics 1991 for 1986–87", published by her Department.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the current unemployment rates in each of Allendale, Corby, Dudly, Glanford, Hartlepool, Isle of Dogs, Middlesbrough, North-east Lancashire, North-west Kent, Rotherham, Salford/ Trafford, Scunthorpe, Speke, Telford, Tyneside, Wakefield, Wellingborough, Delyn, Milford Haven, Swansea, Clydebank, Inverclyde, Invergordon, Tayside, Belfast and Londonderry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The smallest geographical areas for which unemployment rates are officially compiled are travel-to-work areas—TTWAs. Information for each of these can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library. Those areas requested for which no matching TTWA exists are listed, along with their nearest equivalent TTWA.

  Area

  "Best fit" TTWA

  Allendale

  Carlisle

  Workington

  Kcswick

  Glanford

  Scunthorpe

  Isle of Dogs

  London

  North East Lancashire

  Clitheroe

  Pendle

  North West Kent

  Medway and Maidstone

  Sittingbourne and Sheerness

  Salford and Trafford

  Manchester

  Speke

  Liverpool

  Tyneside

  Newcastle

  South Tyneside

  Delyn

  Flint and Rhyl

  Milford Haven

  Haverfordwest

  Clydebank

  Glasgow

  Inverclyde

  Greenock

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the number of civil servants in her Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Roxborough and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 6 November 1989,Official Report, columns 471–72.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the 65,623 applications for naturalization made under the provisions of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 were(a)decided, (b)

  Class

  Decided

  Granted

  Refused

  Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependents

  Principal beneficiaries

  April-June 1991

  Sensitive Service

  121

  121

  204

  —

  July-September 1991

  General occupational

  Managers and administrators

  37

  37

  80

  —

  Approved occupations

  Statistical assistants

  28

  28

  51

  —

  Disciplined Service

  Independent Commission Against Corruption

  15

  15

  39

  —

  Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force

  3

  3

  7

  —

  Entrepreneurs

  31

  31

  24

  —

  Sensitive Service

  500

  500

  954

  —

  October-December 1991

  General occupational

  Managers and administrators

  1

  1

  3

  —

  News Editors and journalists

  58

  58

  88

  —

  Medical doctors

  274

  274

  605

  —

  Legal professionals

  109

  109

  177

  —

  Teaching professionals

  43

  43

  51

  —

  Educational administrators

  24

  24

  46

  —

  Approved occupations

  Statistical assistants

  6

  6

  14

  —

  Translators/Interpreters

  21

  21

  40

  —

  Disciplined Service

  Customs and Excise

  201

  201

  410

  —

  Fire Service

  152

  152

  329

  —

  Independent Commission Against Corruption

  42

  42

  89

  —

  Sensitive Service

  603

  603

  1,129

  —

  General Occupational

  Managers and administrators

  430

  12

  26

  418

  Business professionals

  297

  —

  —

  297

  Accountants and auditors

  861

  —

  —

  861

  Accounting associate professionals

  309

  —

  —

  309

  Information science professionals

  24

  24

  41

  —

  News editors and journalists

  120

  35

  55

  85

  Medical doctors

  505

  57

  128

  448

  Physical & life science professionals

  98

  25

  44

  73

  Nurses and midwives

  885

  527

  967

  358

  Other medical professionals

  120

  —

  —

  120

  Legal professionals

  10

  10

  23

  —

  Legal associate professionals

  109

  —

  —

  109

  Teaching professionals

  206

  96

  162

  110

  Educational administrators

  232

  73

  143

  159

  Other teaching personal

  758

  —

  —

  758

  Approved occupations

  Social work professionals

  29

  29

  60

  —

  Translators/interpreters

  3

  3

  7

  —

  Disciplined Service

  Correctional Service

  332

  332

  711

  —

  Customs and Excise

  59

  59

  121

  —

  Fire Service

  386

  386

  869

  —

  Immigration Service

  22

  22

  45

  —

  Royal Hong Kong Police Force

  31

  31

  82

  —

  Garrison (Army)

  83

  83

  193

  —

  Entrepreneurs

  25

  25

  48

  —

  Sensitive Service

  309

  290

  535

  19

  476
  granted, (c) refuded and (d) withdrawn, under each class and category of the scheme, in each quarter since March 1991; and how many of these applications were from (i) heads of households or (ii) family members.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information about family members is not available for refusals or withdrawals of applications. The remaining information requested is as follows:
  477

  Class

  Decided

  Granted

  Refused

  Principal beneficiaries

  Principal beneficiaries

  Dependents

  Principal beneficiaries

  April-June 1992

  General Occupational

  Managers and administrators

  775

  38

  80

  737

  Business professionals

  775

  315

  459

  460

  Business and administration associate professionals

  2,133

  —

  —

  2,133

  Accountants and auditors

  1,896

  409

  731

  1,487

  Accounting associate professionals

  576

  —

  —

  576

  Engineers and related professionals

  2,900

  —

  —

  2,900

  Architects, planners and surveyors

  1,088

  171

  325

  917

  Engineering associate professionals

  2,894

  63

  121

  2,831

  Information science professionals

  1,778

  834

  986

  944

  News editors and journalists

  207

  15

  19

  192

  Medical doctors

  748

  21

  51

  727

  Physical and life science professionals

  125

  —

  —

  125

  Nurses and midwives

  939

  440

  788

  499

  Other medical professionals

  205

  —

  —

  205

  Health associate professionals

  481

  —

  —

  481

  Legal professionals

  928

  17

  35

  911

  Legal associate professionals

  213

  —

  —

  213

  Teaching professionals

  217

  38

  65

  179

  Educational administrators

  326

  —

  —

  326

  Other teaching personnel

  1,139

  —

  —

  1,139

  Approved occupations

  Computing equipment controllers

  49

  —

  —

  49

  Life science technicians

  17

  —

  —

  17

  Physical science technicians

  92

  —

  —

  92

  Social work professionals

  435

  19

  35

  416

  Statistical assistants

  76

  —

  —

  76

  Translators/interpreters

  214

  —

  —

  214

  Disciplined Service

  Correctional Service

  322

  246

  482

  76

  Customs and Excise

  126

  22

  44

  104

  Fire Service

  442

  174

  429

  268

  Immigration Service

  588

  74

  133

  514

  Independent Commission against corruption

  105

  —

  —

  105

  Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Royal Hong Kong Police Force

  402

  402

  906

  —

  Garrison (Army)

  471

  31

  85

  440

  Garrison (Navy)

  36

  —

  —

  36

  Entrepreneurs

  42

  8

  9

  34

  Sensitive Service

  92

  92

  166

  —

  Applications withdrawn up to 30 June 1992

  Class-

  Principal beneficiaries

  General Occupational

  Managers and administrators

  20

  Business professionals

  2

  Business and administration associate professionals

  6

  Accountants and auditors

  7

  Architects, planners and surveyors

  2

  Engineering associate professionals

  5

  Information science professionals

  7

  News editors and journalists

  3

  Medical doctors

  5

  Physical and life science professionals

  1

  Nurses and midwives

  13

  Other medical professionals

  2

  Health associate professionals

  2

  Legal associate professionals

  1

  Teaching professionals

  5

  Educational administrators

  1

  Other teaching personnel

  10

  Approved occupations

  Social work professionals

  2

  Statistical assistants

  2

  Translators/Interpreters

  2

  Disciplined Service

  478

  Class

  Principal beneficiaries

  Correctional Service

  7

  Customs and Excise

  2

  Fire Service

  13

  Immigration Service

  7

  Royal Hong Kong Police Force

  16

  Garrison (Army)

  3

  Entrepreneurs

  2

  Sensitive Services

  14

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British citizenship under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 have been(a) made, (b) granted and (c) refused in each quarter since January 1991; and how many of those granted have been on the grounds of service in the armed forces.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Five applications were received in May 1991 and two in December 1991. Of these, two have been granted, three have been refused and two have not yet been decided. Neither of the two granted was on grounds of service in the armed forces.
  479
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his best estimate as to how many applications for(a) adult registration with entitlement, (b) naturalisation and (c) registration of minors his Department (i) will receive and (ii) expects to grant in 1992–93.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The latest estimate of the numbers of citizenship applications likely to be received and granted in 1992–93 is as follows:

  Intake

  Applications granted

  Adult registration

  4,000

  4,000

  Naturalisation

  25,000

  28,500

  Minor registration

  5,000

  9,500

  Total

  34,000

  42,000

  Visas
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance from(a) wives, (b) husbands, (c) fiancés and(d)

  Table 1

  Spouses and fiance(e)s in the Indian sub-continent applying for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom

  Number of persons or percentage

  Husbands

  1991

  1992

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st quarter

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  70

  70

  50

  60

  240

  80

  Applications granted2

  40

  40

  20

  30

  130

  50

  Applications refused initially

  50

  40

  40

  30

  150

  30

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  52

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received

  100

  80

  80

  70

  320

  80

  Applications granted2

  30

  40

  40

  30

  140

  50

  Applications refused initially

  40

  30

  50

  60

  170

  60

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  48

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  130

  190

  200

  280

  800

  210

  Applications granted2

  70

  60

  60

  40

  220

  70

  Applications refused initially

  60

  40

  50

  60

  200

  50

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  43

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  560

  480

  600

  630

  2,270

  840

  Applications granted2

  380

  440

  300

  380

  1,500

  340

  Applications refused initially

  400

  330

  410

  470

  1,610

  460

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  42

  n/a

  Number of persons or percentage

  Fiances

  1991

  1992

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st quarter

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  50

  50

  50

  30

  180

  40

  Applications granted2

  20

  30

  10

  20

  60

  30

  Applications refused initially

  40

  20

  30

  40

  120

  30

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  67

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received1

  70

  50

  20

  30

  180

  70

  Applications granted2

  10

  20

  20

  40

  80

  10

  Applications refused initially

  30

  10

  20

  80

  140

  50

  Refusal rate (percentage)1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  54

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  10

  10

  Applications granted2

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  480
  (d) financeées made at British posts in (i) New Delhi, (ii) Bombay, (iii) Calcutta, (iv) Madras, (v) Dhaka, (vi) Islamabad, (vii) Karachi and (viii) Colombo for each quarter since January 1991 were (A) received, (B) granted and (C) refused; how many refusals at each post were (1) wholly and (2) partly because the visa officer was not satisfied that the primary purpose of the marriage was not immigration; how many refusals at each post were (x) wholly and (y) partly because the visa officer was not satisfied that the couple could support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds; what was the refusal rate at each post; and what percentage of those refusals were wholly and partly on primary purpose grounds.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for the Indian sub-continent for each quarter of 1991 and for the first quarter of 1992 is given in the tables. Where the numbers are small, the figures for individual posts have been combined. Information on refusals which takes account of successful appeals is not compiled for periods shorter than 12 months. Corresponding information for Colombo is not available centrally.
  481

  Fiances

  1991

  1992

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st quarter

  Applications refused initially

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4—

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  70

  40

  60

  50

  220

  60

  Applications granted2

  50

  50

  70

  40

  220

  30

  Applications refused initially

  70

  30

  50

  40

  190

  20

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  28

  n/a

  Number of persons or percentage

  Wives

  1991

  1992

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st quarter

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  200

  170

  140

  170

  680

  210

  Applications granted2

  130

  110

  150

  160

  540

  180

  Applications refused initially

  20

  20

  40

  20

  90

  30

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  14

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received1

  450

  260

  220

  260

  1,180

  420

  Applications granted2

  320

  270

  300

  270

  1,160

  330

  Applications refused initially

  30

  20

  20

  30

  100

  50

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  240

  290

  320

  290

  1,130

  280

  Applications granted2

  240

  180

  220

  190

  840

  220

  Applications refused initially

  30

  20

  20

  20

  100

  40

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  800

  640

  720

  740

  2,900

  910

  Applications granted2

  890

  650

  700

  780

  3,010

  830

  Applications refused initially

  90

  60

  120

  100

  360

  110

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8

  n/a

  Number of persons or percentage

  Fiancees

  1991

  1992

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st quarter

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  50

  60

  70

  50

  230

  60

  Applications granted2

  40

  10

  30

  30

  110

  30

  Applications refused initially

  30

  10

  20

  20

  70

  20

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  40

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received1

  50

  50

  40

  30

  160

  40

  Applications granted2

  30

  20

  10

  60

  130

  30

  Applications refused initially

  10

  5—

  5—

  10

  30

  10

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  10

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  10

  10

  5—

  5—

  20

  5—

  Applications granted2

  5—

  10

  10

  5—

  20

  5—

  Applications refused initially

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4—

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  40

  60

  60

  60

  210

  50

  Applications granted2

  50

  40

  40

  30

  160

  40

  Applications refused initially

  5—

  10

  20

  20

  50

  10

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  24

  n/a

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

  2 Granted initially or on appeal.

  3 Applications refused initially, minus applications granted on appeal, as a percentage of applications decided.

  4 Percentage not calculated for five or fewer applicants refused.

  5 Five or fewer.

  n/a = not available.
  482 483

  Table 2

  Spouses and fiance(e)s in the Indian sub-continent refused1 entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom in 1991

  Number of persons or percentage

  Number refused because couple could not accommodate and/or maintain themselves without recourse to public funds:

  Number refused because primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom

  Primary purpose refusals as a percentage of all refusals:

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for this reason

  Partly for this reason

  Solely on primary purpose grounds

  Partly on primary purpose grounds

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Husbands

  4—

  10

  110

  10

  76

  10

  Fiances

  —

  10

  80

  10

  69

  12

  Wives

  —

  10

  60

  10

  75

  9

  Fiancees

  —

  —

  40

  20

  60

  20

  Bombay

  Husbands

  —

  —

  110

  —

  82

  3

  Fiances

  —

  10

  90

  10

  88

  8

  Wives

  —

  10

  40

  10

  52

  10

  Fiancees

  —

  —

  10

  —

  267

  27

  Ohaka

  Husbands

  20

  30

  70

  40

  43

  21

  Fiances

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3—

  3—

  Wives

  20

  10

  —

  —

  5

  2

  Fiancees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3—

  3—

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Husbands

  20

  380

  550

  380

  52

  35

  Fiances

  —

  20

  40

  30

  52

  34

  Wives

  100

  40

  40

  30

  16

  11

  Fiancees

  20

  10

  —

  —

  6

  4

  Total Indian sub-continent

  Husbands

  40

  430

  840

  430

  56

  29

  Fiances

  —

  40

  210

  50

  70

  17

  Wives

  120

  60

  150

  50

  30

  9

  Fiancees

  20

  10

  60

  20

  40

  13

  1 Applications refused initially, minus applications granted on appeal.

  2 Percentage based on fewer than 15 applications refused.

  3 Percentage not calculated for five or fewer applications refused.

  4 Five or fewer, or ½ per cent, or less.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance from(a) wives, (b) husbands, (c) fiancés and (d) fiancées in each British post in all countries apart from those of the Indian sub continent were (a) granted and (b) refused in each quarter since January 1991; how many such applications in each category, at each post and in each quarter were refused (i) wholly and (ii) partly because of the primary purpose rule; what was the refusal rate at each post; and what percentage of those refusals were (x) wholly and (y) partly on primary purpose grounds.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The only information requested which is available centrally is that on applications granted and refused in Hong Kong, and is given in the table.

  Applications in Hong Kong for entry clearance to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Applications

  Granted1

  Refused initially

  Wives

  1991

  1st quarter

  50

  3—

  2nd quarter

  40

  3—

  3rd quarter

  40

  —

  4th quarter

  30

  3—

  1992

  1st quarter

  40

  —

  484

  Applications

  Granted1

  Refused initially

  Husbands, fiances2

  1991

  1st quarter

  20

  3—

  2nd quarter

  20

  3—

  3rd quarter

  30

  3—

  4th quarter

  20

  —

  1992

  1st quarter

  10

  3—

  Fiancees

  1991

  1st quarter

  3—

  3—

  2nd quarter

  10

  —

  3rd quarter

  3—

  —

  4th quarter

  3—

  3—

  1992

  1st quarter

  3—

  —

  —Nil.

  1Granted initially or on appeal.

  2Data for husbands and fiances separately are not available.

  3 Five or fewer.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) single entry and (b) multiple entry visit visas were (A) received, (B) granted and (C) refused at each post in the Indian

  485
  subcontinent, Ghana, Nigeria and Jamaica in each quarter of 1991 and the first quarter of 1992; what was the delay between application and interview for those whose applications were felt to need a second or long interview at each of the above posts in (i) June 1991, (ii) January 1992, (iii) June 1992 or (iv) the nearest available date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on applications in Jamaica for a visit entry clearance, and separate information on applications in the other countries for single entry and multiple entry visit visas, are not available centrally. The other information requested is given in the tables.

  Table 1: Persons applying for a visit visa to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons Applications

  Newly received1

  Granted

  Refused initially

  Dhaka

  1991

  1st quarter

  1,700

  1,230

  400

  2nd quarter

  3,180

  2,470

  580

  3rd quarter

  3,730

  2,790

  810

  4th quarter

  2,830

  1,980

  750

  Year

  11,450

  8,480

  2,530

  1992

  1st quarter

  2,450

  1,780

  560

  New Delhi

  1991

  1st quarter

  7,360

  5,620

  600

  2nd quarter

  16,750

  13,330

  1,400

  3rd quarter

  13,130

  9,770

  1,190

  4th quarter

  6,460

  5,040

  620

  Year

  43,700

  33,750

  3,810

  1992

  1st quarter

  7,190

  5,580

  760

  Bombay

  1991

  1st quarter

  6,700

  5,400

  1,140

  2nd quarter

  16,660

  14,350

  2,060

  3rd quarter

  9,760

  8,840

  1,390

  4th quarter

  5,360

  4,520

  720

  Year

  38,480

  33,120

  5,300

  1992

  1st quarter

  6,770

  5,870

  790

  Calcutta

  1991

  1st quarter

  980

  920

  40

  2nd quarter

  2,890

  2,770

  50

  3rd quarter

  2,020

  1,940

  30

  4th quarter

  870

  850

  40

  Year

  6,760

  6,480

  160

  1992

  1st quarter

  1,130

  1,080

  30

  Madras

  1991

  1st quarter

  1,540

  1,490

  50

  2nd quarter

  3,440

  3,380

  70

  3rd quarter

  3,040

  2,970

  60

  4th quarter

  1,230

  1,180

  60

  Year

  9,250

  9,010

  230

  1992

  486

  Number of persons Applications

  Newly received1

  Granted

  Refused initially

  1st quarter

  1,960

  1,900

  40

  Islamabad

  1991

  1st quarter

  6,930

  4,600

  2,040

  2nd quarter

  14,050

  9,570

  3,420

  3rd quarter

  14,470

  8,770

  4,150

  4th quarter

  8,650

  4,620

  3,050

  Year

  44,110

  27,570

  12,650

  1992

  1st quarter

  7,870

  4,350

  2,430

  Karachi

  1991

  1st quarter

  2,720

  2,510

  250

  2nd quarter

  8,410

  7,290

  830

  3rd quarter

  7,310

  6,220

  900

  4th quarter

  4,630

  3,660

  910

  Year

  23,070

  19,680

  2,890

  1992

  1st quarter

  3,660

  2,910

  540

  Accra

  1991

  1st quarter

  3,280

  2,320

  520

  2nd quarter

  5,990

  4,840

  1,060

  3rd quarter

  6,690

  4,920

  1,530

  4th quarter

  3,590

  2,470

  1,130

  Year

  19,550

  14,550

  4,240

  1992

  1st quarter

  2,710

  1,920

  820

  Lagos

  1991

  1st quarter

  13,520

  8,960

  3,160

  2nd quarter

  14,340

  8,960

  3,400

  3rd quarter

  7,090

  9,030

  2,530

  4th quarter

  17,810

  12,150

  4,980

  Year

  52,760

  39,090

  14,070

  1992

  1st quarter

  11,410

  7,210

  2,590

  Kaduna

  1991

  1st quarter

  1,320

  1,060

  170

  2nd quarter

  2,040

  1,550

  360

  3rd quarter

  2,660

  2,150

  360

  4th quarter

  1,960

  1,440

  520

  Year

  7,980

  6,210

  1,420

  1992

  1st quarter

  1,670

  1,160

  400

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn.

  Table 2: Waiting time for persons applying for a visit visa who required a lengthy interview

  Number of days

  Post

  Waiting time for person interviewed at end of period

  June 1991

  January 1992

  May 1992

  Dhaka

  1—

  1—

  1—

  New Delhi

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Bombay

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Calcutta

  1—

  1—

  1—

  487

  Post

  Waiting time for person interviewed at end of period

  June 1991

  January 1992

  May 1992

  Madras

  1

  1—

  1—

  Islamabad

  1

  8

  9

  Karachi

  1—

  3

  414

  Accra

  5

  22

  39

  Lagos

  15

  25

  32

  Kaduna

  8

  28

  38

  2 Same day.

  2 At end of December 1990.

  3 At end of March 1991.

  4 At end of April 1992.

  Admissions to the United Kingdom of BDTCs and BN(O)s from Hong Kong

  Number

  Admission category

  1991

  1992

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  1st quarter1

  Visitors

  ordinary

  4,950

  9,050

  18,400

  7,140

  39,600

  7,700

  business

  1,090

  1,410

  1,480

  1,400

  5,390

  1,590

  Students

  460

  300

  7,320

  1,010

  9,100

  490

  Husbands and fiances2

  10

  20

  20

  20

  60

  10

  Wives and Fiances2

  40

  40

  50

  30

  170

  30

  Parents and Grandparents2

  10

  3—

  3—

  10

  30

  3—

  Children2

  50

  50

  120

  30

  240

  20

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Seeking, or accepted for, settlement in the United Kingdom.

  3 Five or fewer.

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding immigration applications there are at Lunar house from(a) students, (b) family members in the United Kingdom applying for variation of stay, (c) settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas posts and (d) asylum-seekers; and what are the average times applicants in each category might expect to wait before a decision.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is that at end of June 1992 there were in total about 20,700 cases in the general immigration caseworking groups—including eastern European cases and referred entry clearance applications—the majority of which were under consideration or the subject of further inquiries, and about 59,700 cases in the asylum and special cases division.

  The estimated average length of time between the receipt of an application and the decision, for cases decided in caseworking groups and the public inquiry offices, in the first quarter of 1992, was two months for students and 17½ months for asylum applications. Information on average waiting times for family members in the United Kingdom for variation of leave and for settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas posts is not available.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were received into prison department establishments under Immigration Act powers during(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 to the latest convenient date, by individual prison establishment; what was the average daily population of persons so detained in each of those years; what was the average length of time

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) British nationals and (b) holders of certificates of identity from Hong Kong have been admitted to the United Kingdom in each quarter since January 1991 as (i) persons of independent means, (ii) self-employed persons, (iii) business people (iv) visitors (v) students (vi) husbands and fiancés, (vii) wives and fiancées and (viii) other dependent relatives.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information for British dependent territories citizens and British nationals (overseas) from Hong Kong is given in the table. Data on admissions of holders of certificates of identity from Hong Kong are not available.

  spent in detention by persons so detained in each of those years; and whether he will give a breakdown by nationality of persons so detained for each of those years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about detainees received into prison service establishments in England and Wales under the Immigration Act 1971 in 1991 and the first quarter of 1992 is given by establishment and nationality in the tables.

  The provisional average population in 1991, including persons originally received for a criminal offence, was 222. The average period of detention in 1991 is provisionally estimated as about eight weeks. The corresponding averages for the first quarter of 1992 are 216 and just over nine weeks.

  Receptions of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 into prison service establishments in England and Wales: by establishment, 1991 and March quarter 1992

  Number of persons

  Establishment

  March quarter

  11991

  11992

  Remand Centres

  Brinsford

  —

  2

  Brockhill

  1

  —

  Dorchester

  —

  1

  Feltham

  10

  4

  Glen Parva

  1

  —

  Haslar

  443

  84

  Hindley

  1

  —

  Low Newton

  —

  2

  Moorland

  —

  1

  Local Prisons

  Bedford

  3

  1

  Belmarsh

  14

  6

  Birmingham

  71

  26

  Bristol

  19

  5

  Brixton

  16

  1

  Canterbury

  36

  —

  489

  Establishment

  March quarter

  11991

  11992

  Cardiff

  4

  —

  Chelmsford

  5

  —

  Dorchester

  6

  6

  Durham

  5

  1

  Exeter

  4

  8

  Gloucester

  8

  1

  Holloway

  34

  13

  Hull

  16

  2

  Leeds

  18

  7

  Leicester

  55

  6

  Lewes

  4

  2

  Lincoln

  10

  2

  Liverpool

  4

  3

  New Hall

  2

  —

  Norwich

  18

  2

  Oxford

  6

  —

  Pentonville

  378

  68

  Preston

  14

  13

  Pucklechurch

  2

  —

  Reading

  2

  —

  Risley

  2

  —

  Shrewsbury

  —

  2

  Swansea

  6

  —

  Winchester

  2

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  4

  9

  All establishmenls

  1,224

  279

  1 The figures, which are provisional are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  Receptions of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 into prison service establishments in England and Wales: by nationality, 1991 and March quarter 1992

  Number of persons

  Nationality

  March quarter

  11991

  21992

  Algeria

  8

  14

  Angola

  3

  9

  Bangladesh

  36

  7

  Colombia

  8

  2

  Cyprus

  —

  2

  Ethiopia

  5

  —

  France

  6

  5

  Germany

  2

  2

  Ghana

  33

  19

  Hong Kong

  11

  7

  India

  70

  48

  Jamaica

  12

  9

  Liberia

  —

  3

  Mauritius

  —

  2

  Morocco

  11

  5

  Netherlands

  —

  2

  Nigeria

  76

  50

  Pakistan

  29

  13

  Romania

  6

  1

  South Africa

  1

  4

  Turkey

  26

  19

  United States of America

  2

  3

  Yugoslavia

  4

  3

  Zaire

  28

  16

  Other nationalities

  275

  312

  Not recorded

  772

  22

  All nationalities

  1,224

  279

  1 The figures, which are provisional are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  2 Where fewer than five were recorded.

  3 Where fewer than two were recorded.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were detained 490
  under Immigration Act powers for a period of more than two months on completion of a custodial sentence during 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  During 1991, 36 people were so detained for a period of more than two months. This figure excludes the subjects of deportation orders who served a custodial sentence of seven days or less and in relation to whom the information is not readily available.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons detained under Immigration Act powers applied to the Home Office to be allowed to depart voluntarily under(a) the supervised departure provisions and (b) the voluntary departure provisions of the immigration rules in each quarter since January 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The readily available information relates to persons subject to deportation action who were removed under the supervised departure procedures, or left voluntarily, and persons dealt with as illegal entrants who left voluntarily. This information is given in tables 14 and 15 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Control of Immigration; Statistics—Third and Fourth Quarters and Year 1991", a copy of which is in the Library. In the first quarter of 1992, 227 persons subject to deportation action were removed under the supervised departure procedures and 15 left voluntarily, and 82 persons dealt with as illegal entrants left voluntarily; these figures are provisional. Most of these persons will have been detained prior to departure. A number will have been subject to restrictions as an alternative to detention, but such cases could be separately identified only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the(a) passengers in total and (b) persons treated as illegal entrants who were granted temporary admission in 1991 subsequently absconded.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information relates to the number of persons who absconded, either from detention or by failing to respond to the terms of temporary admission/release, and is given in the table. Separate information on these two types of absconder is not recorded centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Absconders in 1991

  Category of person

  Number of persons

  Passengers 1

  601

  Illegal entrants

  168

  1Includes some absconders recorded as "illegal entrants"

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the European Commission about the entitlement of persons visiting or seeking asylum in other European Community countries to enter the United Kingdom as from 1 January 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have had no discussion with the Commission specifically on these matters, which are considered among the Twelve on an intergovernmental basis outside the treaty of Rome.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the
  491
  decision by the European Court of Justice in the case of Surinder Singh with regard to the enforcement of United Kingdom immigration rules under the treaty of Rome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The case of Mr. Surinder Singh will now be considered by the High Court in the light of the decision by the European Court of Justice on the relevant point of Community law. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on this particular case in advance of the High Court's judgment.

  I will carefully study the judgments of both Courts and consider their wider implications, but at present I see no need to amend the immigration rules in the light of the case.

  Deportation
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were recommended for deportation with no custodial sentence during(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 to the latest convenient date; and in how many such cases the courts directed release (i) subject to conditions and (ii) without conditions.

  Table 1

  Persons applying for a special voucher for entry to the United Kingdom

  Country

  Applications newly received1

  Vouchers issued

  Applications awaiting a decision at end of quarter

  1991

  1992 1st quarter

  1991

  1992 1st quarter

  Quarter 2 1991

  Quarter 4 1991

  India

  370

  110

  600

  220

  560

  480

  Kenya

  200

  50

  220

  40

  550

  520

  Tanzania

  30

  10

  20

  3—

  80

  70

  Malawi

  3—

  4—

  10

  4—

  10

  4—

  Zambia

  20

  10

  20

  10

  10

  3—

  Rest of the world

  20

  4—

  20

  3—

  10

  3—

  Total

  640

  180

  890

  270

  1,220

  1,070

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

  2 Total may differ from sum of countries due to rounding.

  3 Five or fewer.

  4 Nil.

  Table 2

  Waiting times for persons applying for a special voucher

  Months

  Waiting time to main interview for:

  Persons interviewed at end of quarter

  Persons applying at end of quarter1

  Quarter 2 1991

  Quarter 4 1991

  Quarter 1 1992

  Quarter 1 1992

  India2

  15.00

  6.00

  6.00

  6.00

  Kenya

  3—

  3—

  n/a

  1.25

  Tanzania

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  Malawi

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  Zambia

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  Rest of the world

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Data relate to expected waiting time.

  2 Data relate to non-priority applicants. Priority applicants—widows with a child in the United Kingdom, heads of household aged 65 or over, and special compassionate cases—are interviewed within three months.

  3 = within a week.

  n/a Not available.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in his Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.
  492
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  During 1991, 27 people were recommended for deportation by the courts with no custodial sentence and six during the first half of 1992. The other information requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Quota Vouchers
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were waiting for special quota vouchers in(a) India, (b) east Africa and (c) the rest of the world in (i) May 1991 and (ii) December 1991; when those issued with vouchers on those dates had applied; how many vouchers were issued in (1) India, (2) east Africa and (3) the rest of the world in (A) 1991 and (B) the first quarter of 1992; when those applying can now expect to receive vouchers; and how many applicants there were for vouchers in (v) India, (w) east Africa and (x) the rest of the world in (y) 1991 and (z) the first half of 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information which is currently available is given in the tables.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Home Office has completed a number of relocation reviews as part of the Government's programme to move civil service posts away from London and the south-east. Plans are well advanced for relocation of the prison service headquarters to Derby in 1993–95, the directorate of telecommunications headquarters to Ruddington—near Nottingham—in 1992 and accounts branch to Merseyside in 1991–92—which involve over
  493
  1,600 posts moving from the south-east and others from elsewhere in the country. The police national computer organisation is looking at relocation as part of a wider review. The Home Office keeps under review the location of work in accordance with central guidelines.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 428, whether inquiries made by anyone other than the subject of the record cause such temporary records to be retained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is whether inquiries have been made by the Security Service since the coming into force of the Security Service Act 1989 which determines whether temporary records need to be retained for tribunal purposes in order to comply with the view of the Security Service Commissioner.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Security Service's policy in relation to temporary records made since the coming into effect of the Security Service Act 1989 after they become more than three years old.

  Property

  Type

  Number of units

  Period vacant months

  Future use

  Haverlock house. Forest Hill

  Flat

  1

  15

  Awaiting allocation

  Flat

  1

  11

  Awaiting allocation

  Flat

  1

  10

  Awaiting allocation

  Flat

  1

  9

  Awaiting allocation

  Flat

  1

  8

  Awaiting allocation

  Flat

  2

  6

  Awaiting allocation

  The Hermitage, Forest Hill

  Flat

  1

  2

  On offer

  Flat

  1

  1 week

  Awaiting allocation

  Moore house, Willow way, Sydenham

  Flat

  1

  13

  Under review

  Flat

  1

  9

  Under review

  Flat

  1

  5

  Under review

  Flat

  1

  2 weeks

  Under review

  103 Ronver road

  House

  1

  8

  On offer

  44 Ravensbourne park

  House

  1

  9

  On offer

  10 Forestholme close

  House

  1

  7

  On offer

  21 Forestholme close

  House

  1

  3

  On offer

  1 Arne walk

  House

  1

  3 weeks

  Under review

  44 Longton grove

  House

  1

  5

  On offer

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of empty residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham in the ownership of his Department, the type of accommodation available and how long each property has been vacant; and what is the intended future use.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no empty residential properties owned by the Department in the London borough of Lewisham.
  494
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  If they have not by that time been converted into permanent files, or destroyed because no inquiries had been made on the subject since the coming into force of the Act, such temporary records are retained for the purposes of the complaints tribunal.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many records in the categories referred to in paragraph 24 of the Security Service Commissioner's report for 1991 (Cm 1946) have not been destroyed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In cases where no inquiries have been made since the coming into force of the 1989 Act, the Security Service's policy, in accordance with the view of the commissioner, is that no files in the cateogories referred to should be retained.

  Empty Housing
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of empty residential properties in the London borough of Lewisham in the ownership of the Metropolitan police and the type of accommodation available; how long each property has been vacant; and what is the intended future use.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is as follows:

  Overseas Voters
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of sending annual reminders to overseas voters wishing to register under the Representation of the People Act 1989 for each year since 1980 and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Annual reminders are sent to overseas electors by electoral registration officers. Details of the costs are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the Government's total
  495
  budget for advertising and publicising the new provisions for overseas voting (a) in the Representation of the People Act 1985 and (b) in the Representation of the People Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total costs of advertising the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts 1985 and 1989 were £279,000 and £705,000 respectively. In addition, £1,400 was spent in 1991 on updating posters used in British diplomatic posts abroad.

  British National Party
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the seizure of literature from the BNP headquarters in Welling earlier in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On Thursday 9 January, the Metropolitan police searched the headquarters of the British National party. A search warrant had been granted in the belief that material inciting racial hatred might be found there.

  A number of magazines were seized and submitted to the Crown prosecution service for advice as to whether the possession and distribution of them constituted offences under the Race Relations and Public Order Acts.

  The police have been informed that, in counsel's opinion, the articles were insufficient to justify prosecution.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences under section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 as amended by section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act 1964, 1981 to 1990

  England and Wales

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Total prosecuted

  347

  282

  491

  583

  275

  129

  121

  158

  125

  174

  Total found guilty

  211

  234

  370

  429

  226

  126

  93

  130

  96

  116

  Total sentenced

  208

  235

  370

  429

  225

  129

  93

  130

  96

  118

  Absolute discharge

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Conditional discharge

  10

  9

  6

  13

  11

  3

  4

  8

  1

  5

  Fine

  136

  128

  248

  291

  130

  80

  63

  77

  53

  57

  Probation order

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1

  2

  3

  2

  1

  Community service order

  2

  1

  3

  3

  4

  1

  4

  1

  1

  4

  Fully suspended sentence

  39

  39

  60

  77

  50

  20

  10

  17

  17

  30

  Immediate custody

  21

  56

  50

  42

  25

  15

  10

  18

  19

  19

  Otherwise dealt with

  —

  2

  —

  3

  1

  9

  —

  3

  3

  2

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many items have been seized under section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 by the Metropolitan police in each year of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  Figures for 1982 to 1984 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1985 to 1992 are as follows:

  Year

  Warrants executed

  Items seized

  1985

  52

  286,511

  1986

  46

  560,047

  1987

  90

  813,243

  1988

  101

  655,119

  1989

  166

  356,478

  1990

  142

  120,821

  1991

  116

  34,696

  11992

  36

  5,007

  1January to May only.

  The decline in numbers of items seized, as opposed to the number of warrants executed, is accounted for by the

  Female Circumcision
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government are taking to prevent young girls being taken out of the United Kingdom to be circumcised.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A person may apply to a court for an order to prohibit the removal of a child from the country, if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the child if taken abroad would suffer harm. The police at airports and seaports maintain a list, which is also given to the immigration service, of children who are believed to be under threat of removal. Immigration officers are instructed to check this list when a child embarks alone or in the company of one parent or an adult who is not a parent, and to notify any identified subject of the list to a police officer.

  Obscene Publications Act 1959
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years under section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959; and of those found guilty what sentence was imposed.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is given in the table.

  obscene publications branch's concentration of effort on cases involving child pornography, in which typical seizures involve fewer individual articles.

  South Wales Police
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 July,Official Report, column 131 if he will make a statement on the reasons for deciding not to revise his assessment of uniform needs of the south Wales police following the undertaken assessment of the urban/rural split in the south Wales area.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have undertaken to include the definition of urban and rural areas in our review of the allocation formula. Decisions on the next round of allocations to individual forces will be informed of the outcome.

  Michael Shirley
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the result of the inquiry into the conviction for murder of Michael Shirley.

  Mr. Jack
  Mr. Shirley's case is currently being considered in the light of a recently received police report and representations from his solicitor. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as a decision has been reached.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to end the hunger strike of Michael Shirley at Long Lartin prison.

  Mr. Jack
  The medical officer is closely monitoring Mr. Michael Shirley's condition in the prison hospital and, although he has refused food since 26 June, he is accepting liquids. Physically, he is stable and staff continue to counsel him to persuade him to end his protest.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) of 15 June,Official Report, column 376, if he will provide comparable information for the periods (a) I October 1990 to 31 March 1991 and (b) 1 October 1991 to 31 March 1992; and what changes in policy with regard to asylum decisions there have been since April 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on decisions on asylum applications taken in the periods I October 1990 to 31 March 1991 and 1 October 1991 to 31 March 1992 is given in the table.

  There have been no changes in policy in making decisions: applications continue to be determined according to article 1 of the 1951 United Nations refugees convention. Procedural measures were introduced in

  Air support unit

  Type of helicopter

  Owner

  Operator

  Maintenance

  Pilotage

  Estimated cost 1992–93 £000s

  West Mercia and Staffordshire

  MBB BO 105 DB

  Veritair Ltd.

  Veritair Ltd.

  Veritair Ltd.

  Veritair Ltd.

  570

  Devon and Cornwall

  MBB BO 105 DBS4

  Devon and Cornwall Police Authority

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  Aeromega Helicopters

  516

  Dyfed Powys

  Aerospatiale AS 355N

  Dyfed Powys Police Authority

  Dyfed Powys Police

  McAlpine Helicopters

  Dyfed Powys Police Authority

  295

  Essex

  Aerospatiale AS 355 F1

  Aeromega Ltd.

  Aeromega Ltd.

  Aeromega Ltd.

  Aeromega Ltd.

  455

  Greater Manchester

  Aerospatiale AS 355 F2

  Greater Manchester Police

  Greater Manchester Police

  McAlpine Helicopters

  Operational Support Services Ltd.

  466

  Merseyside

  Aerospatiale AS 355

  Merseyside Police Authority

  Operational Support Services Ltd.

  McAlpine Helicopters

  Operational Support Services Ltd.

  487

  Metropolitan

  3 x Bell 222

  Metropolitan Police

  Metropolitan Police

  Metropolitan Police

  Bristow Helicopters

  1,800

  Northumbria

  Aerospatiale AS 355 F1

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  800

  498
  November 1991 to require all undocumented applicants to attend an interview to establish identity, and to reduce other opportunities for fraud.

  Decisions1 on asylum applications, excluding dependants

  October 1990 to 31 March 1991

  21 October 1991 to 31 March 1992

  Granted asylum

  350

  250

  Granted exceptional leave

  1,435

  2,035

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination of case

  510

  1,165

  Refused on safe third country grounds

  320

  250

  Refused under paragraph 101 of the Immigration Rules4 5

  —

  4,730

  1 Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5.

  2 Figures may understate because of delays in recording.

  3 Figure for 1 January 1991–31 March 1991 only. These refusals for 1 October 1990–31 December 1990 are included in "Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination of case".

  4 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitations to interview to establish identity.

  5 Separate figures only available from 1 December 1991. Prior to this, these refusals are included in "Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination of case".

  Police Helicopter Use
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts for each police force in England and Wales for the full-time or part-time use of helicopters; what is the availability for each area; and what is the annual cost in each area.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The operation of police air support units is a matter for chief constables. The table shows the information which is available centrally on the 14 air support units which operate helicopters.

  It would not be in the operational interest of the police to disclose details of the availability of helicopters.
  499

  Air support unit

  Type of helicopter

  Owner

  Operator

  Maintenance

  Pilotage

  Estimated cost 1992–93 £000s

  Sussex

  MBB BO 105 DBS-4

  Police Aviation Services

  Sussex Police

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  707

  Thames Valley

  Aerospatiale AS 355 F1

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  500

  Warwickshire

  Schweizer 300C

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  110

  West Midlands

  Aerospatiale AS 355 F2

  West Midlands Police Authority

  West Midlands Police

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  570

  West Yorkshire

  MBB BO 105 DBS4

  West Yorkshire Police Authority

  West Yorkshire Police

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  439

  Wiltshire

  MBB BO 105D

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  Police Aviation Services

  490

  Prison Visitors
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many black and ethnic minority people were appointed to the board of visitors of prisons in England and Wales in the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1990–91, 195 appointments were made to boards of visitors.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken by his Department to increase black and ethnic minority representations on the boards of visitors of prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In making appointments to a board of visitors, consideration is given to the abilities of the individual candidate to discharge the duties effectively and the desirability of maintaining, so far as possible, a representative balance on the board in terms, for example, of age, sex and social and ethnic background. No fewer than two members of the board are required to be justices of the peace. The membership of individual boards is reviewed every three years.

  Advice on the selection and appointment of new members forms part of the training of chairmen of boards of visitors and is also included in the "Notes for the guidance of Chairmen" in the "Handbook for Members of Boards of Visitors", a copy of which I have placed in the library.

  The current ethnic make-up of boards is as follows:

  Percentage of members in post on 7 July 1992

  Ethnic origin

  Percentage

  Asian

  2.31

  Black

  3.80

  White

  64.15

  Other

  0.25

  Not known

  29.49

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appointments were made to the boards of visitors of prisons in England and Wales in the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The figures for 1990–91 are given. These do not include those 63 members who were 500
  appointed during the relevant period but have since resigned; this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Number appointed to Boards of Visitors 1990–91

  Ethnic Origin

  Number

  Asian

  1

  Black

  2

  White

  59

  Other

  0

  Not known1

  70

  1 The figures are based upon self-assessment and not all members choose to disclose their ethnic origin.

  Bail
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to give the prosecution the right of appeal to a judge in chambers on the ground that bail has been unreasonably granted by magistrates.

  Mr. Jack
  We have no immediate plans to do so; but we have received a representation on this point and it will be considered as part of our wider exercise of examining the issues affecting the bail decision-taking process.

  Miss Megan Bloem
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the appeal by Miss Megan Bloem case B 500534 will be determined.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 9 July 1992]: When the Home Office has prepared an explanatory statement setting out the facts and the reasons for the decision, it will be for the immigration appellate authorities to arrange for the appeal to be heard.

  Police Retirements
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the number of early retirements from the police on medical grounds for each police force for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Protective Equipment
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if a thimble is too small to carry a mechanical pictogram CE mark as described in annex 11, section 2.12 of the personal protective equipment directive, how big it should be before it is exempt.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  All PPE units covered by the personal protective equipment directive 89/686/EEC are required to bear the CE mark both on the unit, regardless of its size, and its packaging. Thimbles for private use are not covered by the directive. Those for professional use are.

  A Commission proposal on the CE mark currently under discussion would, if adopted as currently drafted, amend the directive and other new approach directives to provide for the mark to be affixed to the packaging or other associated documentation where for practical reasons it cannot be placed on the unit itself.

  Paragraph 2.12 of annex II of the directive relates to identification or recognition marks other than the CE mark.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament;and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Over the next 12 months, I shall continue to follow up specific commitments relevant to my Department in the White paper Cm 1200 "This Common Inheritance" in the subsequent "First Year Report", Cm 1655, and in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio on 12June. I shall also be giving priority to the further development of a strategy for integrating environmental considerations into the day-to-day management of my Department.

  For the longer term, I will continue to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into the development of all the policies and programmes of my Department where relevant. I shall also continue the practice established by my predecessor of including a report on the environmental aspects of my Department's activities in the annual trade and industry expenditure plans.

  Certification Industry
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of resources available to the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies to enable it to respond to the expansion in the certification industry both in Europe and internationally;

  (2) in what circumstances Government purchasers and regulatory bodies are willing to accept third party certification in lieu of separate supplier assessments;

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the measures that were introduced in 1985 to improve the competence of certification bodies;

  (4) what is the Government's policy in respect of competition amongst certification bodies;
  502
  (5) what restrictions exist on a certification body which has received Government accreditation as attestation of competence for a function from offering a non-accredited service for the same function;

  (6) what assessment his Department has made of the sufficiency of information technology expertise in the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies and supporting industry structures, to ensure continued development and expansion of certification services in the field of information technology.

  Mr. Leigh
  Since accreditation of certification bodies in the United Kingdom, is confined to United Kingdom bodies or others under United Kingdom jurisdiction, the role of the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies is limited to providing advice on the suitability or otherwise of such bodies. There is therefore no direct resource implication for the NACCB resulting from the expansion of the certification industry in Europe and internationally. In addition, the NACCB recoups the full economic costs of its assessments through the fees it charges; and increase in its workload which might occur would therefore generally be self-financing.

  The NACCB has adequate resources to finance its consequential work to promote the development of and co-operation between national accreditation systems throughout Europe including participation in international discussion of accreditation issues.

  Information Technology
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration his Department has given to possible confusion concerning the status and standing of BSi QA within the information technology industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  BSi Quality Assurance is a commercial business offering certification services. As it forms part of the British Standards Institution it could he perceived that BSi QA is the only body which may offer certification to British Standards. In fact, a number of other certification bodies have also been accredited to offer such services and yet others may apply in the future. Officials in my Department take every opportunity to advise enquirers from the IT industry that competition exists in the market for certification services, and that the DTI QA register contains names and addresses of all the certification bodies and the services they offer. The register is available from HMSO and a copy is located in the House of Commons Library.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made of the costs of establishing IT certification conducted by qualified IT-literate specialists relative to the costs of damage done by low IT-skilled auditors.

  Mr. Leigh
  IT-literate specialists are now able to qualify as auditors for software quality management system certification following introduction of the TickIT scheme. This scheme was initiated at the behest of both the United Kingdom information technology industry and IT users more widely. My Department has supported development of the TickIT Guide, TickIT auditor qualifications, a professional auditor register, and auditor training course material. The scheme seeks to improve the standard of IT
  503
  quality management system—QMS—auditing and to date more than 35 auditors have qualified under the TickIT scheme.

  Both IT suppliers and users perceive considerable benefit in the use of qualified IT professionals as auditors, because added value can accrue through having experienced IT practitioners examine and comment on company QMS. The cost/benefit of this approach is also evident through the enthusiasm with which industry at large is beginning to adopt TickIT, and more than 60 companies have achieved certification under this scheme.

  A copy of the TickIT guide is located in the House of Commons Library.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the number, and names of all TickIT-accredited bodies which have gained full acceptance by the European Organisation for Testing and Certification.

  Mr. Leigh
  EOTC is the European Organisation for Testing and Certification. It is an umbrella body which oversees ECITC—the European Committee on information technology certification—a sectoral committee which in turn oversees the ITQS agreement group, the recognition arrangement for assessment and certification of quality systems in information technology. Agreement groups comprise signatories to arrangements for the mutual recognition of certificates relating to the provision of services. ITQS has as its remit the certification of IT quality management systems, using a common set of rules based on European and International standards.

  There are four certification bodies accredited for TickIT in the United Kingdom—BSi Quality Assurance, Bureau Veritas Quality International Ltd, Det Norske Veritas Quality Assurance, of which the first named is also a member of EOTC.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what current or planned initiatives exist aimed at developing the European information technology industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  In accordance with the EC Industry Council resolution on electronics, information and communications technologies of 18 November 1991, the European Commission is carrying out a number of studies in this field; and is setting up a centralised point of information to monitor marketing, market access and distribution practices. In addition the Community's ESPRIT and Telematics R and D programmes aim to strengthen the European science and technology base in IT.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the relationship and possible competition between the TickIT scheme and BSi QA(a) domestically and (b) in the international community.

  Mr. Leigh
  TickIT is a scheme which provides for accredited independent certification of quality management systems—QMS—in the software development process in the United Kingdom. Its use internationally is also welcome and there is growing interest from outside the UK.

  BSi QA is a commercial business, offering certification services, including services within the TickIT scheme. It is understood that BSi QA offer TickIT accredited
  504
  certification both domestically and internationally. BSI QA has also offered non-accredited certification in the information technology field; it has furthermore received accreditation by the relevant authority in the Netherlands for provision of certification services in IT.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to further information technology certification, to underpin the interoperability of telecommunications, computer and software technology.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department's approach is that credible IT conformance testing can greatly assist progress towards interoperability. It may be expected that as conformance testing becomes increasingly adopted by the market, so should certification become increasingly influential in promoting user confidence in interoperable products. Therefore my Department is already providing support in establishing a testing infrastructure including the establishment of an United Kingdom open systems interconnection test service.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the arrangements his Department is making to permit other countries to use the Tick IT mark.

  Mr. Leigh
  TickIT-accredited certification bodies can assess and certificate company quality management systems in any country in the world. Following a successful assessment, the certification body issues a certificate and permits use of the TickIT mark on that certificated company's stationery and literature. My powers do not extend to accreditation of bodies which are not legal entities in the United Kingdom.

  The United Kingdom has been approached by several countries wishing to participate in the TickIT scheme. This they are able to do either by use of the existing TickIT accredited certification bodies or by agreeing to a suitable reciprocal arrangement between their national accreditation body and the United Kingdom National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the measures his Department has taken to encourage TickIT-accredited bodies to join the Information Technology Quality Systems arrangement.

  Mr. Leigh
  BSi QA is a TickIT accredited certification body and a founder member of ITQS. My Department has explained fully the benefits of joining the ITQS agreement group to the other TickIT certification bodies.

  CFCs
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research he has commissioned into substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons in technologies where CFCs are currently regarded as essential components; and what chemicals are involved.

  Mr. Leigh
  There is a continuous programme of research by industry worldwide into ozone-benign alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons. The programme has had a number of successes including the announcement by ICI on 1 July of their new ozone-benign refrigerant, KLEA 32.
  505
  The DTI encourages industry-led research into environmentally-friendly technologies through a number of schemes of financial support and these schemes are open both to producers of alternatives to CFCs and to those developing cleaner process technologies which reduce or eliminate the need for CFC-based substances.

  Nuclear Levy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received from the Major Energy Users Council over the level of profits accruing to Nuclear Electric as a result of the nuclear levy.

  Mr. Eggar
  I recently met representatives of the Major Energy Users Council to discuss electricity prices for their members. The non-fossil fuel levy was one of a number of matters raised.

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the cost of abandonment of oil and gas production related structures in the British sector of the North sea.

  Mr. Eggar
  The cost of abandonment of oil and gas production installations, currently producing or under development in the United Kingdom continental shelf, is estimated to be in the region of £6 billion in 1992 money. The expenditure will take place over a long period, extending well into the next century.

  Business Expansion
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the availability of long-term finance to small and medium-sized businesses seeking funding for expansion and capital reconstruction.

  Mr. Leigh
  The vigour and dynamism of small and medium-sized businesses over the past 12 years show that their capital needs for start-up, expansion and reconstruction are largely being met from the expanding range of public and private sources. Government initiatives have complemented the role of the banks and other financial institutions. We will continue to encourage everyone concerned to take account of the special needs and potential of this sector, including the need for long-term finance.

  Enterprise Funds
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provision is currently available for unquoted companies in(a) north Staffordshire, (b) Staffordshire, (c) west midlands and (d) all other regions wishing to secure enterprise funds for investment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Companies in all regions have access to a variety of sources of capital for investment. In certain areas, including parts of the west midlands but not the North Staffordshire travel-to-work areas, certain regional industrial incentives, are available from my Department, notably regional selective assistance.

  Fuel Cell Technology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what consideration he is giving to a combination of combined heat and power technology, and solid oxide fuel cells;

  (2) what support he is giving to research on solid oxide fuel cells;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the work of the energy support unit at Harwell in relation to fuel cell technology;

  (4) what action he is taking to promote the use of existing skills in the United Kingdom to promote the development of solid polymer fuel cell technology.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 11 March this year, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced a research programme to accelerate the development of fuel cell systems for early application in the United Kingdom. He also announced the appointment of a fuel cell advisory panel with members who are experts from industry, to advise and provide guidance on the content of the programme.

  In forming this programme, the Department of Energy, now the DTI, consulted with researchers and industry and commissioned studies which indicate that the United Kingdom has technical skills and industrial interests needed to advance the development of two fuel cell types, the solid oxide and solid polymer. While this programme is likely to concentrate on the development of the technologies, it will he guided by potential applications such as combined heat and power.

  The energy technology support unit at Harwell will act as the DTI's agent for managing the programme.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute a study of legislation in the state of California relating to zero pollution emissions, and the use of fuel cells in hydrogen.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has already undertaken a number of studies on fuel cells and I refer the hon. Member to my answers to his other questions today. On the matter of californian state emissions regulations, these are well documented in technical publications and are available to the public.

  Steel Production
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the volume of steel production in the United Kingdom in the first quarter of this year and in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information on steel production is regularly published in "Economic Trends" which is available in the Library of the House.

  Government Departments (Payment of Bills)
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the outcome of the survey of prompt payment by Government Departments.

  Mr. Leigh
  During the financial year 1991–92, major purchasing Government Departments and agencies undertook sample surveys to determine the percentage of invoices paid within the agreed credit period, or within 30 days where no credit period had been set. All but two departments reported results in the range 70 to 100 per cent.
  507
  The full details are:

  Department

  Invoices paid within contract terms or 30 days percentage

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  77.0

  Customs and Excise

  83.0

  Defence

  89.3

  Education and Science

  83.2

  Employment Service

  83.0

  Energy

  91.8

  Foreign and Commonwealth

  86.0

  Health

  85.0

  Health and Safety Executive

  86.6

  Inland Revenue

  99.0

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  82.5

  National Savings

  93.0

  Northern Ireland Office

  74.0

  Overseas Development Administration

  87.6

  Property Services Agency

  Building Management

  41.6

  Projects

  80.6

  Scottish Office

  82.0

  Social Security

  90.4

  Trade and Industry

  80.0

  Transport

  83.0

  Welsh Office

  65.0

  I have asked that Departments continue to monitor their payment performance and that individual Departments report that performance on request.

  Regional Financial Assistance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the public sector cost per additional permanent job created as a result of regional financial assistance schemes, excluding multiplier effects.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the report published in 1990 by HMSO, "Regional Selective Assistance an evaluation by DTI, IDS and WOID", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  National Economic Development Office
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives he intends to take following the decision to wind up the National Economic Development Office.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 8 July 1992]: I announced on 3 July my plans to reorganise the Department of Trade and Industry to enable it to concentrate more on promoting the competitiveness of British industry and commerce, and to relate more closely to industry, sector by sector. The new organisation will encourage the establishment of a flexible and direct dialogue with industry. The Department is inviting inward secondees from industry to join civil servants in the new sectorial divisions, and I also expect to fill a small number of posts with staff drawn from the National Economic Development Office.

  RETEX
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons(a) he has decided not to forward the Nottinghamshire county council's bid for funding
  508
  under the RETEX programme and (b) he has not offered Nottinghamshire country council and explanation of his decision; and how many such bids so far have met the EC's criteria for the programme, indicating which bids.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 July 1992]: No decisions have yet been taken about any requests for RETEX funding. The RETEX scheme of European Community grants was announced on 4 June 1992. The UK and other member states have until 4 December to present operational programmes to the Commission. The Commission will have six months to consider them. When it has approved them, applications for funding can be considered.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which travel-to-work areas in Lancashire are eligible for consideration under the EC RETEX initiative; what representations he has received in respect of Blackburn's eligibility; and by what dates decisions have to be made by Her Majesty's Government, and by the EC Commission.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: The European Commission has decided that RETEX grants for textile dependent areas will not be available outside areas designated under structural funds objectives 1, 2 and 5(b). The travel to work areas of Accrington and Rossendale, Blackburn, Bolton and Bury, Burnley, Liverpool, Pendle, Rochdale and Wigan and St. Helens, which lie wholly or partly in Lancashire, are so designated.

  Representations about Blackburn have been received from a number of local interests.

  The United Kingdom and other member states have until 4 December 1992 to present operational programmes to the European Commission. Pursuant to article 14(3) of Council regulation EEC 4253/88, the European Commission wil have six months from the receipt of the programmes to decide on the assistance.

  Timeshare Act 1992
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he now expects to lay the necessary orders to bring the Timeshare Act 1992 into effect.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: I expect to lay the printed notices orders required under the Act within the next two to three weeks. It is intended that the Act should enter into force two months after the laying of these orders.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the European Energy Council last discussed the British coal industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 July 1992]: Prospects for the coal industry were last discussed by the Energy Council in 1986 in the context of the current state aids decision which commenced the following year.

HEALTH

  NHS Statistics
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the numbers of(a) general practitioners, (b) hospital doctors and dentists and (c) nurses and midwives have changed since 1979.
  509
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested at 30 September for England is shown in the table.

  1979

  1990

  Per cent. change

  General Practitioners

  21,357

  25,622

  20.0

  Hospital Doctors and Dentists

  32,749.1

  40,576.2

  23.9

  Nurses and Midwives:

  Including agency staff

  358,446.5

  402,066.4

  12.2

  Excluding agency staff

  354,421.5

  395,361.0

  11.6

  All figures are in whole-time equivalents except for general practitioners, where whole-time equivalents are not available for 1979; actual numbers are used instead for both years. 30 September is the latest date for which this information is available.

  Psychologists
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is her Department's target figure for training places for clinical psychologists; what assessment her Department has made of the projected demand from(a) the NHS and (b) local authorities for clinical psychologists; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment she has made of the demand for clinical psychologists (a) currently and (h) in 1991; and what estimate she has made of the extent to which the demand was met in each of these periods.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is for national health service employers to determine the work force they require and the training staff they need, in the light of the services they are contracted to provide. Regional health authorities, in consultation with employers, which include family health services authorities and local authority social services departments, calculate the overall demand for training and purchase the required number of training places from the educational and training institutions on behalf of the employers.

  Regional health authorities purchased 178 training places for clinical psychologists in 1991 and have signed contracts to purchase 215 places in 1992.

  Brain Damage
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is currently taking to assist individual districts and units to provide an adequate service to meet the needs of long-term brain-damaged people; if she will provide central funding in each region above and beyond normal allocations for such patients; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have recently launched an initiative to improve national health service services for the rehabilitation and long-term support of people with brain injury. Central funding of £1 million per year is being provided to 12 sites around the country to develop model services. The selected sites, with funding for 1992–93, are:

  Regional rehabilitation centre, Hunters Moor hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne (£40,000);

  Leeds general infirmary and Leeds community services (£80,000);

  Derbyshire royal infirmary and Derby city hospital (£75,000);

  Nottingham health authority (£75,000);

  Central Sheffield university hospitals (£70,000); Regional Neurological rehabilitation unit, Homerton hospital, London (£150,000);

  510

  Rayners Hedge physical rehabilitation service, Aylesbury (£40,000);

  Stroke and rehabilitation unit, Royal Cornwall hospital (City), Truro (£65,000);

  Frenchay healthcare services, Bristol (£200,000);

  Neurobehavioural rehabilitation unit, St. Edward's hospital, Cheddleton, and Neurological rehabilitation unit, Haywood hospital, Burslem (£90,000);

  Community unit, Worcester district health authority (£90,0000).

  Out-patient Treatment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider including as a further national charter standard in the patients charter to ensure continuity of care that health authorities should require that when a patient has a series of out-patient appointments, then whenever possible the same doctor should attend the patient; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Patients attending hospital out-patient clinics are under the care of a named consultant who provides continuity of care. The consultant oversees a team of doctors, including junior doctors on rotation, and is responsible for ensuring that they undertake work within their competence.

  Service Committee Decisions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will take steps to ensure that family health service authorities give reasons to the patient for decisions reached when cases are disposed of by service committees without an oral hearing; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will ensure that when an appeal from a family health service authority service committee is heard by her, the patient is given reasons for the decision reached by her; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1992 govern the investigation of complaints against family practitioners. These require service committees, whether or not an oral hearing is held, to give reasons for their findings in their reports to family health services authorities which are sent to the patients involved. Similarly, the regulations require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to give reasons for her decisions on appeals and it is standard practice to do so.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that where district health authorities are merged there is(a) an adequate period for consultations between the regional health authority and community health councils involved in any possible merger and (b) a formal appeals machinery independent of the regional health authority to handle any appeals from community health councils with the appeals panel having powers to impose its judgment which would be binding on both parties; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities which propose to merge district health authorities should allow an adequate period for consultation with interested parties, including community health councils.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not approve a proposal for merger unless she is satisfied that

  511
  it commands a broad measure of support locally. In these circumstances, we do not see a need for a separate appeals panel.

  Regional Secure Units
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation, in the light of the Reed committee's recommendations on regional provision for seriously mentally disordered offenders placed in regional secure units,(a) to separate these units from the purchaser or provider system, (b) to arrange their funding through regional health authorities and (c) to arrange for the monitoring of agreed standards of provision; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We expect the steering committee for the review of services for mentally disordered offenders to submit its final report at the end of July. We will announce decisions when we have considered both the final report and the responses to consultation on the recommendations the committee has already made.

  The performance of health authorities in achieving any standards adopted or objectives set in the light of the review will be monitored through the existing accountability arrangements.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Novopen syringe tips can be provided to diabetics free of charge under the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Syringe tips, which incorporate needles, may be provided free of charge through hospital consultants if they are judged to be clinically necessary and the health authority, having regard to its other priorities, is able to meet the cost. We are considering authorising general practitioners to prescribe both injection pens and needles free of charge providing resources allow.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the number of civil servants in her Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  Mr. Sackville
  The relocation of the national health service management executive and the National Health Service Estates agency to Leeds has started. Some 1,000 posts up to the highest management levels are involved. The first moves from London took place on 6 July as planned. By October this year, over 500 posts will have relocated, with the remainder following next spring. The whole move is expected to have been completed by the summer of 1993.

  Growth Hormone
  Miss Joan Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has any plans to compensate the families of victims of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease contracted from growth hormone injections extracted from cadavers.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have no plans for specific compensation but the full range of support services and benefits appropriate to people with disabilities and their families is available.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the breaches of the voluntary agreements on tobacco advertising reported in the third and fourth annual reports of the committee for monitoring the agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship occurred in Oxford.

  Dr Mawhinney
  The proportion reported in the third annual report was 35 per cent—seven out of a total of 20. In the fourth report, this proportion was 77 per cent.—21 out of 27.

  Community Care
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS patients had written community care plans at the time of their discharge from hospital in 1991–92.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not held centrally.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average waiting time for initial assessment in accident and emergency departments in 1991–92; and what proportion of people attending accident and emergency departments had to wait(a) five minutes or more, (b) 15 minutes or more and (c) 30 minutes or more.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Health Authority Amalgamations
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy towards the amalgamation of district health authorities with family health service authorities; whether consultation with the medical profession is required before proposals are submitted to her; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Merger between district health authorities and family health services authorities was identified in "Working for Patients" as a possible long-term option. However, this would require changes to primary legislation, and we have no immediate plans for taking this forward. Primary and secondary care have complementary roles in implementing the "Health of the Nation" strategy. District health authorities and family health services authorities will need to work closely together to improve health. There is substantial scope for this within the current arrangements, for example joint strategies, health investment plans, managerial and public health appointments.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy towards the amalgamation of district health authorities in the North West Thames region; what evidence she has that larger purchasing authorities are more effective in obtaining services from NHS trust hospitals; what consideration she is giving to the need for co-terminosity in a borough such as Hillingdon; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  North West Thames regional health authority has been consulting locally on proposals for
  513
  changing district health authorities boundaries to match those of family health services authorities and social services. A public meeting was held on 9 June 1992. We expect any proposals for changing the boundaries of district health authorities to have local support and to demonstrate clear benefits for patients.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of NHS hospitals and trusts had published on or before 1 April their current maximum admission times for each specialty; and which hospital or trust had the longest and which one had the shortest waiting time at 1 April in each specialty;

  (2) if she will list the health authorities in England which at 1 April (a) had and (b) had not published detailed information on local health services including quality standards and maximum waiting times.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. From 1 April. under the patients charter, patients have a right to be given detailed information on local health services. Health authorities are required to publish information about local health services including national and local charter standards and maximum waiting times. From 1 April 1993, health authorities will also have to publish information about their performance in relation to national and local charter standards.

  The national health service management executive will be asking regional health authorities to notify them of any instances where information as set out in the patients charter is not made freely available to the public.

  Complaints Procedure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS complaints received between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1992 were dealt with within(a) one week, (b) one month, (c) three months and (d) more than three months.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the health authorities and NHS trusts in England which at 1 April(a) had and (b) had not published a complaints procedure allowing members of the public to have any complaint investigated and to receive a prompt written reply from the chief executive or general manager; and which authorities had, at 1 April, published the number of complaints received and the time taken to deal with them.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally. However, all health authorities are required. by directions issued under the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985, to make formal arrangements for dealing with complaints and for publishing these. The proper investigation of complaints is very important to patients and the national health service, and is one of the three new rights given in the patients charter. From 1 April 1992, under the patients charter, health authorities and NHS hospitals will have to publish details of the numbers of complaints received and the time taken to deal with them.

  Wheelchair Accessibility
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the floor space of NHS buildings was accessible to people in wheelchairs as at 1 April.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Surgery Cancellations
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients had their operations cancelled on the day they were due to arrive in hospital in 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what proportion of cases an emergency ambulance arrived within 14 minutes in an urban area and within 19 minutes in a rural area in 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available figures for England for 1990–91 are given in the table.

  percentage

  Emergency calls: Response times: Metropolitan authorities

  —

  Percentage of calls where response within 14 minutes

  83.2

  Emergency calls: Response times: Non-metropolitan authorities

  —

  Percentage of calls where response within 20 minutes

  94.8

  Before 1991–92, ambulance services in England were categorised as metropolitan and non-metropolitan. Figures were collected for the number of emergency ambulances arriving within 14 and 20 minutes repsectively.

  Appointment System
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS out-patients were given specific appointment times in 1991–92; and what proportion were seen within 30 minutes of their appointment time.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the country of residence of women listed as overseas residents in the abortion statistics for the last year in which the information is available.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the publication of abortion statistics, a distinction is made between those abortions carried out on women resident in England and Wales and those on women not resident in England and Wales. Of the latter, the statistics are classified by three main areas of residence: British Isles, other European, and rest of the world. Within each of these three categories, individual countries of residence are shown where the number of abortions to residents of that country exceeds 24. Countries listed in this way are shown in table 25 of the publication "Abortion Statistics 1990", a copy of which is held in the library.
  515
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average charge approved by his Department for a non-NHS abortion in 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available in the form requested. The Department approves scales of charges.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates in the year preceding 15 November 1991, the South Manchester abortion clinic, Stockport was inspected by her Department; and if she will list the recommendations that were made regarding the clinic in the report produced by her inspectors.

  Mr. Sackville
  The South Manchester private clinic was inspected by the Department's officers on 13 March 1991, and 30 October 1991. The contents of inspection reports are not made public as they contain information which relates or could be related to individual patients.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what scale of charges she has approved for an abortion conducted in a private clinic through the use of RU486.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information required from places seeking approval under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967 is supplied to the Department on an "in confidence" basis.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations regarding care of the mother she has made concerning abortions conducted with RU486.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), on 3 July at column 746.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made by her Department in investigating the state of the South Manchester Abortion Clinic Stockport, following the presentation of the report by Stockport health authority dated 15 November 1991 by the hon. Members for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill to her predecessor.

  Mr. Sackville
  Following the discovery of deficiencies contravening the requirements of the Registered Homes Act 1984, Stockport health authority set the owners of the South Manchester private clinic a strict timetable for completion of remedial work. All necessary work was completed on time.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the average waiting time for a course of dental treatment which requires prior approval because it costs more than £200.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are discussing with the Dental Practice Board the mechanisms for dealing with the likely increased numbers of applications.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether her estimate of the average dentists' annual income took account of the implications of delayed treatment plans and the other implications of the reduction in the figure for costs of treatment requiring prior approval.
  516
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Yes.

  Drug Dispensing
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she proposes to publish her consultation paper on the introduction of original pack dispensing; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are considering the options and will make an announcement in due course.

DEFENCE

  Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service Ships
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the lifting equipment recently removed from RMAS Goosander was last subjected to a safety test; and how frequently it has undergone such safety checks in the past.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No lifting equipment has been removed recently from RMAS Goosander. All RMAS vessels, including salvage and mooring craft, are bound by the Health and Safety Act, etc. Act 1974 and the Docks Regulations 1988.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the accidents reported or recorded on board RMAS Goosander while it was stationed at Greenock.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During 1991, the last year for which complete statistics are available, RMAS Goosander was based at Rosyth and Greenock. During that period, two reportable accidents resulting in minor injuries occurred. There has been one fatal accident in 1992.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the accidents reported or recorded on board RMAS Pochard whilst stationed at Greenock.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During 1991, the last year for which complete statistics are available, there were two reportable accidents on board RMAS Pochard resulting in minor injuries.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the reasons RMAS Pochard was taken out of service at Greenock and RMAS Goosander deployed in its place.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1991, the RMAS fleet of seven salvage and mooring vessels was reduced to four. RMAS Pochard, not being in such good material condition as her sister ship RMAS Goosander, was placed in reserve.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual rate of accidents on(a) RMAS Pochard, (b) RMAS Goosander and (c) the average for RMAS vessels.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1991, the last year for which complete statistics are available, there were 94 reportable accidents for all 412 RMAS vessels and 11 shore bases. This includes the two reportable accidents for RMAS Goosander and the two for RMAS Pochard.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often lifting equipment used on board RMAS vessels is required to undergo safety checks; and what steps he takes to ensure that such requirements are complied with.
  517
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Statutory safety checks are undertaken in accordance with Docks Regulations 1988. All vessels are regularly inspected to ensure that lifting equipment meets these regulations.

  Jet Skis
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jet skis the Royal Navy possesses.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Fisheries Protection
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the fishery protection services currently provided by Royal Navy vessels in the waters around Scotland and the financial arrangements in force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Navy provides one vessel from the fishery protection squadron for patrols in Scottish waters. The Royal Navy ship, together with the vessels of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, is responsible for monitoring compliance with UK and EC fishing regulations in Scottish waters. This task is carried out on behalf of the Scottish Fishery Protection Agency from which payment of approximately £1.3 million is received annually.

  Aid, Bosnia
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which expenditure category the cost of providing and transporting humanitarian aid items to Bosnia has been debited.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Financial responsibility for humanitarian aid relief to Bosnia lies with the Overseas Development Administration which will meet the additional costs that the MOD incurs providing service assistance.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the number of civil servants in his Department who could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Ministry of Defence is already a well-dispersed Department. Currently, 87 per cent. of civilian staff are based outside London and 60 per cent. are outside London and the south-east. Since 1979, some 2,500 staff have been relocated from London and the south-east to sites in Glasgow, south Wales, Sutton Coldfield, Cheadle Hulme and Swindon, amongst others. A recent review of MOD headquarters, together with the planned collocation of the procurement executive in Bristol, will result in the relocation of further 6,000 to 7,000 posts from London by the mid-1990s, leaving only about 3 per cent. of MOD civilian staff in London.

  Menwith Hill
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason it has been decided to site the Thistle and Steeplebush 2 operations centres at Menwith Hill in underground bunkers hardened against airborne attack.
  518
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are neither underground nor hardened facilities at Menwith Hill station.

  Questions on Contracts
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his practice to answer questions seeking the disclosure of the amount payable for contracts between his Department and(a) the Crown Estate, (b) the Duchy of Cornwall and (c) the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with the United States of America on alternatives to the European fighter aircraft; and how many jobs in the aircraft-building industries he expects to be created or preserved in the United Kingdom as a consequence.

  Mr. Aitken
  In the light of Germany's decision not to proceed with production of the European fighter aircraft, the first priority is to consider the implications for the programme jointly with Spain and Italy. The Government hope that it will not be necessary to fall back on alternatives. However, before final decisions are taken on the production of EFA, we will, as a matter of course, examine all the alternatives to ensure that the Royal Air Force operational requirement is met in the most cost-effective way.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the estimated cost of the European fighter aircraft programme prior to the German withdrawal; what estimate he has made of the cost consequence of the Germany withdrawal; and how this is calculated.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Kingdom's share of the four nation EFA programme is estimated at £11.7 billion. The German Government have said that they do not intend to proceed with production of EFA but will continue to honour their obligation to complete the development phase. We are now discussing with the other EFA partners—Italy and Spain—the implications of the German decision. The cost of any revised programme will depend on the arrangements eventually agreed.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what alternatives to the European fighter aircraft have been considered; and what are the direct cash implications.

  Mr. Aitken
  A range of possible alternatives has been considered. The US F22 would offer better performance than EFA in the air defence role, but would not meet the RAF's requirement for a ground attack capability and is estimated to be up to three times more expensive. The US F16 and Swedish Gripen are cheaper than EFA; but have a much inferior capability. The French Rafale and developments of the US F14, F15 and F18 also fall short of the RAF requirement in significant respects, while being no cheaper—and in some cases significantly more expensive.

  Merchant Navy
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete the detailed review, which is being conducted by his Department, of the defence
  519
  requirement for British merchant ships and seamen in times of crisis; if he will list the main individual areas of the overall subject he is reviewing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The review has now been completed and a statement was made to the house by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 9 July,Official Report, columns 567–68.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make public the conclusions of the Oxburgh report.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The report of Professor Oxburgh's working group on the safety of United Kingdom nuclear weapons has been given careful consideration within the Ministry of Defence. On the basis of this consideration, I have now decided that the report should be published—subject only to a small number of excisions required to preserve national security. Publication will take place today: copies of the report are being placed in the Library of the House.

  This report provides welcome corroboration of our confidence in the safety of our nuclear weapons, and handling and transport arrangements. The report's recommendations, which we have set about implementing, will help us ensure that the high safety standards confirmed by the review are maintained for the future. The decision to publish the report reflects both the Government's emphasis on avoiding unnecessary secrecy on issues of legitimate public interest, and our belief that the report will provide substantial reassurance to those concerned with nuclear safety issues.

  Hon. Members will recall that in June 1990 the US house armed services committee commissioned a panel of experts under Dr. Sidney Drell to examine the safety of US nuclear weapons. The Drell report was published in December 1990. The safety of United Kingdom nuclear weapons has long been ensured both by internal audit and control procedures, and by the scrutiny of the MOD's permanently constituted independent advisory body, the nuclear weapon safety committee (NWSC)—a body which Drell recommended the US to replicate. Nonetheless, following publication of the Drell report, the Government decided to ask MOD's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir Ronald Oxburgh, to lead a review of the safety of United Kingdom nuclear weapons. Professor Oxburgh was supported by a group of distinguished experts drawn form both inside and outside government. The working group's terms of reference were:
  "To review, in the light of any relevant aspects of the report of the Drell Panel in the United States, the safety of the present and prospective UK nuclear armoury."

  The review was therefore allowed to range freely over all aspects of United Kingdom nuclear weapon safety.
  520
  Like the Drell team, the United Kingdom review addressed the overall organisational aspects of the management of safety, as well as the specifics of the current and future stockpile. Whole weapon systems were considered, including associated handling and transportation arrangements.

  Reviewing the safety of the United Kingdom nuclear stockpile, the working group found that
  "procedures have been effective, well implemented and rigorously inspected".

  The group was able to identify a number of areas whre improvements could be made in the overall management of safety. However, the group
  "found no indication that every practicable step to optimise weapon safety at the design stage had not been taken, and once in service to make weapon handling and storage as safe as possible".

  On transport and weapon handling, the review concluded that the approach to safety and security was "sensible and practical". It noted the mechanical unreliability of the current weapon transport vehicles, which are due for replacement later this year; but in all other respects it described road transport arrangements as "a well-run operation". As to the weapon systems themselves, the group found no evidence to suggest that in-service or planned weapons required any significant redesign. Discussing the Trident system, the working group concluded that Trident safety levels would be
  "comparable to and in some ways higher than those associated with the Polaris system."

  Therefore, provided that the full UK safety case and its assessment are completed, the group saw no reason to suggest that it should not be accepted into service.

  The published report contains some 20 recommendations, all of which the Government have accepted. These recommendations cover a wide range of procedural and organisational issues, from the proposal that a formal design review of each in-service weapon system should be held every seven years, to the suggestion that a "champion" of nuclear weapon safety should be established as a central auditor of the various nuclear safety functions undertaken within the MOD. The Ministry is already at work on putting the recommendations into effect, including determining the exact fashion in which the proposal for a "champion" can best be implemented. Three further recommendations, which cannot be published for security reasons, have also been accepted.

  The Government would like to record their thanks to Professor Oxburgh and the other members of his team for the thorough review they have undertaken. Their report confirms the Government's confidence in the standards adopted in maintaining the safety of our nuclear weapons. We welcome the group's recommendations to ensure these standards are continued in the future.

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

Lord Ashley of Stoke
The Right Honourable Jack Ashley, CH, having been created Baron Ashley of Stoke, of Widnes in the County of Cheshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Carter and the Lord Dormand of Easington, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Finsberg
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, Knight, MBE, having been created Baron Finsberg, of Hampstead in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Wolfson and the Lord Crickhowell.

Mortgage Arrears
2.59 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures available concerning mortgage arrears in the owner-occupied sector and whether they have any further plans to deal with the problem.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, according to the latest figures from the Council of Mortgage Lenders, around 275,000 borrowers (or 2.8 per cent. of the total) had mortgage arrears of six months or more at the end of 1991. My right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State
2
for the Environment met the lenders on 2nd June to discuss progress on the package of measures they had agreed last December. They were encouraged to hear the lenders' assessment that those measures will prevent some 55,000 repossessions this year.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for the information given by the Minister. However, is he aware that if the dates are moved slightly the figures look quite different? For example, between March 1991 and March 1992 the number of repossessions increased from 47,940 to 68,000, which is a 40 per cent. increase. The number of borrowers who are six months in arrears increased in the same period from 209,000 to 290,000, which is an increase of nearly 33.3 per cent. Those figures emerge from a survey carried out by Shelter for the Rowntree Trust. Although what the Government are doing is welcome, do they not need to do a lot more to prevent the disaster which is looming in the owner-occupied sector?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall be able to update the noble Lord, Lord Dean, on the latest figures to be published in August, which refer to the first half of 1992.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, perhaps I may bring the noble Earl up to date, not in terms of telephone numbers but by using ordinary statistics. Is he aware that for the first three months of this year repossessions were running at the rate of 144 per day? Is he aware further that since the introduction of the much-heralded mortgage rescue scheme last December only 12 rescues have taken place? How does he square that with the 55,000 expected this year? He will have to rescue a lot of people to bring up the numbers from 12 to 55,000. Is it not time that we had a look at the whole scheme and all the arrangements and problems in this sphere to see whether we can find a workable scheme—and there are quite a number of suggestions which will enable those people to stay in their own homes, either as tenants or as part owners?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is exactly what the package of measures which my right

3
honourable friends and the Council of Mortgage Lenders agreed in December. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has taken only one aspect of the scheme. It is true that formal rescue deals have been concluded with only a small number of borrowers, but negotiations are continuing. I ask the noble Lord to look more widely at the whole package of measures because that is what will lead to the prevention of some 55,000 repossessions this year.
Lord Elton: My Lords, while accepting that those figures in large part stem from the current economic condition in the world generally, and in this country in particular, does my noble friend accept that another important ingredient is the lack of understanding which many people have in their early years about the proper management of debt and the danger of accepting too much in the way of credit? Does my noble friend agree that efforts should be strengthened in schools to give some training in that regard in advance of adult life?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, all our children should be brought up to be made aware of the question of debt and the value of saving. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has been keen to discuss debt management with home owners who are finding it difficult to pay their mortgages.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is it not the fact that those who are unemployed cannot possibly afford to pay their mortgages? Those people are in dire circumstances; not only are they losing their homes but they are losing their jobs. Local authorities cannot pick up those people. Are the Government aware of where they are disappearing to?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, considerable efforts are being made by the Council of Mortgage Lenders to prevent exactly the situation referred to by the noble Baroness of people being repossessed. That is the reason that it is making such efforts.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, does not the noble Earl agree that it would be wrong for us to leave this House believing that those people who sought to buy their homes through mortgages do not know how to manage their debt? Does not the noble Earl agree that for a long time we have been seeking to encourage people to buy their own homes? The only way that they can do that is through a mortgage. Is not a mortgage, properly managed, a form of compulsory saving?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, not only have we encouraged people to buy their own homes but we shall continue to do so. However, they must borrow prudently.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is a little late for the building societies to tell people to borrow prudently when until recently they were telling them to borrow as imprudently as they possibly could. Is the noble Earl aware that, given the extent to which house prices have fallen, a great number of people have mortgages larger than the value of their homes? Some
4
economists, mostly those sympathetic with the Government, believe that that position is so dangerous that it may lead us further into a slump unless the Government intervene.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are aware that some people are in the position of being in "negative equity", to use the phrase of the economists. The Council of Mortgage Lenders states that the number is around 375,000, which is far fewer than many have suggested.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Earl possess any figures in regard to the cost to public funds of rehousing people who are dispossessed of their homes?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords.

Ofgas: Estimated Gas Bills
3.6 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that Ofgas is paying sufficient attention to the policy of British Gas to produce estimated bills.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, new tariffs and standards of service were recently agreed between Ofgas and British Gas and introduced at the beginning of April. The standards of service set out the circumstances in which estimated bills may be issued and set specific targets for controlling their accuracy.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. But does she not agree that while the British Gas document Commitment to Customers is both helpful and well drawn up, the paragraphs referring to estimated bills are unsatisfactory? Many poorer people—for example, those who are disabled—cannot reach their meter. They are paying large amounts of money which they need not pay. British Gas must be collecting the interest on money it should not have received in the first place. What are the Government going to do about that?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his interest in the brochure. I hope that it will go a long way towards helping people and that the deeds match the words. Under the new arrangements agreed between Ofgas and British Gas, the company is required to monitor the accuracy of estimates to ensure that procedures operate without advantage to the company. Of course the customers have the opportunity to submit their own readings. Moreover, British Gas will read meters every quarter where elderly or disabled customers are unable to take their own readings.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is not the problem that meters tend to be inside the front door in the great majority of cases, whether it is a fiat or a house? Should not British Gas, and indeed the electricity and water companies when metering comes in, be

5
encouraged either to site the meters outside the front door or use telephonic equipment in order to read them?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, estimating is obviously the answer to the current situation where meters are situated inside. I am pleased to advise my noble friend that British Gas, in common with other utilities, is looking into technologies for the remote reading of meters. That will result in accurate bills.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is not British Gas using the consumer as a remote reader of bills? Is the noble Baroness aware that recently my wife, standing near the front door of our home, received a piece of paper through the letter-box stating,"We are sorry you were out when we called to read your meter. Will you please read it for us?"
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can only suggest that the noble Lord probably gave a more accurate reading.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the system of metering used by British Gas at the moment is little short of medieval? Is she aware that there are perfectly good technologies which have been available for many years? Does the noble Baroness further agree that it is time British Gas used some of the enormous profits that it is making as a privatised utility in order to install that kind of metering?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, British Gas is concerned with technology and improving the service. I point out to the noble Lord that, for every pound profit, British Gas has invested £2.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister take account of the point made on her side of the House a moment ago; namely, that some of the meters are almost inaccessible, particularly to the purblind, blind people and those who are crippled? Another vital point has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. Is the Minister aware that there is a technology which can almost provide the actual amount required at the time? Does she agree that some endeavour should be made to reduce the amount of money which British Gas is taking from people and which can be shown much later on it had no right to take?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the situation to the noble Lord. Part of the standard agreed between Ofgas and British Gas was that there should be monitoring of the accuracy of the estimates to make sure that no one—neither the customer nor the company—took advantage. Knowing the difficulties of the current meters, there has been a customer service commitment to call and read the meters for older and disabled customers.

EC Refunds for Milk Products
3.11 p.m.
Lord Benson Lord Benson asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are proposed in order to eliminate the defects in the procedures in the European Community for the payment of refunds to traders in milk products, as disclosed in the opinion of the Court of Auditors dated 22nd April 1992, No.92/C101/01.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government accept that the report from the European Court of Auditors raises serious issues. We are arranging discussions in Brussels under our presidency to consider the court's recommendations and what measures might be taken to reduce further the scope for fraud.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does the noble Earl agree that, as the Court of Auditors has pointed out an unsatisfactory financial administration in the Community for year on year, and as it costs the Community scores of millions of pounds a year, the proper course is for the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament formally to inform the Commission that they will tolerate that situation no longer and that failure to correct it will cause the appropriate sanctions to be invoked?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, faults do not all lie with the Commission. Member states also need to set their houses in order. Action is required by all parties. In our discussions of the court's report we will be seeking to reach agreement on such action at an early date.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, as these frauds cost the Community over 16 million ecus, can my noble friend say why neither the names of the companies concerned nor their nation states are disclosed? Can he confirm that the United Kingdom is not one of the nation states concerned and also say what action, if any, has been taken against those defrauding companies?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am unable to tell my noble friend the names of the companies today. I personally do not know them. As far as I understand it, the United Kingdom is not involved.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Commission itself has spent quite large sums of money in skirting round this question of fraud and that about two and a half years ago it was trying to minimise its significance? Is he further aware that the Commission itself spent in 1990 no less than £51 million; in 1991, £50.4 million and in 1992 it will spend £53.5 million? Does the Minister agree that those sums arc greatly in excess of the total cost of the Court of Auditors per annum and that they are roughly double the amount which that court has? Does the Minister agree that there is little to show for those sums? Will the noble Earl enlarge a little on

7
what he means by having discussions with the Commission? Does he agree that it is about time that we got some results or that heads began to roll?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the report will shortly be discussed by officials from the member states and subsequently by permanent representatives. In due course it will be considered at the ECOFIN council. I believe that that will take place in September. The report also identifies 11 specific instances where there have been overpayments totalling £3.52 million. But these should be considered as examples of potential problem areas. Not all the overpayments should be attributed to fraud. Over £1.3 billion was spent on export refunds in the milk sector in 1990.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say what action has been taken as regards the officials who permitted this to happen?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have an answer to my noble friend's point. I shall endeavour to find out and then write to him.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the two companies concerned in this Question account for approximately 10 per cent. of all refunds on milk products and that neither has been audited by its national authority since 1986?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, is correct in his figure of 10 per cent.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend kindly complete his reply to my noble friend Lord Boardman by saying that he will endeavour to discover which are the national states concerned and that he will put the answer in the Library of this House?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I shall most certainly do that. I understand that the companies covered by the report are based in Ireland and Germany.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl responded to my noble friend Lord Gallacher that in his view the two companies concerned had approximately 10 per cent. of the business that was going. He failed to respond to my noble friend's next question which was this: have these companies been audited properly by their national authorities since 1986 and, if not, why not?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, this special report is an interim report from an audit into the payment of export refunds. Two unnamed member states (I have just named them) are specifically covered by this report. The United Kingdom is not one of them. However, that does not mean that none of the weaknesses identified has not occurred in the United Kingdom. No doubt there is room for improvement here as well.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the initiative to combat Community fraud was taken by Her Majesty's
8
Government under the aegis of my noble friend Lady Thatcher? Is he able today to expand a little more as to where we have now got to and what is on the table by way of proposals for active discussion?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Government continue to look for ways to combat fraud. The United Kingdom will shortly discuss with other member states and the Commission what changes are necessary to update the Community's 45 point anti-fraud action plan. These changes should he endorsed by the ECOFIN council when it considers the Commission's annual report on fraud.

School Inspections: Tenders
3.18 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to ensure that there will be at least two tenders for inspection work for every school.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the detailed arrangements for school inspections under the Education (Schools) Act will be a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Schools in England and Wales who are obliged under the Act to invite at least two tenders for each inspection.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister say how many inspectors need to be recruited in order to make the national position viable? As she has not answered the Question, can she say what procedure will be adopted if two tenders for inspection are not received?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, both of the questions which the noble Lord has put to me are for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector. At the moment there is a framework document out for consultation which the noble Lord would do well to read and perhaps respond to if he has particular anxieties. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector is obliged under the law to inspect all schools every four years and that will be done.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government will be encouraging Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to recruit teams of local education authority inspectors to undertake this work if the response to the Government's bizarre and expensive advertising campaign to recruit registered inspectors is unsuccessful?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point, which is also a matter for Her Majesty's Inspectorate. We have taken the view—I believe that we are supported in it by the noble Baroness and her colleagues—that the inspectorate should be independent of government. These will therefore be matters for the chief inspector. He will publish both his criteria and the framework under which they will operate.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the advertisement for inspectors states:

9
"If you have experience in education or management consultancy".
Does that not mean that some inspectors who will be appointed will have no experience whatever of education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can be absolutely sure that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector will make sure that anybody who is involved in the business of inspecting schools will be fully qualified to do so.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, with great respect, that does not deal with the advertisement, which, in that sense, says nothing about education. I repeat that it refers to applicants who may have "management consultancy" experience.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord omits to mention the fact that all applicants will be subject to training that is approved by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of u Bill to he taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Finance Bill and the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill through their remaining stages tomorrow.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill
3.21 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill before your Lordships is a short, essentially technical, measure. Its purpose is to give British Rail and British Coal powers to take the steps necessary to prepare for privatisation. I will explain briefly the content of the Bill's two clauses.
Clause 1 of the Bill confers on British Coal and British Rail powers to act in relation to proposals for the transfer of their commercial activities to the private sector or proposals for the establishment of new arrangements for their other activities. In particular, it empowers them to consider and take advice on proposals for privatisation, advise the Government on such proposals and draw up plans for implementing such proposals. They will be able to employ external advisers to assist them in all these tasks.
Clause 2 simply gives the short title of the Bill, sets out the financial provisions and extends the Bill to Northern Ireland. The financial provisions deal with the source of any loans and clarify the destination of any repayments, should either British Coal or British Rail require additional funding to meet costs incurred in preparation for privatisation.
It is also worth taking a few moments to say, for the
10
avoidance of doubt, what the Bill does not do. The Bill itself does not give British Coal or British Rail powers to implement any scheme of privatisation. That will be a matter for the main privatisation legislation which the Government intend to bring forward later in the year. Nevertheless, this Bill represents the first legislative step on the road to privatisation for British Coal and British Rail.
The successful privatisation policies of this Government have already enabled two-thirds of companies once owned by the state to be returned to private enterprise. They have been given commercial freedom to flourish in the market place away from the constraints of nationalisation. The Government believe that the time has come for the coal and rail industries also to benefit from the private sector management skills, entrepreneurial spirit and efficiencies which have transformed companies, businesses and indeed whole industries.
In the transport sector, we have witnessed the revitalising effect that privatisation has brought about. For example, since we privatised British Airways, productivity per employee has increased by more than 20 per cent. Last year BA's profits were up by over 100 per cent. while the major state-owned European airlines were heading for losses totalling I billion dollars. The National Freight Corporation was brought into the private sector through a management buy-out in 1982 and was successfully floated on the Stock Market in 1989. In the past five years, the value of shares in the company increased 42-fold and investment in the business quadrupled. In other areas of industry we have seen similar remarkable results. British Telecom prices are down 27 per cent. in real terms since 1984 and there are 17 per cent. more pay phones—96 per cent. of which work at any one time. British Gas domestic prices are down 13 per cent. since privatisation.
In all of these privatisations, the guiding principle has been the need to secure value for money, and to increase consumer choice and efficiency by promoting greater competition and calling on the initiative of the private sector. My noble friend Lady Denton will have more to say about coal in her concluding remarks. I intend to direct most of my remarks today to how we intend to apply this principle to the privatisation of British Rail.
The Government will be setting out their proposals in a White Paper in the next few days. We have already set out the background and indicated in broad terms the likely shape of these proposals both in the Government's election manifesto and during the debates on this Bill in another place.
However, before saying more about the proposals themselves, I hope your Lordships will find it helpful if I say a little about what lies behind them. BR has made significant progress and the introduction of its Passenger's Charter is a further step in improving its responsiveness to customers. While these have been steps in the right direction, we need to go further. BR is subject to all the constraints of a nationalised industry. These constraints mean that BR cannot ensure the efficient organisation and delivery of services. We need to end BR's monopoly of rail service

11
provision which is outdated and does not provide sufficient incentives for the improvement of its performance. This will enable the railways to respond to the increasing demands of their customers and to provide the quality of service their customers want.
At a time of rising demand for transport services, of increasing road congestion, and when our commitment to protecting the environment is ever more important, it makes sense to make the best use of our railway system.
British Rail cannot be privatised in the conventional way because it makes substantial losses. But that does not prevent us from bringing private sector skills into the delivery of rail services. Indeed, we believe that greater involvement of the private sector is the only way to bring about the improvements in rail services that passengers and freight customers alike want and expect. The private sector has the capacity and incentive to respond in a flexible and adaptable way to the demands of rail customers. By involving the private sector we can provide the stimulus of competition that the railways need and provide the consumer choice that will attract passengers and freight customers.
The objective of our proposals is clear. We want to provide better services for all rail users. For passengers, we propose to involve the private sector through the franchising of existing services. We envisage franchises being let in a rolling programme over a number of years with each franchise agreement specifying standards of punctuality and reliability that must be met by the operators of these services. BR will continue to run those services not franchised to start with. We want to see network benefits maintained and we have said already that through ticketing will be required. BR will continue to be responsible for track and infrastructure.
A further element of our proposals is the liberalisation of access to the rail network giving the private sector the opportunity to run new services. BR has already been asked to co-operate on a voluntary basis to provide access for new operators. As a result, the first of these new services is already in existence. The Stagecoach Group recently started to operate an overnight service from Aberdeen to London. The legislation that we intend to introduce later this year will provide rights of access to the rail network for all types of domestic rail services. Already there are signs of interest in operating new passenger and freight services when the opportunities are there. The Government have also decided that BR's freight and parcels businesses should be sold.
The greater involvement of the private sector in rail operations does not mean that the Government are seeking to abandon their responsibilities. The taxpayer's support to the railways has been underlined in recent years by record levels of investment. Investment stands at around £1 billion in 1991–92 and a further £1.5 billion is expected for 1992–93. Over the past two years, Network SouthEast has invested over £700 million, and since 1986 over 1,000 new vehicles
12
have been delivered. On InterCity, the electrification of the east coast main line was completed last year at a cost of some £475 million.
That commitment to the railways will continue. In particular, we recognise that there are many rail services that meet an essential social need but which rely on subsidy. But there is no reason why only profitable services should benefit from private sector involvement. We have made it clear that we shall continue to provide subsidy for those services where necessary to whoever is operating them. There have been claims—unfounded claims—that privatisation will lead to immediate or wholesale closures or cuts in the network. So let me make it clear that the statutory closure procedures will be maintained.
There have also been suggestions that greater private sector involvement will lead to a weakening of safety standards. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the importance that has been attached to safety considerations in the development of the Government's proposals. The high safety standards will be maintained, as in other privatisations.
Private sector involvement promises better use of resources and a better standard of performance. It is the way to ensure a sound and long-term future for the railways.
In the Government's election manifesto, we said that we would bring forward proposals for privatising the British Coal Corporation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to a number of important inter-city lines in this country. As he and the House will agree, one of the most important is the line from Euston to Holyhead, one of the oldest lines in the country. The "Irish Mail" is the oldest named train in the world. Is he aware that in The Times this morning there is a disturbing report that the inter-city line from Euston to Holyhead is to be curtailed and is to end at Chester? If there is any truth in it, that would be a most deplorable step. Can the noble Earl give me an assurance that it is not true?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an answer to his question at the moment. I cannot give an assurance or dispel any doubts that he might have received from reading a press report. But I can assure him that, as usual, I shall take very careful note of what he said and let him know as soon as I can. I was fully expecting a question from the noble Lord about the Holyhead line and other Welsh connections too that he did not mention.
British Coal has a long tradition and fine record to be proud of in technical and professional excellence in mining, in improving productivity and in safety. However, British Coal's future development is hampered by remaining in the public sector, while its main customers, the electricity generators, now operate successfully in the private sector.
We want to create an efficient, competitive and profitable coal industry with a secure future. Privatisation will put the industry in a better position to compete on the basis of business strength.
The Government plan to privatise British Coal as soon as possible and will be introducing main

13
legislation later in this Session. There is much work still to be carried out within government and British Coal. Decisions on the future structure of the industry and the timing of privatisation have yet to be made. My honourable friend the Minister for Energy invited the views of interested parties on the form and timing of the privatisation of British Coal by the 22nd June. The Government are now considering the responses carefully before announcing their policy intentions.
These are all matters that your Lordships will have a full opportunity to discuss in due course. The Bill before us today will enable British Coal and British Rail to make their input into these proposals so that the Government can introduce main legislation that has had the benefit of the expertise in these two industries and to ensure that the proposals that the legislation seeks to implement will be workable. We therefore look forward to the active and constructive participation of British Coal and British Rail in working up the detail of our proposals once the Bill has completed its passage through the House. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
3.34 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for introducing the Bill. There is one point on which we would all agree: we all want to see rail give the maximum benefit to its customers. Bearing that in mind, I must follow up the question raised by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. If the noble Earl finds that there is a decision somewhere to abolish the Holyhead line, what action will be taken? Will the Government go ahead with that or will they insist that it should not be proceeded with? If the Government intend to proceed with it and approve the British Rail policy, will justification be given as to why that line should be cut out?
This is only a two clause Bill but it has far reaching effects on the coal and railway industries. During the Second Reading debate in another place, the Secretary of State said:
"The Bill is an important first legislative step to bringing the benefits of the private sector and privatisation to the coal and rail industries".—[Official Report, Commons,18/5/92; col.22.]
The noble Earl quoted somewhat similar statements in his opening address. Where is the justification for the Secretary of State's statement? The Government have not yet issued the White Paper. We hear reports about what the White Paper may contain. In his speech the noble Earl referred to certain matters which the Government are to follow, yet we have not had the White Paper. We do not know what is in the White Paper. We do not know what justification there will be for points contained in the White Paper.
We know that the Government intend to press ahead with privatisation as soon as possible and that Bills will come forward in the autumn. Presumably, once the White Paper is issued, the coal and rail industries will go ahead with their proposals. From reading the Bill and the comments—not official decisions—that have been made by Ministers and repeated by the noble Earl today, we know that this
14
small Bill has all the hallmarks of the Government's ideological obsession with privatisation. Has the noble Earl seen the article in today's Guardian by Will Hutton? I do not necessarily agree with everything in the article, but it is a balanced and reasoned article.
During the Second Reading debate in another place a number of honourable Members attacked the principle of nationalisation and referred to the coal and rail industries being returned to the private sector. At this point I should like to look at one or two points of history. Prior to the nationalisation of the four regional companies, which were built up in 1923 from some 120 smaller companies, those companies were hardly thriving organisations. On many occasions no dividends at all were paid to the shareholders of those companies. Perhaps I should mention that I shall not be dealing with the coal industry. My noble friend Lord Donoughue will deal with it in his speech. However, I have my noble friend's permission to make just one observation.
Such was the state of the coal industry with its 1,500 separate companies that there was general agreement that only nationalisation could solve the industry's problems. The Sankey Commission, which reported in 1919, recommended nationalisation of the coal industry. The conditions of the workers in the industry were appalling. Their lives in general were miserable. It has to be said that a number of coal owners built up their wealth and so-called social standing on the sufferings of the people in the mining industry. Nationalisation had to happen. It may be that with the passage of some 60 years there is the possibility of co-operation with the private sector in certain industries and in certain ways. But in the case of the coal industry the workers had to wait until the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 before there was an improvement in their general conditions.
We are told that private sector management is essential to achieve improvements in rail. In the Second Reading debate in another place the Secretary of State said:
"British Rail itself has made significant progress and compares well in terms of efficiency in Europe".—[Official Report, Commons,18/5/92; col.28.]
He went on to pay tribute to the many dedicated people in the management and workforce of British Rail.
It should not be overlooked that, overwhelmingly, the management of British Rail comprises railmen. That is a most important factor to keep in consideration. There is also the claim that rail needs the stimulus of competition. I hope that we receive an explanation as to exactly how competition is to be provided. I believe that the noble Earl mentioned that in his opening speech. Right at the outset, it must be remembered that British Rail already has to compete with other forms of transport in the country. As regards the few examples given by the noble Earl, I must say that a few carriages attached to a BR night service cannot be said to be vigorous competition. A private entrepreneur who seeks a franchise will look for a franchise on what he thinks will be the most profitable service at the most profitable time.
There has been talk of hiving off parts of British Rail. Needless to say, there are bound to be those that

15
are profitable. But no one will hive off parts of British Rail which are unprofitable and in which people cannot see much opportunity for profit. Therefore, BR will be left with any necessary services which are at present receiving public service obligation grants. Such services will not be taken over by entrepreneurs who seek a franchise. There must be an authority to ensure that those services continue to carry out the effective running of the nationwide rail network and that they are accountable.
The noble Earl referred to certain decisions which, I gather, have been taken as to how the railway will be run in future with a track authority and an operating authority. Those decisions have apparently been made but we have not as yet had the White Paper. We do not know that they are in the White Paper or whether they are decisions that British Rail support. It seems that they are just observations by government Ministers. Where will there be real competition to which reference has been made? As one MP declared, any talk of effective choice for customers is ludicrous. He said that trains cannot leave the same station at the same time.
British Rail has stated that the question of ownership is a matter for the Government as the shareholder to decide. But British Rail has said that if that course is to be proceeded with, there ought to be some criteria to be followed. Those include: benefits of a nationwide rail service network must continue to be available; there must be effective arrangements to protect the safety of rail operations; and there must be provision for adequate and uninterrupted investment—a point strongly made by Sir Bob Reid, BR's chairman.
In the same debate the Secretary of State (at col.27 of Commons Hansard) stated:
"British Rail cannot be privatised in the conventional way as it exists now, because it is making substantial losses".
I believe that the noble Earl repeated that in his speech. We know that the loss encountered by BR last year was £144 million. The Secretary of State then added:
"As it stands, there would be no buyers for BR en bloc".
That means that people would take the best of BR and leave the rest of British Rail to try to stagger along. The Secretary of State went on to say that the Government were proposing a mixture of outright sale and the greater involvement of the private sector. I repeat what I have already said: we have not as yet seen the White Paper. We do not know what is proposed and exactly what is the justification for it.
When considering the financial aspect, we should bear in mind the fact that 80 per cent. of British Rail freight is dependent upon the movement of coal. No doubt my noble friend Lord Donoughue will make reference to that. One can clearly see the dependences between the coal and rail industries. I learnt today from a newspaper report that there is a possibility of the amount of coal being supplied by PowerGen and National Power being less than it has been in recent years. If that is so, it will have a tremendous effect on the finances of British Rail. When she replies, perhaps the noble Baroness will make reference to that point.
16
There are two matters to which I should like to refer which relate to Clause 1 of the Bill. The clause refers to the transfer of,
"any functions, property, rights or liabilities".
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to explain the limits of the "liabilities". Alternatively, perhaps she will be able to give an undertaking that that aspect will be dealt with in the White Paper. Further, who will meet the cost of safety provisions? Who will meet the cost of the British Transport Police? Those questions were raised in the debate in another place, but the position is still very far from clear.
My other point also refers to Clause 1. In carrying out any transfer, British Rail and British Coal are given power to take "appropriate steps" to prepare for privatisation. What does the phrase "appropriate steps" mean? That is a very sweeping term to be included in any item of legislation. However, I doubt that any steps will be taken which are not in accord with government wishes and government policy.
Before I conclude, there is just one important point that I should like to raise. It has been raised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which, as noble Lords will know, I am the current president. The AMA has a particular interest in metropolitan authorities outside London. The passenger transport authorities, with their public transport executives, provide finance in those areas for urban rail services under what are known as "Section 20" grants; that is, Section 20 of the Transport Act 1968. Those services play an important part in public transport in the respective areas. In the current year, they provided no fewer than £225 million-worth of rail services and made about a 150 million passenger journeys. They also achieve co-ordination with other local transport. Therefore, they are most important bodies which carry out important work.
Will the White Paper include details of how those PTA/PTE services, and their supporting finance from the local authorities in the area, will feature in the Government's proposals? If those services are to be included in any intended franchising proposals, what part is it proposed that the PTAs and the PTEs will play in the award of franchises and in the accountability of those franchises? Local authorities are making grants, as I said, under Section 20 of the Transport Act 1968. They will expect—and rightly so—that not only will they be considered but that they will also play a part in the actual accountability of those very important services.
Generally speaking, the Opposition dislikes the Bill and its purpose. We look forward to the Minister's reply on the points that have been made. We shall consider very carefully in Committee what we can do to avoid this two-clause Bill causing damage, especially so far as I am concerned, to the rail industry.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill I wish first to declare an interest. Apart from a long past involvement in the coal industry, I am at present connected with companies dealing with the distribution and usage of energy,

17
including coal. Although it is a short Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, just said, it raises major issues affecting the structure and ownership of two basic industries.
I believe that the first question to be asked is whether this is the right time to be contemplating the privatisation of the two industries. Of course, I realise that the Government are committed to that course, but not necessarily to its timing. It could be argued that neither industry is ready for the major changes involved in privatisation. In the case of coal, the crucial issue is the form of contracts now being negotiated with the electricity generators, and affecting 84 per cent. of coal production. It is rumoured that that is proving a difficult negotiation. Until those contracts are concluded, there is no knowing what the future size of the coal industry will be and, therefore what there will be to privatise.
In the case of the railways, they have suffered seriously as a result of the recession. They have incurred major losses in the past year—the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us that they were £144 million—and even though their investment levels have increased, as the Minister pointed out, that falls short of what many of us consider is needed to establish an efficient and satisfactory railway system. Therefore, it might be held to be more prudent to spend a little more time sorting out those fundamental issues in both industries rather than proceeding at this stage to privatisation.
If, nonetheless, it is decided to go ahead at this time, then it is to be hoped that in both cases there would be published a White Paper before legislation is brought before Parliament. While it seems fairly clear that the Government intend to issue a White Paper dealing with the railways—its contents have been fairly well leaked in the newspapers today—there is uncertainty about coal. It is just as important that there should be a White Paper dealing with the coal industry's proposed privatisation, indicating the various options and the reasons why the Government are moving in one direction or another, as it is in the case of the railways. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that score.
Coal privatisation raises a host of issues. The first, as I have said, is the future size of the industry. At present,65 million tonnes a year are being supplied to the electricity industry. It is rumoured that in the new contracts being negotiated with the two major generating companies the quantity involved might be reduced in total to 45 million tonnes a year, and that that might decrease still further during the currency of the contracts—an ultimate figure of 25 million tonnes after five years has been mentioned. That would involve substantial further pit closures. Who will be responsible for carrying out those closures, and under what terms and conditions?
Next, there is the issue of the form that privatisation will take. Will the industry be kept in its present form and be dealt with similarly to the gas industry which was transferred, as it stood, from the public to the private sector; will it be split in two and take the form of a duopoly, similar to what has happened to electricity generation in England and
18
Wales; or will it be broken into a larger number of parts? Depending upon the form that privatisation takes, a number of subsidiary issues will arise. Among those issues, and of especial importance, is the possible encouragement of management buy-outs and the involvement of the mine workers in such new enterprises.
There is then the question of who will own the coal reserves. On the nationalisation of the coal industry in 1946 those were vested in the National Coal Board, having previously been held by the Crown through a body known as the Coal Commission. Is it intended to re-establish such a body and, if so, under what conditions will it issue licences to exploit coal? Will that body be the regulatory body also, or will there be a separate regulatory body?
Another issue involves research and development, which is a vital ingredient in the future of the coal industry. There is much to be done to achieve still further improvements in underground mining technology; but, above all, there is the need to develop clean coal technologies to make the usage of coal consistent with current environmental requirements. If effective progress is to be made in research and development it will need to be continued on an adequately funded basis. Will that be provided for under the privatisation measures?
The coal industry has a remarkable safety record. It is the safest large-scale mining industry in the world. It is vital that that record he maintained. Under what conditions will that be achieved under privatisation? Finally, there is the issue of pensions. The Coal Board pension schemes—one for mineworkers and one for staff—are among the largest and most successful in the country. On a possible break up of the industry under privatisation, what will happen to those schemes? What assurances will be given to existing and future pensioners? Here I must declare another interest: I am an existing pensioner. British Coal is at present enjoying a pension holiday. Will that be continued for the benefit of potential purchasers of either the whole or parts of the industry? If so, will it be taken into account in the purchase price? All those are issues which need to be clarified before the legislation is formulated. It is therefore to be hoped, as I said earlier, That there will be a White Paper on coal privatisation.
In the case of the railways not only have the Government committed themselves to the publication of a White Paper setting out their intentions but they have already indicated, as the Minister did today and his right honourable friend did in another place recently, the broad direction in which they are thinking. British Rail, according to those indications, will continue to operate the track and signalling. Railway services will be franchised to the private sector, but, insofar as services are not franchised they will continue to be operated by British Rail. It is intended to sell off the freight and parcel services and probably the stations too. There will be a regulator to ensure that the various provisions affecting competition, access to the network and prices are properly observed. Those are the matters that the Government have indicated.

19
The key question to be asked about those proposals is where the railways users will stand at the end of it all. Will there be a more efficient service? Will it cost less? What about investment, especially on track and signalling upon which much more is required? Will British Rail, as the track operator, have adequate resources for that purpose? The Central Transport Consultative Committee has raised important questions about consumer safeguards under privatisation of the railways. It has asked that there should be a preservation of the network effect, providing through fares and ticketing between all stations, irrespective of the operator. It has asked for integrated national train tables providing connections between each operator's services. No doubt they will be provided. It has also pressed for a national information and reservation system. Furthermore—this is most important—it would like to see separate, independent statutory consumer councils to deal with complaints. Those bodies would be separate from the regulator and the operators. I hope that we can obtain an assurance on that point.
In the hope that the Government will be issuing separate White Papers on the privatisation of both coal and the railways, will the Minister confirm that there will be debates on those White Papers before legislation is presented?
3.59 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, this is undoubtedly a small but significant Bill. These are the first privatisation measures that have required the prior enactment of such a Bill. Despite that, I am afraid that I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in dismissing the value of the Bill, because it is an important Bill although it is small. It is especially important to him, because he will not be able to get the questions he has raised answered by the Government until they have the Bill to enable other people to carry out further investigations as to what the answers to those questions might be. That is one of the problems all the way through this saga—the way in which the Government have stumbled into privatisation in this case as a matter of principle. They then found that in this instance it is much more complex than in any other area.
Nonetheless, it would be foolish to suggest that all is well within the railway industry. It is also fatuous—and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, did not suggest it, but many other people did—to say that it is simply a problem of inadequate railway management. Nor is there any evidence that the problems can be solved within the present structure. Some people have had the honour to serve, as I did, both as Minister responsible for the industry and then—presumably because they thought I knew more about the problems of the railway than anyone else because I had created more—they decided to promote me to manage the industry. People with knowledge of the industry know that there is no difference in the difficulties facing the railway industry, whether the government be Conservative or Labour. The problems are inherent in the present structure.
20
For the past 45 years British Rail has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Great Britain Limited, with all that that entails. Throughout that period the government of the day have exercised total control over the investment policy and the strategy pursued by the board. They have intervened in pricing policy, in wage negotiations and in the closure of uneconomic units whenever or wherever they felt it right and regardless of their political complexion.
The most important power is the Government's absolute control of board appointments, and not just the much publicised appointment of the chairman and the seven eminent non-executive directors. The Government and not the board appoint not only the non-executive directors but also the chief executive and the executive directors responsible for finance and planning, group services, engineering, operations and safety. I make this point because throughout those 45 years the ultimate management of the railway has been in the hands of the government of the day. They have been in a position to appoint whomever they wished and to change operational decisions on pricing policy or even wages policy.
All Ministers say that they never intervene in wage negotiations, but if one is sitting listening to a Minister from either party on the radio in the morning when the Southern Region is in difficulties with a railway dispute, the Minister may say: "I have no responsibility for the management of the railway and the conduct of the negotiations. That is a matter for the railway board. All the Government ask is that they get together and talk". What he thinks a trade union talks to an employer about in the middle of an industrial dispute, other than a settlement of the wage negotiation, I know not.
I make these points because it is important to establish that the organisational structure of the industry has totally failed to provide the country with a stable system anything like that which the public want. Anything that the Government disliked they could have changed at any time over the past 45 years. They have not made changes because the problems involved are real and complex. We must understand those problems.
The fact is that British Rail has never made a commercial return on investment. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that it did not do so when it was privately owned; it has not done so since it has been publicly owned and no railway system in any other country in the world has done so. No passenger rail system anywhere in the world of which I am aware produces a commercial return on the money invested. Nor do I know of one where the Government—and all governments in all countries have faced the same problem—have found a way of getting a cheap railway.
The railway is probably one of the few businesses which responds to having money thrown at it. We can have any kind of railway we wish; there are no great scientific frontiers to be broken. There are things called wheels about which we know an enormous amount, We put boxes on them and the technology is

21
well known. It is a matter of large sums of money and no government have been prepared to raise the amounts needed.
There are many reasons why the railway cannot be commercially successful. Much of the infrastructure is well over 100 years old; it was designed for a pattern of industry and population very different from that of today. There is an extraordinary level of fixed costs and many of what would laughingly be described as "assets" if the Government had the barefaced nerve to go ahead with a public prospectus—literally thousands of tunnels, bridges and sea walls which have a negative value. Further, unlike the airlines or bus companies, there is virtually no secondary market for ageing coaches and locomotives.
Finally and probably most important, if any system of franchising passenger services is to stand a chance of success it has to be understood that far from British Rail being a monopoly it is a small player in the highly competitive freight and passenger market compared with road and air.
For a road haulier, access to the road system represents about 4 per cent. of total operating costs. For the airlines, airport and navigation charges represent only 10 per cent. of the overheads. But for British Rail, track costs constitute 48 per cent. of the total costs. The argument about the need for a level playing field with road and rail cannot be dodged, because it is impossible for the railway to compete with that difference between them.
Richard Branson is a man who exudes limitless charm and endless enthusiasm. But I warn the Government, if they are not aware of it, that he is also a tough and experienced businessman. His views are more important than mine in this context. He has announced that he is interested in playing an active role, so I inject one of his views into the debate with enthusiasm. As one of the two people expressing serious interest in the exercise, he said:
"If privatisation is to work—it has to make the rail lines available to private operators at roughly the same cost as road is made available to lorries".
That is a simple proposition and, one way or another no doubt with the help of creative accounting, it is the issue which the Government will have to face. But important though it is, the cost of the rail track is not the only problem. No matter who owns British Rail, trains will continue to break down for many different reasons. Frequently they will be delayed. Unlike buses and aircraft, competing trains cannot go over, under or round the obstruction. The disruption caused by one train failure can extend over a wide area and affect literally dozens of other services.
With a multitude of competing commercial services, the task of determining the cost and the allocation of compensation to those affected is likely to be as expensive to administer as it will be complex. Once again, the Government will have to carry the responsibility and the cost of those arrangements.
The Government are embarked upon a unique experiment. So far as I know, it has not been tried anywhere else in the world. Whatever view one forms on the final proposals, the Bill can only be beneficial in shedding light on the complex and difficult problems involved.
22
It is possible that in four years' time Ministers may find that they have created a monster compared with which the poll tax will pale into insignificance—a veritable Frankenstein. It is much more likely that it will be a massive anti-climax: a few glamour services with increasing costs for a declining service. However, it could just work. Investing companies will require from the Government long-term legally-enforceable contracts which will set out the responsibilities of both the Government and the private companies. In that event, while it might not be quite what Ministers had in mind at the beginning of this exercise it would provide the railway system with a degree of stability which only a true partnership between the state and the private sector is ever likely to achieve. If that happens, it will not please the ideologues but I promise the voters will love it.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I begin, as I always do in this context, by declaring an interest as indeed I did some eight years ago when I tabled an Unstarred Question that looked forward to the privatisation of British Rail. It follows that I welcome this Bill and the initiatives which it precedes. As has been said several times, it is a short and important Bill which, as I understand it, enables BR to incur expenditure on preparing to dispose of some of its prime assets contrary to its statutory duties under the 1962 Act which were to operate with due regard to economy, efficiency and safety.
In incurring such expenditure I hope that BR and indeed the Government will bear in mind a number of factors. First, there must not be creative accounting. That factor was in effect mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. We must stick to financial disciplines and to the principle of value for money. In the circumstances I believe that we obtain surprisingly good value for money from the railways in their current state. I believe that the customer obtains value for money from the non-subsidised businesses and that both the customer and the taxpayer obtain good value for money from the subsidised businesses of British Rail.
British Rail is an innovative business. Anyone who has studied the railways for any length of time will realise that. British Rail is particularly innovative by the standards of other more feather-bedded operators abroad. That fact is most simply demonstrated by the considerable number of foreign secretaries of state, foreign civil servants and indeed foreign railway operators who come to Britain year after year to find out how we are achieving that innovation. We must continue along those lines. We must ensure that any future reorganisation continues that work regardless of whether the onus of continuity is on the remains of the railway as we know it—there will be the remains of the railway as we know it—or on those private sector elements which become involved.
I would hope that both BR and the Government will ensure that privatisation proposals lead to improved services to customers and that we, the customers, retain the benefits—the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to that matter and the noble Lord,

23
Lord Ezra, extended the argument, particularly with reference to the Transport Users Consultative Committee—of an integrated system, irrespective of the provider of services or blocks of services. Learning from the experience of urban bus deregulation, we must seek to protect universally-available through ticketing and information provision.
In introducing the Bill my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also mentioned Stagecoach. It is worth mentioning that Stagecoach only entered the long haul railway business because it could not cope with road congestion. However, that is a subject for another day. I greatly admire Stagecoach. It is an extremely enterprising organisation, but one of the difficulties that that operation faces at the moment is that information and through ticketing are not readily available. I admire the rapidity with which Stagecoach and British Rail got their act together in a period of just four-and-a-half to five months. However, that operation teaches us that in developing privatisation proposals we must walk before we start to run. We only have one chance to get it right. We must avoid the many chances where we might go wrong, some of which, as I have said, have been demonstrated by Stagecoach.
Further, the railways and the Government must ensure that whatever is proposed in privatisation terms carries the staff with it. I firmly believe that the successful privatisations of BA and NFC—I could also have added BAA, and, to a certain extent, Associated British Ports—were largely due to staff enthusiasm and to the financial participation of both management and staff. It is just as important that BR's present staff are persuaded that there is a future, and ideally that they are given the opportunity to invest in that future. Looking purely at the present, discussions have taught me recently—in one instance my honourable friend the Member for Kettering, the Minister of State for Public Transport was present—that staff are concerned about their immediate future, their long-term future and about their pensions at the end of their working lives. They are also concerned about job security. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, when I say that I would appreciate it if my noble friend could comment on that issue when she replies to the debate.
While on the subject of staff, I must express my concern about British Rail's drivers who constitute a small but important part of the operation. As some noble Lords will know, some 70 per cent. of them will retire by the end of the decade. It takes a minimum of two years to train a driver up to the point where he can take charge even of a shunting locomotive or carry out the most modest driving duties. It takes longer to train him to use new equipment and even longer for him to learn wider routes. To attract recruits to replace the drivers who will retire we must ensure that the prospects are attractive. We must also try to ensure that all drivers work to common safety standards and, ideally, that they are not head-hunted by prospective private operators. Given the imminent shortage of drivers and the difficulties of replacement such
24
head-hunting might be good for those who hire drivers but it would be damaging to what one might call the rump or remains of the system, that is, the ongoing subsidised railway.
Safety is paramount. We should do all we can to preserve it. We should ensure that whoever provides the railway service in the future must maintain national safety standards that are as high, or higher, than those currently prevailing. The pursuit of additional funds, the introduction of private sector involvement, the growth of better services to customers—I hope that applies to all customers and not just a lucky few—the growth of the part which rail plays in our transport system are all factors that must not be allowed to compromise safety.
To make sure that safety is preserved we must make sure that the present level of safety investment remains intact. We must also ensure that the railways inspectorate is sufficiently resourced for the task it faces. One cannot but be concerned at the length of time it takes nowadays to produce an inspectorate's report after an accident has occurred. Some noble Lords will be old enough to remember the Taunton disaster of 1940. That was a substantial disaster, but the report was produced by the then railways inspectorate in less than four months. However, that is not the case nowadays.
Safety investment leads me on to the matter of investment in general. It is essential that however our railways develop, we preserve or even enhance present levels of investment. I have in mind the cyclical nature of railway investment as illustrated by the modernisation plan days of the 1950s, the subsequent long, deep trough and the present high—one is almost tempted to say all time high—levels of investment.
We shall still need, and must find the funding, to enhance and rebuild the west coast main line. We have to build Crossrail and Thameslink. We will need substantial funding for those projects in the near future. It is essential that the Government continue to support planned infrastructure investment levels and that those who eventually operate services pay costs that not only reflect the investments that by then have been made—what one might call wear and tear investment and replacement investment—but also make a fair contribution to renewals.
The private sector should also be encouraged to invest in rolling stock by means of long-term contracts. We should not simply permit the cherry picking of prime services leading eventually to the operators pulling out when assets have reached the expiry of their lives and are due for renewal. We must ensure that as we evolve what my noble friend Lord Caithness called the rolling programme of privatisation, we do not suffer any form of hiatus in investment.
As I have said, I welcome this Bill. However, until the White Paper is published the present situation is rather like being on a mystery tour. We know we are going somewhere but we do not know when, where or how. I started by declaring an interest and I shall finish by doing the same. As I do not drive I am concerned to see that effective transitional arrangements for the railways are in place. The railways need to run

25
continuously. There can be no gap in service while private operators take over. We must take time to ensure that everything is in place—recruitment, training, investment, safety and other facilities'—to allow new operators to take over a live railway and to maintain standards of safety and reliability without any hiccup.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, this is a paving Bill for the privatisation of the coal and railway industries. I have been spurred into speaking by the abysmal ignorance of some young Conservative MPs speaking in another place of the reasons which led the Attlee Government to nationalise the industries in the first place. Those young Conservative MPs seem to have developed an intellectual constipation, probably due to an unrestricted diet of Conservative Central Office hand-outs from an early age.
Like my noble friend Lord Underhill I believe that we should sometimes refer back to history. I should not like this Bill to pass through both Houses without some record of the difficulties which faced the post-war Labour Government. In the euphoria of victory in Europe few bothered to take stock of the problems facing the incoming Labour Government. During the war 4.5 million houses out of a pre-war stock of 13 million had been damaged by enemy action. Nearly half of them were totally destroyed. The repair task in itself was enormous. Much of our Merchant Navy had been sunk by enemy action. Our major industries had been exhausted producing war materials. Major utilities such as gas, electricity and railways had been run on a care and maintenance basis only. There was a huge backlog of essential work to be undertaken.
Millions of servicemen and women were anxious to be demobilised. It is a tribute to the Labour Government that by the end of 1947, within 18 months of coming to power,5 million servicemen and women had been returned to civilian life without creating the kind of massive unemployment which followed the First World War. A large proportion of our overseas assets had been sold to buy food and raw materials.
I was particularly interested in the railways because my grandfather started as a porter on the old Southern Railways, eventually becoming chief inspector at Brighton station. Indeed, in a modest little book which I wrote I described how I joined the Labour Party at the age of 25 having heard an intemporate attack on railwaymen by a middle-aged Conservative lady. I could not equate her remarks with what I knew of my grandfather and felt something had to be done about it. I clearly recall the holidays which we spent with him before the war and the substantial losses which were then being made by the four major railway companies.
During the war my brother and I were sent to a school for Congregational ministers' sons near Wakefield. When I played rugby for the school against teams of boys from mining community schools the difference in our respective sizes and physical condition was clear. Even at that age, as boys, we
26
understood that those differences were due to the appalling conditions in the mining communities before the war.
Those two industries were always in difficulties. There was confirmation as to the state of the railways in an article in the Sunday Express yesterday by Bruce Anderson who wrote:
"Throughout their history, Britain's railways had flirted with state ownership. As early as the 1840s, Gladstone had contemplated nationalising them. After the First World War, the Government intervened to save them from bankruptcy by encouraging a reorganisation into four regional companies … After the Second World War, with bankruptcy once again imminent, full nationalisation seemed the only answer … This was one of the Attlee Government's least controversial excursions into public ownership. It is probable that even if Churchill had won the 1945 elections, the railways would still have been nationalised".
The coal industry was also in an appalling state as a result of years of pre-war neglect. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, who has spoken in the debate, may recall that his grandfather, speaking in this House during the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill on 29th May 1946 described how he was commissioned by the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, during the war to travel all round England, Wales and Scotland calling for a "pit and shovel blitzkrieg" by the miners to produce the coal essential for the war effort.
A succession of industries have been privatised by this Government. In another place during the Second Reading of this Bill the Secretary of State for Transport promised the appointment of a regulator for the railways. That reminds me of the story current at the end of the war of the Russian woman with three sons who conceived the idea of christening them with names which would help them get on in life. One she called "Captain", another she called "Doctor", but the one who really made a success of life was the son who was christened "Inspector". I feel that if that story was being retold today the name which would really guarantee success for a son would be "Regulator".
Let me make it clear that in talking about the regulators I am not impugning the integrity of any individual. Nevertheless, we have to consider the situation which is developing. At present we have regulators for the electricity, gas, telecommunications and water industries. One cannot imagine that they do not meet as a group from time to time to discuss regulatory matters of common interest.
The study of group behaviour is now an accepted part of business culture and it is inconceivable that members of that group do not react to what other members of the group do. The key, if not the only, source of information about the regulators and their offices available to the general public is their annual reports. If we examine these what do we find? The first report was produced by Oftel for 1984, albeit not for a full year, and ran to 51 pages with no photographs. Your Lordships may be interested to know that I had the report weighed at the post office before I came into the Chamber: it weighs 80 grammes. The latest report by Oftel weighs 560 grammes. No further comment is required.
The second Oftel report was also in a small format without a photograph. The first Ofgas report, for

27
1987, contained one photograph of the director general. After that a new disease manifests itself—polyphotitis. The most severe outbreak occurred in 1988 when the Ofgas report contained no fewer than 13 separate photographs of the director general. Ofgas's attack of polyphotitis gradually subsided with 10 photographs in 1989, six in 1990 and three in 1991. We await the 1992 report with great interest to see whether the patient has made a complete recovery or whether there has been a relapse.
This plethora of photographs in the Ofgas report tells us something about the director general's personality. Is it a coincidence that he has the reputation for being the most stroppy with his industry? Mind you, we cannot rule out the possibility that he has been advised to do that. I was recently told of an ad man's jingle:
"If your client's hopping mad Put his picture in your ad".
Is the disease contagious? Apparently so, because the annual reports of both OFFER and Ofwat which first appeared in 1989 contained six and seven photographs of the director general respectively. Indeed the OFFER report started off with a bang since it contained studio portraits of the director general and his key staff which would not be out of place on top of the piano in a Victorian drawing room.
Is there immunity to this disease? I think that we may say yes, because the director general of Oftel has featured in one small passport-type photograph in the year 1989. It must be said that that photograph resembles nothing more than a Kuwait oil rig fire and the only clue to the director general's presence is the caption underneath the photograph.
In any high profile group of regulators such as these there is bound to be a great deal of awareness of what the others are doing. They would be very strong-minded people indeed if there was not a competitive element. Moreover, is this going to become a structured career, with regulators moving from one industry to another? Retirement has only just become an issue, and if a regulator retires is not his successor bound to feel that he must lean over backwards not to appear softer on his industry than his predecessor?
Given this growing group of regulators, we have to ask the question: who regulates the regulators? Anxieties have been expressed about this before. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, speaking during the Second Reading of the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill on the 14th February 1992 at col.953 said:
"While some of the respective Secretaries of State have certain powers over the regulators they are fairly limited. But this Bill gives a whole new set of powers to the regulators with few supervisory powers residing with the Secretaries of State. The Bill increases the powers of the regulators without a corresponding increase in accountability".
The lack of public accountability is very serious. If a director general is not doing his job properly or acceptably, there is no form of public accountability to force him to improve. To some extent, the director generals are accountable to the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State only has the power to fire a director general during his term (generally five years)
28
on grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour. This five years, of course, is a far longer term to spend in a particular office than an individual Secretary of State is likely to have.
This is a matter which will come before the House repeatedly until it is resolved and a fair balance is struck between the needs of the consumers and the needs of the industries. This matter becomes more pressing as the group of regulators grows in size. If the industries raise questions about how the regulators are behaving such questions can too easily be dismissed as special pleading, but in fact very often serious issues are involved. So I ask the Government once more to think very seriously, in the context of this Bill, about who will regulate the regulators.
4.32 p.m
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, in warmly welcoming this Bill, I crave your Lordships' indulgence while I say a few words about the United Kingdom coal industry. I have to declare an interest as I have an involvement in the private sector of that industry.
I must state at the outset that I am firmly in favour in general of the privatisation of nationalised industries. Privatisation has been one of the outstanding successes of this Conservative Government. Since 1979 some 46 major businesses, employing 920,000 people, have been transferred successfully to the private sector. In 1978– 79 those industries which have since been privatised received government subsidies of £2.6 billion—more than one-third of that year's NHS spend. In 1990– 91 those same companies paid the Exchequer approximately £2 billion in corporation tax.
Privatisation has brought benefits to every other industry: lower prices and better service for the consumer and the chance for employees to exercise their entrepreneurial skills. In addition, there is more job satisfaction and freedom from Government interference and diktat. I believe that the opportunities for the coal industry should be just as good, particularly as Her Majesty's Government are committed to giving employees a stake in the industry.
It is important, with the United Kingdom's substantial reserves of indigenous coal, that this fuel is produced efficiently, economically and with as little long-term disruption to the environment as possible. Of course the extractive industries all in varying degrees involve disruption to the environment as well as to local communities, but the national interest has to be brought into the equation and a balanced situation must be achieved and tolerated. The opencast industries have improved their act dramatically over recent years and, although these sites are unattractive in many ways while in operation. the production life of the majority of sites is limited. Moreover, refurbishment is carried out to a high standard with care and responsibility, often with the effect of producing a better end-product than that which existed at the start of extraction. I strongly suggest to your Lordships that a visit to an opencast colliery would be well worth while. It is a fascinating

29
experience, and one can see at first hand just exactly what a good job these people make at the end of the life of these operations.
To the benefit of the national interest, more economically and efficiently produced coal means cheaper and more competitive fuel and fewer foreign imports. That represents a major economic gain to the country. There can also be some planning gain for local communities in the form, for instance, of sports fields, golf courses, light industrial facilities and thoughtful landscaping of amenity areas for the general public.
It is my view that it would be most worth while if better formal arrangements under which more benefits would be obtainable by local communities affected by opencasting were allowed. After all, no one in his or her right mind enjoys living next door to such an operation, even though the disruption is relatively short-lived. That is often the case in other industrial areas as well. Often, the very thought of opencasting on their doorstep has the effect of creating an almost panic situation among local residents—an example of this is currently to he seen in the Potteries—and on occasion no amount of reassurance as to the final refurbishment of the area is enough to quieten concern.
Public hostility to the extractive industries generally, and to coal in particular, is one of two key challenges faced by the modern coal industry. The second major challenge is that the generators must be persuaded to accept that a thriving domestic coal industry is absolutely essential to them: indeed they would surely be foolish virgins to allow their lamps to be dependent upon foreign coal, with the ever-present danger to security of supply posed by disruption from war, among many other factors.
Finally, perhaps I may mention briefly a few thoughts on the form privatisation might take. There is a view—with which I entirely agree—in the private sector that atomisation of the industry would be detrimental. Far preferable, in my view, would be a multiple-unit reconstruction in which, in view of the problems of coal transportation and strong regional traditions, the units comprised two to four geographical regions. The result of such a framework would be real competition, with no undue risk of weakness against the generators. In particular, Scotland would offer an excellent example of a regional company with real potential, which I believe would be well received by the people of Scotland. Multiple-unit privatisation along these lines would, I believe, ensure new and highly commercial management and would realise far greater levels of efficiency and productivity. I believe that such a framework would achieve the medium-to long-term aim of achieving a truly competitive industry in the world marketplace.
There are many experts here: I do not pretend to be one. Suffice it to say that I welcome this Bill and look forward to an interesting and thoroughly informative series of debates ahead.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, as other noble Lords have stated, this is in fact not just a technical Bill; it is a very important Bill which opens doors to further major changes to two great industries. However, it gives little indication of the nature or details of the intended changes. Indeed, we are being asked to buy tickets for the mystery tour mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, but no maps are provided in advance.
My noble friend Lord Underhill has dealt primarily with British Rail. For myself, I shall concentrate on issues relating to coal, although I should add that there is definitely a connection. There is a connection between their fortunes. Some 80 per cent. of freight income of British Rail is dependent on the movement of coal. Therefore, the declining use of British coal through imports and the switch to gas has serous implications for the future of British Rail. They are, and have been for some time, locked together in a downward spiral based, I suggest, on the false assumption that at some ultimate, lower, ever-diminishing level of activity they become viable. In fact, as they become smaller they lose the capacity for national servicing and low pricing; and any decline in either industry inevitably damages the other.
I should like to ask a question about the efficiency and profitability of the coal industry. Will the Minister confirm, as I am sure she will, that the coal industry made a profit of £78 million in 1990–91 and is forecast to make a further profit in 1991–92, and that British Coal is in fact the most efficient and most productive coal industry in Europe? Will she also acknowledge that there is no practical reason for privatisation either on grounds of present efficiency or profitability, or on ground of competitiveness? Does she accept that it is unfair to judge British Coal's competitiveness on the basis of whether or not it can compete with imports from, say, Colombia or South Africa where labour conditions and pay are intolerable? Privatisation is mainly ideological, as my noble friend Lord Underhill said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, indicated. It puts at risk the nation's capacity to maintain security of supply of energy which in our case depends on maintaining some coal industry. Security of indigenous energy depends upon maintaining coal or relying wholly upon nuclear power.
I wish also to refer to the crucial question of electricity generators. Some of the problems of British Coal lie in the nature and activities of its main market purchasers. The electricity generators buy over 80 per cent. of our coal. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to that. The contracts being negotiated now will determine the future of our coal industry. Does the Minister have anything to report, not only on the important questions of price and future volume, but also on the duration of contracts? Without long-term contracts investment finance will not be available to the coal industry and without investment it cannot continue the recent commendable record of improving efficiency and lowering unit costs.
Can the Minister give some idea of the Government's thinking on the form of privatisation in the coal industry? The noble Earl said that it was too

31
early to do so. As we know, consultation finished in June. It would be quite unfair to ask for, and I would not expect, the detail, but any indication of the broad thrust of policy among known choices would be helpful. Will the industry be privatised intact as a single entity? Or will it be broken up piecemeal? That is very important. Small sections of the coal industry would be in a weak position to negotiate prices faced by the massive power of near monopoly customers in electricity generation.
I was interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said in a very good speech with regard to a regional basis for coal. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked, what will be sold? Will the whole mineral rights and reserves be handed over to whoever buys the industry privately or buys at the second stage—perhaps, international conglomerates or international mining companies? Alternatively, will the ownership of rights and reserves be retained with simply a licence to operate, as occurred fairly successfully with North Sea oil and gas. If so, what happens to licensing responsibility? Does it refer back to the Crown?
The Government have generously stated their pride in the safety of our mining industry, the safest in the world. However, will the Minister now guarantee the safety of our privately owned coal industry if it were to be taken over again by international conglomerate mining companies, some of whom we know have historically bad safety records? How will the Government guarantee that the safety records of such companies suddenly improve to the marvellous level of British Coal?
About 20 million tonnes of foreign coal enter this country. That is part of the massive trade deficit from which we suffer. I did not support the transfer, but now that the Department of Trade and Industry sponsors energy as well as having a direct responsibility for our trade performance, does it propose in any way to discourage those massive imports of foreign coal?
Clean coal technology is the key to the issue. If one wishes to put one's finger on a factor which is vital for ensuring a viable coal industry in this country, it is that aspect, with its massive potential for exports. If we could develop clean coal technology, we could export to the great coal consuming countries such as China and India where the scale of consumption of dirty coal is enormous, with its consequent impact on pollution of the atmosphere. The scope for selling clean coal technology is huge. What are the Government doing to invest in, and promote, it? Of more direct significance, what will happen to British Coal research into clean coal technology after privatisation? There is enormous public interest in that aspect. How will the public interest be protected after privatisation?
On a smaller scale—although it matters much to many people—will the Minister confirm that the existing concessionary benefits and entitlements of former employees and eligible dependants will continue? The matter relates back to the Coal Industry Bill with which we dealt in the last Session. In
32
that Bill the Government proposed to repeal the 1908 Coal Mines Regulation Act which limited the maximum number of hours a coal miner could work underground. One of the main arguments for that repeal was that the legislation was to be replaced by the new working times directive of the European Community. I now read—it was while I was abroad and I did not see all the details—that the Government have negotiated some exemptions for the UK under that directive. If that is so, will the Government now revise their views on repealing the 1908 Act?
Finally, I have a general but fundamental question. What do the Government envisage as the viable size for the coal industry? How many more pit closures are required to reduce the industry to that viability level? Is the coal industry on a slippery slope that ends at zero?
I wish to ask those questions of the Minister. In conclusion I wish more generally to suggest that the Government may be deceived and in pursuit of an illusion if they believe that privatisation will solve the deep difficulties involved in running, first, an adequate national rail service including mass commuter services operating only a few hours a day and, secondly, in maintaining the security of supply of our domestic coal industry when it is forced to compete with cut price imports and gas. In my view privatisation will accelerate the decline of both industries while conveniently shifting responsibility for that decline away from the Government. Not a single advanced country in the world has a successful railway industry based on private ownership. I believe that that was confirmed and powerfully explained in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. No country has a deep mined coal industry such as ours which is run successfully without public support.
I agree that it is right to explore new ways of private financing for public industries and new ways of co-operation between public and private sectors. Again, the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in what was an excellent and authoritative speech were most interesting. Total dependence on private finance for public services often means no public services. One has only to look at the Jubilee Line extension, the Paddington-Heathrow link, the Channel Tunnel rail link and at our European neighbours who run excellent railway services on a basis of public financial support. Look, too, at our coal industry, which is fading away even before privatisation. It is in danger of falling below that critical mass of size which is necessary to produce and to sell at competitive low prices.
During my political life I have never had much sympathy for widespread nationalisation or for massive state monopolies. Their failures are part of our recent life history. Furthermore, I believe in the benefits of market competition. However, there should be no absolute ideological view on the matter. We should never lose sight of the national interest with coal or the public interest with rail.
If free market competition promises only to destroy many of our rail services and most of our remaining coal industry, as I believe it does, it is surely right to pause and to question. We must ask: what are the

33
right structures to provide the best services for the rail travellers and at the least cost to the taxpayer? We must also ask: which structures will maintain a viable coal industry that will guarantee security of energy supply? Surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, argued so convincingly, this crucial matter should not be hurried. We need to give it more thought. We need White Papers and debates on those White Papers. We on this side of the House will look most carefully at what follows from this Bill in order to see whether those criteria and those requirements are met.
4.51 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and constructive debate. Not only did it cover the specific purpose of the Bill before us but also the issues that we shall be able to discuss at greater length when the main legislation to privatise British Coal and British Rail comes before this House. Therefore, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. They amply demonstrated their continuing interest in the future of the coal and rail industries and the regulators and also the depth of experience which exists within your Lordships' House.
My noble friend the Minister of State for Transport properly concentrated his speech on British Rail. Therefore, I shall confine the majority of my speech to British Coal. In doing so I shall seek to answer some of the points raised by your Lordships on the privatisation of British Coal. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out, the intention of the Bill is simply to confer on British Coal and British Rail powers to take those actions which are required to prepare for privatisation. It is perhaps worth dwelling on that point for a moment or two since it is fundamental.
The Bill does not give British Coal or British Rail any powers to implement the Government's proposals for privatisation. It gives them only the powers to consider those proposals and to make any necessary advance preparation for their implementation at a later date. I wish to make it quite clear that there are no powers given in the Bill which will enable British Coal and British Rail to make any transfers whatever of any of their functions, property, rights, and liabilities to any other body in response to a proposal by the Government.
It may help your Lordships if I explain that there is no need for the Bill to spell out any restriction on actual transfers. British Coal and British Rail, as creatures of statute, can take only those actions which they are permitted to take under the current legislation which affects them. Those actions would not include activities which', in the light of consideration of the Secretary of State's proposals, might have to be included in the main Bills for privatisation. In other words, there is nothing in the Bill which will enable the corporations to make any transfers beyond those currently permitted. The Bill merely provides for a necessary enlargement of the corporations' powers so as to permit them to do what currently they legally may not do; that is, to take any action which in their opinion is appropriate for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of proposals made by the Secretary of State.
34
I draw attention to the word "facilitate" in Clause 1(1). It relates to the preparatory work which may be needed. It does not cover the actual implementation of any proposal since that further power will not be available until provided by the main privatisation Bills. If the Government had intended that the Bill should enable transfers to take place the word "facilitate" would not appear in Clause 1.
It is most important that in drawing up their proposals for privatisation the Government can draw on the valuable advice and expertise within British Coal and British Rail. If the Government are to achieve their aims of securing the largest economic coal industry that the market can support and to provide better services for rail customers I am sure noble Lords will agree that it will make no sense for British Coal and British Rail to be unable to provide the Government with their advice when they are formulating detailed proposals. Indeed, I regard that advice as an integral part of the privatisation process.
Today we have ranged over many issues which although outside the Bill are of great relevance to it. In answering as many questions as I can I ask your Lordships to understand that I cannot go ahead of the White Paper nor comment on the consultation which has been only recently concluded. Those matters will come forward in due course.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the statutory closure procedures in British Rail will be maintained. The rumours of wholesale closures after privatisation are just that—rumours. My noble friend Lord Caithness also emphasised a complete commitment to safety on British Rail. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, showed his direct and great knowledge of the industry and I am sure that we shall be able to share that on future occasions. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Minister of State will read his words carefully. I remind my noble friend Lord Mountevans that the Government have already given the assurance that existing pension rights accrued by British Rail staff will be safeguarded on privatisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, by the nature of his questions, showed his great depth of knowledge and experience in the energy industry. I wish to point out to him that the Government's objective is to achieve the largest economic coal industry in the longer term. The future size of the coal industry will depend on its ability to continue to reduce its costs and to secure its share of the energy market in this country. That is in the industry's own hands. Since sales to the electricity generators represent 80 per cent. of British Coal's market the contracts to be negotiated with the generators will, to a large extent, determine the UK's demand for coal. It is too early to speculate how the next contracts will affect the likely future size of the industry; indeed, the contracts are commercial matters for the companies involved.
The Government's aim for restructuring the industry is to achieve a structure which allows the industry to be economically viable in a competitive market in the longer term. No decisions have been taken on the future structure of the privatised

35
industry. As has already been mentioned, interested parties were asked for their views by 22nd June and their responses are now being considered.
The list of the organisations which my noble friend approached are in the Libraries of both Houses. The replies are available from the organisations and individuals concerned if they wish that correspondence to be made public. However, we shall make public the details of all communications which we receive from the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission on the safety consequences of coal privatisation.
I am also pleased to say that privatisation of coal will not affect the benefits payable to British Coal pensioners. As with previous privatisations, the Government will ensure that the pension entitlements of existing contributors and past employees of the industry are properly safeguarded.
I am pleased also to repeat what my noble friend said: that privatisation will require through-ticketing to continue. A question of a debate on the White Paper is a matter for the usual channels.
Like all noble Lords, the Government recognise fully the hazardous nature of coal mining. We are determined that the current high standards and improvements to health and safety in the industry will be maintained after privatisation.
In reply to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I should tell him that no decisions have yet been taken on the precise timing of coal privatisation. As several noble Lords said, such considerations must proceed with the greatest care and the Government fully recognise that.
I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, and I have in common a knowledge of Wakefield. I suspect that the people of Wakefield may be prouder of the noble Lord's speeches than they are of mine. I discovered that we also have in common the fact that our grandfathers were employees of British Rail. Perhaps my superiority is that my grandfather was a driver. I regret that there is no book to commemorate his services to the industry, but I have his watch. The noble Lord's analysis of the regulators will not go unread and will be well noted. More seriously, I am sure that my honourable friend the Minister for Energy will note the other matters raised by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that coal should be profitable and efficient. I can confirm that British Coal made its first bottom-line profit for 13 years in 1990– 91 and it expects to make a bottom-line profit in 1991– 92. However, further improvements in productivity are needed for the industry to take its rightful place as a competitive fuel supplier in the market place. I can confirm also that British Coal is the most efficient coal-producing company in Europe but to secure its future it must be able to compete with the most productive producers in the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked for guidance on the form and structure of privatisation. Those are vitally important areas and I shall ensure that the noble Lord's anxieties in that sphere are noted. However, the time to discuss those must be
36
when we introduce our main legislative proposals. The noble Lord asked also about coal imports. Decisions by coal purchasers as to whether to purchase local or imported coal must be for the commercial judgment of those concerned. As we all know, the best prospects for the British coal industry lie in producing reliable supplies which are competitive both with imports and with alternative fuels.
The Government are confident that the industry has the technology, investment and skilled workforce to successfully meet that challenge. I remind your Lordships that imports can contribute to a diverse and secure supply of low-cost fuel. The Government agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, about the importance of the development of clean coal technology. We shall give careful consideration to the future of British Coal's research in that area in the context of privatisation.
I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that the Government will ensure that existing concessionary fuel entitlements earned as a result of service with British Coal will be safeguarded. Therefore, privatisation of the industry will not affect concessionary fuel benefits to former employees of the industry and their eligible dependents.
The Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908 will not be repealed until either the proposed Community directive on working time is adopted or, if agreement on that is not reached, until an alternative UK measure is introduced. We are aware of the need to keep that in mind.
The matter of future licensing arrangements was also raised. The arrangements for granting rights to coal after privatisation are obviously of great importance. That is an area which we intend to get right. We recognise the need to ensure that we avoid the inherent conflicts of interest associated with the present regime. Again, that matter will obviously concern your Lordships when the main legislation comes forward.
The Government's privatisation policy stems from the belief that enterprise flourishes best and provides a better service to customers in a commercial environment where management is free to manage without interference from government while being subject to the demands of the market. The future development of British Coal is hampered by remaining in the public sector while its main customers—the electricity generators—now operate successfully in the private sector. Recent years have seen major change.
As I said earlier, this short Bill is a preliminary but important step towards the privatisation of British Coal and British Rail. There will be many opportunities to discuss again the important issues raised today on the details of privatisation when the main Bills are brought forward. I am sure that the matters raised will be taken into account by my honourable friend the Minister for Energy.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down will she indicate whether in addition to the White Paper on railways there will be a White Paper on coal?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, there will be no White Paper on coal. Consultation has been comprehensive and, as I say, the replies will be available from those parties consulted. We do not propose to bring forward a White Paper.
There is no doubt that the changes that we propose for British Coal and British Rail will be of great benefit to the nation and the consumer. They will result in greater efficiency, better use of resources and will encourage and motivate those who work in the industries.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I understand that her ministerial responsibilities do not extend to rail but I asked an extremely important question about Section 20 grants affecting the passenger transport authorities. Will she say anything about that?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as I said earlier, I hope noble Lords will understand that I cannot go ahead of the White Paper, which I am sure the noble Lord will read with great interest. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Companies (Single Member Private Limited Companies) Regulations 1992
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th June be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the regulations is to implement the 12-company law directive adopted on 21st December 1989. That directive provides that member states must allow the formation of a private limited company having one member or shareholder and must permit a company to be a single member company when all its shares come to be held by one person. At present the Companies Act 1985 requires that a company formed in Great Britain must have at least two members.
The regulations expressly authorise the formation and continuation of single member companies. The Government believe in removing unnecessary restrictions on companies. The requirement for a second shareholder is not a barrier to incorporation. Company founders have generally been able to find a second subscriber to play a nominal role in order to comply with the law. But it is a restriction that produces no benefit. It can be wasteful and troublesome both for the sole trader and the larger company. The regulations remedy that situation by removing the need for private limited companies to have a second shareholder. I hope that the House will feel able to approve the regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th June be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 1992
5.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd June be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the order transfers from the Secretary of State to the Parole Board, responsibility for the release and recall of long-term prisoners who are sentenced to less than seven years under the new Act from 1st October this year.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I were to say something about the existing parole scheme. At present, prisoners who are serving more than 12 months in prison must serve one-third of their sentence before they can become eligible for parole. Whatever length of time a prisoner may have spent being remanded in custody—which can be offset against his prison sentence—he must spend at least six months in prison before being eligible for parole.
Every case is considered by a local review committee, and the more serious cases—those who are serving four years or more—are also seen by the Parole Board. The middle third of the sentence is available for parole. Those who do not receive it are released unconditionally at the two-thirds point of sentence.
But the scheme does not work in all cases in the way in which the court may have wished. Those who are in most need of supervision often do not obtain parole. They are then released, as it were,"cold" into the community. The system has also been criticised for its secrecy. Because of those short comings, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State asked my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow to look at the parole scheme and at remission. My noble friend's committee reported in 1988. The new arrangements largely follow its recommendations which were warmly received.
But there was one area where the Government felt unable to agree with the committee. The committee had proposed that Ministers should withdraw from the decision-making process entirely, and that they should give the Parole Board the final say on the release and recall of all long-term prisoners. Ministers consider that Ministers should keep the responsibility for the release of those who have committed extremely serious offences because, in the end, it is Ministers who are responsible for the safety of the public. Therefore, in the White Paper, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, published in 1990, the Government proposed that the Parole Board should have sole responsibility for deciding the release of those who are serving more than four but less than seven years of imprisonment.
The order before your Lordships this evening will transfer to the Parole Board certain functions which are at present held by the Secretary of State relating to those offenders who are sentenced under the new Criminal Justice Act when Part II of the Act comes into force in October.
The Act introduces three new early release schemes. Although two of them are outside the scope of the order, your Lordships may find it helpful for me to explain all of the schemes. Those who are serving sentences of less than 12 months will be released automatically at the half-way point of sentence, subject to their good prison behaviour. Their release will be delayed by any additional days which may have been awarded for misbehaviour. They will not be supervised on release but, like all prisoners who are released under the Act, they will be under liability until the end of the sentence.
No longer will there be "remission". These prisoners will be "at risk". If they commit a further imprisonable offence before the end of their sentence, the outstanding period of the original sentence may be added to any new sentence. That gives more impact to the sentence which was originally passed by the court while giving some incentive to good behaviour.
For those who are serving between 12 months and under four years, there will be an Automatic Conditional Release Scheme. Those prisoners will also be released automatically at the half-way point—subject to good prison behaviour. But, on release, they will receive compulsory supervision from the probation service. That supervision, which will be on licence, will extend to the three-quarters point of their sentence. Thereafter they will be at risk. The judge may direct, though, that the licence period should run to the end of the sentence for some sex offenders.
The licence will make real demands on the individual. A condition may be added, for instance, requiring him to attend on a course to address an alcohol problem or to prohibit contact with a named victim, and the man who is on licence may be recalled to prison if the licence conditions are breached.
I have referred to two schemes which are not the subject of this order in order to put the schemes into perspective. I now turn to the new parole scheme, which is the subject of this order. This is tougher than the present parole scheme. It will apply to those prisoners who are sentenced to four years or more on or after 1st October this year. They will have to serve at least half of their sentence in custody—instead of one-third, which is the case at the moment—before becoming eligible for discretionary release.
Those who do not receive parole will be released at the two-thirds point of their sentence automatically. But release in either case will be on a licence, which will last up to the three-quarters point, or in the case of some sex offenders to the end of their sentence. The fact that those who are released without the benefit of parole are to receive compulsory supervision for a period—one-twelfth of sentence—is a real improvement on the present scheme.
I should add that sentence planning will form an integral part of the scheme. Prisoners will see the reports which constitute the parole dossier, and the Parole Board will give reasons for its decisions. That represents a significant step towards a more open and a more fair scheme—one in which the prisoner knows
40
what is going on, sees what is going on and one in which he can realise the effect of his own behaviour. I am sure that it will be widely welcomed.
I have already indicated that Ministers have decided to retain the final say on the early release for those who are serving sentences of seven years and more. Those represent the minority of long-term prisoners.
The Parole Board has done excellent work under the direction of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and his predecessors. The Parole Board has amassed considerable skill and expertise in making difficult judgments about the release of offenders, including those who have committed extremely serious offences and who pose most risk to the rest of the community. But it is the Home Secretary who has the responsibility for public safety. That is a public responsibility for which he is responsible to Parliament and it should not be delegated to a body of people, however eminent.
Ministers decided, therefore, that it should be they who should continue to consider the cases of those who are serving the longer sentences. Those people will have committed the most serious offences such as robbery with violence or violent sexual crimes. It is right that Ministers should continue to safeguard the public by making the decisions on when and whether those persons who are serving that kind of sentence should be allowed back into, and among, the public. Ministers will, of course, have the advantage of all the expert and professional advice on each case, but the decision will remain that of the Home Secretary.
The seven-year determining point was fully debated during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. We believe that this is the right point for the start of the new scheme. But the Act also provides for Parliament to be able by order to approve a higher, or indeed a lower, threshold if, in the light of experience, that seems to be right.
When the Criminal Justice Act comes into force, the Parole Board will apply specific directions on the release and recall of prisoners which will be given to it by the Home Secretary. These directions will come in on 1st October. They will be announced shortly, and they will be made available in the Library of both Houses of Parliament.
On release, the directions will set out three conditions which have to be satisfied before the Parole Board can recommend parole. They relate to the risk of further offences being committed; to the prisoner's willingness to tackle offending behaviour; and to the resettlement plan of the prisoner and his rehabilitation.
These directions will require the board to assess the risk which is posed to the community if an offender should be released early into the community under supervision. Under the order, the Parole Board will have the final say on the release of prisoners who are serving between four and under seven years. At the moment, it makes recommendations. But the Home Secretary very rarely overturns the board's recommendations. Out of almost 4,000 cases in which the

41
board recommended parole last year, the Home Secretary overturned the board's recommendations in only 13 cases.
The order will also extend the board's existing recall powers. It requires the Secretary of State to act on the board's recommendation to revoke a prisoner's licence and to recall him. Under the present arrangements, the Secretary of State, via the Parole Board, can only recall a prisoner if there has been a recommendation by the board or by the courts, except in the case of an emergency. And he must release an inmate, who has been recalled by emergency authority, if the board so recommends.
Under the new arrangements, the criteria for recall will also be set out in policy directions to the Parole Board. These will be published together with the release directions. The directions will require the board to assess the risk to the public if the offender is allowed to remain on licence. It will also have to assess the extent of his compliance with the conditions of the licence.
The order will also provide that the Parole Board, in the light of its expert assessment of any case, may set conditions to the licence for released prisoners. This will allow the Parole Board to fit the detailed licence conditions to the circumstances of each offender, and to take into account the level of risk, which is involved in release, in every case.
These may include conditions which prohibit contact with named individuals, or conditions which will require attendance on courses which are designed to tackle alcohol or drug abuse. This will be done in close consultation with probation officers in order to ensure the correct level of supervision, such as prohibiting contact with a young victim in, for example, a sexual abuse case.
Parole is by no means granted automatically in every case. The Parole Board's annual report for 1991 states that parole was recommended in 53 per cent. of cases last year. Only 8 per cent. of those who were paroled were subsequently recalled to custody. I suggest that the arrangements which are introduced by this order represent a significant improvement in the way in which parole decisions are administered, both in the interests of offenders and of ensuring the protection of the public. I trust that this order will meet with the approval of your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd June be approved [4th Report from the Joint Commit tee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
5.24 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the order so clearly and for setting it in a context which gives me an excuse for moving fairly widely. I was rather surprised to hear him say—if I heard the noble Earl aright—that government policy is largely based on the Carlisle Report and that it is a tougher system of parole. When we discussed that report here there was no suggestion that it was a tougher scheme but there was a suggestion that it was a more enlightened and liberal one.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may just interrupt the noble Earl. I can assure him that I will not do it again. The toughness was supposed to refer to the time spent in prison and not to the parole conditions.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry but I cannot follow the point. I am talking about the treatment of prisoners and I understood that it was tougher on them. Anyway, I have made myself plain and I am afraid that the noble Earl has not, as far as I can understand him.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, produced a memorable report. A very generous tribute was paid to a committee of which I was chairman, which reported on penal matters generally. I am not sure whether it is in order to refer to anyone sitting on the Woolsack, but a lady not 100 miles from here was one of the most distinguished members of the committee. According to the Carlisle Report, that was the first committee which specifically recommended a parole scheme. I am sure that all the members of that committee will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, for that reference.
However, when the report was debated in this House the noble Earl said that it was well received. It was not well received by me. I pointed out that it was likely to result in more people in prison rather than fewer. I said that then and I say it again now. In fact, according to the latest Home Office calculations, as a direct result of the Government's policy which we are told stems from the Carlisle Report, there may be anything up to 1,400 more prisoners in prison, so the Government's parole policy may be tougher. That policy is not in accordance with the principles of the Carlisle Report as they were understood at the time.
The report offered the hope and expectation that the judiciary would adjust its sentencing policy and therefore there would be fewer people in prison. At the time I expressed the opinion that that was the triumph of hope over experience and so it has proved. The judiciary has not adjusted its policy and the likely result of the Government's parole policy is that there will be more people in prison. That is the unhappy result.
So much on the general question of the Government's parole policy. As regards this particular order, I am leaving it to my noble friend Lord Richard who will deal with it much more effectively. As the noble Earl went fairly wide in his remarks, perhaps I may offer a few remarks about the position of life prisoners. It may be pointed out that life prisoners do not receive parole, but are released on licence. However, it is almost impossible to discuss the whole question of parole without dealing with life prisoners.
Last Thursday I visited a lady in Holloway aged 39. She is serving a life sentence for her share in the murder of her husband's mistress. She was not present when the offence was committed. It was a horrible murder committed by two other people. Although they may have thought they were carrying out her wishes she had no control over them. She was certainly not in a position to pay them. It may be felt that her share was not the greatest. At any rate, she recognises that she shared in the murder and that she used

43
gravely compromising words. She feels also that it is quite right that she should receive the severe punishment which she is receiving.
I now come to the point. She has been informed by a Home Office official that she will not be considered for parole until the year 2004. That will be 17 years from the time when she first went to prison. It is generally assumed that it takes another three years to come out of prison. Therefore this lady will spend 20 years in prison without an appeal to anybody and just on the notification from the Home Office official. I shall not be long and there is a great deal to be said. I hope that we shall have a debate on this subject later in the year. This lady is of course serving a mandatory life sentence and not a discretionary one.
Perhaps I may quote something said by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in the debate on the Address.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, stated:
"After October … "—
that is, this October—
"there will be the extraordinary spectacle of two separate systems running in parallel. One will be for the so-called discretionary lifers, which will be more open, and fairer, and will have sufficient judicial characteristics to satisfy the European Convention on Human Rights, and should lead to better informed decisions."
That does not apply to this lady.
The noble Lord continued:
"The other, for so-called mandatory lifers, will retain the objectionable features of decisions taken by the Executive, in private, in the absence of the prisoner or his legal representative, on grounds that are never disclosed."
That is the system under which the lady to whom I have referred is living her life.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, went on to say:
"That cannot be right. Moreover, it is unlikely to endure".—[Official Report,12/5/92: col.252.]
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, went on to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when he was Leader of the House. He quoted him at some length, but I shall cut it short. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, had said:
"With regard to the debate on mandatory life sentences, I am sure that we have not heard the last of it, and it may be that on maturer reflection, policy will move in the direction which some of your Lordships wish to see".—[Official Report,23/7/91; col.652.]
That was in the direction of obliterating any distinction between mandatory and discretionary life sentences. That was the attitude of the House, and the Leader of the House at the time gave the impression that eventually that would prevail.
As I have not given the Minister more than five minutes' notice of this, I am certainly not asking him to pronounce on this particular case, which I hope to take up in some other way, and nor am I asking the House to pronounce on it, but I am asking the House—without any kind of vote, of course—to agree that justice will not be done to this lady or to others like her until the views that have been expressed so firmly by your Lordships' House, by the judiciary and by penal reformers all combine together for once. I repeat that justice will not be done until the views that were expressed in the House of Lords in 1991 prevail.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that we on these Benches generally support the order which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has moved.
In so far as the speech of my noble friend Lord Longford was connected with abolishing the distinction between mandatory and discretionary life sentences, he will know that he is pushing at an open door as far as we are concerned. It is a little unfortunate that the overwhelming view of this House, including that of many noble and learned Lords who have spoken in such debates, among them, I believe, the then Lord Chief Justice, was ignored by the Government in that somewhat cavalier way. However, that matter ranges perhaps wider than the precise order that we are considering.
We welcome the order as a step in the right direction. I should, however, like to raise four matters with the noble Earl, of which I have given him short prior notice. Although he has not had much prior notice, I believe that he is at least vaguely aware of the matters that I want to raise with him. The first is to ask why a period of seven years has been chosen. Why not eight, nine, or 10? Indeed, why any period at all? In another place, the Minister responsible, Mr. Peter Lloyd, merely said that in his view seven years had been chosen as "a matter of judgment". But on what is that judgment based? Is it based upon some statistical analysis of the kind of crimes that attract sentences of seven years or more, as opposed to the kind of crimes that attract sentences of seven years or under? Is it based somehow or other on the desire to be tougher on certain classes of case which, if one analyses the statistics, fall into the over-seven-year category rather than the under-seven-year category?
Of course, it is always nice to know that a Minister is exercising his judgment on a particular matter, but it might be a little more helpful if at some stage the Government could give us an indication of the basis upon which they have come to this judgment. As the noble Earl said, it cannot be on the basis of the Carlisle Committee report. I shall quote merely one sentence from that report. The Carlisle Committee was emphatic about the need for the change, stating:
"The present structure is not the right one for the new scheme which we propose. We believe that the only answer to these problems is for the Home Secretary to cease to be responsible for individual parole decisions".
If the thrust of the Carlisle Report was that decisions in relation to parole should be removed from the Home Secretary and passed to the Parole Board—and it is a thrust that we would accept—we think that it is wrong that the Home Secretary should get himself involved in parole decisions. For the life of me, I do not see how the Government can say,"Very well, we accept the thrust of the argument in relation to sentences of under seven years, but we shall have a cut-off point at seven years". Again, if they accept the thrust of the Carlisle Report, it is for the Government to justify why they have chosen the somewhat arbitrary figure of seven years as the point at which they will start disregarding that report.

45
Secondly, I am concerned about directions that may be given to the Parole Board. Again, in another place, the Minister responsible, Mr. Lloyd, stated:
"When the Criminal Justice Act comes into force, the Parole Board will apply specific directions given to it by the Home Secretary on release … The directions set out three conditions which have to be satisfied before the Parole Board can recommend parole. They relate to the risk of further offences being committed; the prisoner's willingness to tackle offending behaviour; and the resettlement plan and rehabilitation".—[Qfficial Report, Commons,6/7/92; col.146.]
All those conditions apply to the individual prisoner—in other words, one assumes that the direction will say that the Parole Board has to consider whether or not that prisoner is likely to commit further offences; whether that prisoner is willing to tackle offending behaviour; and whether that prisoner has a sensible resettlement plan for his rehabilitation. As I understand it, therefore—and this is the point upon which I should like confirmation from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—any idea that by those directions one will exclude certain classes of crime from the consideration of the Parole Board will now go. In other words, one cannot say in relation to certain sexual offences, certain drug offences or certain offences of violence that the Parole Board will be directed by the Home Secretary not to consider parole in relation to those classes of offence. As I understand it, the directions that are coming from the Home Office will apply to individuals, not to a class of case. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is, in fact, the position.
I also question whether the power—and, indeed, intention—to issue guidelines, which the Government have announced both tonight and recently in another place, is still appropriate in cases where the Parole Board will be given greater powers and, indeed, almost the ultimate say in respect of offences for which somebody has been sentenced to a term of up to seven years. In those cases, why should the discretion not be left to the Parole Board? Why should the board not be allowed to get on with it? I hope that I am not being unduly combative in relation to the directions, but I really do think that it would be helpful if we knew a little more of the Government's thinking as to precisely what the directions will cover.
We welcome the statement that in future prisoners will be able to see the reports that constitute the parole dossier and that the Parole Board will in future give reasons for its decisions, which it does not do at present. I assume that that will apply only to prisoners who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment of less than seven years—or is it the intention that prisoners will be able to see the dossier if they have been sentenced to a term longer than seven years but where the Parole Board is in the process of considering it? If the latter is the case, will prisoners who are sentenced to terms of longer than seven years also be given the reason the Parole Board turned them down for parole for those offences—if it did turn them down? I assume also that where prisoners see the parole dossier and the board gives reasons for its decisions that process will be subject to judicial review in the usual way, though I suspect that it will not be appealable in any real sense of the word.
46
However one looks at this change the Parole Board and the probation service will require more resources. When the Criminal Justice Bill was passing through Parliament in 1991 it was perfectly clear that the probation service would be called on to shoulder greater responsibilities and to fulfil a great many more tasks. At that time we on these Benches made the point that the probation service would need greater resources if it was to do the job properly. The order imposes additional responsibilities on both the Parole Board and the probation service. They will need greater resources. I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that those resources will be forthcoming.
As I indicated at the outset of my remarks, broadly, we support the order as a step in the right direction.
5.41 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his welcome for the order. When I saw that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had put down his name to speak I thought that he would be pleased that the Government were producing yet another liberalising measure. I expected his agreement to it. But the noble Earl was a trifle perturbed by my use of the word "tough".
The Government are always in the difficulty of what to do with people who have misbehaved in society and how to make them better and make them improve. There has to be an element of toughness. We have tried to say that those who commit the worst offences—the most serious offences—should spend longer in prison and that they will now spend half of their sentence in prison as opposed to a third. In my book that is being tougher. It does not mean that the regime in prison will accord with the noble Earl's view of toughness; the fact is, however, that those people will be in prison for longer. What we have then tried to do is give them more chance of remission and more chance of doing better outside prison. In that way we have shown an enlightened view.
The noble Earl referred to lifers. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, put it very well when he said that that was going somewhat wide of the order. I thought that it was quite a lot wide of the order. However, I do not blame the noble Earl for trying to make his point. He was not out of order; he merely extended the scope of the debate considerably. However, I do not think it is necessarily a point in which we want to get too involved today. There is a distinction between a mandatory life sentence and a discretionary life sentence and I know that that distinction irritates a number of people, including the noble Earl. He will remember that Parliament endorsed the distinction, admittedly after some fairly fearful arguments, when it enacted the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The release of those serving mandatory life sentences will continue to be the responsibility of the Home Secretary, following a recommendation from the Parole Board and consultation with the judiciary.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his support for the order. He was quite fair in asking his questions. He asked why on earth the Government had chosen seven years as being the point where the

47
Home Secretary should be responsible for releasing those people on parole. He asked why, if the thrust is to let the Parole Board make the decision, the Home Secretary should keep the power after seven years. The best way of putting it is this. The Parole Board knows full well the details of all these cases. It is the best body to judge the most suitable time to release a prisoner. But in the end the Home Secretary is responsible for public law and order. It is up to him, we believe, to say when those who have committed the worst offences should be allowed back into society and among people. That responsibility should belong to the Home Secretary. Of course, he will take the advice of the Parole Board. And, of course, he will take the advice of all those who know the individual. But in the worst cases—those who have committed the worst offences—it is right that the Home Secretary should, in respect of his duties for public law and order, keep that responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to the directions—
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, I wonder whether he would be kind enough to deal with this problem. He referred to the "worst cases". If, for the sake of argument, one accepts that point—I do not—why does he make the assumption that seven years should be the cut-off point for the worst offences? One could have a case of someone serving 10 years for a financial offence and someone else serving six years for an offence of violence. How can one make that comparison merely on the length of the sentence?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise for not answering the noble Lord's point. It is a perfectly fair question to ask. One has to make a judgment somewhere. If one had said "eight years" or "six years", the noble Lord, Lord Richard, could still have come up with the same question. We consider that seven years is a reasonable length of time. Anyone who has been in prison for more than seven years has committed some fairly heinous crimes. We have also allowed for the fact that, if this is proved to be incorrect, then by a further order Parliament can either raise that length of time or lower it. There is flexibility there. Clearly, one has to start something new from a given position. We thought that that was a reasonable period of time to take.
With regard to directions, Ministers will give the Parole Board directions on release and recall. Those will be promulgated shortly by way of a parliamentary Question and a letter from the Ministers to the chairman of the Parole Board. It is hoped to do that before the Recess. Copies of the letter and the directions will be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, is correct that any directions will be given to the board on individual cases and not on classes of case.
The noble Lord also referred to the dossier. As part of the policy of openness, this dossier, which contains the papers for Parole Board consideration, will be disclosed to the prisoner. There will be very limited exceptions to the policy of openness. Exceptions will
48
be decided by the chairman of the Parole Board. Prisoners will be able to seek corrections to the papers. It is hoped that these will be resolved via the internal procedures before the Parole Board considers the case. This will apply to prisoners who serve more than seven years as well as to those who have left seven years. The noble Lord referred to judicial review. Decisions like this are ultimately liable to judicial review but we hope that that such cases will be few and far between. We should like to see those problems adjusted and addressed before reaching that ultimate sanction.
The noble Lord referred to resources and said that if people are being given more work they should have more resources. The number of people on the Parole Board will be increased from 60 to 80. That increase will be resourced, and therefore there will be increased resources.
I hope that I have dealt with the points raised by the noble Lord. I am grateful to noble Lords for their support for the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

River Usk Barrage Bill [H.L.]
5.49 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The interest in the Bill appears to be increasing. The last time that I introduced the River Usk Barrage Bill to the House on 13th March 1991, there were 10 speakers on the list. I am glad to say that this evening we have 13 speakers. In fact, the Bill has engendered a great deal of interest over the past year.
Noble Lords will know that the joint promoters of the Bill are the Borough of Newport and the County of Gwent. The purpose of the Bill is to,
"empower Newport Borough Council to construct a barrage across the River Usk; to empower Gwent County Council to construct roads and to carry out highway improvements … to empower the said Councils to carry out other works and to acquire lands; to provide for the control and development of part of the river Usk for amenity and recreation".
As I said on 13th March last year, the Bill is the cornerstone of a sustained and long-term plan by Newport to regenerate the centre of the town and to attract inward investment.
Noble Lords will know that Newport was, this year, commended by the Audit Commission as one of the two most effective councils to carry out economic development strategies. The Audit Commission's review put Newport Borough Council in top joint position with Bolton, and was based on the results of a study of the economic development strategies of local authorities in England and Wales. Those economic development strategies were examined on a value for money basis. The Audit Commission's award is a tribute to both the commitment and the enthusiasm of the council, and of its officers, in pursuing bold and well thought-out plans to bring investment and employment to Newport. That is just exactly what they should be doing.
As a result of Newport's economic development strategies, the TSB, Panasonic, the Patent Office, Newbridge Networks and the Imperial College of Science and Technology have all relocated in the

49
town. Imperial College has joined with the borough and the Welsh Development Agency in setting up a 50-acre science park at Duffryn and Imperial House. That, in turn, is part of the bigger Celtic Lakes development which will eventually cover 170 acres and is set to become one of the most prestigious science and business parks in the whole of Europe.
But although the borough of Newport has been successful in attracting development to sites with immediate access to the M.4 motorway, little new industrial or commercial investment has been attracted into the centre of the town. The tendency of companies to take up sites along the M.4 corridor and around Newport's "green belt" is posing an acute dilemma for the council. It naturally wishes to continue to attract such investment and generate new jobs for the high number of unemployed within Newport and Gwent. But, at the same time, the council also wishes to protect the beautiful countryside which surrounds Newport from development pressures. Such pressures will undoubtedly be there and, indeed, are there at the moment. Equally, the council is concerned to improve the heart of Newport town itself. Part of that will be the regeneration of the Pillgwenlly area which at present has the appearance, in my view, of a downtown area in some big American city.
The last objective is one that cannot easily be understood by those who do not know Newport and who have not visited the town. I had the privilege of visiting the town at a time when the tide was extremely low. It does not surprise me that the Usk's unpleasant mudscapes, which are used as industrial and domestic rubbish tips, and the river's wide open sewer, deter potential investors.
The fact that the river is an environmental and visual mess helps to explain why, since 1988,15 companies intending to relocate within Newport expressed substantial interest until being shown the town. As a result of their perception of the town, those 15 companies did not proceed further. Between 1987 and 1992 Newport attracted £179 million of inward investment. Of that, only £3.3 million went to the riverside.
The distortion in the direction of private commercial investment can also be demonstrated by a comparison between the £155 million invested in the periphery of the town against £23 million invested in the centre.
Newport's position as the first major urban area with assisted area status on the M.4 from London provides an important advantage in competing for highly mobile foreign and domestic investment. It has low land premises and labour costs if compared to similar costs in Cardiff, Bristol and Gloucester. However, the increasing problems of congestion on the M.4 itself and the pressures that further development will place on newport's "green belt", have increased the borough's determination to deflect investment from motorway sites and from countryside areas into the already developed centre. I should have thought that we would all say Amen to that. Is that
50
not in fact what we want? As a result, this must be a scheme which needs, and which should have, very good consideration.
Newport has high rates of unemployment in its centre. The unemployment figure now stands at 3,874 in Newport East and 3,978 in Newport West. For the Newport travel-to-work area, it is 9.6 per cent. of the available workforce. Of the 20 borough wards in Newport,42 per cent. of the total unemployment in April was concentrated in just six riverside wards. I emphasise that fact.
The town's municipal leaders are aware that it is primarily the young who are being affected by this unemployment; for example,49 per cent. of those who had been unemployed for over a year in April 1992 were between the ages of 20 and 34. Opportunities for the young people of Newport to obtain and develop new skills in a rapidly changing work environment are constrained by the lack of investment in the town centre. At the same time, Newport is suffering from outward migration. Its white collar and professional workers cannot put their talent to use with firms in Newport, as they should be able to do. It is precisely to attract jobs for that type of worker and to progress job and promotion prospects as a whole, that the borough council has embarked on this bold economic development scheme, together with others.
We must all remember that outward migration of Newport's young people is largely to already overcrowded areas of the South-East. I live in Reading where we also suffer those pressures. If we are to improve the environment of the South-East, we need to provide opportunities in areas like Newport so that young people do not have to leave their homes, their relatives and families to go elsewhere. So improving the environment and job prospects of Newport people will also help keep down jobless levels in many areas in London and the South-East, and improve the environment.
This Bill is central to the vision of Newport's leaders for their town. It has all-party support and the borough is confident that the scheme can be funded from existing balances, from projected land sales, from contributions made by other parties and from modest long-term borrowing.
I have some experience of the enthusiasm felt for this scheme by the people of Newport because I visited the exhibition, which has been placed in the heart of the shopping centre so that as many people as possible can have the opportunity to see it. It had been set up by the council as part of its process for consulting the citizens of Newport. The exhibition was packed. I could hardly get in. I heard only positive and enthusiastic comments about the scheme from the people who visited. The people of Newport know that it will revive their town and will help bring together communities to the east and west of the turbulent River Usk. Opinion surveys have shown that approximately two-thirds of the people of Newport felt that the barrage would make the town more attractive and that it would attract more jobs to the town.
As I have previously indicated, the River Usk has a dramatically wide tidal range of 45 feet, second only

51
in the world to the St. Lawrence river in its tidal variation. That high tidal variation affects people and property, for at high tide there is a very real threat of flooding especially in the area of Crindau.
Flood tides occur when the tide exceeds a peak of 7.9 metres. Floods have occurred on four occasions since 1960: in 1981 when it reached 8.4 metres; in 1985 when it exceeded 7.9 metres; in March 1989 when it was 8.01 metres and as recently as February 1990 when the tide reached 8.17 metres. The floods which devastated Towyn also caused flooding in both Newport and Caerleon. Flooding also occurs whenever heavy storms are accompanied by high spring tides. That happens on average twice every five years, and may well happen with increasing frequency as a result of the greenhouse effect.
The Usk River Barrage is intended to address three main major development objectives, the first two of which cannot be achieved without the barrage. They are, first, to attract investment to the centre; and, secondly, to prevent flooding due indirectly to the tide. That will protect lives and property in Newport. Thirdly, as part of the barrage scheme, the objective is to divert raw sewage outlets, something which I am sure we all applaud. An additional and very welcome benefit will be the development of the river as a pleasant recreational area for the people of Newport, which will replace the unsightly mud flats which face them at present.
Your Lordships will know that Newport first deposited its Bill with this House in March 1991. Unfortunately the drought of both that and the previous year prevented the authority from completing its water quality studies and from carrying out further groundwater studies. The council therefore withdrew the Bill to give petitioners adequate time to consider the council's environmental assessment.
As a result of further studies undertaken since May 1991, the council feels even more confident that a suitable high water area can be maintained. The research undertaken has demonstrated that both the volume and the period of tidal intrusion over the barrage will be less than originally thought. The council now believes that a suitable high water area will be maintained with no significant sedimentation or water quality problems.
Water quality studies have demonstrated that NRA standards can be met. Favourable results have also been obtained from the algae model. Just as important, the council's groundwater studies give it confidence that there will be no significant groundwater problems arising from the barrage project. Nevertheless, the council is promoting an additional provision to the Bill which will provide for compensation for residents who may be affected by any rise in groundwater levels. There have been further feasibility studies during the year including that for the design of the fish locks. That brings me to the most controversial aspect of the barrage; namely, its likely impact on the passage of salmon up and down the river.
Newport has been taking continuous advice on the most appropriate design for a fish pass to maximize
52
the passage of all types of fish. Your Lordships will know that modern engineering and environmental estimates are iterative processes. Newport Borough Council is keen to ensure that "state of the art" techniques are used in the construction of the barrage. The council has continuously sought improvements rather than relying simply on proposals currently before it.
That approach or methodology is to be applauded and indeed Dr. Richard Creswell of the NRA said at a consultative meeting with Newport that
"technology regarding fish pass design is progressing all the time … and both the NRA, MAFF and Newport's consultants are aiming to get the best design".
The fish pass will now be made up of twin fish locks measuring 30 metres by 9 metres (97 feet by 29 feet six inches). It will help your Lordships visualise the size of those locks if I tell you that your Lordships' Chamber measures 80 feet by 45 feet. Your Lordships will then realise that the locks are very big indeed. They will be able to handle the fish reasonably easily. I tell your Lordships that because it will give you some idea of the size of the locks and what Newport is trying to achieve.
The locks will be similar to a boat lock on a canal. The advantages of the fish pass are that it can pass fish at all states of the tide; a far larger flow of water can be accommodated (the equivalent of the normal summer flows of the river); and fish do not have to expend great energy in negotiating the pass. The pass will in effect act as lifts in a hotel do, except that in this hotel there will always be a lift open on the ground floor. The locks will operate throughout the day at a 20-minute cycle with fish being able to enter the lock 24 hours a day.
For almost 60 per cent. of all tides the river will overtop the barrage and fish will be able to swim freely across for a period of between two and two-and-a-half hours. Secondly, all normal river flows will be catered for by the fish locks and the overflow gate next to the locks.
Finally, and just as importantly for down stream migrants, the maximum fall over the barrage structure will be 5 metres. Newport's expert, Dr. Solomon, believes that fish will be able to cope easily with that fall.
I do not want for a moment to offer meaningless assurances to salmon fishermen about the impact of the barrage on migratory salmon, nor is the council in a position to predict what that impact may be. The truth is that nobody knows and no one will know until the council undertakes its comprehensive monitoring programme once the barrage is built. But we must get this all into perspective. If fishermen visit mid-Wales for an angling holiday and if all they hoped to catch were salmon then we could presume a major effect on businesses dependent upon salmon catches. Clearly, however, anglers rely on the Usk more as a brown trout river than as a salmon river. The reason I can say that with some confidence is that anglers are estimated to spend almost 13,000 rod days on the Usk. However in the past three years fewer than 400 salmon per annum have been caught by rod; in other words, there have been over 30 days of fishing for each salmon

53
caught. Clearly it is not the salmon fishing which is the major attraction to anglers visiting the upper reaches of the Usk Valley.
Mr. Ernest Jones, a seasoned local fisherman who writes for the South Wales Argus notes in a recent article that compared to catches in the 1960s anglers "are not getting the run of fish in the river of that period". He points out that in May 1963 over a 10-day period 100 salmon were recorded. During July, August and September 1991 only 57 salmon rod catches were recorded. That emphasises what I have already said.
The municipal leaders of Newport do not want the environment of their town and of the upper reaches of the Usk to be pitted against the interests of the people. For them, that would be a completely false position. Naturally, their concerns are to improve the living standards and prospects, particularly of the young people of their town. They have watched their children leave home and make for other conurbations where opportunities have been greater. They want to bring a halt to this migration. At the same time, they wish to preserve the rich and marvellous character of the river.
I believe that the Bill and the environmental and engineering research that underpins it represent the best opportunity for Newport to protect both its citizens and its wildlife. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Stoddart of Swindon.)
6.10 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, introduced the Bill in a clear and helpful way. This morning I also had a useful discussion with representatives of Newport Borough Council and their expert advisers and I am grateful to them for what they told me.
When we discussed the earlier Bill, on 13th March 1991, some of us suggested that it had been put together without adequate consultation. On that occasion I said:
"Surely the sensible way to proceed is to have thorough consultations with all the bodies concerned—first and foremost in England and Wales with the National Rivers Authority but also with the Nature Conservation Council, its successor bodies and all the non-governmental organisations concerned—and to modify the plans as necessary to meet their concerns".—[Official Report,13/3/91; col; 262.]
The promoters—I believe wisely—withdrew that Bill and have since had extensive discussions with the NRA. They have done their utmost to resolve the many outstanding problems. For this they should be given credit. They have also established consultative groups, the membership of which is listed on page 11 of their Environmental Statement. This, I am sure, is helpful. However, the fact remains that they have not been able to satisfy the NRA or the Countryside Council for Wales that some of their principal concerns can be met.
We now have 47 petitions against the Bill, more than double the number petitioning against the earlier Bill. Among the objectors are the NRA, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, the Brecknock and Gwent Wildlife Trusts, Brecon Town Council and Brecknock Borough Council. There are a good many important
54
points in these petitions; for example, objections to Clause 65 of the Bill which would give the Newport Borough Council power to make by-laws for the upper river. That seems to me a highly questionable proposal. It is the NRA which should propose by-laws for our rivers.
The NRA, which in this matter is wholly unprejudiced, issued a position statement in February which in most respects, I am told, still represents its considered views. In the statement it said:
"Notwithstanding the more detailed Environment Statement and subsequent Fisheries Report now produced by the promoters, the NRA continues to have serious concerns about the damage this proposal may do to the aquatic environment, and in particular to fish stocks and fisheries".
I understand that good progress has been made on flood defence and water quality. On flood defence, the provisions have not been finally agreed, but the NRA does not expect serious difficulties. On water quality problems—sedimentation, dissolved oxygen, salinity, algae, microbiological quality and the handling of sewage effluent—the NRA is not yet, I understand, fully satisfied, particularly with the provisions for the river upstream. However, it believes that it will be possible to overcome these problems. The discharges of raw sewage into the river from Newport will have to be dealt with anyway by Welsh Water and are not therefore strictly relevant to the barrage plans.
It is therefore primarily fisheries problems on which the promoters have failed to satisfy the NRA, which has of course been given by Parliament the statutory responsibility to maintain, improve and develop fisheries. I have no personal interest in the Usk or its fisheries, but I have a great interest in and concern for all fisheries in Wales.
When we discussed the earlier Bill on 13th March 1991, I went into some detail at cols.266 to 268 of Hansard about the problems which would face migratory fish in the Usk—salmon, sea trout, twaite shad, eels and lamprey—if a barrage were to be built. I reminded noble Lords that Usk fish are threatened with two barrages—this and the proposed Severn barrage, which might in future constitute a double obstruction which few fish could hope to pass. I described the problems which would face incoming and outgoing fish which I concluded were enormous and probably insurmountable. I shall not repeat them now, as the Committee will have available the record of our earlier debate. I would just say that all those problems remain unsolved, although fish migrating downstream will no longer have to fall 10 metres over the barrage, but only five metres at low spring tides, into a pool five metres deep.
The NRA's concerns are spelt out in detail in section 3 of its February position statement, which I am sure the Committee will wish to study. Its conclusion is that:
"Despite the provision of facilities for fish passage, the NRA fears therefore that the construction of the barrage will:

(1) delay or obstruct fish passage;

(2) increase mortality of young salmon and sea trout;

(3) adversely affect salmon stocks and/or the dependent commercial and rod fisheries;

(4) reduce the number of eels within the river.

Furthermore, the provisions for monitoring fish stocks and fisheries, and mitigating the anticipated damage are wholly inadequate".

55
The NRA also raises the question of conservation issues, for which it is responsible. It mentions in particular otters, which are heavily dependent on eels, and the once common but now scarce and extremely vulnerable twaite shad—an anadromous fish of the herring family. It says that unless the promoters,
"formulate a satisfactory monitoring programme and identify acceptable mitigation measures, the NRA will not be satisfied that the conservation interests in the river upstream have been adequately protected".
Anxieties about otters and twaite shad are also expressed in the petition from the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. The Countryside Commission for Wales is particularly worried about the danger to the twaite shad.
The NRA's overall conclusion is that:
"Notwithstanding detailed consideration and discussion with the promoters, their experts and advisers, the NRA remains of the view that if the Usk barrage were to be constructed it would create an unacceptable risk to the fisheries, particularly in view of their high conservation and commercial value. The Environmental Statement and Fisheries Report relied on in support of the Bill do not adequately address these concerns or provide acceptable proposals for mitigating the potential damage which may be caused if Parliamentary approval is given to this Bill".
In the light of that conclusion what should be our attitude? When he introduced the earlier Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said:
"Clearly the promoters have an obligation to convince the NRA that statutory obligations will be met by their plans to ensure water quality standards and that the design for the proposed fish lock facilitates the passage of migratory fish".—[Official Report,13/3/91; cols.257–258.]
I am glad that the noble Lord recognised that the promoters had such an obligation. But 16 months have gone by and, as I have made clear, the NRA has not been convinced that its statutory responsibilities for the maintenance of fisheries can be met. It describes the risks involved as unacceptable. Perhaps between now and the autumn, the promoters can come up with new proposals. However, I wonder whether they can satisfy the NRA's proper anxieties.
There is no precedent anywhere in the world for a fish pass through an estuarial barrage with a tidal range of 45 feet—the second highest in the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. Migratory fish would have to negotiate a greatly changed estuary, find the fish pass, swim through a ball and lift, suddenly instead of gradually encountering fresh water, and then travel through a largely stagnant artificial lake,11 to 12 miles long. On the return journey they would have to undergo similar hazards. It seems to me that, almost inevitably, first the easily damaged and relatively weak shad and then the salmon would be rapidly reduced in number. Before long, the runs of migratory fish in the Usk would come to an end.
It is not surprising that so many petitions from angling organisations and individuals express alarm about this. Once built, the effects of a barrage would be irreversible. Your Lordships' Committee will need to consider carefully whether it is right that the populations of migratory fish in the Usk should run a real risk of extinction in order that a barrage should be
56
built for purely cosmetic reasons to cover up the mud flats in Newport and create in their place an essentially static lake of murky water.
There is another point. There is now great public concern about our rivers. The public are concerned about low flows, pollution and much else. Parliament has established the NRA to look after the rivers in England and Wales and has given it appropriate powers and responsibilities. When, as in this instance, the NRA objects on solid, professional, technical and scientific grounds to a development proposal on a major river, I think this House should think long and carefully before setting aside the NRA's views and overruling them.
I have not said anything about ground water. I believe the problems are still being investigated but I am sure that the Committee will wish to satisfy itself that serious problems will not arise or, if they do, that all remedial costs will be met by the promoters.
I shall now say a few words about the Instruction standing in my name on the Order Paper. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are virtually identical with paragraphs (b) and (a) of the Instruction I moved on 13th March last year, at col.284 of the Official Report. That instruction was agreed by the House. I fully support the regeneration of Newport and its economic development but I do not think the promoters have established that a barrage, with all the damage it may do to the ecology of the Usk, is essential to achieve that. The Committee should examine that matter carefully.
I also think the Committee should consider whether there is room for another investment-related barrage in south-east Wales. The economic climate has become worse since March 1991 and Canary Wharf has shown us what the results of investment gambles may be. I think that among other things the Committee should consider whether, if expectations about proceeds from land sales are disappointed, the financial burden on the people of Newport would be within acceptable limits.
Paragraph (a) in my present Instruction is designed to help the Committee by directing its attention to the essential question that it must, in my view, determine. All three paragraphs need to be considered against the background of the significance and importance of the River Usk. Your Lordships' Committee will hear all the evidence from the promoters and the petitioners and will consider what is said in the House today. The Members of the Committee will have to weigh up the arguments for and against a barrage. However, if they conclude that a barrage is not indispensable for the development of Newport, or that it can only be constructed by taking unacceptable risks with the ecology of the Usk and the economy of the Usk valley, or if the NRA's concerns cannot be satisfied and the Committee shares my view that on such a question the NRA's views relating to a major river should not be overruled, the Committee should reject this Bill.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, if one is chairman of the National Rivers Authority and one's speech follows immediately the speech of the chairman of the

57
regional fisheries advisory committee one's task is rendered a good deal easier and shorter than it might otherwise have been. Indeed, as I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I wondered whether there was anything I could usefully add to the debate.
When this Bill last came before the House I spelt out the principles that must guide the National Rivers Authority. I am speaking today because 1 believe it is useful that the House should understand the NRA's position. Before I turn to those matters I hope I may be forgiven for expressing pleasure that we are to hear two speeches in this debate that will be particularly interesting. We are to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, who made an immensely valuable contribution to the work of the National Rivers Authority in its formative period and whose wisdom on fishery matters was greatly valued. It is also a great pleasure that my noble friend Lord De L'Isle is taking part in the debate. I well recall that on the previous occasion we discussed this subject my noble friend's father spoke. That debate occurred only a few weeks before the death of my noble friend's father.
I should make clear at the outset that the NRA has no reason at all for criticising local authorities' desire to improve the environment of Newport, to provide amenities for its citizens and to encourage development and job creation. I would be the last person to raise obstacles to such eminently worthwhile objectives. If local authorities can achieve those objectives in a way that does no harm to the things that the NRA has a statutory duty to preserve and protect, we would, of course, withdraw our objections. Our interests centre on our statutory responsibilities for water quality, the protection of fisheries, conservation, recreation, flood defences and navigation.
Much discussion has taken place since the original Bill was presented. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, told the House, the promoters have clearly undertaken a significant amount of further work to support their environmental statement. A number of issues have been clarified and some of our anxieties—for example, about water quality—have been moderated. However, fundamental issues remain about which we are by no means satisfied. The NRA's petition is lengthy and spells out those objections in great detail. I need not repeat all the points. However, the most essential for us to consider is that of the Usk fishery, an important fishery despite what has been said about the poverty of the salmon catch in recent years. The stocks of salmon, and to a lesser extent sea trout, in the Usk support a valuable rod fishery and also contribute to commercial fisheries in the Severn estuary. Despite a decline in anglers' catches in recent years, the Usk remains one of the five most prolific salmon angling rivers in the Welsh region.
In addition, Usk salmon stocks are heavily exploited in the Severn estuary. They contribute approximately one-third of the catch of local commercial fisheries and about 5 per cent. of the total commercial catch of English and Welsh salmon in home waters. There is also a small commercial fishery for eels, both as elvers and adults, associated with the river.
58
The barrage would constitute a major obstruction both to the upstream and downstream passage of migratory fish, including salmon, sea trout and eels. Migratory fish would have to negotiate the barrage itself, pass through the altered tidal zone downstream and an 11-kilometre stretch of impounded water upstream. When I refer to an 11-kilometre stretch of water I am being rather more modest than the noble Lord, Lord Moran, as I believe he mentioned an 11 or 12 mile stretch of water. I suspect the problem here is one of defining exactly how long this semi-stagnant stretch of water will in practice be. However, taking the most conservative view, it is clearly a long stretch of relatively still water through which the fish will have to pass.
To help facilitate the passage of fish across the barrage, facilities for fish passage—as we have heard—have been included, at the authority's request, in the proposed design of the barrage. The authority has been consulted on a variety of designs for these works but it has yet to be convinced in principle that such a facility will be adequate satisfactorily to secure the unhindered passage of fish migrating both to and from the river. The petition states:
"There exists no tested precedent for a fish pass in such an estuarine situation, and recently several authoritative sources have expressed deep reservations as to the efficiency of fish passes in fresh water. Therefore, although there have been discussions between the Authority and the Promoters on the detailed design of the proposed fish pass facilities, these are subject to the Authority's grave doubts as to the effectiveness and efficiency of any fish pass in an estuarine situation and the consequential effect of the barrage as an obstruction to migratory fish".
Even the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in moving the Motion, confessed that the truth is that nobody knows. So, at best, we are confronted with serious uncertainties.
The NRA believes that even if the upstream passage of fish past the barrage was completely unhindered, the salmon would be delayed in the environment upstream, as the promoters have themselves indicated. The NRA considers that the rod fisheries throughout the river would be detrimentally affected because fewer fish would move into the fishing reaches during the rod fishing season. The NRA cannot accept the delay in the upstream migration of salmon and sea trout which is expected to result from the barrage and the impoundment. Nor is the NRA convinced that fish survival would not be jeopardised by downstream passage past the barrage. We also fear that eel stocks will be significantly affected.
Comparatively little is known about the estuarine and marine fish utilising the Usk estuary. As a result the NRA asked the promoters to commission a baseline survey to determine their diversity and significance in the area which will be affected. The promoters have undertaken a preliminary assessment but have so far not demonstrated fully the significance of the species found. While they propose further survey work it is a fact that it will not be possible to judge the results until after the construction is complete.
Indeed, the noble Lord himself confessed that we shall not know the result of any aspect of the proposal fully and adequately until after the construction is

59
complete. Many feel that by then it will be too late. Until the results of such surveys are known it simply is not possible to judge the effect of the barrage on estuarine and marine fish populations nor whether effective mitigating steps can be taken to protect them. The same is true of the river itself.
Even if the NRA's concerns could be satisfied there will remain an element of uncertainty. Should the barrage proceed it is therefore essential that a comprehensive monitoring programme is undertaken. We are by no means satisfied that the monitoring arrangements suggested by the promoters will be adequate. That is also a matter which needs to be examined by the Committee which will consider the Bill.
Regardless of the effectiveness of the monitoring process, we have to consider whether effective steps can be taken to mitigate the undoubted consequences. Here again the promoters have not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the NRA that effective mitigation measures could be employed to compensate for any effect of the barrage on fish stocks.
Therefore, the situation is that despite the provision of a fish pass the NRA fears that construction of the barrage will delay or obstruct fish passage, increase the mortality of young salmon and sea trout, adversely affect salmon stocks and the dependent commercial and rod fisheries, and reduce the number of eels within the river. Furthermore, the provisions for monitoring fish stocks and fisheries and for mitigating the anticipated damage are not adequate.
I have indicated that real progress has been made on water quality issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said. If I do not dwell on the other issues, including water quality, at any great length, it is not because I do not think that they are important. They, too, will have to be adequately examined. However, we have made progress and I believe that there is a good chance that it will be possible to resolve the water quality issue.
I freely acknowledge that a great deal of progress has also been made in developing and calibrating computer models. That will be most helpful in assessing the impact of the barrage on water quality. If I am right in thinking that the water quality problems can be overcome by effective barrage management and technical means, we still have to satisfy ourselves about flood defence requirements. Here again I am optimistic. The design of the barrage meets the standards laid down by the NRA and we believe that it will provide flood defences which are at least as good as those we have at present. I also believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was right in saying that the sedimentary problems can be adequately dealt with.
Our fundamental objection to the Bill is that we believe that it poses a major threat to the fish stock and existing fisheries on the river and consequently to the conservation of fish-eating birds and mammals, particularly otters, which feed upon migratory fish in the river. I am conscious in making that remark that many fishermen may say,"Splendid. It is the best thing that we have heard so far if some of the
60
fish-eating birds are done in in the process." However, I do not believe that most of them will be very pleased if there is an adverse conservation impact on the river. Certainly the NRA, with its statutory duties, cannot take that view.
We have a statutory duty to maintain, improve and develop fisheries. We have responsibilities for further conservation in the riverine environment. In those circumstances I believe that we have no alternative but to maintain our objection to the Bill. Of course, if at the end of the day the Committee can be satisfied and we can all be satisfied that those consequences will not follow, then I shall join with those who hope that Newport will be successful in attracting new jobs and improving its environment. We all want that. The question at issue is whether the price is worth paying.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, after listening to three such authoritative speeches it seems hardly necessary for the rest of us to say very much more. However, one reason why I did not take part in the earlier debate on 13th March 1991 was that at that time I was engaged in moving my main domestic base in South Wales from Cardiff to Cwmbran, from Glamorgan to Gwent. My Welsh friends will understand the significance of that. Since that time I have naturally taken a closer interest in the possible developments in and around Newport, such developments being the main reason for considering a barrage at all.
Like my noble friend Lord Stoddart, I find the great mud banks of the lower Usk depressing, particularly as one approaches Newport railway station on the train travelling from London. One cannot help wishing that at that point the river could avoid low tides altogether. Aesthetically it would undoubtedly be much more attractive.
Appearances, however, are not everything. Nevertheless, if I were a member of the Newport Borough Council or Gwent County Council I should certainly be concerned about that aspect. I feel a great deal of sympathy with those members. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Stoddart on his eloquent exposition of the needs of Newport and of its population, particularly the younger members. However, I am still not convinced that a barrage is necessarily the only way. Of course, I am very much influenced in my opinions by the overriding consideration, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made clear, that there still remains opposition from the major statutory authority in charge of river quality and usage; in other words, the NRA. I have before me, as others of your Lordships will have, a copy of its petition against the Bill. In paragraph 18 the authority specifically states that it objects to the Bill and in subsequent paragraphs the reasons are spelt out. Also included are doubts about the financing of the scheme as well as about fish stocks, flood defences, water courses, water quality and so on. Those views are repeated in the final paragraphs 41 and 42.
Although, since the petition was first before us, some further progress has clearly been made, there remain substantial difficulties which really ought to be solved, preferably before the barrage is built. It is easy

61
enough to say that you cannot tell much about it until after the barrage has been built, but if you are going to have a barrage of the dimensions described by my noble friend it is difficult to suppose that you can do much about it after the event. I must say that I find this a very difficult situation indeed.
I am particularly worried by the fact that, as I understand it, the main study for the proposed barrage was carried out several years ago when barrages and marinas were at the height of their popularity. Since then the cost-benefit analyses have become a good deal less assured, and the bright, blue waters of the advertisements are greeted with growing scepticism. Legislation to sanction the Cardiff barrage is expected to emerge some time in late autumn or even next spring from the other place. One is tempted to suppose that it might be better to see how Cardiff gets on and then try to avoid its mistakes.
Meanwhile there have been several important developments in government thinking about how we should handle the very intricate problems of coastal protection and planning, including the estuaries and inter-tidal areas. I do not know whether all your Lordships have yet had an opportunity to digest the Government's response to the very impressive report from the Commons Select Committee on the Environment. This we could obtain, I think, only last Friday morning; so no one has had much time to take it in. However, it makes some extremely interesting and important comments upon the difficulty of dealing with these very intricate areas in the environmental scenario.
We have already recognised that the Usk estuary is one of the most important examples, not just in Britain but in the world, by reason of its extreme tidal range and its fast-changing upstream flow characteristics, which ought not to be entirely overlooked. These are challenging conditions, far beyond what the relatively small size of the river might suggest. It is not just a matter of the salmon fishermen against the rest, although it is easy to suggest that this is so. There are other matters which plainly have to be dealt with, with very considerable skill and concern. In addition, we are not sure how far the conditions in the report to which I have referred, and the Government's response, will be carried. If, as is customary in this House, the Bill secures a Second Reading and the Instruction moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is accepted, the Select Committee on the Bill will have a daunting task adequately to examine all the pros and cons of the proposals.
This brings me to another consideration which has come about since the first presentation of the Usk Barrage Bill; namely, the Transport and Works Bill, which became law in March this year. Its main purpose was to transfer the kind of intricate local problems we are now facing in the River Usk Barrage Bill away from the Private Bill procedure altogether. The argument is that it would be far better to deal with such matters through ministerial consideration combined with adequate local public inquiries. I would refer your Lordships to paragraphs 40 to 43 of the report which we received last week, Coastal Zone Protection and Planning. The report emphasises that
62
Private Bill procedures in such situations can prove cumbersome, expensive for objectors and remote from public scrutiny and it recommends that they should be less frequently used.
Of course it is obvious that we would be obliged in this instance to follow the customary Private Bill rules, as the Bill was presented before the Transport and Works Bill reached the statute book. But the procedural thoughts strengthen some of the arguments so ably deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and touched upon also by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. We are very much indebted to both noble Lords. I hope that the Select Committee to whom, no doubt, this Bill will be referred, will not find its task too overwhelming but will give us some firm guidance as to how we can proceed in a very puzzling situation.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I intervene in the debate with some diffidence. I can hardly now describe myself as a fisherman. I am not an expert on water management and I am not really a botanist. However, I am a resident of Monmouthshire or, as I suppose one must now call it, the county of Gwent, and I hope that I may welcome the noble Baroness who has just sat down as a neighbour, albeit a distant one. I am also a local government taxpayer and of course a central government taxpayer, and therefore I hope it is right for me to express some concerns that I feel about the measure.
I am full of sympathy for the aspirations of Newport Borough Council, at least as they underlie the proposals embodied in the Bill. No one visiting Newport regularly, as I do, can be impressed by the sight of the river and its banks at low tide. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness who preceded me have commented on that, and I find myself in total agreement.
It must also be right to control the discharge of raw sewage out of the Usk. There may also be a case for a further downstream crossing; that is to say, downstream of the present bridges. If all these proposals result in the creation of a pellucidly clear 11-kilometre or 11-mile stretch of water and if it can be financed by the creation of acres of amenity and development land, then we can all applaud—provided of course that all this can be achieved without detriment to the residents, fishermen, farmers, landowners and businesses further north in the county.
So many of your Lordships are highly informed about the likely impact of the barrage on the migration of salmon, twaite shad—a fish which I must confess I have never killed and have not even consciously seen—eels and other fish that I would not presume to make a point on this, or indeed on the economic impact of any restrictions on migratory runs, on riparian owners, anglers, hotels, and the population generally. No doubt such issues will be the subject of exhaustive inquiry in due course by the Select Committee. Nor will I weary your Lordships with my view of the likely impact of the barrage on the bed of the river upstream and the quality of water

63
there, in particular if heavy rain carries down a mass of silt. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell said that he was half way to being persuaded that that might be remedied in some way. I am happy to leave all those aspects to expert witnesses who will no doubt be called before the Select Committee.
I will not add any comment about the need for further bridges or crossings over the Usk except to remark that that must be considered in the context of the projected second Severn bridge. We have been asked to consider the proposal in a rather narrowly parochial context.
However, I wish to comment briefly on the financial impact of the proposals. I must admit to not having secured the two reports commissioned from Coopers and Lybrand by Newport Borough Council. I was surprised to discover that no copies have been deposited in the Private Bill Office although no doubt copies will become available to the Select Committee in due course.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will allow me to say that I was also surprised that he did not touch on the financial implications either tonight in his elegant and lucid speech or in his earlier intervention in March of last year. As I understand the position, the major source of finance for this great project is the sale of development land along the banks of the river created by the barrage. I am prepared to accept that development land would be created. I am also prepared to accept that for some miles upstream of the barrage the river will be considerably improved, that the water may be purified and that the surroundings will become considerably more attractive than at present. But who can forecast with any confidence whether there will be a robust market for such land for office or recreational developments in the five, seven or 10 years' time that the project will take to develop? Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, winds up he will tell us the estimated cost of those proposals.
What part of the costs is to be met by the borough council under the most recent substitute for rates proposed by the Government? What part is to be met by the county council? What part will be met and over what period by the sales of development land? It would be unfair to expect utter precision in answers tonight, but I am sure that it would assist the House if the noble Lord could offer some assistance when he winds up.
I wish to address a question to my noble friend Lord St. Davids who will speak on behalf of the Government. Perhaps he can enlighten us. If the calculations of Newport Borough Council have been over optimistic and the land either cannot be created or there is no robust market for the sale of such land—the timescale over which such land can be unloaded on the market may become important—will the full burden of the project be shouldered by the ratepayers of Newport, if I may so describe them, although perhaps inaccurately? Their enthusiasm for the proposal might be somewhat tempered if they learned of that possible risk. Alternatively, will the Government, perhaps the Welsh Office—I turn to my
64
noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who has so much more experience in these matters—be prepared to shoulder part of such burdens? If my noble friend on the Front Bench cannot give an unequivocal answer, no doubt he will write to me and publish his views at a later stage.
I hope that if the Bill proceeds to a Select Committee, the committee will wish to address those matters and question how much private capital is likely to be drawn to Newport as a consequence of the proposals if they are implemented? I believe that in one of the Coopers and Lybrand papers a ratio of £11.8 of private capital to £1 of public capital has been suggested. If that is so—I admit candidly that I have not had an opportunity to read the paper—I should like to know the basis for the suggestion. It would be churlish for me to draw any analogy with Canary Wharf, although the proposers of the Bill may care to ponder on some of the lessons to be drawn from that melancholy scene. But it is right to observe that Newport will probably be in keen competition with the development of Cardiff Bay, a matter obviously well known to your Lordships.
In conclusion, although I shall not vote against the Bill tonight, since, as I said earlier, I am in sympathy with the aspirations of the borough council—at least on this matter, although I do not back all their political views—I unhesitatingly support the Instruction proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, it shows the hand of one well versed in the drafting of important papers of state. The Instruction raises most of the questions on which I and others outside this House will require reassurance. Unless I receive such reassurance in the months to come, I shall find it difficult to support the Bill on Third Reading.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, my interest is
in the conservation of salmon. Over the years I have drawn the House's attention to the North-East drift net fishery in which the indiscriminate use of nylon monofilament gill nets constantly threatens the salmon on their way to the spawning grounds of the North-East of Scotland. I mention that as an example over which the Government are relatively inactive. They take no positive steps to curtail that activity. If the Government are so complacent on salmon conservation, I have no faith in the Government if the Usk Barrage goes ahead. If the local authority, the developers, or whoever are in authority over the barrage, are not interested in salmon conservation, salmon stocks are threatened. We could not therefore look to the Government for help. Therefore, we have to be assured at the outset on the preservation of the salmon in the River Usk after the barrage has been built.
As a council member of the Salmon and Trout Association—I express the association's views—and a rod and line fly fisher, I take an interest in such affairs. However, I have my doubts about the Bill. There is no doubt about the widespread opposition. Many conservation and environmental interests are opposed. The Salmon and Trout Association and the

65
National Rivers Authority in particular are anxious. Those are no mean bodies. The Salmon and Trout Association is a national association of great repute and standing in the fishing world. The National Rivers Authority is now well established and ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Its theme, to be guardians of the water, plus its regional organisations, established to preserve our rivers, increase the quality of the waters and develop, maintain and improve our fisheries, is a legislative requirement, a statutory duty. It is on that latter point that I believe the NRA's Welsh Fisheries Committee has serious doubts that those policies and objectives can be pursued if the Usk Barrage goes ahead.
With that background, one has to recognise that the River Usk is one of the major game fishing rivers in Wales. It also has a large commercial and recreational salmon trout fishery. The worry of the Welsh Fisheries Committee and the Salmon and Trout Association is the effect that the barrage will have on the natural migration of the salmon and sea trout. They fear that severe damage may he caused to fish stocks and that much of that damage could not be repaired by restocking.
I appreciate that anxiety, as chairman of the Anglers Co-operative Association, a national organisation representing thousands of anglers and angling clubs. The organisation takes the polluters of our members' waters to court when their beat, river or lake has been polluted and thereafter replaces fish stocks. But it is never the same. Indeed, just as we fear with the Usk Barrage, the River Usk's ecology could be permanently impaired. In that respect it is best to conserve what we have; the present natural river environment is preferable to the many unknowns and imponderables which we fear from this development.
I understand that the National Rivers Authority believes that restocking the river would be difficult and expensive and even considers the task to be impractical. If that is true the Salmon and Trout Association, the Welsh rivers and fisheries committees and the N RA would continue to oppose the barrage. Salmon conservationists also believe that the genetic composition of the Usk salmon would be endangered.
It is likely that the Usk Barrage would impair the quality of the river, change its ecological structure and adversely affect the quality, quantity and genetic make-up of the Usk salmon. If all that were placed in doubt anglers and tourists would know that the River Usk and its local environs had lost its attraction and that would cause a serious rundown in the local economy.
From the speeches we have heard it is obvious that there are grave doubts about the development because so many important organisations seriously question it. Indeed, the number of petitions of opposition is constantly rising and now stands at 47. I am sorry to inform my noble friend Lord Stoddart that my doubts still exist. As he said, the effects on salmon cannot be truly predicted until the barrage and the pass have been built. By then it will be too expensive and too late.
7 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, as a fisherman there is little that I can add to what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I speak as chairman of a salmon district fishery board and I wish to mention a problem that has not yet been dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the fish would get over the barrier by swimming through the system of a lock as big as this Chamber and by being able to get over the weir at certain levels of the tide. One clear fact, not yet stated, is that any artificial obstruction which delays the passage from the sea of a salmon, or grilse, immediately reduces the enthusiasm of that fish to take. Any form of artificial obstruction spoils the sport.
Your Lordships may be aware of Dr. Mills' comment in the Spring 1989 report of the Atlantic Salmon Trust. He pointed to the abandonment of cruives and fish passes throughout the salmon rivers of Scotland, telling a sorry tale of their proven failure. Furthermore, it is true that in any run of fish one will catch a lower percentage if the fish have had to pass over a natural barrier. Any obstruction reduces the sport.
I and members of my fishery board have doubts about the damage caused by some of the new fish counting devices which everyone is so keen to install. They comprise of an electric current passing through a weir and cause less of an obstruction than what is proposed in the Bill. However, it is significant that even the small obstruction of a modern fish counting device on the River Torridge in Devonshire has spoilt the sport. The device has been abandoned on the famous Laxford river in Sutherland, having been proven to be detrimental to the sport.
What has happened in the case of another authority which began to obstruct our rivers; namely, the North Scotland Hydro Electric Board? It admitted that its dams and weirs would spoil the sport and therefore they bought out the angling rights. I have seen not even a suggestion that the promoters of the Bill might buy out the angling rights along the river above the weir. Noble Lords will know that in the case of the North Scotland Hydro Electric Board many of the angling rights were restored later, using artificial stocking and many expensive means far beyond the pockets of the existing riparian owners. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said, fishing in those restored rivers is not the same as in natural rivers. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, dealt with the equally important problem of how the migratory fish smolt. How will the smolts get back to the sea without being damaged by the artificial obstruction at the mouth of the river?
My second concern is the problem—not so far mentioned—which Members of this House face as regards Private Bills. My concern has been reinforced by my experience on the committee dealing with the Calder Valley River Bill which sat for almost a year during the previous Session. In that case the local authority, using ratepayers' money (or poll tax money, or whatever) promoted the Bill. Often that can involve unlimited expense. The petitioner—in this case

67
there was only one petitioner—out of his own pocket had to employ Queen's Counsel and expert witnesses to put the case. Even if the doubts are upheld and the petitioners win in the end, under our procedure there is no system for them to be awarded costs.
Erskine May states that there is little precedent for the Second Reading of Private Bills to be debated and that certainly there is no precedent for them to be thrown out on Second Reading. However, I remind your Lordships that in 1937 this House threw out the North Devon Water Bill because it would destroy the fishing in the Devonshire rivers. Subsequently, the House threw out the North Devon Electric Power Bill on Second Reading. Therefore, there is a precedent for throwing out such Bills on Second Reading.
Having regard to the doubts which have been expressed tonight and the number of petitions raised against the Bill one is tempted to throw it out on Second Reading and not to put the petitioners and all the riparian owners throughout the rest of the watershed to the expense of appearing before the committee and employing expert witnesses and counsel.
We must hear the rest of the debate before reaching a conclusion. However, I suggest to your Lordships that, in view of the number of petitions against the Bill, there is sound precedent for saying "Not Content" to a Second Reading.
7.7 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I spoke in a previous debate on behalf of the Bill. It is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Kimball and to hear his moving appeal in the cause of sport. That subject has been the main source of tonight's debate. Perhaps it has become a case of town and gown with the NRA sitting in the middle as proctor, but I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will accept such a suggestion. Certainly it is a case of the council versus game fishing interests.
By definition, therefore, two interests are involved and your Lordships have said that fishing is the most important. I suggest that the town of Newport deserves a great deal more respect. Two needs must be addressed; those of the town of Newport and those of the the fishing interests. Perhaps I may deal first with Newport. It has a rundown port area which has been in decay since coal shipping ceased, which was long before the end of coal mining there. It also has a decrepit housing stock and unemployment at 50 per cent. above the national average. The area is part of the Severn estuary, which means a 13 metre tidal rise and fall. There are 20 feet of mud banks at any one time and at low spring tides they will be about 40 feet for one week in four.
There are 18 raw sewage outfalls which must be dealt with in any event. However, that is part of the scheme. Only those of your Lordships who have toured the area can imagine the soul destroying aspect of that part of our country. The council has vital responsibilities to restore the area and we must examine what it has done.
68
First, it appointed Coopers & Lybrand. That is a firm of experts and when one pays for an expert, one expects to take his advice. A consultation paper was prepared and ERL has been retained to act as consultants, as it was on the Mersey Barrier and the Thames Barrier. That company was commissioned to evaluate tidal conditions and water quality. The consultants prepared comparisons for a bridge and a barrage but they came down firmly on the side of the barrage which would provide total regeneration of the area by cleaning up the mudbanks and rebuilding the rundown immediate area of the port. All plans are vital to the human aspect of regenerating housing, providing employment and paying for a totally new sewage system, which is required in the name of common sense as well as required by the EC. It is clear that only a barrage can overcome the mud flat problem and, no less significantly, prevent upstream flooding, which is an important matter during spring tides and sou'westerly gales.
There is a considerable demand for factory space in the centre of town and on the banks of the river. That has been clearly established by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Coopers & Lybrand has estimated that 8,500 new jobs will be created and 4,200 man hours of construction work during the seven to 10 year period required to build the barrage plus the labour and infrastructure benefit from the construction of the barrage. Those may sound extravagant figures but Newport is quite clearly able to run parallel with Cardiff and the attraction of business to that area is well established.
The Newport business plan is not a kind of Canary Wharf project. There is no City of London corporation which can suddenly increase its business area by one-third by altering its by-laws. The demand is there; it is clearly demonstrated.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has already spoken of the business which has been brought into the town. Coopers & Lybrand estimates that 25 million square feet will generate £44 million per annum of increased income to the area at a cost of £70 million. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Rees is not in his place to hear that. That would be as a result of introducing 8,500 new jobs.
In respect of the demand for space, Coopers & Lybrand said:
"First, demand may be growing at a rate over the medium term which can only be met by increased supply from both Cardiff Bay and Newport. Second, the development potential at Newport may be different in scale and nature from that at Cardiff Bay and therefore not competitive. Third, developments at Newport may offer greater choice to inward investors in the region and may therefore enhance demand for location sites within it".
I shall not continue with that, but there is a firm case for regenerating the area and for putting new business into it. That strong case is borne out by professional advice and in terms of the instruction proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, it will be clearly shown by expert evidence to the committee that business wants to come and will not come while the mud-flats are there. In my opinion, the barrage will answer those problems.
There will be a constant flow of water through the impoundment with complete water change every 1.4

69
days in normal conditions. The barrage will allow partial water intrusion into the lake on 58 per cent. of tides when salmon will be able to migrate upstream without hindrance. They will be able to migrate upstream over the sill for two to two-and-a-half hours per tide.
On the other hand, with the flushing rate every hour, there would be a rate of one cubic foot per second providing that flow through the lake at all times. Therefore, there will not be an impounded lake which is absolutely still. The flow of water will be 235 cubic metres per second. That shows that there will always be a stream against which the salmon can swim. They will wait to get over the sill because they do that when they wait for the tide.
With regard to fish locks, there will also be a permanent flume of water flowing through the fish locks which will attract fish and will give them an opportunity to continue into the fish lock and then be transported upstream in a positively Rolls-Royce manner.
As regards the economics, I believe it is agreed that between 1986 and 1990 on average 560 salmon were caught each year. According to The Times recently those catches generate a capital value of about £6,000 per fish. Therefore, if my calculations are correct, that gives a capital value of £3.5 million for salmon fishing in the Usk. At 10 per cent. per annum that is an income of £350,000 per year. The barrage will generate £44 million per year. Surely we must put the human scale into context.
Of course, that is only part of the equation. We must also consider the remit of the National Rivers Authority, as clearly stated by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. There is a requirement that fishing quality should be maintained. I believe that expert advice to the committee will be able to convince it that while quality may change it will not be damaged.
On that point, I recall that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has only recently had to take fairly strict measures against the local water boards in southern England, which have allowed six fishing rivers to run dry. That surely points to the fact that there is a human factor involved in the requirement to look after fish stocks and to provide for human need.
The barrage will not stop all salmon. As my noble friend Lord Kimball said, there may be a reduction but they will not disappear completely. We are advised that while fishing methods may change at the head of the impoundment, the catches will not be affected because the number of salmon will probably be the same, although they may not be catchable because they will be going upstream at a different time of the season.
The council has made proposals and suggestions supported by professional advice to the NRA. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, explained that in some detail, so I need not do so. The authority is obviously not satisfied at present. I hope and pray that the committee will be allowed to receive sufficient professional advice to proceed with the Bill. In particular, I believe that ERL, which has been responsible for the hydraulic research, fish pass and
70
barrage design, has established new theories regarding siltation which were not known previously to the NRA but are now accepted.
Water quality and algae bloom are another problem. It is again recommended and believed that that can be controlled, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell agreed. If there is a requirement for the fish rights to be bought out, perhaps the council may consider buying them for £3.5 million against an investment of £70 million with £44 million income. I should have thought that that would not be a problem.
I have given only a brief review of the appraisal. Detailed facts and proposals are available for the committee, to which I thoroughly recommend the scheme.
Lord Moran: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down perhaps I can remind him that at the outset of his earlier speech he declared a personal interest. I wonder whether he can tell the House whether that personal interest still applies or whether circumstances have changed.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I have a relation who is employed by the lobbyists for the Bill. However, I speak entirely from my own conviction, having been to Newport and seen the area.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, no one born and bred in Cardiff as I was can fail to have an interest in the future and fortunes of our neighbour, sister and rugby rival, Newport,11 miles upriver. I must also declare an interest as a trustee of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, which is concerned about the presentation and progress of the Bill. I help to look after its money though I stress not a penny of it comes to me.
Clearly the barrage and all that goes with it offer considerable benefits and opportunities to Newport. The borough and the county are to be congratulated on the enterprise and energy with which they have developed the Bill before us, so ably presented by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Equally clearly, no benefit comes without cost; there is no such thing as a free barrage and we must weigh the one against the other with the presumption that we should seek to satisfy legitimate objections if we possibly can.
When the Bill came before your Lordships' House for Second Reading four months ago, a number of noble Lords pointed out the piscatorial problems and they have not lacked their defenders today. I marvelled then as I do now at the mysteries of the modified Borland lift. It is clear that the kelts, smolts and twaite shad have many and vigorous defenders to protect their interests. My concern has been engaged more with the hydrological and geological consequences of constructing a barrage both on the rural and, more especially, the urban environment of the river.
Newport Borough Council has long been aware of the problem that the barrage would create in the disturbance of water levels and particularly the groundwater in the area immediately adjacent to the barrage. Since the first Second Reading—if I may put

71
it that way—we have had added to the Bill the clauses, amendment and the new and extensive Schedule 5. However, Malcolm Fraser, the arboricultural officer for Cardiff City Council, studied the nature and location of trees and amenity areas in and around Newport. His report makes clear that, as a result of the barrage, tree cover will certainly be lost or at least reduced in quality and health. The fabric of the landscape and public open space areas will be seriously affected making them in some cases sterile and unusable, particularly during the winter. The financial implications of those facts will be considerable and yet they seem, as yet, not to have been taken into account.
But trees are only a minor problem. The borough council was aware that the groundwater levels were an unknown factor in the proposal. To its credit it commissioned a report by its consultant engineers, Rendel, Palmer and Tritton—known as the RPT report. Even to a layman's eye—and in these matters no eye is more lay than mine—the RPT report leaves some questions unanswered and some unasked. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales sought a second opinion from Dr. John Miles of the School of Engineering in the University of Wales College of Cardiff. Dr. Miles has studied at some length the potential groundwater effects of the proposed Cardiff Bay barrage and is clearly well equipped to report on the Usk barrage scheme.
Dr. Miles, in his report, has a number of technical objections to the RPT report on such matters as the relevance here of the concept of "classical valley sink situation" and perched water tables. But his central criticisms are, first, that he does not believe that RPT has made any serious attempt to calculate the hydrological budget for the lower Usk valley and, secondly, that there are serious shortcomings in the standard of its groundwater modelling. He concludes,
"Given that the crude financial value which could potentially be damaged by the impoundment of water … is of the order of £100s of millions, not to mention the potential ecological damage then RPT's lack of understanding of the groundwater flow mechanisms is extremely worrying".
Even from an academic, those are stern words.
There is considerable detail behind that conclusion. Dr. Miles analyses the likely leakage from water mains in the urban area; the RPT report does not. Dr. Miles is sternly critical of RPT's investigation of leakage to sewers, estimated at 10 per cent. of the flows in the sewers. Dr. Miles comments,
"Given the number of guesses necessary to arrive at this figure it must be regarded as being a very crude estimate".
He is equally worried about the RPT's "groundwater modelling" which, as your Lordships will recall, is the name of a process which involves the use of computer programs containing equations based on the fundamental laws of groundwater motion, to try to represent what occurs in reality. Although that sounds rather difficult, it is not particularly difficult to do. Programs are readily available and the computing power required can be provided by any personal computer bought in the high street. As Dr. Miles said,
"So for a few thousand pounds anyone can set themselves up as a groundwater modeller".
All the more serious therefore is his conclusion that,
72
"all that can be concluded from a study of RPT's modelling is that they have little appreciation of how groundwater currently moves in the Usk valley. One cannot determine from their results what the significance of vertical flows through the alluvium are likely to be, how much water flows through the gravels and marls to the river and how much of the incoming water budget is removed from the made ground by the sewers".
The urban areas' impact could be grave. Land drains would be required, possibly spaced 20 to 30 metres apart. Think what that would mean in a block of terraced houses. Pumps would not solve the problem, especially beneath large buildings where there is the possibility of water leaking up through the floor slabs. Considering the effect of the proposed barrage on groundwater levels, Dr. Miles ends his report with these words,
"In some areas of Newport, groundwater levels will rise to the surface, leading to swamp conditions. Also in the rural parts of the valley there will be some areas of land that will be lost although the extent of such land is likely to be small".
The publication of Dr. Miles' report shattered any complacency the residents of Newport may have felt, and initiated an intense public debate which is still continuing. Newport Borough Council has now resolved to offer compensation to reassure its citizens of the efficacy of its barrage proposal. Accompanying the current version of the Bill is a fairly extensive piece called,"The River Usk Barrage Bill (Additional Provision)". The additional provision is a late addition to many documents which we already have on the proposal. That in itself may cause your Lordships to wonder whether everything that it is necessary to take into account, has been taken into account.
It is certainly an earnest of good intentions on the part of the proposers but there is as yet no clear understanding of the extent and nature of the groundwater problem. Certainly until there is such an understanding there can be no accurate computation of the costs which may be very considerable. That additional provision which comes with the Bill offers a kind of insurance without knowing the risk which is being insured against. Details of compensation are not clear and it is not known what funds are available or will be available to meet it.
I believe that it is beyond doubt that the effect of the barrage on the groundwater situation in Newport and upriver has not yet been satisfactorily studied. If the RPT report is as imperfect as Dr. Miles suggests, the cost of the scheme might be many millions of pounds. We have no reassurance that Newport Borough Council has taken that fully into account.
Mr. John Bowers of the University of Leeds Business School, was also commissioned to make a similar examination of the economic appraisal made for Newport Borough Council by Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte. Without going into detail, Mr. Bowers clearly expresses many reservations. He is quite unconvinced about the likely development demand from entrepreneurs in the various scenarios. He concludes:
"All that the barrage in fact achieves in addition is to create conditions akin to a permanent state of high tide".
So there are unresolved doubts about the effects of a barrage on the water-table and about the economic

73
appraisal, and questions remain about such crucial components of the scheme as the leverage ratio for the barrage option which, as Mr. Bowers points out,
"at 1 to 11.8 is higher than the schemes cited as comparable and similarly much higher than has been calculated for the Cardiff Bay barrage".
The most important petitioner against the Bill is without question the National Rivers Authority. We have heard authoritatively about it tonight from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The NRA is concerned about the impact of the barrage on its statutory responsibilities. In its most recent position statement the NRA seems more or less satisfied with the situation proposed for flood defence, but it still has grave reservations about fisheries, conservation and water quality.
The Committee of your Lordships' House to which I fervently hope that this Bill will be committed, will need to give close and rigorous attention to satisfying itself on these matters if this Bill is to proceed successfully. I have commented only on the hydrological, geological and economic considerations though they, likewise, still present unresolved difficulties.
Writing so long ago as 1651 the great poet of the River Usk, Henry Vaughan, the silurist, born at Trenewydd and buried within sight of the river at Llansantffraed, said, prophetically, of the River Usk:
"In all thy Journey to the Main
No nitrous Clay, nor Brimstone-vein
Mixe with thy streams, but may they passe
Fresh as the aire and deer as Glasse".
Let us hope that this Bill may achieve a similar tranquil and unimpeded passage when all the reservations which we have heard about tonight have been removed.
7.34 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for his kind remarks about my father, who spoke at the last Second Reading on this matter 14 months ago. I must immediately declare an interest in that my stepmother and stepsister are riparian owners on the banks of the Usk. My father and stepmother married in 1966 and in the ensuing 26 years on many visits I have learned to admire the unrivalled Usk Valley with its swift-flowing stream where salmon have run since time began.
Any fast-flowing river brings enchantment not only to fishermen, which I am not, but to lovers of nature and countrymen who can delight in living waters that are pure enough to allow the annual passage of these magnificent migrant fish up and down stream.
The Newport Borough Council proposes a barrage scheme. The purpose of this scheme is not to prevent the occasional flood nuisance, but is principally cosmetic. Cloaking unsightly mudbanks in water, it is hoped, will encourage development of a run-down area of Newport in a manner similar to the Cardiff Bay project.
The impounding of the water will make it difficult for migratory fish which include salmon and the twaite shad, which we have heard so much about in this debate, to make their passage upstream through a
74
redesigned but still unproven, fish ladder into an area of impounded water which the National Rivers Authority is still not convinced will be of sufficient quality. That does not bode well for both fish and other wildlife dependent on the fragile ecology of a swiftly-moving river.
Were this Bill to pass into law it would be too late to reverse the damage it would do to the wildlife along the Usk, as so many noble Lords have said this evening. Gwent County Council and Newport Borough Council are attempting with this scheme to regenerate the economy of a part of Newport. The result further upstream will be to damage the fragile rural economy which is becoming more reliant on fishing to generate income as agriculture and local industry enter a deepening recession. Fishermen and their families visiting the Usk provide employment for ghillies, river keepers and support many hotels and bed and breakfast establishments. The impact of the estimated £650,000 per annum spent is greater than the sum suggests.
Should the barrage be built many of these jobs and businesses will disappear and the landscape will be damaged as it will no longer be economic to maintain it, thus further damaging wildlife habitat with the consequent effect on flora and fauna on the river banks and flood plains. Here lies the dichotomy. We are told that the barrage will bring a new economic dawn to Newport while its effects could drive the Usk Valley, its people and wildlife, into a dark abyss.
In summary, I should like to quote from Hansard of 13th March 1991 (cols.279– 80) which was the last time that my father spoke in this House at the first Second Reading of this Bill. He said:
"I am not persuaded that the reasons for the barrage scheme are in any way connected with the preservation of this great natural resource. Shortly after the Second World War, Alexander Cordell wrote a book entitled The Rape of a Fair Country. It called attention to the unhappy industrialisation of so much of the beautiful countryside of South Wales in the 18th and 19th centuries. I hope that this House, and Parliament in general, will not earn itself the title of the rapist of a fair river".
That is a view with which I heartily concur.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I intervene in this debate not because I have any intimate knowledge of Newport, but because I was a Member of your Lordships' Select Committee on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. A number of the problems which occurred in that Bill have appeared in this one although a number of the details are quite different. One of the most serious problems as regards the Cardiff Bill was that of groundwater which, until the noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke, had been largely ignored in the debate and indeed in much of the documentation and reports that preceded it. It forms one section of the NRA's petition and that is the only objection to it that I know of so far. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, did well to raise that as a serious point.
The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill contained elaborate provisions for compensation for those householders who might be affected by groundwater. There were provisions for inspection both before and after the

75
barrage was constructed and for compensation as appropriate. Your Lordships' Select Committee thought that those provisions were not adequate, and we enlarged them. The Bill then went to another place where it had a rather chequered history. I understand that the chief item of contention there also was the effect of groundwater.
We are talking about a serious problem because it affects what for most of us is our principal investment in life—one's house. Damage to one's house can be catastrophic, affecting one's financial position and one's sense of personal security. However, a groundwater problem is not insuperable. It can be dealt with both by proper engineering investigations and testing, and by proper measures for compensation following such testing. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, that is expensive and it will be a likely burden on the promoters of the Bill, I suspect.
I have only two thoughts on the issue of fish. The first is that all fish passes seem to be unique. There are special conditions surrounding each river and the tides affecting it. That means that there is no standard accepted model to which we can turn with total confidence. Each fish pass is an experiment in itself and its success or failure can only really be measured when it is in place. Therefore, one goes ahead with hope and perhaps with a measure of confidence, but there can be no measure of certainty.
My other thought about fishing echoes the views of the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, who is not in his place. Where there is a conflict, as there inevitably is here, between those who are keen fishermen, those anxious to protect fishing rights, the fishing industry and the sport of our country and between the citizens of Newport, it seems to me that, if no other issues are involved, we must get our priorities right. No concern about salmon fishing—or about any other fishing—should supersede the citizens of Newport's requirements for financial prosperity. Although I realise that it is not a straight question between fishing and the barrage and investment, that is certainly one of the main subjects that has arisen in this debate. There is a strong fishing lobby—and very good luck to it—but as the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, said, we must bear in mind the fact that the wishes of the citizens of Newport must surely come first.
I have one postscript under this heading, and it is about mud flats. I, too, find mud flats varying between the boring and the positively repellent. However, in your Lordships' committee I was quite surprised to hear the number of petitioners who actually liked mud flats, who appreciated the rise and fall of the tides over a 24-hour cycle, and who found that much more attractive than, as they would see it, a rather sterile lake. That is a minority view, but it is a quite strongly held minority view and one that we should perhaps bear in mind.
When I came to the debate I had assumed that most of your Lordships would have a copy of Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte report, but it seems that that is probably not so. The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, has however given a fair summary of most of its
76
proposals. It purports to make a comparison between the results of the barrage proposal, of a high level bridge and of a low level bridge—I suspect that Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte was instructed to do that by the council—but it gives a slightly unreal element to the report because it is pretty clear from reading that and the other reports and documentation that Newport either goes ahead with its barrage or does nothing specific in that area. Other alternatives seem to me to be unrealistic.
The report is very clear about the increasing shortage of development land in the Newport area. Apparently, development took place fairly recently along the M.4 corridor where a number of sites that were suitable for development were duly developed. That source of land has now apparently largely disappeared. Paragraph 412 of the Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte report states:
"In our assessment, supplemented by the results of our survey of developers, investors and property agents, it is unlikely that much development discouraged from M.4-adjacent sites would take place elsewhere in Newport without the barrage or other major activity".
I take that to be something quite divorced from the barrage proposals. If one relies on the judgment of the report, it is the barrage or nothing.
I should like to make just one or two points in conclusion. There is a very real risk that Cardiff will prove a serious rival to Newport. Again in the Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte report it is said that Cardiff will attract the major users of land—the bigger firms—and that Newport will satisfactorily accommodate smaller firms and somewhat smaller businesses. I think that that is quite unrealistic. Firms will no doubt examine both sites and will make their judgment on the attractiveness of both sites. One must accept that if the Newport barrage goes ahead, although late in the field it will be a rival to Cardiff and there will be competition between the two for industrial development. I am optimistic enough to think that there will be enough business for both, but that is perhaps an article of faith.
The report also deals fairly comprehensively with the economic evaluation of the project. The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, has already mentioned some of the most important figures in the report. To me, it is almost a subjective thing. It is a question of how far one considers what is largely a freshwater lake to be a positive attraction to a business that is expanding or seeking a new site for development. That is a matter of personal judgment. It is very difficult to produce figures to reinforce one's judgment on this matter one way or the other. I personally think that the barrage will provide an attractive site for building and investment, and I formed the same opinion about the Cardiff barrage.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees, mentioned the problems that might well arise over the price of development land and the estimates of capital sums that would accrue by sales of such land to potential investors. He commented—I think a little pessimistic-lly—on how calculations under that heading might go astray. An economist cannot tell us the economic position in five years time. We must all form our own judgment on it as best we may from the facts at our

77
disposal. Again, speaking purely subjectively, I am inclined to think that the situation will have improved; that land values will have improved and that both Cardiff and Newport will attract the kind of development that they want.
Finally, perhaps I may return to a point that I made earlier. We must look to the opinions of the democratically elected local representatives of the citizens of the County of Gwent and of the Borough of Newport. They have thought long and hard about this; longer and harder than anyone else. To them will come the success; on them will rest the price of failure. We must assume that they speak for their citizens and that they speak with a majority voice. They are firmly behind this proposal. I think that we should back them in that.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, this is a Private Bill and there is no party line. The views that I express from the Dispatch Box are therefore my own personal views. I should add that I have no interest to declare except that I have much affection for the historic township of Caerleon and its Roman remains which adjoin the banks of the Usk.
The Bill is similar to the one which was presented to the House in March 1991 and which was given a Second Reading. Your Lordships will therefore be familiar with the complex arguments for and against the barrage project. But the points which have been made today arc the points which were also made last time round the course. The Bill was then given a Second Reading. I believe it is fair to say that we in this House have regard for precedent. I therefore very much hope, notwithstanding the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, that the Bill will be allowed to be considered by the Select Committee which, as usual, will be unfettered in its examination of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart in introducing the Bill set out very clearly its purpose and scope. He emphasised the conviction which is held by the elected representatives of Newport Borough Council and Gwent County Council that the Bill will attract new investment into that rundown part of Newport, which is to be found more or less in the centre of the city on both banks of the meandering river, and then provide much needed employment to the community and to its young people in particular. Many noble Lords have spoken in support of that objective in principle.
My noble friend went on to indicate that the project will bring other substantial benefits to the area. It should prevent the tidal flooding which has affected properties in parts of Newport with regularity in the past. We have heard how the untreated sewage outlets will have to be diverted. My noble friend also told your Lordships that the promoters, having taken advice, are satisfied that the barrage development is the best strategy for Newport.
However, there are 47 petitions which reflect the genuine concerns of local organisations, individuals and businesses, who believe that their interests or the environment will be damaged by the barrage. I have analysed these petitions. Of the 47 objectors,40 fear
78
its impact on fish life—that is their main concern; 30 are concerned about damage to the ecology of the Usk Valley generally; 26 are concerned about water quality; 25 complain of inadequate compensation arrangements for the consequential loss that they might suffer; 20 fear siltation of the river; and 14 express some anxieties about the effect on ground-water levels and the lack of compensation provisions in the Bill. It is clear that the objectors have many friends in your Lordships' House today. I listened with great respect to the noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, who delivered a speech which was worthy of his father. There are concerns but we can be sure that they will be listened to with great attention by the committee to which I very much hope the Bill will be referred.
We have often heard this evening that the Usk has two distinguishing and dominant features. Of all the rivers of the world it is reputed to have the second biggest tidal rise and fall, with the result that the quality of its waters up to the tidal limit is constantly maintained by a natural flushing process twice daily. Some 26 of the objectors fear that the quality of the waters, either upstream of the barrage or downstream of the barrage, will be adversely affected because the barrage thrown across the river will effectively stop the cleansing process. On the other hand, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the promoters believe that the water quality standards of the NRA can be achieved and maintained. I rather thought that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, supported that view.
A second distinguishing feature of the Usk is that it is still one of the major salmon rivers of Wales. I was born and bred in the countryside and I have an appreciation of salmon fishing in Wales. The barrage will interfere with the free movement of salmon and other fish upstream and downstream. While the design of the barrage provides for the construction of a fish pass, I believe that there is agreement in the House that its detailed design may be the stiffest problem facing the promoters.
I do not intend to cause offence to any of the other objectors when I say that particular regard will have to be paid to the petition of the National Rivers Authority, which is the body with the prime statutory responsibility over the matters in question. We have had the benefit of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, giving us his assessment of the position as the NRA sees it. Indeed I was glad to learn from the noble Lord that there has been much co-operation between the promoters' experts and those of the NRA. But I saw when I read the petition that the NRA had not been satisfied, when its petition was filed, on a number of key issues. Indeed the petition seems to put the promoters to strict proof on several points. However, the technical advisers of the promoters and those of the NRA are by now in agreement on a number of issues which are mentioned in the petition.
Reference has been made by my noble friend Lady White to the Coastal Zone Protection and Planning Report, which was published last week. In fairness to my noble friend, I should say that she alerted me to the existence of the report. Your Lordships will appreciate

79
that the promoters have not had an opportunity to study this important report. But clearly, wherever it is relevant, it will have to be considered and taken into account.
It is fair to emphasise that the promoters have been listening, as was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. During the 15 months which have elapsed since the original petition was deposited the promoters have undertaken further studies in order to see how best they can meet some of the outstanding concerns which have been voiced. On the question of the groundwater level, the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, who was chairman of the Select Committee which considered the equally complex Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, has spoken with particular knowledge of that subject. One knows how people in Cardiff were concerned about the effect on their properties. Nevertheless, in the list of amendments before the House, we at least have an amendment which would provide compensatory safeguards for the people of Newport, if their properties are damaged. However, there is no concession at present that the properties will be damaged.
As I said, I believe it is fair to say that the promoters have listened carefully to what has been said and have come forward with certain safeguards. But, having said that, there will be outstanding matters. There will be issues which remain unresolved. We must all accept that fact. That is usually the case where there is a conflict of competing rights as there may be in this instance. Moreover, it seems to me that the standards of proof demanded by the promoters in some of the petitions imply that such standards have an absolute significance in every respect. Well, that will be a matter for the Select Committee's consideration.
Therefore, I trust that the Committee to which I very much hope the Bill will be referred bearing in
mind the fact that the first Bill was given a Second Reading and that, on the whole, we tend to follow precedents will form a judgment, after examination
of all the petitions which have been deposited and consideration of all the evidence relating to the matters in dispute, in the light of the best of existing experience and knowledge.
The Bill is important for Newport. That is the testimony of the leaders of the borough council, supported by their constituents. It is important for the Usk Valley and for south-east Wales. I believe that the Bill deserves a Second Reading and that it should then receive the very careful attention of a Select Committee in accordance with normal practice. Such an examination would be unfettered by any rules, except those in relation to a search for the truth.
With regard to the Instruction tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, at first I wondered whether it was necessary as the three considerations referred to therein are covered in one or more of the petitions. Nevertheless, I should have thought that the considerations would not cause any difficulty for my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, on the usual understanding that they are not mandatory but permissive. In the words of Erskine May:
"They"—
80
that is, the considerations outlined in the Instruction—
"should not fetter the discretion of the committee in dealing with the bill".
The Instruction is not in breach of that principle.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I should like to give a brief indication of the Government's views on the Bill, introduced so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
When a Bill to authorise the construction of a barrage across the Usk came before your Lordships' House in March 1991, the Government took a neutral stance. That is the position which, by tradition, the Government take on Private Bills. There is nothing in the Bill before us which lead the Government to take a different position. We have considered its contents and have no objections in principle to the powers being sought by Newport Borough Council. It is now for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers which they seek are justified.
My noble friend Lord Rees raised the question as to who would be the recipient of the ultimate liability should the promoters' financial forecasts be optimistic. That is a question that I shall answer in writing in due course. I am aware of the concerns about the possible environmental effects of the proposed barrage, especially the effects on migratory fish. A large number of the petitions against the Bill deal with that aspect. Petitioners will have the opportunity to present their objections to a Select Committee of this House which will, I am sure, want to examine the issues in detail.
The Government see no difficulty with the Instruction, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and would not wish to stand in your Lordships' way in the matter. I hope the Bill will receive a Second Reading and that it will be allowed to proceed in the usual way to a Select Committee for detailed examination.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we have had a long and most interesting debate. I do not quite know how I shall be able to pick up all the points—and the very relevant points that were made. I was pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, say that the Government's stance of neutrality had not changed since the Bill was last debated in your Lordships' House and that he believed the Bill should now proceed to a Select Committee so that it can be examined in detail.
I believe that noble Lords have done a service to the Bill in their remarks and, indeed, in the well-prepared speeches and points that were made. It is necessary that a Bill of this sort and magnitude, affecting as it does many interests and many people, should be given the time and attract the quality of debate that it deserves. I believe that we have had that this evening.
Perhaps I may now deal with some detailed points. I am glad to say that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, had a meeting with Newport Borough Council and its advisers. I am extremely pleased that he found those

81
discussions helpful. There is no doubting the fact that the promoters want to be helpful; that is, not only to Newport itself, but also to the surrounding area. Indeed, they want to try to meet the objections of people who are at present opposed to the scheme.
It is true that 47 petitions have been lodged against the Bill. Of course, many involve the same objections, problems and worries. Nevertheless, those petitions have been lodged and they will have to be taken seriously. I hope that the Bill will proceed to a Select Committee so that such matters can be dealt with and argued in a proper manner.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, accepts that Newport Borough Council and Gwent County Council are concerned about the interests of their people and that he finds the scheme acceptable; that is, in relation to the employment that it would provide and the improvements it would make in Newport. He feels that the major problem with the Bill is the risk to migratory fish, especially salmon—and, indeed, other fish—of extinction. That is something which must worry us all. I have to say, however, that the risk to migratory salmon over the past decades has not been from the proposed barrage, but obviously from other factors. I say that because rod catches have been reduced by such an enormous proportion over those decades. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, seems to disagree. However, the records show that there has been a drop in rod catches over a period of time.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I should not have dreamt of intervening except for his reference. I was merely going to observe that our studies of all rivers suggest that it is rash to reach conclusions about this matter on short-term cycles. There are short-term problems and short-term cycles, but it is the job of the NRA, at any rate, to look at the long term and the potential and ability to restore a river to what it was in the past. I do not believe that we have any evidence to show that the problems in this river that have been confronted in the recent past are any more capable of resolution than they have been in other rivers which have been equally afflicted but which are now restored to the quality of days gone by.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I would not disagree with the noble Lord, but I felt that I had to make the point that over the period I have described salmon catches have been dropping for some reason. We do not know what the reasons are. Perhaps we should do more to find out and to ensure that, whatever happens, rod catches increase.
I return to the Instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I intend to accept it. The promoters do not see that it presents a difficulty.
As chairman of the NRA, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has not just the right but the duty to ensure that any scheme on the River Usk will benefit the river, people on all stretches of the river, the fishing and the wildlife in the river. I hope that he will agree that Newport Borough Council, with its engineers and
82
advisers, has kept up a constant dialogue with the NRA in an attempt to resolve the real difficulties and differences which exist between them.
I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that Newport Borough Council, the promoters, wish to continue the dialogue. However, when all is said and done, a decision has to be reached. We cannot argue the detail this evening. The detail will have to he argued in committee. Much of what the noble Lord said will be the subject of argument in committee. The committee will have to be satisfied that the borough council has met in full the objections of the NRA, in particular. The fears that he has expressed will be dealt with by the committee. He was right when he said that it was not possible to know the result before the event. That is the most difficult problem that the promoters and everyone else have to confront, but with the best advice available, Newport Borough Council believes that its proposals, especially the fish locks, will ensure that game fishing in particular is not damaged unduly.
The noble Lord said that agreement had been reached on water quality. That is so. The NRA is now more satisfied about flood control than it was when the Bill came before your Lordships' House in 1991. Some progress has been made. I hope that further progress can be made in due course.
My noble friend Lady White, whom I thank for her kind remarks about my opening speech, believed that substantial difficulties remain. As we heard, substantial difficulties do remain. She believes that we should see what happens to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill before we proceed with this Bill.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am not worried about the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. I am worried about Cardiff Bay's performance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I understand. But this is a different Bill, involving different impacts on the environment. It raises problems different from those raised by the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
Baroness White: My Lords, both of them have bright blue water in their advertisements.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend is obviously thinking about blue algae. While blue algae might be a problem—I do not know this—in Cardiff Bay, I believe that it has been agreed that it will not be a problem in Newport.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—if he will forgive me—is obviously struggling as he winds up on the Bill. Will he say whether there is anything improper in rejecting the Second Reading of the Bill because many voices have been raised against it during the course of the debate?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I am not struggling. I am trying to answer the detailed queries that have been raised. He always tried to do that when he was a Minister, and he did it well, although at times he appeared to be struggling. It is necessary to deal with the points that have been made. I shall come to the other point he made in a moment when I deal with the speech made by his noble friend Lord Kimball.

83
My noble friend Lady White also criticised the Private Bill procedure. Many noble Lords on both sides of the House agree with her. But we have to deal with the Bill under the existing procedure; so I am afraid that it is before your Lordships' House tonight. My noble friend also referred to the Government's response to the second report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment entitled Coastal Zone Protection and Planning. It is a useful document. I looked especially at paragraph 125 which states:
"The Government will seek, through sensitive planning and management, to integrate conservation and development in the coastal zone. Whilst conservation may be the dominant aim on the undeveloped coast, protection of the environment and of the coastal resource will be an important consideration in assessing development proposals on any part of the coast. On the urban coast, the emphasis will be on improvement and regeneration to improve attractiveness and to encourage development to locate there and relieve pressure on the undeveloped coast. This approach is reflected in draft Planning Policy Guidance on the coast which is currently out for consultation".
That is what Newport is trying to do through this Bill.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Rees, felt some sympathy for the Bill and for the people of Newport and Gwent, he was worried about the financing. He wanted to know how it would be dealt with. As I understand it, the total cost of the scheme will be £70 million, of which £20 million has already been set aside in balances by Newport Borough Council. A further £5 million will be obtained, by the time the scheme is running, by the provision of a £1 community charge over the next five years. It is estimated that land sales will bring in about £15 million; borrowing will be £15 million; and contributions from other parties are expected to be about £15 million.
My noble friend Lord Mason also entered the fray; he was worried about the fishing. I have tried to answer some of the points which have been raised, and I thank him for putting his views. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, said that any form of artificial obstruction in a river impairs the ability of the fish to swim up river and spawn.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, we agreed that the fish could get through, but the effect of being held up makes them reluctant to take. I agree that a percentage gets through, but the hold-up destroys their ability to provide spawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that may be so. The noble Lord is an expert on the matter and I am not. However, I understand that in many rivers fish are assisted over locks and have not necessarily been affected. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, suggested that there was absolutely no reason why there should not be a vote on Second Reading. He quoted two Bills—I believe, the North Devon Water Bill and the North Devon Electric Power Bill, the Second Readings of which were opposed in 1937. That was 55 years ago and there has been no precedent since then.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will be so gracious as to give way. I took
84
a Private Member's Bill on boxing to a Division on a Second Reading debate last year, and won. So there has been a precedent since 1937.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl is confusing a Private Member's Bill with a Private Bill and therefore his precedent does not apply. There is no modern precedent for a Private Bill of this kind to be opposed on Second Reading. Frankly, I believe that it would be unfortunate if it were opposed on Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, believed that the Bill raised many issues which should be pursued and examined by a committee. I believe that that is the correct course. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, will not press the Bill to a Division tonight but will allow the committee to examine it in the detail in which it should be examined, so that fairness applies to all sides.
I welcome the support of the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, who dealt with many of the points which had been raised previously. My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris made an interesting point about groundwater levels, but I hope that he will agree that Newport Borough Council has dealt in good part with what he said by putting an additional clause into the Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, was worried about the difficulty of passage for migratory fish and about the water quality. I hope that I have dealt with those matters so far as I am able in replying to other noble Lords. I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for his support of the Bill. He knows the area extremely well and believes that the measure should be given a Second Reading.
I said to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that I would be prepared to accept the Instruction. I believe that it is not necessary because the issues are covered by petitions. Nevertheless, I see absolutely no reason why we should not agree to the Instruction. Rather than having a debate when it is put to the House after the Bill has been given a Second Reading, I welcome it now. Again, I thank noble Lords for their interest in the Bill and hope that it will be given an unopposed Second Reading.
8.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be read a second time?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,24; Not-Contents,24.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Clanwilliam, E. [Teller.]

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Elibank, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gregson, L.

StoddartofSwindon, L. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wharton, B.

Judd, L.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Monson, L.

Wynford, L.

85

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Lucas, L.

Barber, L.

Margadale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Moran, L.

Cox, B.

Newall, L.

Cross, V.

Palmer, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Reay, L.

FaithfuII, B.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kenilworth, L.

Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.]

Kimball, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order No.54 which provides that no proposal to reject a Bill shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such rejection, I declare the Motion agreed to.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, as the Bill has now been given a Second Reading, I beg leave to move the Instruction standing in my name on the Order Paper to which I have already spoken. The Instruction aims to point out the key points that I believe the committee needs to address. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill is committed that in view of the significance and importance of the River Usk they shall consider

(a) whether the extent of any damage or the risk of damage to the ecology or the economy of the Usk Valley or to the passage of migratory fish resulting from the construction of the Barrage has been fully appraised and is an acceptable cost;

(b) whether there is a sound basis for financing the proposed development particularly in the prevailing economic climate and in the light of other intended developments such as the Cardiff Bay barrage; and

(c) whether the economic regeneration of Newport and the adjacent areas could be better achieved by means other than building a barrage.—(Lord Moran.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Buildings: Fire Safety Regulations
8.36 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon rose to ask Her Majesty's Government to what degree the new building regulations relating to fire safety in England and Wales differ from those for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and why.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after that excitement I rise to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The problem has become slightly more complicated than my Unstarred Question suggests because in the period which has passed since I first tabled it the Scottish building regulations and the English and Welsh building regulations are now in operation although they are different while the Northern Ireland regulations are not yet changed but, I am told, are likely to comply with the English and Welsh regulations when they are eventually altered. I believe
86
that that process is in accordance with the Government's underlying wish that the regulations should be unified throughout the country.
A further complication arises from the attitude of the Loss Prevention Council which represents many insurers and which has published its own new code of practice. That document is not legally binding but its requirements will have considerable influence on the premiums which insurers will be required to pay. The requirements of the LPC are more stringent than either of the building regulations.
Why should these various regulations differ in what is after all a technological area? One reason is that the LPC code is aimed mainly at the protection of property whereas the building regulations are aimed largely at the protection of life. It appears from these documents that life needs less protection, by and large, than property, and that life in England needs less protection than life in Scotland. At any rate the new English and Welsh regulations are less onerous than the Scottish ones, although I daresay the fires are much the same.
Leaving aside the LPC code for the moment, it may be useful to consider the differences in the two sets of building regulations. The Scottish regulations, which were revised in November 1990, are not greatly different from the previous regulations which date from 1985. However, the new English regulations reduce the periods of fire resistance of elements of construction, introduce a trade off by permitting reduced resistance periods when sprinklers are used and relax the non-combustibility requirements of certain construction materials. Of course, those regulations were revised by two separate groups of experts. However, it is difficult to see how they could come to such widely different conclusions, even though some were Scottish and some English.
Perhaps the most startling difference is in the minimum fire resistance period for a multi-storey storage building. In Scotland, in certain instances of high hazard, it is four hours while in England and Wales it seems, so far as I can make out, to be only two hours. That can be reduced to no more than 90 minutes if sprinklers are installed. Most other resistance periods are compatible but in none of them do the Scottish regulations allow any reduction when sprinklers are used. That is also true of all other European countries.
When the English regulations were being drafted they were put out for consultation with interested bodies. I gather that more than 200 replies were received by the Department of the Environment. In cases in which favourable or unfavourable views were expressed the replies varied from 2: 1 against to 5: 1 against the proposed changes. Nevertheless, the department persevered and the changes went ahead.
The justification for reducing fire resistance in the presence of sprinklers, especially automatic sprinklers, is their efficiency in controlling fires or extinguishing them quickly. That is sensible. But how effective are they? Unfortunately, they do not always work. According to Home Office statistics published two years ago automatic sprinklers were effective in extinguishing or controlling fire on about 60 per cent.

87
of the occasions when they ought to have been activated. Taken over a longer period that percentage figure may be slightly higher. Nevertheless, a figure of 60 per cent. scarcely suggests that a reduction by half in the resistance period is sensible. At any rate, the Scottish panel did not appear to think so.
Three questions arise. First, in proposing any trade-off, what consideration has the Department of the Environment given to continuing reports of sprinkler failures due to maintenance activities, inadequate design, human error, blockages, failure of water supply, disrepair, arson, and other causes? In relation to arson it is important to note that according to the Home Office in all years since 1981 the number of fires reported as being deliberate or possibly deliberate continued to rise, reaching 23,600 in 1990—more than a fifth of all fires in occupied buildings. In dwellings those fires have risen from 8 per cent. of all fires in 1981 to 15 per cent. in 1990 with the number doubling over that period. In occupied buildings other than dwellings they have risen from 21 per cent. to 31 per cent. of all such fires over the period from 1981 to 1990. Nearly a third of all fires in occupied buildings are deliberate or possibly deliberate. The possibility arises that the arsonist deliberately creating a fire will be quite likely to deactivate the sprinkler system if he possibly can.
Secondly, what measures will be required to ensure that sprinkler systems are effective during the lifetime of the building? Will those measures cater for any subsequent change of use of the building, its layout or its contents? Thirdly, will it be necessary to evacuate a building constructed on the trade-off principle if the sprinkler system becomes inoperative for any reason as the fire precautions will be inadequate while the sprinkler system is deactivated?
As to the combustibility of building material, it has to be remembered that most fire deaths arise from the inhalation of smoke. That is directly connected with the chemical composition of the materials used in construction, including paint and various forms of building board. Under the new English regulations materials of limited combustibility are no longer required for the construction of compartment walls except in hospitals and fire-fighting shafts. I believe that that also applies to compartment floors, separating walls and external walls. The relaxation does not apply in Scotland. Nor does it apply throughout Europe.
Lastly, should the Scottish regulations be brought into line, as the Government intend, despite the conclusions of the revising panel in Scotland, a recent Early Day Motion in another place,
"urges that any attempt to require Scottish standards to follow the England and Wales regulations, as has been indicated by Ministers, might proceed only after the new departures have proved themselves in practice to Scottish satisfaction".
If the English want lower standards perhaps they can have them. That is none of my business. The new English standards are not only lower than Scottish regulations and the LPC code; they are also lower than the requirements of BS5588 and those in other countries of Europe, at least to some degree. No other
88
country in Europe permits a trade-off in fire resistance when sprinklers are used. If the English must have those standards there is no reason to impose them on the Scots, as Ministers appear to wish.
Can we perhaps apply the principle of subsidiarity here? At the very least, if subsidiarity is to be ignored the Scots should not be whipped into line until the lower standards have proved to be adequate, if they are. I should like an assurance from the noble Viscount that no attempt will be made to coerce the Scots in this matter until the Scots are satisfied that the new English regulations have proved themselves. How long will that take? I suggest at least five years, which is the normal period between reviews. After that the situation can be reviewed again and changes made, but only if the relevant Scottish authorities agree.
I hope that my comments will receive a sympathetic hearing from the noble Viscount.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, the House will no doubt be aware of my interest in safety as I chaired the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology inquiry into occupational health and safety. Since that time, I have maintained a close interest in the subject, both as an engineer and as a director of British Steel. I must state categorically that I am more concerned with the safety of people than with buildings, structure and property.
In any consideration of fire resistance provisions in building regulations and approved documents it is important to recognise that the term "fire resistance" is not a synonym for fire safety. Fire resistance has a specific meaning; namely, the ability of a structural element to withstand collapse.
Studies of the fire casualty statistics show that fire resistance is a very minor factor in fire safety. In 1989, out of a total of 843 fatalities, two members of the public died in buildings which suffered collapse, and it is still not known whether the deaths were caused by the collapse itself or by other factors such as smoke or fire. By far the greatest cause of casualties are smoke and burns. Around 90 per cent. of the casualties, even in those categories, occur in the home. It is instructive to compare the United Kingdom experience with that of Switzerland, which has the lowest fire fatality rate in Europe. In Switzerland there is no fire resistance requirement at all for structures such as houses and similar properties; yet the fatality rate there is one-sixth of that of the United Kingdom.
Clearly the difference in fire resistance provisions has little influence on fire safety with regard to persons—and it is persons that I am most concerned about. In contrast, the installation of sprinklers in a building has had a marked effect on fire safety and on saving life. It can be inferred from the figures given in a Home Office report of July 1990 that sprinklers can reduce fire fatalities by as much as 80 per cent., and recent fire bomb attacks confirm their effectiveness.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to intervene. He will

89
recall that the same report suggests that the sprinklers were only effective in 60 per cent. of the cases in which they ought to have been used.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, as I remember, the report said it was of little material effect so far as concerned people, though it may have an effect regarding buildings. But in regard to people, the statistics are absolutely fundamental.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the total number of people was extremely small.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, four fire bombs in the Arndale Centre in Manchester, my home town, in December last year were extinguished almost immediately by sprinklers. The stores were open for trading again within hours. A senior fire officer said that day:
"Without sprinklers, we would not have had the Arndale Centre this morning".
I should not like to say what the riposte in Manchester would be to that remark, because it would be unrepeatable in this House. Nonetheless, the sprinklers saved the buildings, and there were no casualties.
Similarly, in London's Oxford Street and at Brent Cross, on the 2nd and 15th of December respectively, fire bombs were effectively extinguished swiftly by sprinklers. Again, of 13 department stores which were fire bombed in Northern Ireland on the night of 5th January 1991, nine did not have sprinklers. Of those, eight were completely destroyed and one was 30 per cent. destroyed. All four which had sprinklers escaped without any significant damage, and I suggest that when the Secretary of State is considering the regulations for Northern Ireland he should look very carefully at those statistics.
The new approved document B for England and Wales encourages the use of sprinklers by reducing fire resistance times when sprinklers are installed. This is a positive contribution to fire safety which I particularly welcome. It is essential that monetary incentives should be applied in this way in order to increase the number of sprinklers that are installed, because they are effective against fire deaths.
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this subject. It is not a subject upon which I myself am very expert, and I listened with interest to what the noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Gregson, said since they obviously know a great deal more about the subject than I do.
Not being an expert I went to an organisation which one would expect to be fairly expert in this area-the Fire Brigades Union. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, has already covered much of the ground. As has been said, the fire regulations have been changed for England and Wales, although not for Scotland, from June of this year. Structural fire protection requirements for buildings were reduced by the Department of the Environment if companies introduced sprinklers into their buildings. However, I am advised by those who should know—the Fire
90
Brigades Union—that sprinklers are not necessarily more effective and can break down. That view seems to have been endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, in his contribution today. Thus, buildings that have not been built in accordance with the regulations previously existing will be that much more vulnerable.
The Fire Brigades Union informs me that it believes the previous regulations were safer. The union believes that structural fire resistance regulations should not be reduced but that sprinklers could be added and offset against other fire safety requirements, such as the size of compartments and the distance people have to travel to escape the fire.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has already said, the Loss Prevention Council, which is an arm of the insurance industry, is against these new regulations. The Fire Brigades Union is of the opinion that the lives of firefighters could he endangered, as well as those of people trapped in buildings. It holds the view that the regulations have been introduced too soon, without scientific evidence that sprinklers alone will be enough seriously to prevent fires. I am advised that fire losses in the United Kingdom are running at around £1.3 billion this year—but even more important, of course, are the deaths and injuries which result from fires.
Then there is the need, as I see it, to enforce the regulations that do exist. During the debate this evening there has been talk about deaths of people, and I notice that quite recently there was a horrendous fire in Hove which has been the subject of an investigation. The fire took place in one of those buildings which have been converted into flats and, apparently, there was no means of exit at the rear of the property. The barrister who was responsible for the inquiry said afterwards:
"The trend in national and local guidance on fire safety has been away from insisting on external escapes in buildings of this size, in favour of protecting the internal stairway as the escape route from fires which are presumed to originate within the units of accommodation, not within the common stairway and entrance hall".
I may say that such precautions included fireproof doors to flats and fireproof dividing lobbies. The barrister continued:
"Such measures do not, however, provide a means of escape in the case of a fire maliciously started in the common stairwell".
That apparently is what happened in this case, and unfortunately a number of people were trapped on an upstairs floor and lost their lives. The barrister concluded that more money and time should be spent by central and local government on enforcing fire regulations. I am sure we would all agree with that.
I should like to ask the noble Viscount what consultations took place before the regulations were changed, with whom, and with what result. I think that what the Fire Brigades Union has to say is important. Firefighters are constantly at risk. The job they do is inherently hazardous, and they know that. The Government should therefore be prepared to listen carefully to what they have to say.
8.58 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for asking this Question about the differences between building regulations in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. It has given us the opportunity today to look at what these are and why they exist.
For historical and legal reasons, the three parts of the country have their own systems of building control. The England and Wales regulations are made under the Building Act 1984; the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations are made under the Building Standards (Scotland) Act 1959; and the Northern Ireland Regulations are made under the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. New building regulations came into effect in England and Wales on 1st June. Scotland introduced new regulations in 1991, and they and Northern Ireland are working to introduce revised regulations soon.
The requirements of the regulations under all three systems are expressed in functional terms. This means that they set out the broad objectives in quite general terms. For example, on the subject of conservation of fuel and power, all three regulation systems require that,
"reasonable provision shall be made for the conservation of fuel and power"
in the building. However, there is an important difference between the system in England and Wales and the systems in the other two countries. This is in the way that these broad functional requirements are translated into the technical detail to which designers and enforcing authorities work. The England and Wales approach is based on technical guidance, whereas the others set specific technical standards. The guidance is given in a series of documents approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State, and known as approved documents. There is an approved document for each aspect of the functional requirements of the regulations, including one on fire safety. This guidance is not mandatory and designers are able to depart from it, or use an entirely different approach, provided that the enforcing authority is content that the functional requirements are satisfied.
Although, as I have said, the regulations in Scotland and Northern Ireland also express the requirements in functional terms, compliance is achieved by conforming to specific technical standards or by following provisions which are deemed to satisfy the requirement.
Building designers want to know precisely what they have to do to satisfy regulations, and they want freedom to do something quite different when circumstances demand it. Unfortunately, those two demands are mutually exclusive. Regulations that allow significant flexibility tend to introduce uncertainty; but if regulations are highly specific in their requirements, they create a rigid, inflexible system. Any system of regulation is a compromise between flexibility and certainty. The balance in the England and Wales approach is towards flexibility, while the other systems tend more towards the objective of certainty.
92
Harmonisation of the technical content of the regulations was one of the objectives of the major review which preceded the publication of the new documents for England and Wales. Considerable progress has been made; but the process is not complete.
One impediment to harmonisation is the fact that building regulations are a moving target and have to be kept under review. One example from the fire safety area of the change with which regulations must keep pace has been the appearance of multi-user shopping complexes, in which all the public spaces are linked by covered malls and atrium spaces.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the noble Viscount talks of harmonisation. I assume that he means harmonisation within the United Kingdom. He must be aware that there is a concept of harmonisation within the European Community. He must also be aware that to harmonise the English rules with Europe will mean a move towards Scotland and not away from it.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, to clarify that matter, I was talking about harmonisation within the United Kingdom.
The reviews of regulations have been made on different timetables with the result that Scotland, say, may be starting a review, while England and Wales are finishing one off. This means that it takes some time for one set of regulations to catch up with another.
Where Northern Ireland is concerned, this catching-up cycle will soon be complete. The DoE Northern Ireland has already consulted on new fire regulations, and should be producing new regulations fairly soon which, although not in the same requirement-plus-guidance format as those for England and Wales, will be the same in technical content, so far as the different format permits.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, asked me for an assurance on the forthcoming Scottish review. The Scottish Office is expected to consult on revised fire regulations this year which will include further moves towards harmonisation. The proposals, not yet approved by the advisory committee, include restructuring the document to reflect the sequence of Approved Document B. They do not propose substantial changes to the periods of fire resistance or compartmentation size currently required in Scotland. Any changes resulting from that consultation are unlikely to be in force before mid-1993.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. Will the review relax the regulations on non-combustibility of building material?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to comment further on the review. It is not yet approved by the advisory committee.
As matters now stand between the regulations north and south of the Border, and leaving aside the different formats, the main differences in the fire regulations concern the following. Different criteria are used to decide the appropriate level of fire resistance and compartmentation; that is, the

93
sub-division of buildings into fire compartments. There are requirements for three and four-hour periods of fire resistance in some instances in Scotland, where the England and Wales guidance sets a maximum of two hours. There are more onerous provisions concerning the compartmentation of basement storeys in the England and Wales guidance. The Scottish regulations require non-combustible construction in a number of instances where it is not specified in the England and Wales guidance.
Those differences will be reviewed whenever the occasion arises, but they may not necessarily be removed. It may be decided to monitor the effect of some of the changes introduced in England and Wales before adopting them in Scotland, or it may be decided that certain points are necessary to address circumstances found only in Scotland.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, that sprinkler systems have been shown to offer significant benefits to fire safety. To add sprinklers to the pre-1992 regulations would suggest that adequate safety levels have not been reached. Sprinklers fail occasionally, but the same is true of other forms of fire protection. There is clear evidence that, despite the occasional failures, the overall effect of sprinklers is to reduce significantly the loss of life.
Trade-off is allowed north and south of the Border, although it is expressed in different terms because of the different approaches to fire resistance and compartmentation. Such trade-offs are not new and there is good evidence that sprinklers reduce the likelihood of fire deaths and injuries. The new approved document on fire safety in England and Wales picks up the wider ranging concessions for sprinkler installations that first appeared in the 1990 Scottish regulations. Now Scotland has to decide whether to follow the changes in the new England and Wales document concerning fire resistance and compartmentation. Those changes attracted considerable comment and polarised opinions of various interest groups. It would be understandable if a decision was deferred until we had more experience with the new measures.
There are economic arguments for harmonisation. Designers wishing to work throughout the UK have to familiarise themselves with the differences in the regulations, as do contractors tendering for construction work. Property owners such as retail chains with a portfolio spread across the country have to adapt their practices when they cross the Borders. The Government have been conscious of all those factors and have made harmonisation one of the aims of the review of building regulations in order to relieve
94
industry and commerce of burdensome legislation. The situation has improved and will, I believe, continue to improve.
However, it is important to stress that these are economic arguments. If one looks at the fire loss statistics one sees that there are geographic variations. The fatality rate in Scotland tends to be higher than average, but the highest rates of non-fatal fire casualties are in some of the large metropolitan boroughs in England. It is not possible to ascribe those variations to specific differences in building regulations.
As regards the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, multi-seat fires, other than deliberately set fires, are most unusual. Deliberate multi-seat fires are less likely to be in occupied buildings because the perpetrator is likely to be discovered. At present they are not seen as a significant new change which could be addressed in building regulations. The situation will be monitored.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked about consultation. The preparation of new regulations both north and south of the Border involves consultation at several stages. A draft for public consultation is developed in discussions between officials, technical experts, lawyers and the panel which advises the Secretary of State on building regulation matters; that is, the Building Standards Advisory Committee in Scotland and the Building Regulations Advisory Committee in the south. At the public consultation stage comments are received from hundreds of interested individuals and organisations. Those comments are then considered before the advisory panel makes its final recommendations.
I hope that I have been able not only to explain the differences in the regulations which currently exist but also the reasons for them and the steps that are being taken to remove them. It only remains for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. for their contributions to the debate and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for asking the Question.

River Humber (Upper Burcom Cooling Works) Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at nine minutes past nine o'clock.

  OVERSEAS TRADE MISSIONS: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  OVERSEAS TRADE MISSIONS: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  IRAQ: OVERDUE DEBT LIABILITY
  IRAQ: OVERDUE DEBT LIABILITY
  PROMPT PAYMENT SURVEY
  PROMPT PAYMENT SURVEY
  NURSES: REGRADING APPEALS
  NURSES: REGRADING APPEALS
  SMOKING AND THE YOUNG
  SMOKING AND THE YOUNG
  DRUG COURIER: INCIDENT
  DRUG COURIER: INCIDENT
  ISRAELI—EGYPTIAN FRONTIER: MONITORING
  ISRAELI—EGYPTIAN FRONTIER: MONITORING
  US STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE
  US STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE
  RUSSIAN MISSILE DEFENCES: FINANCE
  RUSSIAN MISSILE DEFENCES: FINANCE
  RUSSIA: US-UK MILITARY CONSULTATIONS
  RUSSIA: US-UK MILITARY CONSULTATIONS
  TRIDENT
  TRIDENT
  US CONGRESSMEN'S LETTER: PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY
  US CONGRESSMEN'S LETTER: PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY
  DEFORESTATION DATA: USE OF SATELLITE PHOTOGRAPHY
  DEFORESTATION DATA: USE OF SATELLITE PHOTOGRAPHY
  TIBET: DEFORESTATION
  TIBET: DEFORESTATION
  DEVELOPMENT AID
  DEVELOPMENT AID
  EC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: PROCEDURE
  EC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: PROCEDURE
  GIBRALTAR AND ALGECIRAS
  GIBRALTAR AND ALGECIRAS
  UNITED KINGDOM BILATERAL AID TO CHINA
  UNITED KINGDOM BILATERAL AID TO CHINA
  PRISON INSPECTION REPORTS: PUBLICATION DELAYS
  PRISON INSPECTION REPORTS: PUBLICATION DELAYS
  FOREIGN PRISONERS' HOME LEAVE: ELIGIBILITY
  FOREIGN PRISONERS' HOME LEAVE: ELIGIBILITY
  FRESH MEAT TRANSIT DEPOTS: REGULATIONS
  FRESH MEAT TRANSIT DEPOTS: REGULATIONS
  HORSES EXPORTED TO THE CONTINENT: WELFARE
  HORSES EXPORTED TO THE CONTINENT: WELFARE
  MILK: EX-FARM PRICES
  MILK: EX-FARM PRICES
  AIR TRAVEL TRUST FUND
  AIR TRAVEL TRUST FUND
  LONDON UNDERGROUND LTD: RESPONSE TO MMC REPORT
  LONDON UNDERGROUND LTD: RESPONSE TO MMC REPORT
  'BRILLIANT EYES' AND 'BRILLIANT PEBBLES'
  'BRILLIANT EYES' AND 'BRILLIANT PEBBLES'